Saturated Fat TERRIBLE For Liver Health & Diabetes. Compared To PUFA

[Korven]

This link was very interesting and terrifying too. I didn't imagine that all the WAPF readers die so easily... what a strange idea to recommand rancid O3 fatty acids from a "fermented" oil, it's terrible to see that they are all dead young of serious diseases despite the fact that they were tring to taking care of their health.

You have experienced troubles by taking this fermented oil ? Sorry for my english as usual, I'm not fluent at all haha.

Yeah I agree it is a bit sad, they were just doing what they thought was healthy but ended up poisoning themselves instead...

My biggest trouble was the nasty taste but other than that I felt no side effect except for maybe some placebo. Negative consequences from FCLO probably comes from years of exposure to these oxidized PUFAs

 

[tankasnowgod]

Sorry for my english as usual, I'm not fluent at all haha.

I understand how Peat thinks you know... but when intervention studies on whole foods shows the opposite, it's confusing. It seems more complicate.

...

When you eat walnuts, pistachios, almonds... you don't eats only PUFA, but a WHOLE FOOD which contains much more than that. Saying that nut is just toxic PUFA is reductionnism in my opinion.

I'm thinking that you don't understand Peat, or his ideas. His articles and interviews can be hard to understand even for a fluent speaker of English. By the same token, I don't think you understand the studies you seem to be randomly posting here, either. Do you know what a "Crossover" study is? Because both of the studies you posted using Almonds are that. Do you understand how a "crossover" study could potentially be problematic in this instance?

And your commentary....... Link the reference to where Ray Peat said "Nuts are nothing but toxic PUFA." If you can't, you are just making a strawman argument.

It's one thing if you are looking for a better understanding of Peat's ideas, and questioning them, especially if you are having issues with the language. But it's quite another to simply make an Anti-Peat thread with a clickbait title that is flat out incorrect (as has been proven many times on the forum, and with many studies referenced in this thread), and then switch up your argument to a "whole foods" one, when your title clearly references specific fatty acids.

 

[Nuancé]

No, I did not mean the Seven Countries Study. This has been published in 1978. Have you even looked at the link?

Sadly your link doesn't work, I landed on the Washingtonpost haha. "Support great journalism" and I have to pay for it.

 

[Nuancé]

Yeah I agree it is a bit sad, they were just doing what they thought was healthy but ended up poisoning themselves instead...

My biggest trouble was the nasty taste but other than that I felt no side effect except for maybe some placebo. Negative consequences from FCLO probably comes from years of exposure to these oxidized PUFAs

It's terrible yes, when I've read "Katherine Czapp" the memory of his face came to me. It's a bit like vegans who develop destroyed bone mass or kidney troubles because they were eating a fad diet.
I hope you will pull through. What are your actual thoughts on PUFA now, are you still eating some whole fish, whole nuts or you avoid them ?

 

[Korven]

It's terrible yes, when I've read "Katherine Czapp" the memory of his face came to me. It's a bit like vegans who develop destroyed bone mass or kidney troubles because they were eating a fad diet.
I hope you will pull through. What are your actual thoughts on PUFA now, are you still eating some whole fish, whole nuts or you avoid them ?

I think it's best to keep PUFA low, but in my personal experience I've seen most improvement from focusing on gut health, avoiding foods that triggers intestinal inflammation, fermentation, gas and bloating. Don't know if it's a completely accurate analogy but I think of PUFA as the raw material/kindling needed for inflammation but the spark has to come from somewhere first, which I believe to be mainly endotoxin driven.

Good post from @tca300 log:

After elimination of all foods that caused bloating/gas/allergy, along with making sure of adequate nutrition, I had zero symptoms that would suggest the need of any support from Thyroid, Pregnenolone, Progesterone, and or DHEA.

I think too many people focus on PUFA and are convinced that there is a separation of purely good and purely bad foods and neglect symptoms of bloating, gas, and or allergy. All those things will interfere with good thyroid function, which can cause people to give up because they have been eating low PUFA and consuming a equal or greater amount of calcium in relation to phosphorus etc, etc..

