PUFA increase CVD risk while saturated fats decrease it

[haidut]

Finally, some common sense coming out of official science. Saturated and trans fatty acids reduce CVD risk, according to this study.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29616418
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

"...There were 32 observational studies (512 420 participants) of fatty acids from dietary intake; 17 observational studies (25 721 participants) of fatty acid biomarkers; and 27 randomized, controlled trials (105 085 participants) of fatty acid supplementation. In observational studies, relative risks for coronary disease were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.07) for saturated, 1.00 (CI, 0.91 to 1.10) for monounsaturated, 0.87 (CI, 0.78 to 0.97) for long-chain ω-3 polyunsaturated, 0.98 (CI, 0.90 to 1.06) for ω-6 polyunsaturated, and 1.16 (CI, 1.06 to 1.27) for trans fatty acids when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared. Corresponding estimates for circulating fatty acids were 1.06 (CI, 0.86 to 1.30), 1.06 (CI, 0.97 to 1.17), 0.84 (CI, 0.63 to 1.11), 0.94 (CI, 0.84 to 1.06), and 1.05 (CI, 0.76 to 1.44), respectively. There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease. In randomized, controlled trials, relative risks for coronary disease were 0.97 (CI, 0.69 to 1.36) for α-linolenic, 0.94 (CI, 0.86 to 1.03) for long-chain ω-3 polyunsaturated, and 0.86 (CI, 0.69 to 1.07) for ω-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementations. Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."

 

[M Scott]

Where did the actual study clearly spell out increased risk from PUFA consumption? The BBC article probably doesn't mention it because, sadly, there was no such association with increased risk as far as I can tell.

 

[haidut]

Where did the actual study clearly spell out increased risk from PUFA consumption? The BBC article probably doesn't mention it because, sadly, there was no such association with increased risk as far as I can tell.

There was a discussion on the BBC website (in the comments section) that all risks over 1.0 meant reduced risk of CVD and all risks under 1.0 meant increased risk. As far as I can see, the study lists saturated and trans fatty acid risks as >= 1.0 and PUFA risks as <= 1.0. Whether that is true or not I can't say since I have not read the actual study, which is behind a paywall.
In the meantime, I have modified my original comment to remove the language about PUFA increasing risk until we can verify if this is the case or not.

 

[M Scott]

I looked at a summary and it seems like higher RR meant higher risk, but either way the effect of various fats (except for trans fats) weren't statistically significant. I think the controversy about the paper, from people like Walter Willet, was largely because they wanted or expected saturated fat to be harmful and PUFA to be beneficial but neither association was found.

 

[Such_Saturation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

 

[haidut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

 

[LucyL]

Quote from the Study Abstract:

"Limitation: Potential biases from preferential publication and selective reporting."

It's a meta-analysis, it doesn't really show evidence of anything conclusive.

In observations of diet (utterly worthless) transfats had the highest CVD risk. In circulating fatty acid studies, saturated and monounsaturated had the highest risks and in the controlled supplementation trials, all fats seemed to lower the risk. Go figure.

 

[Such_Saturation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

 

[haidut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

 

[Such_Saturation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

 

[haidut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

 

[Such_Saturation]

L*brary G*nesis to the rescue

http://tinyurl.com/l2r6h4d

 

[sladerunner69]

post 58581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

If true then something needs explaining, and that's the fact that in autopsies of patients with CVD the arteriosclerosis (clogging arteries) is comprised of cholesterol, saturated fat, and calcium. Saturated fat is well known and researched as the culprit for clogged arteries as it builds up over the years.

Personally I theorize that the build up of arterial plaque is the result of a combination of high PUFA high SFA consumption. Peat explains in an article that plaque build up can be cleared out if the metabolism is strong, but if high PUFA is shortchanging your metabolism AND you are consuming high amounts of SFA and cholesterol(which is likely to go underutilized by the endocrine system in this context) then it is a recipe for heart disease!

 

[haidut]

post 107502

post 58581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

If true then something needs explaining, and that's the fact that in autopsies of patients with CVD the arteriosclerosis (clogging arteries) is comprised of cholesterol, saturated fat, and calcium. Saturated fat is well known and researched as the culprit for clogged arteries as it builds up over the years.

Personally I theorize that the build up of arterial plaque is the result of a combination of high PUFA high SFA consumption. Peat explains in an article that plaque build up can be cleared out if the metabolism is strong, but if high PUFA is shortchanging your metabolism AND you are consuming high amounts of SFA and cholesterol(which is likely to go underutilized by the endocrine system in this context) then it is a recipe for heart disease!

