Need Help With Lowering Estrogen Even More

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
EnoreeG said:
This is because, unlike Peat, I think it's the oxidation of PUFA that is the problem, not the fresh PUFA. ]

I like hearing these arguments For fresh pufa too, E.
And I like hearing pboy's pro fresh pufa views.

I still avoid them like the plague.
Here's the thing on the fresh-is-okay argument for me:
Peat talked about this principle in discussing fish oil...

It is a complicated area,
but I'm pretty sure that Peat thinks
the fresher the pufa the more evil it is.
At least that is what I'm pretty sure he thinks about fresh fish oil pufa.
He said...maybe it was an interview...
that fish oil usually was not as dangerous as the seed oils
because it--the fish oils--was most often broken down already when consumed.
And while the breakdown fish oil products were bad,
he seemed to be saying that the fresher fish oil, the less oxidized, would be more dangerous.

I am open to arguments saying fresh pufa is okay. :)
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,359
Location
USA
:1 :yeahthat :goodpost
 

Gl;itch.e

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
732
Age
41
Location
New Zealand
I fail to see how the "freshness of pufa" makes any relevant difference when its pufas oxidation in the body we are trying to avoid. Peat has mentioned that pufa that has already oxidized is less likely to be stored and will be likely burned off.
 
OP
Peata

Peata

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
3,402
narouz said:
Peata said:
My own experience: I've had the IBS dx most of my life. High OR low fiber, I've had chronic diarrhea in both times. No SIBO (tested). Antibiotics make the diarrhea worse/come back. Pepto Bismol clears up the diarrhea.

Peata-
How long does the Pepto Bismol fix hold?

Last time it held until I had to take more antibiotics recently. I waited a little to see if the diarrhea would go away with time, but it hasn't, so I'm treating it with Pepto.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I agree fresh PUFA is also likely to be a problem, not just the stale/rancid/oxidised stuff. But I'm not currently willing to be so strict with myself as to worry about very small quantities, if I really want to eat something. I eat way, way less PUFA than I used to.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
narouz said:
EnoreeG said:
This is because, unlike Peat, I think it's the oxidation of PUFA that is the problem, not the fresh PUFA. ]

I like hearing these arguments For fresh pufa too, E.
And I like hearing pboy's pro fresh pufa views.

I still avoid them like the plague.
Here's the thing on the fresh-is-okay argument for me:
Peat talked about this principle in discussing fish oil...

It is a complicated area,
but I'm pretty sure that Peat thinks
the fresher the pufa the more evil it is.
At least that is what I'm pretty sure he thinks about fresh fish oil pufa.
He said...maybe it was an interview...
that fish oil usually was not as dangerous as the seed oils
because it--the fish oils--was most often broken down already when consumed.
And while the breakdown fish oil products were bad,
he seemed to be saying that the fresher fish oil, the less oxidized, would be more dangerous.

I am open to arguments saying fresh pufa is okay. :)

Hey narouz,

I'm not about to comment about something you think Peat said without seeing the quote from Peat. Especially "the fresher the PUFA, the more evil".

There's a lot to confound the debate, talking apples and oranges. I always find Peat's discussion on PUFA very lacking in the finer details of exactly what he believes. His followers are left to make their own conclusions.

Some conclude that all PUFA is bad, and not only that, but that it is actually possible to eliminate it from the diet. More or less the other extreme, here on the forum, is those of us who know we've taken care of 98% of the problem if we eliminate the factory-formed PUFA from our diet, because that is 98% of what the average, un-aware bloke is consuming in the way of PUFA. That's the seed oils used for frying, mayonnaise, salad dressings, packaged baked goods, even breads. This is PUFA that is all not "fresh" as in whole fresh food, so the "fresh" issue hasn't even entered the equation yet. I totally support this reasoning to get rid of the gross amounts of PUFA from the diet.

I won't comment on fish oil vs seed oil because I think commercial seed oil is all bad, and I have no idea what people mean when they just say "fish oil". Fish? Fresh fish? Fish oil? I happen to think it makes a big difference, but generally (for other reasons than just the oil) I don't eat fish. I definitely don't take fish oil supplements, though I did up until about 3-4 years ago.