Serotonin, Nitric Oxide, Parathyroid Hormone, Histamine, Prolactin, Estrogen, Adrenaline, Cortisol, Reverse T3, as well as others can all fire off directly or indirectly from things that cause gas, bloating, and or allergy, irregardless of low PUFA consumption.

It's a contextual thing, and each individual would need to experiment with foods to see which ones cause symptoms and which ones dont. Committing to a legitimate elimination experiment.

I restricted PUFA for roughly a decade and only made partial improvements. Focusing on gut health as well, made me realize that there were many more improvements to be made and that I had been missing pieces to my health puzzle the whole time.

ME: Do you think its possible that if someone has been chronically eating foods they are allergic or sensitive to that the body might defensively lower thyroid function? When I avoid foods that I believe I'm allergic or sensitive too, my temperature rises dramatically, as well as my sense of wellbeing. Thanks!

Ray Peat: The stress hormones produced by allergy cause the liver to convert thyroxine to reverse T3, lowering thyroid function, apparently in a kind of defensive semi-hibernation.


ME: Do you think if a specific food causes gas/bloating for an individual that its best avoided? And one should stick to foods that dont give those symptoms? Thank you!

Ray Peat: Yes. Everyone has different intestinal bacteria, and their reactions are affected by foods. If there are nutritional deficiencies, more foods can cause problems, because digestion is less efficient. Vitamin D and thyroid are especially important for digestion.

 

[Nuancé]

I'm thinking that you don't understand Peat, or his ideas. His articles and interviews can be hard to understand even for a fluent speaker of English. By the same token, I don't think you understand the studies you seem to be randomly posting here, either. Do you know what a "Crossover" study is? Because both of the studies you posted using Almonds are that. Do you understand how a "crossover" study could potentially be problematic in this instance?

And your commentary....... Link the reference to where Ray Peat said "Nuts are nothing but toxic PUFA." If you can't, you are just making a strawman argument.

It's one thing if you are looking for a better understanding of Peat's ideas, and questioning them, especially if you are having issues with the language. But it's quite another to simply make an Anti-Peat thread with a clickbait title that is flat out incorrect (as has been proven many times on the forum, and with many studies referenced in this thread), and then switch up your argument to a "whole foods" one, when your title clearly references specific fatty acids.

Oh I enjoy his articles, because I can dig dipper into papers etc... but his interviews where he mumbles for hours sorry haha but I can't. "Anti Peat" i'm "anti nobody", I'm not dogmatic, that's all. I take ideas from vegans, carnivores, keto team, paleo team, high carbs team, Ray Peat, Chris Masterjohn, Stephen Guyenet, everyone... Like each people, they have strenghts and weaknesses, it's a matter of nuances I guess.
Anyway, can we talk about these studies, intervention studies on humans, where consumption of nuts is beneficial even for LIPID PEROXIDATION, despite the facts that they are really rich in O6 fatty acids haha.
They decrease MDA in every studies, every species !

Again a study on pecans here, which are very rich in O6.

Pecans acutely increase plasma postprandial antioxidant capacity and catechins and decrease LDL oxidation in humans - PubMed

"
Study design.
In a placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover design with a 1-wk washout period between treatments, participants were randomly assigned to consume a test meal of 90 g (∼3 servings) whole pecans plus water, 90 g pecans blended with water, or a test meal with an energy, macronutrient, and fluid content equivalent to that of the pecan meals as control. Bioactive constituents of pecan nuts such as γ-tocopherol and flavan-3-ol monomers show antioxidant properties in vitro, but bioavailability in humans is not known. We examined postprandial changes in plasma oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) and in concentrations of tocopherols, catechins, oxidized LDL, and malondialdehyde (MDA) in response to pecan test meals. Sixteen healthy men and women (23-44 y, BMI 22.7 ± 3.4) were randomly assigned to 3 sequences of test meals composed of whole pecans, blended pecans, or an isocaloric meal of equivalent macronutrient composition but formulated of refined ingredients in a crossover design with a 1-wk washout period between treatments."

