animal fats and EFA's

[Guest guest]

>

>

> ***I agree for the most part. But here's something I don't

understand. It

> does make sense to me that our bodies would do best on LNA from

sources that

> we've derived it from historically. But I'm wondering, LNA is LNA

is LNA in

> a purely chemical sense, right? I mean, no matter the source, LNA

is 18:3:3.

> So why would our bodies be more efficient at converting 18:3:3 from

one

> source over another?

Suze, forget about the LNA in animal tissue! We get our EPA and DHA

from the EPA and DHA in animal tissue. The fact that there is also

LNA in there just means that maybe we'll get a tiny bit more via

conversion.

And I don't think LNA has any biological properties of its own; no

eicosanoids use LNA as a starting point - all the omega-3 eicosanoids

use EPA. It may have some blood thinning/anti-clotting properties,

but that would simply be because its shape since its polyunsatured.

And of course, too many polyunsaturates leads to oxidation damage!

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>The only thing I can come up with is " context. " The LNA consumed in animal

>fat is consumed within the context of the other nutrients present in animal

>fat (and the flesh that's eaten along with it?), and so perhaps, if the

>conversion of animal-based LNA IS superior to plant based (in humans) it's

>because of the synergistic actions of the other nutrients present in animal

>fat and flesh?

I have no specific information on the subject, but as we're discovering

that more and more nutrients are not absorbed or handled well when they're

isolated but require cofactors (vitamins being the obvious example) I'd

suspect that that's correct.

-

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> And I don't think LNA has any biological properties of its own; no

> eicosanoids use LNA as a starting point - all the omega-3 eicosanoids

> use EPA. It may have some blood thinning/anti-clotting properties,

> but that would simply be because its shape since its polyunsatured.

> And of course, too many polyunsaturates leads to oxidation damage!

I can't claim to know what her basis or reasoning is, but Enig has

specifically stated that LNA *does* have human biological value in its own

right separate from its role as a precursor. This was from a post that she

made to the coconut oil list a while back. Someone was kind enough to

cross-post it here when I pondered that very point on this list.

I'm actually a firm believer that it's better to assume that all naturally

occurring compounds in appropriate food sources (whatever that means) have

biological roles. We are a very very long way from discovering much less

understanding all the myriad interactions that take place in any

organism...much less humans.

So unless someone can definitively *prove* that LNA has no direct biological

value, I will assume that amounts of it that are more or less natural (once

again, whatever that means) are beneficial.

Just my $.02

[Guest guest]

>>>>To expand on the above, 'wild meat is lean' concept mostly comes from

comparing muscle meats. However, there is also the kidney fat and the

slabs of back fat (Which could be quite prodigious on older animals).

Also many organ meats are very fatty - the brain being a good

example.

***I didn't save the author's name, sorry if I'm addressing the wrong

person, but this sounds like 's work.

, I agree that most of the lipid profiles I've seen have been from

muscle tissue BUT, is there any doubt that corn- or grain-fed cattle are a

heck of a lot fattier than pastured cattle or wild game? I mean that's the

*whole purpose* of feeding them corn - to fatten them up and squeeze out a

little profit. The NY Time article that Ramit posted is a really good

detailed description of how this works. Those feedlot cattle have *nothing

to do* but stand around and eat. Wild ruminants, such as deer, elk, bison,

etc, move about following their food sources, avoiding predators, and often

trying to evade predators. In other words they are *much more* active than

feedlot cattle who stand around an eat grains all day. So it would make

sense that they are leaner, even when you add up all the organs, sub Q fat,

etc.

Additionally, every lipid profile I've read shows that wild game have a

higher PUFA ratio than do feedlot cattle. Even if it's just the muscle

tissue, I think it suggests that a wild diet creates a higher PUFA

concentration in the animal's tissue. Although I have read that various

tissue may selectively concentrate certain FAs, such as DHA in retina and

brain, LA in skin, etc. So maybe it's hard to get an overall profile by

looking at just one type of tissue.