Cholesterol and saturated fat are rushed to the site of endothelial damage to repair it. It's the chronic vessel inflammation that triggers these repair processes and if continues for too long they can be come pathological, just like cell division and cancer. However, I have not seen reference on plaque being mostly saturated fat. Can you provide some references on that?

 

[sladerunner69]

post 107543

post 107502

post 58581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

If true then something needs explaining, and that's the fact that in autopsies of patients with CVD the arteriosclerosis (clogging arteries) is comprised of cholesterol, saturated fat, and calcium. Saturated fat is well known and researched as the culprit for clogged arteries as it builds up over the years.

Personally I theorize that the build up of arterial plaque is the result of a combination of high PUFA high SFA consumption. Peat explains in an article that plaque build up can be cleared out if the metabolism is strong, but if high PUFA is shortchanging your metabolism AND you are consuming high amounts of SFA and cholesterol(which is likely to go underutilized by the endocrine system in this context) then it is a recipe for heart disease!

Cholesterol and saturated fat are rushed to the site of endothelial damage to repair it. It's the chronic vessel inflammation that triggers these repair processes and if continues for too long they can be come pathological, just like cell division and cancer. However, I have not seen reference on plaque being mostly saturated fat. Can you provide some references on that?

Just check out the arteriosclerosis wiki, there are some sources there claiming that plaque is comprised of saturated fats, cholestrol and calcium.

So if SFA and cholestrol is repairing endothelial inflammation brought on by PUFA, then what you are saying is too much of this inflamation will cause too much SFA/chol to build up around the lining of the arteries and thus causing the blockage? How does SFA help repair blood vessels exactly..?

 

[haidut]

post 107553

post 107543

post 107502

post 58581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

If true then something needs explaining, and that's the fact that in autopsies of patients with CVD the arteriosclerosis (clogging arteries) is comprised of cholesterol, saturated fat, and calcium. Saturated fat is well known and researched as the culprit for clogged arteries as it builds up over the years.

Personally I theorize that the build up of arterial plaque is the result of a combination of high PUFA high SFA consumption. Peat explains in an article that plaque build up can be cleared out if the metabolism is strong, but if high PUFA is shortchanging your metabolism AND you are consuming high amounts of SFA and cholesterol(which is likely to go underutilized by the endocrine system in this context) then it is a recipe for heart disease!

Cholesterol and saturated fat are rushed to the site of endothelial damage to repair it. It's the chronic vessel inflammation that triggers these repair processes and if continues for too long they can be come pathological, just like cell division and cancer. However, I have not seen reference on plaque being mostly saturated fat. Can you provide some references on that?

Just check out the arteriosclerosis wiki, there are some sources there claiming that plaque is comprised of saturated fats, cholestrol and calcium.

So if SFA and cholestrol is repairing endothelial inflammation brought on by PUFA, then what you are saying is too much of this inflamation will cause too much SFA/chol to build up around the lining of the arteries and thus causing the blockage? How does SFA help repair blood vessels exactly..?

Saturated fat blocks the local production of some inflammatory mediators like prostaglandins and some thromboxanes. Cholesterol does the same. I think medicine already openly admits that cholesterol is there as a repair attempt, not as a villain. It will take some time for them to see that saturated fat is also protective and not just "inert" or even harmful.

 

[sladerunner69]

post 107561

post 107553

post 107543

post 107502

post 58581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

If true then something needs explaining, and that's the fact that in autopsies of patients with CVD the arteriosclerosis (clogging arteries) is comprised of cholesterol, saturated fat, and calcium. Saturated fat is well known and researched as the culprit for clogged arteries as it builds up over the years.

Personally I theorize that the build up of arterial plaque is the result of a combination of high PUFA high SFA consumption. Peat explains in an article that plaque build up can be cleared out if the metabolism is strong, but if high PUFA is shortchanging your metabolism AND you are consuming high amounts of SFA and cholesterol(which is likely to go underutilized by the endocrine system in this context) then it is a recipe for heart disease!

Cholesterol and saturated fat are rushed to the site of endothelial damage to repair it. It's the chronic vessel inflammation that triggers these repair processes and if continues for too long they can be come pathological, just like cell division and cancer. However, I have not seen reference on plaque being mostly saturated fat. Can you provide some references on that?

Just check out the arteriosclerosis wiki, there are some sources there claiming that plaque is comprised of saturated fats, cholestrol and calcium.

So if SFA and cholestrol is repairing endothelial inflammation brought on by PUFA, then what you are saying is too much of this inflamation will cause too much SFA/chol to build up around the lining of the arteries and thus causing the blockage? How does SFA help repair blood vessels exactly..?

