PUFA free diet causes severe atherosclerosis?

[tankasnowgod]

Doesn't specify if the coconut oil is fully or partially hydrogenated. Partially hydrogenated coconut oil contains trans fat, and given the high (16%) amount of it in diet A, if it is actually partially, and not not fully hydrogenated, those results are to be expected.

The only way you can get trans fats from hydrogenation is from the hydrogenation of PUFA, and coconut oil only has about 2% PUFA, so that would be the maximum amount of trans fats in the final product. Oleic Acid can only be hydrogenated into Stearic. Of course, I don't think Trans Fats are that big a problem anyway, especially as compared to PUFA. The big argument against them is that they basically act like Saturated Fats. In the past, all partially hydrogenated oils that had high Trans Fats also had a significant amount of PUFA.

Also, despite the propaganda against them, some Trans Fats are naturally occurring, and seem to have health benefits, like Conjugated Linoleic Acid.

Since Coconut Oil is already 92% Saturated, all hydrogenated Coconut Oil is going to be as close to fully hydrogenated as you can get.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Send it to Peat. See what he says.

Actually, send it to Brad Marshall. I think what we have here is another study implicating overactivity of the SCD1 enzyme generating too much Oleic Acid.

As you can see from the breakdown, the dogs getting the HCO semi synthetic diet got about 4% oleic acid in addition to paltry amounts of linoleic acid (0.3%)




Yet despite getting very little MUFA and PUFA in the diet, the dogs in Group A consistently have higher levels of Oleic Acid (listed as 18:1) than the dogs that got some safflower oil, or a more normal diet-

Maybe SCD1 became overexpressed because there was so little Oleic Acid in the diet. A bit of Safflower Oil might have helped the unsaturation of the fats, and lowered SCD1 expression, but an equal amount of Olive Oil might have done the same thing.

And, of course, there is always the problem with the semisynthetic diets themselves. It's quite possible the diet was lacking vitamins and minerals that would have prevented some of the lesions in the first place. Plus, no dog in the wild or living in the domestication is ever going to get that much cholesterol and that much saturated fat without some corresponding unsaturated fats.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Thinking about the study constructively and taking it for what it’s worth.. it indicates some PUFA alongside SFA like coconut oil is protective relative to coconut oil on its own. It’s only one piece to form part of an argument but it’s still a piece.

So looking at it that way.. maybe some nuts like walnuts and almonds, or some fatty fish. Raw as well, can’t imagine cooking PUFA at high temps could ever be good… Same for cholesterol in general, definitely don’t want to be eating a lot of cooked/oxidised cholesterol.

The study was 1 year long. I highly doubt that anyone eating Hydrogenated Coconut Oil is using it as their only fat in their diet, and is likely to get some Oleic Acid and PUFA from other sources probably in the same day or week, but most certainly within the same year.

 

[yerrag]

Not really effective at all though is it.

Not effective on you and me for sure. But for people around us, yes. Not around us, even more so.

Were you tiggered by the dog related study? Being a cat person and all.

Not at all. Keeping my sanity for the bigger things to trigger me.

 

[tankasnowgod]

What leads you to believe hydrogenated saturated fats doesn't become trans fat?

Um, because there is nothing left to hydrogenate. Saturated Fats are fully saturated with hydrogen. Since MUFA only has one double bond, it can't become a "trans fat" either, only a saturated fat, since only one hydrogen can be added in one place to the molecule. You need multiple double bonds for hydrogenation to possibly generate a "trans fat."

 

[yerrag]

Um, because there is nothing left to hydrogenate. Saturated Fats are fully saturated with hydrogen. Since MUFA only has one double bond, it can't become a "trans fat" either, only a saturated fat, since only one hydrogen can be added in one place to the molecule. You need multiple double bonds for hydrogenation to possibly generate a "trans fat."

Interesting.

I didn't know that about MUFAs. Makes sense as that would explain why I've never heard of HOO or FHOO.