Someone posted this abstract to my dog/cat nutrition list recently. I don't

know much about the authors or the study although recall having heard

Cordain discussed. If anyone feels this study is somehow incorrect or

misleading please speak up. Here it is:

---------------------------

Title: Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: evolutionary

implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease

Author: Cordain L.[1], Watkins B.A.[2], Florant G.L.[1], Kelher M.[3],

L.[2], Li Y.[2], Correspondence: L Cordain*

[1]Department of Health and Exercise Sciences, Colorado State University,

Fort , Colorado, USA,

[2]Department of Food Science, Lipid Chemistry and Molecular Biology

Laboratory, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA,

[3]Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort , Colorado,

USA,

[*]Department of Health and Exercise Sciences, Colorado State University,

Fort , CO 80523, USA. E-mail: cordain@...

Journal: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2002, vol. 56, no. 3

pp. 181-191

Abstract:

Hypotheses: Consumption of wild ruminant fat represented the primary lipid

source for pre-agricultural humans. Hence, the lipid composition of these

animals' tissues may provide insight into dietary requirements that offer

protection from chronic disease in modern humans.

Method: We examined the lipid composition of muscle, brain, marrow and

subcutaneous adipose tissuefrom 17 elk (Cervus elaphus), 15 mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus), and 17 antelope (Antilicapra americana) and

contrasted them to wild African ruminants and pasture and grain-fed cattle.

Results: Muscle fatty acid (FA) was similar among North American species

with polyunsaturated fatty acids/saturated fatty acids (P/S) values from

0.80 to 1.09 and n-6/n-3 FA from 2.32 to 2.60. Marrow FA was similar among

North American species with high levels (59.3-67.0%) of monounsaturated FA;

a low P/S (0.24-0.33), and an n-6/n-3 of 2.24-2.88. Brain had the lowest

n-6/n-3 (1.20-1.29), the highest concentration of 22:6 n-3 (elk, 8.90%;

deer, 9.62%; antelope, 9.25%) and a P/S of 0.69. AT had the lowest P/S

(0.05-0.09) and n-6/n-3 (2.25-2.96). Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) isomers

were found in marrow of antelope (1.5%), elk (1.0%) and deer (1.0%), in AT

(deer, 0.3%; antelope, 0.3%) in muscle (antelope, 0.4%; elk, trace), but not

in brain.

Conclusions: Literature comparisons showed tissue lipids of North American

and African ruminants were similar to pasture-fed cattle, but dissimilar to

grain-fed cattle. The lipid composition of wild ruminant tissues may serve

as a model for dietary lipid recommendations in treating and preventing

chronic disease.

---------------------

I am just trying to catch up on old threads and may be remembering

incorrectly that you, or someone else questioned the SF/PUFA ratio in wild

game. I hope I'm not mixing the amount of saturated fat in Paleolithic diet

with the ratios of SF to PUFA too much, as they are two different issues.

>>>>While paleontologists(sp?) will probably debate forever what

the diet of paleolithic man was, we do know that there are hunter

gatherer societies today that eat a very high fat diet, so its not

unreasonable to assume that paleolithic man did also. Indeed, they

may have eaton an even higher fat diet, since the paleolithic era

ended when the big game animals went extinct. With all the brains,

bone marrow and back fat from animals like mammoth's, they could

really have been living in fat city!

***Cute. Try 'Phat city'! But seriously, here is something I've thought

about regarding wolves. They too evolved on wild ruminants, primarily. Among

grey wolves, there is an alpha female and alpha male in each pack. When a

prey animal is killed, these two highest ranking wolves get the first feed -

first choice of what to eat. They go for the organs and viscera first

according to wolf biologists. These two likely consume the highest amount of

organs and other highly valued (and fatty) parts. It's possible that lower

ranking animals get very little if any of the organ meats. Certainly the

lowest ranking are lucky if they get any in a large pack. What about humans?

Did the Paleolithic social order determine who ate what? If an elk were

killed, how many people would it typically be divided among? Meaning how

much fat from these organs would *one individual* consume? Would they each

get an equal share of the kidney, the liver, brain, etc? If not, who got the

choicest parts? If this was decided based on some type of social order, then

how much fat did the lowest ranking folks eat in their diet? I realize that

the answers would differ from region to region, and perhaps even between

groups in the same region. In the Guts and Grease article there *was* some

discussion about gender based differences in fat consumption in some native

american societies, for example. But, I think the total fat consumption of

an individual could *possibly* vary greatly depending on the particular

cultural practices of each group. I should probably eke out some time to

read more about this, before I get too far into speculation though, because

I realize that there may in fact be literature somewhere that describes this

in detail.