Saturated fat blocks the local production of some inflammatory mediators like prostaglandins and some thromboxanes. Cholesterol does the same. I think medicine already openly admits that cholesterol is there as a repair attempt, not as a villain. It will take some time for them to see that saturated fat is also protective and not just "inert" or even harmful.

In summary, saturated fat is the direct cause of the blockage. Is it not then harmful?

 

[haidut]

post 107565

post 107561

post 107553

post 107543

post 107502

post 58581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk

So, since the relative risks for saturated and trans fat were > 1, and for PUFA was < 1, does that mean that my original comment about PUFA increasing CVD risk was right?

According to Wikipedia, for example the "saturated fat" eater group would be 0.03 times more likely to get coronary disease than the "control" for the observational case. The actual conclusion of the review is that there is no support for eating less saturated fat I guess since the numbers are insignificant. Of course this is all "when the top and bottom thirds of baseline dietary fatty acid intake were compared". In the "randomized, controlled trials" you see confidence intervals such as "0.69 to 1.36" which prompts a polite "There was heterogeneity of the associations among individual circulating fatty acids and coronary disease."

Then where did the news media get the idea that the study shows eating trans fats lowers CVD risk? Do you see anything in there that suggests that?

I don't see anything about trans fat, although he says "were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease." Judging by "After years of [...] telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat" I'd say the author is the kind of person who "goes with the tide" so to speak. He may or may not have read only the abstract (which is me ) since he mentions margaric acid.

Form the BBC article:
"...In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease."

I guess they did not say it is trans fat, it is a type of saturated fat actually.

If true then something needs explaining, and that's the fact that in autopsies of patients with CVD the arteriosclerosis (clogging arteries) is comprised of cholesterol, saturated fat, and calcium. Saturated fat is well known and researched as the culprit for clogged arteries as it builds up over the years.

Personally I theorize that the build up of arterial plaque is the result of a combination of high PUFA high SFA consumption. Peat explains in an article that plaque build up can be cleared out if the metabolism is strong, but if high PUFA is shortchanging your metabolism AND you are consuming high amounts of SFA and cholesterol(which is likely to go underutilized by the endocrine system in this context) then it is a recipe for heart disease!

Cholesterol and saturated fat are rushed to the site of endothelial damage to repair it. It's the chronic vessel inflammation that triggers these repair processes and if continues for too long they can be come pathological, just like cell division and cancer. However, I have not seen reference on plaque being mostly saturated fat. Can you provide some references on that?

Just check out the arteriosclerosis wiki, there are some sources there claiming that plaque is comprised of saturated fats, cholestrol and calcium.

So if SFA and cholestrol is repairing endothelial inflammation brought on by PUFA, then what you are saying is too much of this inflamation will cause too much SFA/chol to build up around the lining of the arteries and thus causing the blockage? How does SFA help repair blood vessels exactly..?

Saturated fat blocks the local production of some inflammatory mediators like prostaglandins and some thromboxanes. Cholesterol does the same. I think medicine already openly admits that cholesterol is there as a repair attempt, not as a villain. It will take some time for them to see that saturated fat is also protective and not just "inert" or even harmful.

In summary, saturated fat is the direct cause of the blockage. Is it not then harmful?

Would you rather have a ruptured/leaking blood vessel that can be deadly if it's in the brain or part of a major pathway like the femoral artery? Or one that is producing so much NO as a result of the local inflammation that a tumor starts to form due to the hypoxia? The body does what it can to protect itself form the inflammation caused by PUFA metabolites. No PUFA, means no inflammation and no need for cholesterol and SFA to go there and try to repair damage. So, if the SFA/PUFA ratio is high enough there will be no need to repair anything.
What do you propose as an alternative?

 

[Amazoniac]

I know Ray claims that the radicals generated in a high but efficient metabolic state aren't so harmful, but if short and medium-chain SaFA don't interfere with the use of glucose, wouldn't that create a lot of oxidative stress after a meal, especially nowadays that it's easier to eat a lot of food?

 

[haidut]

post 107571 I know Ray claims that the radicals generated in a high but efficient metabolic state aren't so harmful, but if short and medium-chain SaFA don't interfere with the use of glucose, wouldn't that create a lot of oxidative stress after a meal, especially nowadays that it's easier to eat a lot of food?

Typically, in the absense of high PUFA diet you'd have enough endogenous vitamin E and taurine to block all such possible damage. PUFA depletes these like nothing else you ingest.