I might talk more on PUFA in response to later posts in this thread, but I won't say anything relative to Peat here, as we don't have a quote. I think he's right to focus people on PUFA. I just feel I have to look for guiding details elsewhere.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Gl;itch.e said:
I fail to see how the "freshness of pufa" makes any relevant difference when its pufas oxidation in the body we are trying to avoid. Peat has mentioned that pufa that has already oxidized is less likely to be stored and will be likely burned off.

Wow, that's amazing if Peat said that. I hadn't heard or read of that before. Please provide a reference if you can find it!

Also, do you have a reference for "PUFA oxidation in the body"?

From what I've read, the reason already externally oxidized PUFA is a risk, is that it may NOT be immediately burned, but instead used in cell membranes. You won't hear much on this from Peat because he seems to reject the whole idea of cellular and mitochondrial membranes. But generally, traditional, non-Peat science says there is a membrane around each cell, and it is made up of a bilayer consisting of both PUFA and saturated fats. The Saturated fat gives the strength, the PUFA gives the permeability. Things need to go in and out but be regulated and measured. Peat says this is done without the use of a membrane. Membrane science says you need the PUFA. Brian Peskin says if you ingest adulterated PUFA, your body may not know it needs to burned or discarded but will install it into your cell membranes as part of the exchange system. The problem is, the oxidized PUFA (or even MUFA may be used if there is a shortage of PUFA) will not do any work. It just sits there, taking up space and reducing the cell's ability to breath, and move things across the membrane boundary. The more ruined you have in your cells in total, the poorer your metabolism. Worst case, you reach a level of only 30% effective PUFA (the rest oxidized), and the cell must resort to fermentation for metabolism. This is the cancerous state. But way before that, you have ill health. This is the story of PUFA utilization.

Now something that doesn't get mentioned much by either Peat or traditional science, but seems to be a factor in all this, is that unoxidized PUFA, once installed in a usable place in the body, such as in a cell membrane, or in the brain (DHA is heavily resident there) is very resistant to oxidation. It's part of the system. Sure, old cells need replacing, and the new cell may use new PUFA. But generally, PUFA can last and last. Read about brain development. Until very recently, it was believed that brain cells don't get replaced. Now it is conceded that they do, but at a very slow pace. So every one of us has a boatload of DHA in our brains that has been there since infancy. We all get most of our DHA (PUFA) in our brains in the womb, or in the first 2 years after birth. Ideally it comes from the mother's milk. Let's face it. It's part of the design of the human body. To say that PUFA oxidizes when installed in the brain is a little far-fetched. I'm thinking it also has quite a long life when installed in other cells also.

The other story is PUFA storage. Peat talks a lot about excess PUFA going into storage and then needing to be purged. My assumption is that if PUFA goes to storage, it is as a last resort - when there is too much. Because the primary fats for burning are MUFA and saturated fats and the primary fat for cell membranes is PUFA.

But people eating too much fat and can't either burn or otherwise utilize it, will send it to fat cells, just as they send sugars to fat cells via triglycerides. I assume PUFA brought out of storage would be a free fatty acid and would go straight to a cell to be burned, which would eliminate it from the body. But I agree with Peat that if you minimize PUFA so you have no excess, you don't even have to worry about PUFA in storage. This may be an ideal state.

For anyone interested in reading more on DHA accumulation and utilization in the brain and eyes and how it is primarily accumulated during infancy:

The Role of DHA and ARA in Infant Nutrition

For anyone interested in how much PUFA you get from meats, and that it is really dependent on how that animal was raised, check this, showing that lard (mostly saturated fat) can vary from 3% PUFA to 32% PUFA depending on how the pig is fed:

The trouble with Pork (omega-6)

For anyone interested in the raging debate on PUFA, on hearing several side, including links to statement by Ray Peat, Brian Peskin, and WAPF writers Mary Ineg, Chris Masterjohn, this forum posting is quite entertaining:

Forum Topic -- PUFA
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
EnoreeG said:
Hey narouz,

I'm not about to comment about something you think Peat said without seeing the quote from Peat. Especially "the fresher the PUFA, the more evil".