Being that oils with single bonds are more resistant to oxidation vs oils with double bonds, yet they are still liable to be oxidized, do you know why there is no stigma of harm health-wise attached to MUFAs other than the fact that mead acids endogenously produced by the body are MUFAs and thus all MUFAs are pretty much considered safe?

 

[Ritchie]

The study was 1 year long. I highly doubt that anyone eating Hydrogenated Coconut Oil is using it as their only fat in their diet, and is likely to get some Oleic Acid and PUFA from other sources probably in the same day or week, but most certainly within the same year.

Sure, but the study still indicates that some dietary PUFA relative to SFA and/or in combination is protective.
If that’s the case there are obviously questions ie. how much, what ratio, etc etc but as far as I’m aware that’s not in line with Peat’s perspective.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Sure, but the study still indicates that some dietary PUFA relative to SFA and/or in combination is protective.

Not really. Oleic Acid is MUFA, not PUFA. How do you know the results don't display a lack of dietary MUFA? There was no Olive Oil group. That might have been just as "protective."

If that’s the case there are obviously questions ie. how much, what ratio, etc etc but as far as I’m aware that’s not in line with Peat’s perspective.

Peat's perspective has always been that PUFA aren't essential, they are unavoidable. And that's true, they are unavoidable, outside of any sort of lab experiment.

Since any sort of "Zero PUFA" experiment will necessarily use a purified or synthetic diet, there is always the risk of running some sort of vitamin or micronutrient deficiency. And the risk increases and compounds the longer you use that diet. How do you know the dogs in Group A were getting adequate A, D, K, E, and the B Vitamins? You don't, and since they only list HCO and cholesterol, I would think vitamin deficiencies would be ensured on a long enough diet, and a diet of 1 year is very long. Even the William Brown experiment only lasted six months.

Since PUFAs slow the metabolism, it's quite reasonable that the micronutrient deficiency would show up quicker in the group not eating PUFA. I figured everyone on this forum would have gotten this point from Peat, considering how much he has talked about the Burr experiments. Like in this clip, starting at 2:50-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28m4pVRwwFg

 

[Ritchie]

Not really. Oleic Acid is MUFA, not PUFA. How do you know the results don't display a lack of dietary MUFA? There was no Olive Oil group. That might have been just as "protective."

Well the results of the study show the PUFA was protective all other things being equal.. But yes that would be one of the questions - would MUFA have the same protective results as the PUFA were shown to..

And that's true, they are unavoidable, outside of any sort of lab experiment.

A PUFA elimination type diet has been discussed ad nauseam in Peat circles for years. Haidut and others have spoken about the endeavour extensively, combined with taking supps to help achieve it. Peat himself has said that he sources hydrogenated coconut oil to completely eliminate any unsaturated fat - Considering coconut oil is so saturated already, this does seem above and beyond if you aren't aiming for elimination. Peat has also discussed skim milk, limiting eggs and so forth for this particular reason. So while I agree that PUFA's are pretty much unavoidable outside of a lab experiment, the more extreme striving for PUFA elimination in the Peat sphere is as close to a lab experiment as you'll get.

How do you know the dogs in Group A were getting adequate A, D, K, E, and the B Vitamins? You don't

Well yeah you don't but Group A and Group B were both getting the same to that regard.
And while you make that argument that potential lack of vitamins in the diet resulted in the lesions and complications in group A, but not in group B and the reason for this is that the PUFA in Group B slowed their metabolism significantly enough that the deficiencies didn't yet show up - this seems a stretch of convenience in order to make sense of and explain why the results don't fit the paradigm. If anything it would require more exploration based on that hypothesis.
But as I orginally said, taking the study for what it is on face value, it seems to indicate that PUFA in combination with SFA is protective relative to SFA on it's own. More research is obviously needed to build that case though, of which of course there is plenty out there and plenty still to come.