Anyway, I'm still feeling like I don't have a good handle on the fat profile

of Paleolithic diets, and the total quantity of SF. In regards to wolves, I

think the alphas probably have the best diet - after all they are the only

ones allowed to reproduce and thus *need* to eat best. ALL wolves and dogs

are the progeny of the alphas. Are we too (in a manner of speaking)? The

progeny of those who ate the highest fat and the most nutrient-dense parts?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>, I agree that most of the lipid profiles I've seen have been from

>muscle tissue BUT, is there any doubt that corn- or grain-fed cattle are a

>heck of a lot fattier than pastured cattle or wild game? I mean that's the

>*whole purpose* of feeding them corn - to fatten them up and squeeze out a

>little profit.

Actually, I'm not sure that a mature pastured animal is leaner than a young

feedlot animal, or that if it is fatter, that it's as much fatter as we think.

Corn (and other modern feeds) aren't used merely to raise a fatter animal,

but to raise a fatter animal faster. In the wild, it takes time for an

animal to develop enormous slabs of back fat and other large fat deposits,

and natives tried to leave younger animals alone and selectively hunt older

animals to give their prey time to accumulate that fat. AFAIK those older

animals were substantially older than present-day food cattle are when

they're slaughtered, and even though farmers who pasture their animals

often slaughter them somewhat later than feedlot cattle are slaughtered,

they're still slaughtering them earlier than they would've been killed by

natives in the wild.

Perhaps modern feedlot animals are still fatter than older wild animals

were when killed, but the difference is doubtless smaller, and we should

try to compare apples to apples.

>Additionally, every lipid profile I've read shows that wild game have a

>higher PUFA ratio than do feedlot cattle.

Actually, I think that issue is all over the map. Many so-called experts

like Loren Cordain report numbers that are wildly at odds with available

data. And ruminants tend to have a fairly constant amount of saturated fat

regardless of their diet. Other animals, like pigs, probably accumulate

fat which is dramatically LESS saturated on a modern feedlot diet.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

I said:

>And ruminants tend to have a fairly constant amount of saturated fat

>regardless of their diet.

I goofed -- I meant " ratio " , not " amount " . I believe this is stated on the

WAPF site, and I've read it elsewhere too, but I don't have any references

at hand. As I understand it, the difference between pastured and feedlot

cow fat comes in the PUFA fraction. They both have about the same total

amount of PUF, but in feedlot cows it's very heavily weighted towards n6 fat.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>Actually, I'm not sure that a mature pastured animal is leaner than a young

>feedlot animal, or that if it is fatter, that it's as much fatter as we think.

The people who can answer that to some degree are the hunters. Any hunters

out there? My office-mate's husband hunts a lot, and brings us steaks and

ducks. My impression is that they DO have a good bit of fat, at least at

some times of the year, but it sure isn't marbled! On ducks, if you skin

them, the meat is really lean, but there is fat just under the skin.

Ditto on the Longhorn (grass fed and get whatever exercise they want).

There IS a good bit of fat, but it isn't marbled into the meat. Which is

bad for the farmers, because is isn't " prime " . Also the fat on those

animals is largely WATER and evaporates when you cook it (they store water

in the fat cells, for survival in arid climates, like camels, I think).

They also store more of their fat around the internal organs. I'd bet it is

similar on bison. My guess is that if you were an Indian, you would take

all that 'extra' fat and use it in your Pemmican: but the average hunter

today doesn't bother packing it out (hike a few miles with 40 lbs of fat? I

don't think so! They seem to usually leave the hides too). This whole

process of " marbelling " fat seems very artificial and I haven't seen it in

any wild animal.

And on wild animals the fat content varies a lot depending on the season.

In the fall, they get fatter: by spring they are skinnier. Rabbits, I'm

told, DO get fatter if they get old enough, but it's rare in the wild for

rabbits to get very old.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

>>>>Actually, I'm not sure that a mature pastured animal is leaner than a

young

feedlot animal, or that if it is fatter, that it's as much fatter as we

think.

***Maybe not a *pastured* one, but I was discussing *wild* ones - those who

move about, run from predators, etc. But I'm not *sure* about anything these

days (!) so I realize I could be wrong.