"Following the whole and blended pecan test meals, plasma concentrations of γ-tocopherols doubled at 8 h (P < 0.001) and hydrophilic- and lipophilic-ORAC increased 12 and 10% at 2 h, respectively. Post whole pecan consumption, oxidized LDL decreased 30, 33, and 26% at 2, 3, and 8 h, respectively (P < 0.05), and epigallocatechin-3-gallate concentrations at 1 h (mean ± SEM; 95.1 ± 30.6 nmol/L) and 2 h (116.3 ± 80.5 nmol/L) were higher than at baseline (0 h) and after the control test meal at 1 h (P < 0.05). The postprandial molar ratio of MDA:triglycerides decreased by 37, 36, and 40% at 3, 5, and 8 h, respectively (P < 0.05), only when whole and blended pecan data were pooled. These results show that bioactive constituent of pecans are absorbable and contribute to postprandial antioxidant defenses.
In summary, this randomized crossover trial showed that when pecans are consumed, their catechin monomers, of which EGCG is the most available, are absorbed. The plasma concentration of γ-tocopherol and ORAC activity increased, whereas oxidized LDL and the ratio of MDA:triglycerides decreased following pecan consumption. Whether the improvement in antioxidant status is due to γ-tocopherol, catechins, or both acting in synergy remains to be determined.

Acknowledgments"

 

[Giraffe]

Sadly your link doesn't work, I landed on the Washingtonpost haha. "Support great journalism" and I have to pay for it.

You didn't see by chance the two other links that are in that mini thread?

40 Yr-old Study On Fats Resurfaces In BMJ

 

[Nuancé]

You didn't see by chance the two other links that are in that mini thread?

40 Yr-old Study On Fats Resurfaces In BMJ

No I didn't, really. But again, I saw all these controversies on epidemiological studies as I said, it's just another among a lot. Or on vegetable oils (corn, soybean, sunflower, etc), not on whole foods that I mention. That's why I think it's good to focus on intervention studies made on whole foods, rather than associations or focus on oil, whether it is saturated fat oil or polyunsaturated fat.

Can we discuss about nuts reducing MDA, oxidized LDL.. ?

 

[Maljam]

It would be nice if they did, but I don't think they should have to.

So in your eyes anyone could make up absolutely anything, and when pressed for a source to verify their claims, or for others to learn, it's perfectly acceptable to just simply not post it? I could say sugar is the root of all disease and keep spouting it around the forum, and you wouldn't want me to post evidence? For a community so based on scientific studies this seems very strange. Peat has pages upon pages of references following his articles.

It can be almost impossible for someone to find a study based on a paraphrased sentence written on a forum and immeasurably useful for a member to reply with the source, how can anyone learn anything if people just talk at one another with no proof?

I had searched for the "fat increases serotonin" study several times on Google and was coming up with nothing I felt was relevant, and then to keep seeing it posted on the forum it kept making me want to read it, I don't think it is such a crime of all crimes that I ask where the information came from.

 

[Maljam]

I also have to say I find it very odd that no less than 3 members are questioning me for asking a member to post proof of the claim that "saturated fat increases serotonin" but none of them think to question something that is so directly contradictory to the work of the person this forum is about. Mind boggling.

 

[Nuancé]

I think it's best to keep PUFA low, but in my personal experience I've seen most improvement from focusing on gut health, avoiding foods that triggers intestinal inflammation, fermentation, gas and bloating. Don't know if it's a completely accurate analogy but I think of PUFA as the raw material/kindling needed for inflammation but the spark has to come from somewhere first, which I believe to be mainly endotoxin driven.

Good post from @tca300 log:

After elimination of all foods that caused bloating/gas/allergy, along with making sure of adequate nutrition, I had zero symptoms that would suggest the need of any support from Thyroid, Pregnenolone, Progesterone, and or DHEA.

I think too many people focus on PUFA and are convinced that there is a separation of purely good and purely bad foods and neglect symptoms of bloating, gas, and or allergy. All those things will interfere with good thyroid function, which can cause people to give up because they have been eating low PUFA and consuming a equal or greater amount of calcium in relation to phosphorus etc, etc..