 

[OliviaD]

Poor dogs. Doesn't explain group B, but 'semi-synthetic diet'?? There could be factors not associated with the fats at all contributing to their poor health. And - interesting, b/c in real life, dogs don't get heart and vascular disease - they are very different from humans in this way. They group C got meat at least, in addition to kibble, which is full of toxins. Poor things are mostly dying of cancer from the excessive vaccination big pharma conditioned the humans they need, since they've tapped out the marked on their children.

 

[tankasnowgod]

A PUFA elimination type diet has been discussed ad nauseam in Peat circles for years. Haidut and others have spoken about the endeavour extensively, combined with taking supps to help achieve it. Peat himself has said that he sources hydrogenated coconut oil to completely eliminate any unsaturated fat - Considering coconut oil is so saturated already, this does seem above and beyond if you aren't aiming for elimination. Peat has also discussed skim milk, limiting eggs and so forth for this particular reason. So while I agree that PUFA's are pretty much unavoidable outside of a lab experiment, the more extreme striving for PUFA elimination in the Peat sphere is as close to a lab experiment as you'll get.

Just because it might be "as close as you can get" doesn't mean it would be anywhere near the dog study, either in PUFA elimination OR duration. Haidut talked about a very low fat diet for 30 days (which is not a year)-

PUFA Depletion Can (probably) Be Accomplished In 30 Days!

Since removing PUFA from the body is one of the primary goals of Peatarians, naturally anything that can speed up the process of waiting at least 4 years would be highly desirable. I have been experimenting myself relentlessly with speeding that process up (as safely as possible). While...

raypeatforum.com

You couldn't just "limit" eggs, you would have to eliminate them. And pretty much every other fat, sans HCO. And truly, you would even have to eliminate things like orange juice, as even a glass has about 100mg, as does almost every starch source. William Brown ate nothing but skim milk and sugar water and potato starch biscuits made with mineral oil for 6 months. They estimated total fat content per day at less than 0.2 grams, I believe, and that would have been dairy fat which has about 2% PUFA. I don't think anyone here is coming anywhere close to doing that, not in PUFA elimination nor in duration. Certainly not Peat these days, if he is eating oatmeal, as even the paltry amount of fat and PUFA in one bowl would blow away the daily fat content of the Brown experiment.

But as I orginally said, taking the study for what it is on face value, it seems to indicate that PUFA in combination with SFA is protective relative to SFA on it's own. More research is obviously needed to build that case though, of which of course there is plenty out there and plenty still to come.

I mean, if you want to take a poorly conducted, obviously flawed, 46 year old study study at face value, go ahead. I see far too many problems to do that. Nor would I think it holds any value to a free living human today in the 2020s, who has been exposed to far more PUFA that those 1970's dogs, before they were even put on the HCO and super high cholesterol diet in the first place.

 

[Motorneuron]

Thinking about the study constructively and taking it for what it’s worth - the indication is that some PUFA alongside SFA like coconut oil is protective relative to SFAs on their own. It’s only one piece to form part of an argument but it’s still a piece.

So looking at it that way.. maybe some nuts like walnuts and almonds, or some fatty fish. Raw as well, can’t imagine cooking PUFA at high temps could ever be good… Same for cholesterol in general, definitely don’t want to be eating a lot of cooked/oxidised cholesterol.

How would it be possible to carry out a diet totally without PUFA, SFA, MUFA ... any food including butter includes a small part of both PUFA and MUFA ... I gave the first example that came to mind ....

 

[Dr. B]

Thinking about the study constructively and taking it for what it’s worth - the indication is that some PUFA alongside SFA like coconut oil is protective relative to SFAs on their own. It’s only one piece to form part of an argument but it’s still a piece.

So looking at it that way.. maybe some nuts like walnuts and almonds, or some fatty fish. Raw as well, can’t imagine cooking PUFA at high temps could ever be good… Same for cholesterol in general, definitely don’t want to be eating a lot of cooked/oxidised cholesterol.

wouldnt pasteurized milk, cooked ground beef, freeze dried whey protein all contain oxidised cholesterol? what can be done then?