>>>>>Corn (and other modern feeds) aren't used merely to raise a fatter

animal,

but to raise a fatter animal faster.

***Yes, good point!

>>>>In the wild, it takes time for an

animal to develop enormous slabs of back fat and other large fat deposits,

***Right, but those fat deposits are there to serve *them* - not just to

accumulate for future human consumption. When times are lean they can use

them for energy. Not so the feedlot steer - he will never use his stored fat

in the way the wild ruminant would in lean times. So I'd think it would

depend on the life of each wild animal - how often it needs to call on its

fat stores would be determined by food availability at any given time and

it's activity level, no?

>>>>Perhaps modern feedlot animals are still fatter than older wild animals

were when killed, but the difference is doubtless smaller, and we should

try to compare apples to apples.

***If a feedlot steer is an apple, there *are* no other apples to compare it

too! LOL But, I sure would love to see a comparison of various wild

ruminants' total body fat as compared to feedlot cattle. That would really

help clear things up since there seems to be so much conflicting

information.

Me:

Additionally, every lipid profile I've read shows that wild game have a

higher PUFA ratio than do feedlot cattle.

P:

Actually, I think that issue is all over the map. Many so-called experts

like Loren Cordain report numbers that are wildly at odds with available

data.

****What available data? USDA? Are there other published lipid profiles that

you know of?

I'm confused on this point...I've ready various sources of data on various

critters and whenever their *diet* lipid profile changes, so too does their

*body's* lipid profile. Or so it I thought. Why do humans even bother to

take fish oil capsules, for example, if it has no effect on our FA profile?

People feed their dogs flax seeds and oil to make their coat shiny and it

does. Chickens that are supplemented with flax have eggs with a higher n-3

content than those that are not supplemented. Feedlot cattle consuming corn

with high n-6 content produce meat with a very high n-6:n-3 ratio. And so

on. So, *does the dietary lipid profile influence an animal's tissue lipid

profile*??? I'm under the impression it does, at least in terms of PUFA

composition if nothing else. Maybe the buck stops there...?

>>>>And ruminants tend to have a fairly constant amount of saturated fat

regardless of their diet.

I goofed -- I meant " ratio " , not " amount " . I believe this is stated on the

WAPF site, and I've read it elsewhere too, but I don't have any references

at hand. As I understand it, the difference between pastured and feedlot

cow fat comes in the PUFA fraction. They both have about the same total

amount of PUF, but in feedlot cows it's very heavily weighted towards n6

fat.

***I have read opposing data on this and it's driving me nuts. Here is one

example of the claim that grassfed and wild game *meat* has less fat than

grainfed cattle:

http://www.eatwild.com/benefits.html (first blurb with chart) But of course,

this doesn't address *total body fat.* Maybe a comparison of various cuts of

meat and organs on the USDA database would provide a somewhat clearer

picture. But then again maybe not - I'm still not sure how reliable a tool

the database is for something like this

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze wrote:

> So, *does the dietary lipid profile influence an animal's tissue lipid

> profile*??? I'm under the impression it does, at least in terms of PUFA

> composition if nothing else. Maybe the buck stops there...?

That's exactly my understanding of it so far. Changing dietary PUFA ratios

changes tissue PUFA ratios(n3/n6) but does not as readily impact overall FA

ratios (sat/unsat). PUFA's tend to be used to build and do things in the

body; they are not an ideal energy source, and they are also not an energy

storage mechanism. Saturated fats are almost exclusively what mammals

create to store energy (other than the small amounts of rapid-access energy

(glycogen) that's stored in the liver and muscles). Those tissues and uses

within the mammalian body that involve PUFAs (which are relatively constant)

will represent the ratio of dietary PUFAs. Those tissues and uses that

involve energy storage (which are highly variable) will be composed

primarily of saturated fat no matter what is consumed. Of course, the PUFA

fraction of even these tissues will represent the n3/n6 ratio of the diet.

No cites; just my current summary understanding from what I've gleaned...

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>This whole

>process of " marbelling " fat seems very artificial and I haven't seen it in

>any wild animal.

I'd expect that the marbling of fat into muscle tissue would impair the

function of the muscles and thus wouldn't be found in healthy wild animals

to a fraction of the degree it is in feedlot stock. Besides storage,

that's probably one reason pemmican was devised -- to render those lean

muscle tissues healthy by adding saturated fat.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>That's exactly my understanding of it so far. Changing dietary PUFA ratios

>changes tissue PUFA ratios(n3/n6) but does not as readily impact overall FA

>ratios (sat/unsat).