Serotonin, Nitric Oxide, Parathyroid Hormone, Histamine, Prolactin, Estrogen, Adrenaline, Cortisol, Reverse T3, as well as others can all fire off directly or indirectly from things that cause gas, bloating, and or allergy, irregardless of low PUFA consumption.

It's a contextual thing, and each individual would need to experiment with foods to see which ones cause symptoms and which ones dont. Committing to a legitimate elimination experiment.

I restricted PUFA for roughly a decade and only made partial improvements. Focusing on gut health as well, made me realize that there were many more improvements to be made and that I had been missing pieces to my health puzzle the whole time.

ME: Do you think its possible that if someone has been chronically eating foods they are allergic or sensitive to that the body might defensively lower thyroid function? When I avoid foods that I believe I'm allergic or sensitive too, my temperature rises dramatically, as well as my sense of wellbeing. Thanks!

Ray Peat: The stress hormones produced by allergy cause the liver to convert thyroxine to reverse T3, lowering thyroid function, apparently in a kind of defensive semi-hibernation.


ME: Do you think if a specific food causes gas/bloating for an individual that its best avoided? And one should stick to foods that dont give those symptoms? Thank you!

Ray Peat: Yes. Everyone has different intestinal bacteria, and their reactions are affected by foods. If there are nutritional deficiencies, more foods can cause problems, because digestion is less efficient. Vitamin D and thyroid are especially important for digestion.

I've not dig deeper on gas/bloating but that's interesting. What are your thoughts and Peat thoughts on fibers for example ? Their consumption should be low, high ? A lot of studies mention the beneficial effects of beta-glucane in some grains, inulin in some tubers and vegetables, pectin in fruits, the famous carrot and bamboo fiber, raffinose in sweet potatoes and cruciferous vegetables can irritate a bit...

What is your way on focusing on gut health globally ? Avoiding "common triggers" like gluten, dairy.. ? I'll be glad to know it. :)

 

[yashi]

I also have to say I find it very odd that no less than 3 members are questioning me for asking a member to post proof of the claim that "saturated fat increases serotonin" but none of them think to question something that is so directly contradictory to the work of the person this forum is about. Mind boggling.

I guess you assume just because someone says something everybody just believes it source-less? He can write whatever he wants, you raised concerns it might not be true. Anyone in the 'audience' can now choose what to believe or if they wanna pursue it further. If someone brings forth more evidence, good, if not, nothing that can be done about it. If it gets out of hand and like excessive trolling lies, then contact the moderation team.

 

[schultz]

So in your eyes anyone could make up absolutely anything, and when pressed for a source to verify their claims, or for others to learn, it's perfectly acceptable to just simply not post it? I could say sugar is the root of all disease and keep spouting it around the forum, and you wouldn't want me to post evidence? For a community so based on scientific studies this seems very strange. Peat has pages upon pages of references following his articles.

It can be almost impossible for someone to find a study based on a paraphrased sentence written on a forum and immeasurably useful for a member to reply with the source, how can anyone learn anything if people just talk at one another with no proof?

I had searched for the "fat increases serotonin" study several times on Google and was coming up with nothing I felt was relevant, and then to keep seeing it posted on the forum it kept making me want to read it, I don't think it is such a crime of all crimes that I ask where the information came from.

Yes, I think people on the forum should be able to say anything without a source. What to do with that information is up to each individual reader. If the person says something without a source then the reader can decide for themselves whether to believe it or not. People say all kinds of crap on the forum and I frequently ignore them. Occasionally people say things I disagree with but I file the information away in my head. Sometimes months or years later when I am reading a study and come across a similar piece of information I then remember what that forum member had said and think "Oh okay, there may be something to that". You don't have to agree or disagree immediately. Sometimes you can just take note of something.

