Chris Masterjohn on inflammation, omega-3, omega-6

[EnoreeG]

Once Peat makes these assumptions (non-essentiality of PUFA, no such thing as membranes) he then proceeds to recommend eliminating PUFA from the diet, or at least minimizing it. He leaves his followers with this blanket rule, yet proceeds to recommend foods that have substantial PUFA content, I guess hoping that no one will check up on him and call him on it.

I have not seen where Peat recommends everyone eliminate PUFA. Where have you seen this? As far as I can tell, he recommends keeping PUFA consumption low by choosing foods that have low proportions of PUFA in relation to SFAs and all the other nutrients we need, in recognition that it is practically impossible to eat food and completely avoid PUFA. He has said that a tsp of olive oil for flavouring may be reasonable.
He has also mentioned some lowish numbers for PUFA consumption as probably protective.

Peat has also described some zero-fat experiments, with apparently beneficial effects, as evidence that PUFA are not essential (as long as other nutrient needs were met).
Do you have an alternative explanation for these?

Peat has referred to problems cause by unsaturated fats, not only PUFAs. I do not see him lumping MUFAs in with SFAs as benign, just less harmful than PUFAs because they are less unsaturated.

Hey, tara, let's agree on where we are in this discussion first. I think I am responding from the start to the OP which stated in part:

Ray Peat said on one of the "politics and science" radio shows with John Barkhausen that Chris Masterjohn is a very good researcher. He said his only disagreement with him is on the essentiality of the "essential fatty acids". Masterjohn is not a fan of the anti-inflammatory drugs, the COX inhibitors. Aspirin can to some extent be considered such a drug.

It seems that the OP wishes to contrast Masterjohn with Peat, and one of the points of contrast is this essentiality issue. That is what I was responding to. I said Peat tended to "recommend eliminating PUFA from the diet, or at least minimizing it." If you havent' read anything from Peat like that, keep reading. He treats PUFA very carelessly in some statements, and only slightly more carefully in other statements, and people misinterpret or fail to look deeper to get clarification. So sometimes he does qualify that it's impossible to avoid PUFA, but sometimes he doesn't, and implies that PUFA should be avoided. That's his problem, and one reason we even have a forum. Vagueness, lack of detail, refusal to clarify, etc. Things that most of us here are careful to do, but Peat has no time or inclination for, apparently.

As to the "zero-fat experiments" you mentioned, I'd be happy to look at them if you provide a link. However, I will say I've checked out about a dozen links on PUFA studies that Peat has cited in the past, and every single one of the studies has proven that there is a problem caused by PUFA by using, not just your grocery store variety refined seed oils, but bulk, commercial seed oils (usually corn or soy). From my point of view, these studies (usually funded by drug companies) were a total waste of money. They prove nothing except that ruined food is bad for health. For the typical person who reads Peat and other alternative gurus, and who is already on a road (hopefully) to better health via intake of only whole, organic, and unprocessed foods, the proof that adulterated oils cause health problems is not even a surprise or of value. Most already know this. The serious issue though that I'd like to clear up here is this: It's just a shame when a writer calls all linoleic acid (omega-6) and all alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3) "PUFA" (including all their derivatives that cascade, on demand, from these parent oils), and refers only to "PUFA" when they talk about the advantages or disadvantages, but never mentions that what is a healthy ingredient in all our foods has been ruined by processing, and that it is the processed and probably oxidized PUFA that is to be avoided. I consider the lack of differentiation between healthy sourced unsaturated fats, and ruined versions of the same omega's to be inexcusable.