Actually, I believe that's only true for ruminants.

http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_meat.htm describes some of the

effects of different feeds on the lipid profiles of pigs:

>>For example, pigs in America are fed primarily a soya bean/maize based

>>feed. Their back fat, typical of the fat on pork chops, for example, has

>>around 39- 43% oleic acid and 19- 23% palmitic acid.. Adding sunflower

>>oil (higher in monounsaturated fats, particularly oleic acid) to the

>>standard feed increases the oleic acid component of the fat to about 60%

>>and reduces the (somewhat undesirable) palmitic acid to 17%. Making

>>ground up whole sunflower seeds of a 'high oleic' type a major part of

>>the standard soya/maize feed changed the oleic acid content of the back

>>fat to about 67% (olive oil, by way of comparison, is about 72% oleic

>>acids), and the palmitic down to 12%. Pigs are omnivores (as we are), not

>>grass eaters (ruminants) . Therefore their fat profile reflects the kinds

>>of fats they are fed. Our body fat profile also reflects the kinds of

>>fats we eat, and in part, the kinds of fats the pigs we eat, eat!

What I'd like to know is what feeds are healthy for pigs and swings their

lipid profile in the other direction -- towards palmitic acid and whatever

other saturated fats they store, and away from unsaturated and particularly

polyunsaturated fats.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Right, but those fat deposits are there to serve *them* - not just to

>accumulate for future human consumption.

Well, of course, but in the strictest sense, everything's out for itself --

and whatever it is we're eating probably doesn't want to be eaten.

>When times are lean they can use

>them for energy. Not so the feedlot steer - he will never use his stored fat

>in the way the wild ruminant would in lean times. So I'd think it would

>depend on the life of each wild animal - how often it needs to call on its

>fat stores would be determined by food availability at any given time and

>it's activity level, no?

To be sure, but historically, lean times for food animals were lean times

for people.

>Are there other published lipid profiles that

>you know of?

I'm not even sure where some of these people get their data from. The Guts

And Grease article is a good illustration of that -- Cordain's information

is radically different from other information. (Only part of his bias

comes from his assumption that paleo people ate muscle meat and avoided fat

deposits and organs, the rest seems to come from bogus information about

the relative saturation of those deposits and of the fat in and around

muscle meat.)

>I've ready various sources of data on various

>critters and whenever their *diet* lipid profile changes, so too does their

>*body's* lipid profile. Or so it I thought. Why do humans even bother to

>take fish oil capsules, for example, if it has no effect on our FA profile?

Part of your confusion may come from the distinction between ruminants and

most other animals. The bacteria in ruminants' digestive tracts are pretty

good at saturating the fat that comes their way, so that overall levels of

saturated and monounsaturated fat are relatively constant in ruminants

regardless of diet. In ruminants, it's chiefly the PUFA fraction which

varies according to diet. In non-ruminants, the story is completely

different, and the entire lipid profile varies with diet.

I don't have the reference handy, but I believe Enig (or some other

WAPF author) wrote that in humans, the buttock fat reflects very accurately

the person's lipid consumption over the past year. I take this to mean

that buttock fat has the highest turnover in humans. Either way, humans,

pigs, chickens -- all non-ruminants, AFAIK -- basically store and deposit

the kind of fat they eat. So a pig fed one way will have a high fraction

of palmitic acid, a saturated fatty acid (see my post to ) while if

it's fed another way it'll have much less. The same is true for

people. Bruce Fife, for example, attributes rising skin cancer rates to

increased PUFA consumption -- as the dermal and subdermal layers of fat

become more and more unsaturated, they're more and more vulnerable to UV

light from the sun. That's just one more reason to avoid vegetable oils

like the plague -- and avoid meat and fat from non-ruminants which have

been fed improperly too.

>But then again maybe not - I'm still not sure how reliable a tool

>the database is for something like this

There's no question we're hobbled by seriously lacking data. Perhaps if

the WAPF lab gets off the ground it can start compiling a truly

comprehensive and accurate database. (Perhaps some of these questions are

addressed in Enig's book, too; I haven't read it yet.)

-