I do agree that finding studies can be very difficult. I've searched countless hours for specific papers before. But you do start to learn what to type in the search box. Like if I type "PUFA health" I'll probably get a bunch of studies showing positive effects of PUFA. If I type "Malondialdehyde health" I'll probably get a bunch of results showing negative effects of MDA, which is made from PUFA. (Sorry if that sounds condescending, I'm just trying to make a point) Also, when you spend a lot of time searching for a study and reading through papers you do learn a lot. It's important for people to do this as it lets them see how studies are designed, how researchers come to conclusions, etc. So spending time trying to verify something can be a positive thing. If you don't find anything then just reply to the person and say "I tried to verify this, but I couldn't find any research on it" If the person doesn't help you out by linking some papers then every other forum member will see that and say to themselves "Okay that guy said something and couldn't back it up, so I will ignore what he said".

You make it seem like the average forum member will just believe everything they read.

I guess you assume just because someone says something everybody just believes it source-less? He can write whatever he wants, you raised concerns it might not be true. Anyone in the 'audience' can now choose what to believe or if they wanna pursue it further. If someone brings forth more evidence, good, if not, nothing that can be done about it. If it gets out of hand and like excessive trolling lies, then contact the moderation team.

Yes this is exactly what I was trying to say but said in a much more efficient way.

I also have to say I find it very odd that no less than 3 members are questioning me for asking a member to post proof of the claim that "saturated fat increases serotonin" but none of them think to question something that is so directly contradictory to the work of the person this forum is about. Mind boggling.

I don't know if this is directed at me. I am not questioning you for asking a member for proof. I think it is good that you are asking for proof. I only replied to you because you said people should be banned for saying something and then not posting a citation. Saturated fat increases serotonin? Yah I'll just ignore that until someone shows me evidence. Wait, I can just ignore things? Yep, I do have that power

Anyway, I hope you don't feel like you're being attacked. Asking for evidence is fine. Saying someone should be banned for not providing evidence is silly. But if they are trolling then that is different. They'd be banned for trolling, not for failing to post evidence.

 

[Maljam]

I guess you assume just because someone says something everybody just believes it source-less? He can write whatever he wants, you raised concerns it might not be true. Anyone in the 'audience' can now choose what to believe or if they wanna pursue it further. If someone brings forth more evidence, good, if not, nothing that can be done about it. If it gets out of hand and like excessive trolling lies, then contact the moderation team.

You are talking in generalisations when I am talking about a specific situation. I think you are missing the context of what he actually said. "Saturated fat raises serotonin."

If you are not asking for a source for that on this forum you don't understand what this forum is about.

 

[Maljam]

Yes, I think people on the forum should be able to say anything without a source. What to do with that information is up to each individual reader. If the person says something without a source then the reader can decide for themselves whether to believe it or not. People say all kinds of crap on the forum and I frequently ignore them. Occasionally people say things I disagree with but I file the information away in my head. Sometimes months or years later when I am reading a study and come across a similar piece of information I then remember what that forum member had said and think "Oh okay, there may be something to that". You don't have to agree or disagree immediately. Sometimes you can just take note of something.

I do agree that finding studies can be very difficult. I've searched countless hours for specific papers before. But you do start to learn what to type in the search box. Like if I type "PUFA health" I'll probably get a bunch of studies showing positive effects of PUFA. If I type "Malondialdehyde health" I'll probably get a bunch of results showing negative effects of MDA, which is made from PUFA. (Sorry if that sounds condescending, I'm just trying to make a point) Also, when you spend a lot of time searching for a study and reading through papers you do learn a lot. It's important for people to do this as it lets them see how studies are designed, how researchers come to conclusions, etc. So spending time trying to verify something can be a positive thing. If you don't find anything then just reply to the person and say "I tried to verify this, but I couldn't find any research on it" If the person doesn't help you out by linking some papers then every other forum member will see that and say to themselves "Okay that guy said something and couldn't back it up, so I will ignore what he said".

You make it seem like the average forum member will just believe everything they read.




Yes this is exactly what I was trying to say but said in a much more efficient way.




I don't know if this is directed at me. I am not question you for asking a member for proof. I think it is good that you are asking for proof. I only replied to you because you said people should be banned for saying something and then not posting a citation. Saturated fat increases serotonin? Yah I'll just ignore that until someone shows me evidence. Wait, I can just ignore things? Yep, I do have that power

Anyway, I hope you don't feel like you're being attacked. Asking for evidence is fine. Saying someone should be banned for not providing evidence is silly. But if they are trolling then that is different. They'd be banned for trolling, not for failing to post evidence.