There's a lot to confound the debate, talking apples and oranges. I always find Peat's discussion on PUFA very lacking in the finer details of exactly what he believes. His followers are left to make their own conclusions.

Some conclude that all PUFA is bad, and not only that, but that it is actually possible to eliminate it from the diet. More or less the other extreme, here on the forum, is those of us who know we've taken care of 98% of the problem if we eliminate the factory-formed PUFA from our diet, because that is 98% of what the average, un-aware bloke is consuming in the way of PUFA. That's the seed oils used for frying, mayonnaise, salad dressings, packaged baked goods, even breads. This is PUFA that is all not "fresh" as in whole fresh food, so the "fresh" issue hasn't even entered the equation yet. I totally support this reasoning to get rid of the gross amounts of PUFA from the diet.

I won't comment on fish oil vs seed oil because I think commercial seed oil is all bad, and I have no idea what people mean when they just say "fish oil". Fish? Fresh fish? Fish oil? I happen to think it makes a big difference, but generally (for other reasons than just the oil) I don't eat fish. I definitely don't take fish oil supplements, though I did up until about 3-4 years ago.

I might talk more on PUFA in response to later posts in this thread, but I won't say anything relative to Peat here, as we don't have a quote. I think he's right to focus people on PUFA. I just feel I have to look for guiding details elsewhere.

Yeah, Enoree, that discussion from Peat about fresh fish oil,
it came from an interview.
I believe I have it in my notes somewhere,
so maybe I can turn it up.

Reason I remember it pretty well is
that, at that era on the forum, we had a lot of posts all about:
what is worse? seed oils or fish oils, n-3s or n-6s?
At the time were mostly just settled on
"they're all bad,
so don't even worry about it."

But because it was in the air and I had it in the forefront of my brain,
I really paid close attention when Peat talked about the exact subject.

The gist, as I said,
was that the fish oils--talking mostly about the supplements so popular--
would most often already be a little rancid
or a lot rancid.
And so they would contain what Peat refers to as "breakdown products."

Now...I think I'm right on this...I believe those breakdown products
are what Peat ascribes the short-term anti-inflammatory effect of fish oil to.
I guess it is a little like a vaccination, viewed from a particular immunological perspective
(I think Peat has referred to it as the "danger theory" of immunology
but maybe also as the "injury theory" of immunology--
different than the mainstream take on how the immune system operates...)
in that, often bad/toxic/irritating stuff is thrown in with the biological part
of the vaccine.
And those dangerous or injurious adjuvants stimulate a response from the organism
(not, technically I don't think, the immune system, in Peat's view)
which temporarily reduce inflammation.
But in the long term...very bad for health.

I remember thinking, at the the time,
"Oh, that is how I so efficiently poisoned myself!"
Because I bought the most expensive, freshest fish (well, krill) oil available.
And took it in mass quantities! :cry:
Along with giant doses of expensive, high-quality algae--
the PUFA source the damn krill/fish eat to store their bountiful PUFA!

So...I'm probably lucky to be alive,
and I'm dang scared of PUFA!
I know it can't be completely avoided.
Peat agrees and makes no secret about that.
He just thinks one should keep consumption to as close to zero as possible.
Sometimes it's a trade-off.
Eggs, for instance, have a lot of great nutrients.
But also some PUFA.

But, even with something like greens,
he mentions it is best to remove the PUFA as much as possible.
Kinda a finer/abstruse Peat point here.
But I think he may mean that,
if you want to drink the cooking water of the greens ("pot liquor" to us Southerners)
you should probably put it in the fridge, let the PUFA collect at the top, and skim.

What are your sources of fresh PUFA that you enjoy eating and believe to be healthy?
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
EnoreeG said:
For anyone interested in the raging debate on PUFA, on hearing several side, including links to statement by Ray Peat, Brian Peskin, and WAPF writers Mary Ineg, Chris Masterjohn, this forum posting is quite entertaining:

Forum Topic -- PUFA
Had a quick look at this. Peskin's response to Peat's arguments seems to be that Peat's view of the cancer-promoting effects of 'EFA's is insane because Peat refers to scientific studies, rather than 'medical science'. And 'medical science' shows that PUFAs are ubiquitous in all tissues. So Peskin thinks it is therefore obvious that they must be essential.

