PUFAs Better Than Saturated Fats?

[Jessie]

I don't mean to reignite this whole debate, but I think it is important to point this out because I personally believe it helps us to understand the whole saturated fat controversy better. Saturated fat inhibits the PDK enzyme and promotes the PDH enzyme. So it makes logical sense that it will likely support glucose burning better than fat burning. The only exception here is the MCTs that go straight to the liver via portal vein. They can be processed quicker and turned into ketones.

However the most important factor worth discussing is the intestinal health of the individual. Saturated fats are good at increasing absorption in the gut, like with all the oily vitamins that are frequently mentioned. However that increase in absorption will also result in greater translocation of bacteria and endotoxins. If you have bad intestinal health, and you end up pulling more LPS into your bloodstream, then this will inevitably result in a inflammatory reaction.

This is likely a very good explanation why the scientific literature on saturated fats is essentially all over the place. If people have intestinal dysbiosis, which 80-90% of the western world have it on some degree, you're going to experience an increase in inflammatory markers on a high saturated fat diet. Additionally, pulling more LPS into the blood will elicit a immune response, which will also drive up people's LDL, explaining why saturated fat has been shown in certain studies to increase LDL.

This is essentially my take on the topic. Saturaed fat is pulling more nutrients into your body, but unfortunately it's also pulling more of the bad stuff in as well. This is more of an issue with digestive health, rather then saturated fat being good or bad. I think in regards to the latter, it's pretty straightforward that saturated fat stabilizes the cell. I also think it's rather telling that our body will make SFAs from glucose, but not linoleic acid. I would argue the contrarian position in this matter. If something is truly "essential" for us to have, the organism will have a way to make it if it's not found in the immediate environment. Given this, I would actually say saturated fat is the only true "essential fatty acid." Of course, we will make our own unsaturated fats as well, but mead acid is desaturated from SFAs, and reacts in the organism quite different from the O-6 and O3 fats. Also I think mead acid is a omega 9, so technically it's a MUFA not PUFA.

All this being said, I think focusing on intestinal health and keeping serotonin low should be the prime objective. And you can do this much more efficiently by focusing on eating sugar/glucose, not dietary fats. If we need saturated fats, we'll just make them. Keeping dietary fat low (7% to 15%), and getting the bulk of your dietary fat from the MCTs which are TLR4 antagonists seems preferable.

 

[Maljam]

I don't mean to reignite this whole debate, but I think it is important to point this out because I personally believe it helps us to understand the whole saturated fat controversy better. Saturated fat inhibits the PDK enzyme and promotes the PDH enzyme. So it makes logical sense that it will likely support glucose burning better than fat burning. The only exception here is the MCTs that go straight to the liver via portal vein. They can be processed quicker and turned into ketones.

However the most important factor worth discussing is the intestinal health of the individual. Saturated fats are good at increasing absorption in the gut, like with all the oily vitamins that are frequently mentioned. However that increase in absorption will also result in greater translocation of bacteria and endotoxins. If you have bad intestinal health, and you end up pulling more LPS into your bloodstream, then this will inevitably result in a inflammatory reaction.

This is likely a very good explanation why the scientific literature on saturated fats is essentially all over the place. If people have intestinal dysbiosis, which 80-90% of the western world have it on some degree, you're going to experience an increase in inflammatory markers on a high saturated fat diet. Additionally, pulling more LPS into the blood will elicit a immune response, which will also drive up people's LDL, explaining why saturated fat has been shown in certain studies to increase LDL.

This is essentially my take on the topic. Saturaed fat is pulling more nutrients into your body, but unfortunately it's also pulling more of the bad stuff in as well. This is more of an issue with digestive health, rather then saturated fat being good or bad. I think in regards to the latter, it's pretty straightforward that saturated fat stabilizes the cell. I also think it's rather telling that our body will make SFAs from glucose, but not linoleic acid. I would argue the contrarian position in this matter. If something is truly "essential" for us to have, the organism will have a way to make it if it's not found in the immediate environment. Given this, I would actually say saturated fat is the only true "essential fatty acid." Of course, we will make our own unsaturated fats as well, but mead acid is desaturated from SFAs, and reacts in the organism quite different from the O-6 and O3 fats. Also I think mead acid is a omega 9, so technically it's a MUFA not PUFA.

All this being said, I think focusing on intestinal health and keeping serotonin low should be the prime objective. And you can do this much more efficiently by focusing on eating sugar/glucose, not dietary fats. If we need saturated fats, we'll just make them. Keeping dietary fat low (7% to 15%), and getting the bulk of your dietary fat from the MCTs which are TLR4 antagonists seems preferable.

Where are you getting the information on saturated fat and endotoxin? Peat has debunked this before and argued the opposite. Saturated fat is beneficial in the case of endotoxin and it has neutralising effects on it. You want the saturated fat to bind to the endotoxin and neutralise it.