 

[Dr. B]

Not really. Oleic Acid is MUFA, not PUFA. How do you know the results don't display a lack of dietary MUFA? There was no Olive Oil group. That might have been just as "protective."

Peat's perspective has always been that PUFA aren't essential, they are unavoidable. And that's true, they are unavoidable, outside of any sort of lab experiment.

Since any sort of "Zero PUFA" experiment will necessarily use a purified or synthetic diet, there is always the risk of running some sort of vitamin or micronutrient deficiency. And the risk increases and compounds the longer you use that diet. How do you know the dogs in Group A were getting adequate A, D, K, E, and the B Vitamins? You don't, and since they only list HCO and cholesterol, I would think vitamin deficiencies would be ensured on a long enough diet, and a diet of 1 year is very long. Even the William Brown experiment only lasted six months.

Since PUFAs slow the metabolism, it's quite reasonable that the micronutrient deficiency would show up quicker in the group not eating PUFA. I figured everyone on this forum would have gotten this point from Peat, considering how much he has talked about the Burr experiments. Like in this clip, starting at 2:50-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28m4pVRwwFg

regarding oxidized cholesterol isnt this also unavoidable? its in freeze dried whey protein powder, freeze dried liver capsules, and then pasteurized milk and cooked ground meats would also have it? raw meat can be difficult to consume.

regarding the Burrs experiments, didn't the skin problem from the hypermetabolism get resolved from supplementing B6 and zinc? b6 can increase serotonin, and also increases production or conversion to arachidonic acid or something. the skin condition was resolved from either a small amount of PUFA, or supplements of b6 and zinc right? the thing is the b6/zinc supplements would be anti metabolic in their own right. zinc reduces iron and copper levels and probably has other effects. zinc supplements oxidize nutrients in the stomach. b6 boosts serotonin and arachidonic acid. zinc/b6 would have an even more powerful anti metabolic effect if the diet is already super clean. and the supplements would compound any existing micronutrient deficiencies. in the modern world with copper filled tap water, iron multivitamins and iron fortified cereals/breads, many people can get benefit from zinc supplements but if you remove those factors and still supplement zinc it will cause copper/iron deficiency and possibly other issues. if it's just 1 gram of PUFA as a supplement that might actually be safer than supplementing b6 and zinc. and if the problem is just b6/zinc then some liver or ground beef or milk may be the best solution since it won't be a supplement and will also be low in PUFA. if he was using skim milk that should have zinc and b6 already.

 

[Ritchie]

wouldnt pasteurized milk, cooked ground beef, freeze dried whey protein all contain oxidised cholesterol? what can be done then?

The obvious answer is to cut down on animal products.

 

[OliviaD]

The abstract said the diet was semi-synthetic. If the 5% added cholesterol was synthetic or oxidized that would explain a lot. Fred Kummerow did numerous experiments on oxidized and stable cholesterol. In particular, he found that it was oxidized cholesterol in the diet (from powdered eggs or other processed foods) that formed atherosclerosis. See his 2013 paper.

I doubt wolves in the wild eating raw high cholesterol flesh have these issues.

No - these diets were so unnatural, (we don't even know how bad), these dogs were kept in cages in solitary confinement.. totally unnatural diet, unnatural life.... I don't think one can draw much about how this translates to the 'real world'.

 

[OliviaD]

No - these diets were so unnatural, (we don't even know how bad), these dogs were kept in cages in solitary confinement.. totally unnatural diet, unnatural life.... I don't think one can draw much about how this translates to the 'real world'.

Yes! (and people need to stop comparing dogs to wolves.. they are 2 separate species!!1)

 

[Dr. B]

The obvious answer is to cut down on animal products.

thatll drastically worsen health, maybe unless you do coconut oil, potato and fruit juice/fruit diet, not sure if thats as good as adding milk in there