I would think that an argument like that could be used to show that any number of ubiquitous poisons are 'essential'. Take a hundred city dwellers, and conclude that lead is essential, or maybe some of the persistent organic pesticides.

He also fails to address Peat's point that there have been fat-free diets on which animals showed improvements.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
I hope you're not right, E, about the PUFA staying in the brain forever. :shock:

The general rule of thumb in PeatLand,
and worthy of a certificate from Peat himself if pboy is telling the truth!,
is that the complete turnover of PUFA in the body
is about 4 years,
depending of how much fat one has.

He didn't say 4 years
except for the brain PUFA,
that stays forever. :D
So...I hope you're wrong on this. :)

It does make me think of the French experiment Peat talked about in an interview, though.
In that experiment
some frenchies somehow got the idea in their head
that the best brains are the ones with a lot of PUFA in them.
So they fed babies a lot of PUFA.
But, sadly, it resulted in stupid babies.
I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but that is the long and short of it.

Which makes me wonder:
where did those french experimenters get the idea about good brain = PUFA brain
in the first place?

Now...thinking back on it...
it may've been in the same interview
that Peat said
if you take most modern brain
and analyze the contents
you will find a lot of "chicken fat and fish oil."

But that does not, from Peat's view, provide a basis for saying
that the best brains are PUFA brains.
On the contrary,
Peat sees that as evidence of the sad massive consumption of chicken fat and fish oil
in our modern, fallen world. :cry:
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
narouz said:
EnoreeG said:
Hey narouz,

I'm not about to comment about something you think Peat said without seeing the quote from Peat. Especially "the fresher the PUFA, the more evil".

There's a lot to confound the debate, talking apples and oranges. I always find Peat's discussion on PUFA very lacking in the finer details of exactly what he believes. His followers are left to make their own conclusions.

Some conclude that all PUFA is bad, and not only that, but that it is actually possible to eliminate it from the diet. More or less the other extreme, here on the forum, is those of us who know we've taken care of 98% of the problem if we eliminate the factory-formed PUFA from our diet, because that is 98% of what the average, un-aware bloke is consuming in the way of PUFA. That's the seed oils used for frying, mayonnaise, salad dressings, packaged baked goods, even breads. This is PUFA that is all not "fresh" as in whole fresh food, so the "fresh" issue hasn't even entered the equation yet. I totally support this reasoning to get rid of the gross amounts of PUFA from the diet.

I won't comment on fish oil vs seed oil because I think commercial seed oil is all bad, and I have no idea what people mean when they just say "fish oil". Fish? Fresh fish? Fish oil? I happen to think it makes a big difference, but generally (for other reasons than just the oil) I don't eat fish. I definitely don't take fish oil supplements, though I did up until about 3-4 years ago.

I might talk more on PUFA in response to later posts in this thread, but I won't say anything relative to Peat here, as we don't have a quote. I think he's right to focus people on PUFA. I just feel I have to look for guiding details elsewhere.

Yeah, Enoree, that discussion from Peat about fresh fish oil,
it came from an interview.
I believe I have it in my notes somewhere,
so maybe I can turn it up.

Reason I remember it pretty well is
that, at that era on the forum, we had a lot of posts all about:
what is worse? seed oils or fish oils, n-3s or n-6s?
At the time were mostly just settled on
"they're all bad,
so don't even worry about it."

But because it was in the air and I had it in the forefront of my brain,
I really paid close attention when Peat talked about the exact subject.

The gist, as I said,
was that the fish oils--talking mostly about the supplements so popular--
would most often already be a little rancid
or a lot rancid.
And so they would contain what Peat refers to as "breakdown products."