Maybe if you gut was in terrible condition this would be too much for you initially, but your gut bacteria is probably messed up from eating too much carbohydrate or too much fermentable carbs. This doesnt mean saturated fat is a bad thing, and simply limited fat is avoiding the issue at hand and kicking the can down the road.

Gut bacteria dont particularly feed on fat in the same way as they do with carbs and fiber, so eating more fat and less carbs over long term would help gut issues and endotoxin through these two means.

1. Taking taking endotoxin out bound to chylomicrons
2. Limiting the amount of bacterial fodder in the diet by reducing carb intake and replacing with fat.

Reducing fat in the diet achieves nothing in regard to this IMO and just creates a larger bacterial ecosystem in your gut, which will cause you to react even more strongly when you next eat fat. It is fascinating to me to see the balance in it all, too much or too little of a macronutrients in the diet always leads to problems for one reason or another. Balance, balance, balance.




"Chylomicrons and VLDL also absorb, bind, and help to eliminate endotoxins."
Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health.

 

[Jessie]

Where are you getting the information on saturated fat and endotoxin? Peat has debunked this before and argued the opposite. Saturated fat is beneficial in the case of endotoxin and it has neutralising effects on it. You want the saturated fat to bind to the endotoxin and neutralise it.

Maybe if you gut was in terrible condition this would be too much for you initially, but your gut bacteria is probably messed up from eating too much carbohydrate or too much fermentable carbs. This doesnt mean saturated fat is a bad thing, and simply limited fat is avoiding the issue at hand and kicking the can down the road.

Gut bacteria dont particularly feed on fat in the same way as they do with carbs and fiber, so eating more fat and less carbs over long term would help gut issues and endotoxin through these two means.

1. Taking taking endotoxin out bound to chylomicrons
2. Limiting the amount of bacterial fodder in the diet by reducing carb intake and replacing with fat.

Reducing fat in the diet achieves nothing in regard to this IMO and just creates a larger bacterial ecosystem in your gut, which will cause you to react even more strongly when you next eat fat. It is fascinating to me to see the balance in it all, too much or too little of a macronutrients in the diet always leads to problems for one reason or another. Balance, balance, balance.




"Chylomicrons and VLDL also absorb, bind, and help to eliminate endotoxins."
Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health.

Peat isn't recommending a high fat diet though, he's speaking in the context of a low-fat diet. Also saturated fat doesn't "feed" the bacteria like fiber does, it increases the translocation. Or more simply speaking, it increases the movement of the LPS from the intestines into the bloodstream. They're attaching themselves to lipids, and then the lipids get absorbed. The PUFAs are more water soluble than the SFAs. There's been a few studies conducted regarding this as well: Sci-Hub | Crosstalk between Gut Microbiota and Dietary Lipids Aggravates WAT Inflammation through TLR Signaling. Cell Metabolism, 22(4), 658–668 | 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.07.026. Additionally, the more fat you eat, regardless if it's saturated or unsaturated, will increase serotonin synthesis independent of endotoxin. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin to high-fat diets, regardless if it's butter or soybean oil.

 

[Maljam]

Peat isn't recommending a high fat diet though, he's speaking in the context of a low-fat diet.

Who is recommending a high fat diet? Only you have said those words. Peat is talking about the mechanisms of saturated fat and their effect on endotoxin, which is what I believe we are talking about? He never specified low or high fat, it's only you that is talking about low fat high fat.

Also, Peat recommends or talks about eating butter, coconut oil, cream, eggs, ice cream every single interview he does, I don't think he follows a 7% fat diet.

. Also saturated fat doesn't "feed" the bacteria like fiber does, it increases the translocation. Or more simply speaking, it increases the movement of the LPS from the intestines into the bloodstream. They're attaching themselves to lipids, and then the lipids get absorbed. The PUFAs are more water soluble than the SFAs.

Yes you are basically repeating my own posts back to me I said that above. Can you prove that the endotoxin attached to the lipids is harmful? I think that is the point you are missing. Endotoxin being attached to chylomicrons and being neutralised is a good thing.

Additionally, the more fat you eat, regardless if it's saturated or unsaturated, will increase serotonin synthesis independent of endotoxin. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin to high-fat diets, regardless if it's butter or soybean oil.

Who are you arguing with about high fat diets?

Provide a scentific source on butter increasing serotonin.

 

[PaRa]

this wants to demonstrate that pufa lead to lower endotoxinemia than sfa

https://www.posnutricao.ufv.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Effects-of-the-dietary-fat-quality-on-metabolic-endotoxemia-a-systematic-review.pdf

 

[Sani]

I think real whole foods PUFA is very good for us, like Karen Hurd and Brian Peskin says. No isolated oils, they're toxic!

 

[Can]

Very interesting thread.