But I admit, I have a different view of the effect of PUFA in the body than Peat. He considers the oxidation possibility in the body as the threat, and I trust the body to take care of healthy PUFA, and only see previously, externally oxidized PUFA as the threat. I consider that yes, there is a lipid bi-layer around each cell, and around all the mitochondria, and once PUFA is integrated in that bi-layer, it is safe for a while, and effective at performing a function (thanks to the protecting presence of plentiful saturated fat also in that bi-layer which acts as an anti-oxidant). But whether there is a bi-layer or not, we know that PUFA is an integral part of the cells. And when, for the purpose of health, the body deconstructs a cell, any PUFA which needs to be removed will then be removed. As you are probably aware, all of us developed a very useful brain during the months in-utero and the 2 years after birth. During that time, one of the most vulnerable of the PUFAs (DHA) was included into our brains, in cells which will not be replaced for a lifetime. The entire stock of DHA came from our foods during that time, and much of that remains, unchanged, year after year, because the cells are not replaced. If this can take place in the brain, why cannot PUFA be preserved in relative safety in the cells of other organs? I don't know how this is done, but I assume it's part of our physiology, and has been for millions of years.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Indeed, that takes place year after year, unless we incur in setbacks such as schizophrenia and major depression. How peculiar!

 

[pboy]

use the palate test, senses test...at the end of the day that really is the indicator. How do pufa's taste to you..and smell? Sure, whole foods containing Pufa might have other attractive qualities like aminos and flavors, but what about the pufa itself?

pufa is treated in peroxisomes, which is telling enough...and its an energy requiring process

chris masterjohn should me renamed chris novicejohn

 

[EnoreeG]

My policy is that fear of PUFA is silly. Now fear of ruined, oxidized PUFA is a different matter.

I don't advocate living in fear of anything. Avoidance where practical is another thing.
I believe one of Peat's points is that the environment of the body itself inevitably provides the conditions for rapid oxidation of PUFAs (warm and with plenty of oxygen available), however fresh they are when ingested.

It would be nice to see the quote on "Peat's point": "...that the environment of the body itself inevitably provides the conditions for rapid oxidation of PUFAs...". I don't doubt it exists, I just don't have an easy way to search it out.

While you are retrieving that quote, I'll provide a couple for you:

In the Peat article, "Fats and Degeneration" http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fats-degeneration3.shtml

we find --

The saturated fatty acids are very unreactive chemically. Coconut oil, despite containing about 1% of the unstable PUFA, can be left in a bucket at room temperature for a year or more without showing any evidence of deterioration, suggesting that the predominance of saturated fat acts as an antioxidant for the unsaturated molecules. In the body, the saturated fats seem to act the same way, preventing or even reversing many of the conditions caused by oxidation of fats.

If you study the lipid bilayer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer

you will see (check the graphics) that there is always a predominance of saturated over unsaturated fat in the bilayer, providing the antioxidant protection that Peat talks about. You and Peat may not believe in the bilayer, but for those who see it and study it, there is logic to the principle that Peat talks about regarding protection (and thus longevity) for PUFA in the cell membranes. There is always saturated fat in cell membranes. It's not toxin, it's not happenstance, but it is functionality apparently. The percentages and layout are far to regular to represent random occurance.

Addressing your comments on fear, earlier in the same Peat article, it is stated --

PUFA and x-rays have many biological effects in common. They are immunosuppressive, but they produce their own inflammatory reactions, starting with increased permeability of capillaries, disturbed coagulation and proteolysis, and producing fibrosis and tumefaction or tissue atrophy. This isn't just a coincidence, since ionizing radiation attacks the highly unstable polyunsaturated molecules, simply accelerating processes that ordinarily happen more slowly as a result of stress and aging.

I bring this up in relationship to instilling fear in the audience. I would say it definitely should have the effect of causing fear: relating PUFA to x-rays. And responding to something you wrote in a different post saying

I have not seen where Peat recommends everyone eliminate PUFA.

this is the kind of statement he makes which will give the average person the idea that every molecule of PUFA could be considered bad. He may not have said it, but he implied it (with the reference to x-rays), and by my way of thinking he implied it based on poor evidence.

If you examine the references that Peat cites, and can find the one that details how PUFA has biological effects similar to x-rays, I will bet that the test was performed using commercial-grade seed oils, not healthy foods that most health conscious Peatarians try to consume. As I said before, there is a huge difference between already oxidized PUFA, and naturally derived fresh PUFA that can be installed in cell membranes and perform functionally for weeks or months. It's well worth one's time, I believe, to read more on unsaturated fats than what can be found in Ray Peat's writings.