Now...I think I'm right on this...I believe those breakdown products
are what Peat ascribes the short-term anti-inflammatory effect of fish oil to.
I guess it is a little like a vaccination, viewed from a particular immunological perspective
(I think Peat has referred to it as the "danger theory" of immunology
but maybe also as the "injury theory" of immunology--
different than the mainstream take on how the immune system operates...)
in that, often bad/toxic/irritating stuff is thrown in with the biological part
of the vaccine.
And those dangerous or injurious adjuvants stimulate a response from the organism
(not, technically I don't think, the immune system, in Peat's view)
which temporarily reduce inflammation.
But in the long term...very bad for health.

I remember thinking, at the the time,
"Oh, that is how I so efficiently poisoned myself!"
Because I bought the most expensive, freshest fish (well, krill) oil available.
And took it in mass quantities! :cry:
Along with giant doses of expensive, high-quality algae--
the PUFA source the damn krill/fish eat to store their bountiful PUFA!

So...I'm probably lucky to be alive,
and I'm dang scared of PUFA!
I know it can't be completely avoided.
Peat agrees and makes no secret about that.
He just thinks one should keep consumption to as close to zero as possible.
Sometimes it's a trade-off.
Eggs, for instance, have a lot of great nutrients.
But also some PUFA.

But, even with something like greens,
he mentions it is best to remove the PUFA as much as possible.
Kinda a finer/abstruse Peat point here.
But I think he may mean that,
if you want to drink the cooking water of the greens ("pot liquor" to us Southerners)
you should probably put it in the fridge, let the PUFA collect at the top, and skim.

What are your sources of fresh PUFA that you enjoy eating and believe to be healthy?

Hey, narouz, you still don't have the original quote or interview here, but you've at least told me that the subject Peat addressed was fish/krill supplements, not whole fish or the oil that is in the fish.

I agree totally that, as you say "...was that the fish oils--talking mostly about the supplements so popular--
would most often already be a little rancid or a lot rancid."


Way after I quit taking fish oil supps, I read recently that all the popular brands were tested by an independent lab and over 60% were found to be different degrees of rancid. This is totally believable because there's a lot of processing going on to just get the EPA and DHA out of virgin fish oil (separately, BTW), then recombined in a little capsule. Then you have lots of time and light exposure before the capsules are ingested.

Yes, if you took a lot of this, you were not helping yourself at all in the long run, though you might have gotten some benefit from something short term.

As to which is most bad for the body, fish oil or other refined PUFA, I don't think it matters. I run away from just about anything that is aged, but do eat some frozen foods now and then. The details don't matter much if you are avoiding all potentially aged PUFA, but it happens that omega-3 (from fish and other sources) is more perishable than omega-6, thus oxidizes quicker. And the DHA and EPA they derive from the parent omega-3 is more perishable still! So in that way, DHA for example, as a supplement is something to run most speedily away from, since how will you know the "quality" of a particular brand of fish oil?

None of this addresses your conclusion to avoid all PUFA to follow Peat though. Obviously, from my previous writings, I don't get involved with that endeavor. Everything that has life in it has PUFA. Has had for millions of years. Parent omega-6 (Linoleic acid) and Parent omega-3 (alpha Linolenic acid) are coming to us from all plants and all animals. I don't care what theories you subscribe to, the substances are there. You can consider them toxins if you wish, but they are passed on from generation to generation in all mammal milk, and persist forever in your brain. From these parent substances, your body has enzymes that allow it to derive valuable substances that are essential to your metabolism and immune system. But it turns out animals cannot produce 1 molecule of either Linoleic acid or alpha Linolenic acid.

Yep, they could be toxins, but all plants make them from scratch (they aren't pulled up from the soil or in from the air) and animals can't produce them at all, but have enzymes that process them, not so the derived products can be excreted, but so the derived products can be utilized. Sort of a strange situation if these are toxins.

So I'll leave this proof of toxicity to Peat and his followers and not even worry about PUFA as long as it is from fresh food, in the natural small quantities that it always arrives in. All the foods Peat recommends have PUFA. They just have less than other foods. It's something you can't avoid if you want to live.

So what are my fresh sources? Everything I eat. I only try to avoid spoiled PUFA. I don't fry foods, hardly ever, even in coconut oil. Any cooking is done on low heat. Boiling/steaming is idea. Roasting is ideal for a large piece of meat. All this because I do think that heat/light/time are the things that degenerate PUFA, and I don't really want oxidized PUFA in me.

