Peat Got The Fats Quite Wrong

Spondive

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
357
Yes I agree that being lean doesn't mean one is healthy..anecdotally I have known people that have been fat their whole life and have lived into their 90's pretty healthy..never worked out and were relatively happy. I have known people that are lean and wear sweatshirts when it is 100 degrees out when they are in air conditioning are very negative and angry and depressed people..I see fat children that are happy calm and precocious and I see healthy looking lean children that are hyper, defiant, non focused and always crying etc. we have to define what it means to be healthy? The word itself means different things to different people..so in order to discuss intelligently we have to come up with an agreed upon definition of the meaning of health
 
OP
S

Steffi

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2014
Messages
41
Last edited by a moderator:

jellog

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
16
"For a 5% lower energy intake from SFAs and a concomitant higher energy intake from PUFAs, there was a significant inverse association between PUFAs and risk of coronary events"

"For a 5% lower energy intake from SFAs and a concomitant higher energy intake from carbohydrates, there was a modest significant direct association between carbohydrates and coronary events"

So, for a 2,000kcal diet 5% energy would be 100 calories. I'm surprised 100 calories worth of carbohydrates replaced from saturated fat is enough to increase heart disease, that's less than a banana. For PUFA calories, 100kcal seems fairly significant -- that's 11.1g extra.

It mentions "MUFA intake was not associated with CHD." Perhaps rather than shift SFA for CHO or SFA for PUFA, the goal might be to shift SFA for MUFA and accept the slight increase in potentially protective PUFA?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
there was a significant inverse association between PUFAs and
risk of coronary events

The study relies on mere association to CHD. There's no relevant controls directed towards determining the exact effect of a specific type of fat.
I wouldn't surprised to see the result.
In the past 30-40+ years there's been some extraordinary demonsing of saturated fat.
The way I read this study is that people who are more likely to take care of their health tend to consume more PUFA and the people who're inclined towards more health risks consume more SFAs.
We believe SFAs are not as harmless as PUFA but let's face it no amount of SFAs is going to save you from getting wasted all nightlong and then sleeping 2 hours during a day after working at a nuclear plant while eating Doritos and SPAM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaakkima

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
326
"I thought Ray said that babies are all created saturated - which of course would SFA seem quite optimal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 6-0016.pdf
What's true is that there's always at least 40% UFA in fatty tissue, also PUFA, but mostly the MUFA Oleic Acid."

Don't know if someone else said this but this study shows almost half of fetal and infant fat being palmitic, and almost the other half being oleic and palmitoleic. 1. How does that contradict Peat? I don't recall him ever saying 100% saturated. 2. Your logic here is that if babies were very saturated, then you might look well upon eating saturated. But in the same breath you contradict yourself and write that palmitic acid is "evil."
 
Last edited:

smith

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
386
All I want to know is what increases (protective) subcutaneous fat padding.
 

Douglas Ek

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
642
Hi guys!
I'm not trying to do a study-pissing game. It's about a wholesome theory. It's about thinking and forming your opinion and I appreciate anyones constructive input. The way Ray and others around here portray fats is incomplete and outright wrong - at least what I concluded.

You cannot say SFA is good and UFA is bad. It is much more complicated. If anything, one can say MUFA is good, SFA neutral with some bad and PUFA, well, bad if lots. And then there is the shorter chain FAs as in MCTs. They are a different thing altogether.

PUFA are a very small part of fatty tissue in humans - and you can't have none. They are not preferrably stored nor preferrably released - the opposite is true.

Human body fat composition is rather independent of what you eat and the body regulates it rather tight and there will always be 35% UFA in there. Sport and nutrition can change composition only by a few percent.

All these statements I have heard the opposite of around the Peat circle. The evidence paints a different picture.

If you want to do something good and assure complete FA oxidation without peroxidation and incomplete oxidation - increase your oleic acid. That one promotes it.

Some PUFA have very strong effects in the body, like lowering inflammation and lowering LDL while increasing HDL and also increasing insulin sensitivity. However, I haven't concluded a good or bad for these yet - too much differing information.

And before I started eating implementing Ray's philosophy I had "perfect" blood lipid levels despite being clinically hypo! Now after almost 2 years and being clinically euthyroid my total cholesterol is up, LDL is up and HDL is down - so worse in every way.

How do you know after 2 years that your fat intake is the cause of your LDL and HDL changes?
 

Douglas Ek

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
642
Not really hung up on those values, rather wanted to mention them as a personal sidenote. The scientific papers that strongly oppose what I understood that Ray and the community here recommend is what I wanted to point out. And I tried to link some interesting stuff for anyone. I wish I had found that kind of "critique" against Ray's theory. Initially I never found anything badly antagonizing Ray and I wanted to believe it, too. I very much agree with Ray's philosophy but I think he took it a bit too far with the biochemistry.

Thanks to everyone who pointed me towards other new information. It's a good discussion!

As for the personal stuff, I couldn't say if I am better now. Sure some things are better with the thyroid (T4 right now, desiccated didn't work for me I assume due to horrible manufacturing/standardization). Some things are also worse and I have to deal with others I never had in my life ever before (high body fat, heartburn, constipation and very slow bowels, joint problems). And I don't blame that on the diet, but it sure didn't make things just well.

Should get all your minerals tested. It sounds more like thats you're problem.
 

Similar threads

Replies
67
Views
21K
Deleted member 5487
D
Back
Top Bottom