Who said anyone should be banned? What on earth are you on about? I have never used the word ban on any of my posts, that simply is not true. Please show me which of my posts says he should be banned.

Yes I could ignore someone saying saturated fat increases serotonin, but what if there is something we have all missed out in the research? I am open to having my mind changed by a study and question what I have learned (Why else are we here, a forum that questions the narrative) I am also willing to question the narrative of Peat, but if I don't ask for a study, how can I do that?

 

[Nuancé]

Update on Fermented Cod Liver Oil - The Weston A. Price Foundation

The WAPF article on fermented cod liver oil is interesting. Fermented cod liver oil has a much higher ORAC index than classic cod liver oil, and only one brand, Green Pastures, seems to go rancid if you look at analyses.
I don't want to take it but it's good to look at every point of view, and they seems to argue quite well.

 

[schultz]

Who said anyone should be banned? What on earth are you on about? I have never used the word ban on any of my posts, that simply is not true. Please show me which of my posts says he should be banned.

Yes I could ignore someone saying saturated fat increases serotonin, but what if there is something we have all missed out in the research? I am open to having my mind changed by a study and question what I have learned (Why else are we here, a forum that questions the narrative) I am also willing to question the narrative of Peat, but if I don't ask for a study, how can I do that?

Yes sorry, you didn't say banned. This is what you said...

You can probably guess where this is going, as this is now the fourth time I have asked you to provide a source for this nonsense you keep spouting. I don't think members should be able to repeat information that is false and never provide sources for what they say. Every member should be able to provide sources for things they say upon request. This is peoples health at stake, they rely on factual information.

I guess I assumed that if you had these rules in place and somebody refused to follow them that they would eventually get banned. But I apologize for making the assumption. With that being said, what would the punishment be if people refused to follow the rules you've laid out in the post above? Or were they not intended to be forum rules? Maybe you were just saying it would be nice if members could provide sources? Not that it should be a forum rule?

Like I said, it's great to ask for sources and evidence. I don't have a problem with that, if it's done politely.

 

[Maljam]

Yes sorry, you didn't say banned. This is what you said...



I guess I assumed that if you had these rules in place and somebody refused to follow them that they would eventually get banned. But I apologize for making the assumption. With that being said, what would the punishment be if people refused to follow the rules you've laid out in the post above? Or were they not intended to be forum rules? Maybe you were just saying it would be nice if members could provide sources? Not that it should be a forum rule?

Like I said, it's great to ask for sources and evidence. I don't have a problem with that, if it's done politely.

I think you are misunderstanding my wording but I do see why you thought I meant banned. I wasn't talking about rules or anything like that.

By not allowed I meant more people should be calling them out on the source. I was surprised more people were just "passing by" the posts and as a collective we should be asking for the source. From from start of this all I have said is people should be questioning and asking for sources of information that are new "saturated fat increases serotonin."

Other than posting things which are illegal or extreme abuse I dont think anyone should be banned for anything.

 

[yashi]

You are talking in generalisations when I am talking about a specific situation. I think you are missing the context of what he actually said. "Saturated fat raises serotonin."

If you are not asking for a source for that on this forum you don't understand what this forum is about.

You asked for a source (hence why should anybody else keep posting about it), he didn't provide one. That should be that and there isn't a need for 20 posts about it after that, because of the reasons I outlined. And the readers just have to decide if that information is useful for them or not. At that point any more inquiry just derails the current thread and isn't productive.

 

[schultz]

I think you are misunderstanding my wording but I do see why you thought I meant banned. I wasn't talking about rules or anything like that.

By not allowed I meant more people should be calling them out on the source. I was surprised more people were just "passing by" the posts and as a collective we should be asking for the source. From from start of this all I have said is people should be questioning and asking for sources of information that are new "saturated fat increases serotonin."

Other than posting things which are illegal or extreme abuse I dont think anyone should be banned for anything.

Yah, I was misunderstanding. Sorry about that!

It seems we agree lol.