The other aspect on the side of those of us who don't want oxidized PUFA but welcome fresh PUFA is that we embrace the idea that omega-6 and omega-3 are functional in all organisms (plants and animals). Not just as fuel, but as providers of a cell's ability to exchange nutrients with the outside, and providers of derived substances such as arachadonic acid and eicosanoids which are signalling molecules used throughout the plant/animal body. It would be quite a strange situation if what is considered on one hand to be a "toxin" actually has in plants and animals all these enzymes and total organs dependent on this "toxin" for their operation.

You might read more on this here regarding some derivatives of PUFA that are called Eicosanoids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosanoid

Where one statement says: "Eicosanoids are not stored within cells, but are synthesized as required. They derive from the fatty acids that make up the cell membrane and nuclear membrane."

If you reduce your PUFA too low, you are bringing this whole, plant/animal wide physiology to a halt within your body. You might want to read further on this issue.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
tara said:
EnoreeG said:
For anyone interested in the raging debate on PUFA, on hearing several side, including links to statement by Ray Peat, Brian Peskin, and WAPF writers Mary Ineg, Chris Masterjohn, this forum posting is quite entertaining:

Forum Topic -- PUFA
Had a quick look at this. Peskin's response to Peat's arguments seems to be that Peat's view of the cancer-promoting effects of 'EFA's is insane because Peat refers to scientific studies, rather than 'medical science'. And 'medical science' shows that PUFAs are ubiquitous in all tissues. So Peskin thinks it is therefore obvious that they must be essential.

I would think that an argument like that could be used to show that any number of ubiquitous poisons are 'essential'. Take a hundred city dwellers, and conclude that lead is essential, or maybe some of the persistent organic pesticides.

He also fails to address Peat's point that there have been fat-free diets on which animals showed improvements.

I'm so glad you at least looked at that last link, tara! So many people respond without even checking out the links provided by others.

Please read my previous response to narouz. There's something there about this issue of toxins.

Also, I wrote there about what are known as the "essential oils", or PUFA, which in this current Peat/Peskin/others link above quotes Peat as saying:

Ray Peat said:
However, we are able to synthesize our own unsaturated fats when we don't eat the "EFA," so they are not "essential." The term thus appears to be a misnomer. [M. E. Hanke, "Biochemistry," Encycl. Brit. Book of the Year, 1948.]

I think this 67 year old citation by Peat is a real weakness and needs to be updated or his stance on essentiality needs to be changed in his current discussions.

- - -

Yes, a fat-free diet can show improvement. So can a carb-free or water-free or even a total-fast diet. For how long? I would be a total believer in possibilities for a fat-free, or at least a non-saturated fat-free diet for a period of time, especially for those who have taken in way too much PUFA over a long period of time. When anyone has way too much PUFA, they got it from refined sources and it probably means they are also polluted with all kinds of other manufactured, ruined things and toxins. We all know fasting works in such cases, why not just a fast off of PUFA? Fine by me. I expect people should get better by doing such a diet in those circumstances. I'm not saying Peat is misdirecting people to take on a diet of this or that kind for a period of time.

I do think that, as you said on another thread we've shared, that people need a diet that suits their condition (I believe it was on an estrogen thread where the discussion had morphed to be about gut health) and that when Peat gives advice, sometimes it is for a particular person's current condition. It certainly should be. As we know, when people change conditions, they often need a change in diet. Especially if their previous diet was purely to remedy a condition. Why not allow, the both of us, that a fat-free diet is a temporary diet? That's certainly my position. I change my diet mindfully almost monthly as I learn things and see my conditions changing. I hope you, Peat and others also do that. Thus, I don't consider a fat-free diet that can help improve a condition to be necessarily a diet that one can live on forever. It's just an effective diet for a time, right?
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
EnoreeG said:
narouz said:
EnoreeG said:
Hey narouz,

I'm not about to comment about something you think Peat said without seeing the quote from Peat. Especially "the fresher the PUFA, the more evil".

There's a lot to confound the debate, talking apples and oranges. I always find Peat's discussion on PUFA very lacking in the finer details of exactly what he believes. His followers are left to make their own conclusions.

Some conclude that all PUFA is bad, and not only that, but that it is actually possible to eliminate it from the diet. More or less the other extreme, here on the forum, is those of us who know we've taken care of 98% of the problem if we eliminate the factory-formed PUFA from our diet, because that is 98% of what the average, un-aware bloke is consuming in the way of PUFA. That's the seed oils used for frying, mayonnaise, salad dressings, packaged baked goods, even breads. This is PUFA that is all not "fresh" as in whole fresh food, so the "fresh" issue hasn't even entered the equation yet. I totally support this reasoning to get rid of the gross amounts of PUFA from the diet.

I won't comment on fish oil vs seed oil because I think commercial seed oil is all bad, and I have no idea what people mean when they just say "fish oil". Fish? Fresh fish? Fish oil? I happen to think it makes a big difference, but generally (for other reasons than just the oil) I don't eat fish. I definitely don't take fish oil supplements, though I did up until about 3-4 years ago.

I might talk more on PUFA in response to later posts in this thread, but I won't say anything relative to Peat here, as we don't have a quote. I think he's right to focus people on PUFA. I just feel I have to look for guiding details elsewhere.

Yeah, Enoree, that discussion from Peat about fresh fish oil,
it came from an interview.
I believe I have it in my notes somewhere,
so maybe I can turn it up.

Reason I remember it pretty well is
that, at that era on the forum, we had a lot of posts all about:
what is worse? seed oils or fish oils, n-3s or n-6s?
At the time were mostly just settled on
"they're all bad,
so don't even worry about it."

But because it was in the air and I had it in the forefront of my brain,
I really paid close attention when Peat talked about the exact subject.

The gist, as I said,
was that the fish oils--talking mostly about the supplements so popular--
would most often already be a little rancid
or a lot rancid.
And so they would contain what Peat refers to as "breakdown products."

Now...I think I'm right on this...I believe those breakdown products
are what Peat ascribes the short-term anti-inflammatory effect of fish oil to.
I guess it is a little like a vaccination, viewed from a particular immunological perspective
(I think Peat has referred to it as the "danger theory" of immunology
but maybe also as the "injury theory" of immunology--
different than the mainstream take on how the immune system operates...)
in that, often bad/toxic/irritating stuff is thrown in with the biological part
of the vaccine.
And those dangerous or injurious adjuvants stimulate a response from the organism
(not, technically I don't think, the immune system, in Peat's view)
which temporarily reduce inflammation.
But in the long term...very bad for health.

I remember thinking, at the the time,
"Oh, that is how I so efficiently poisoned myself!"
Because I bought the most expensive, freshest fish (well, krill) oil available.
And took it in mass quantities! :cry:
Along with giant doses of expensive, high-quality algae--
the PUFA source the damn krill/fish eat to store their bountiful PUFA!

So...I'm probably lucky to be alive,
and I'm dang scared of PUFA!
I know it can't be completely avoided.
Peat agrees and makes no secret about that.
He just thinks one should keep consumption to as close to zero as possible.
Sometimes it's a trade-off.
Eggs, for instance, have a lot of great nutrients.
But also some PUFA.

But, even with something like greens,
he mentions it is best to remove the PUFA as much as possible.
Kinda a finer/abstruse Peat point here.
But I think he may mean that,
if you want to drink the cooking water of the greens ("pot liquor" to us Southerners)
you should probably put it in the fridge, let the PUFA collect at the top, and skim.

What are your sources of fresh PUFA that you enjoy eating and believe to be healthy?

Hey, narouz, you still don't have the original quote or interview here, but you've at least told me that the subject Peat addressed was fish/krill supplements, not whole fish or the oil that is in the fish.

I agree totally that, as you say "...was that the fish oils--talking mostly about the supplements so popular--
would most often already be a little rancid or a lot rancid."


Way after I quit taking fish oil supps, I read recently that all the popular brands were tested by an independent lab and over 60% were found to be different degrees of rancid. This is totally believable because there's a lot of processing going on to just get the EPA and DHA out of virgin fish oil (separately, BTW), then recombined in a little capsule. Then you have lots of time and light exposure before the capsules are ingested.

Yes, if you took a lot of this, you were not helping yourself at all in the long run, though you might have gotten some benefit from something short term.

As to which is most bad for the body, fish oil or other refined PUFA, I don't think it matters. I run away from just about anything that is aged, but do eat some frozen foods now and then. The details don't matter much if you are avoiding all potentially aged PUFA, but it happens that omega-3 (from fish and other sources) is more perishable than omega-6, thus oxidizes quicker. And the DHA and EPA they derive from the parent omega-3 is more perishable still! So in that way, DHA for example, as a supplement is something to run most speedily away from, since how will you know the "quality" of a particular brand of fish oil?

None of this addresses your conclusion to avoid all PUFA to follow Peat though. Obviously, from my previous writings, I don't get involved with that endeavor. Everything that has life in it has PUFA. Has had for millions of years. Parent omega-6 (Linoleic acid) and Parent omega-3 (alpha Linolenic acid) are coming to us from all plants and all animals. I don't care what theories you subscribe to, the substances are there. You can consider them toxins if you wish, but they are passed on from generation to generation in all mammal milk, and persist forever in your brain. From these parent substances, your body has enzymes that allow it to derive valuable substances that are essential to your metabolism and immune system. But it turns out animals cannot produce 1 molecule of either Linoleic acid or alpha Linolenic acid.

Yep, they could be toxins, but all plants make them from scratch (they aren't pulled up from the soil or in from the air) and animals can't produce them at all, but have enzymes that process them, not so the derived products can be excreted, but so the derived products can be utilized. Sort of a strange situation if these are toxins.

So I'll leave this proof of toxicity to Peat and his followers and not even worry about PUFA as long as it is from fresh food, in the natural small quantities that it always arrives in. All the foods Peat recommends have PUFA. They just have less than other foods. It's something you can't avoid if you want to live.

So what are my fresh sources? Everything I eat. I only try to avoid spoiled PUFA. I don't fry foods, hardly ever, even in coconut oil. Any cooking is done on low heat. Boiling/steaming is idea. Roasting is ideal for a large piece of meat. All this because I do think that heat/light/time are the things that degenerate PUFA, and I don't really want oxidized PUFA in me.

The other aspect on the side of those of us who don't want oxidized PUFA but welcome fresh PUFA is that we embrace the idea that omega-6 and omega-3 are functional in all organisms (plants and animals). Not just as fuel, but as providers of a cell's ability to exchange nutrients with the outside, and providers of derived substances such as arachadonic acid and eicosanoids which are signalling molecules used throughout the plant/animal body. It would be quite a strange situation if what is considered on one hand to be a "toxin" actually has in plants and animals all these enzymes and total organs dependent on this "toxin" for their operation.

You might read more on this here regarding some derivatives of PUFA that are called Eicosanoids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosanoid

Where one statement says: "Eicosanoids are not stored within cells, but are synthesized as required. They derive from the fatty acids that make up the cell membrane and nuclear membrane."

If you reduce your PUFA too low, you are bringing this whole, plant/animal wide physiology to a halt within your body. You might want to read further on this issue.

I enjoy hearing your arguments on behalf of fresh PUFA, Enoree.
It is such a central Peat tenet,
so it deserves to be explored and re-explored, in my opinion.

I have little scientific, biochemical training,
so I rely upon interpreters.
Peat is one upon whom I rely heavily
but I don't like to treat his interpretations as written in stone,
the word of God made visible and permanent. :)

I guess, as a lover of fresh PUFA,
you might like to regularly eat fresh salmon or Patagonia Toothfish (Chilean Sea Bass)?
And you might like to eat a lot of very fresh walnuts, almonds, pecans, etc?
And very fresh avocados?
If you were traveling in the Middle East,
and you saw them actually harvesting the sesame seeds
and making it into tahini,
you would enjoy that in large amounts on a daily basis?
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
narouz said:
I hope you're not right, E, about the PUFA staying in the brain forever. :shock:

The general rule of thumb in PeatLand,
and worthy of a certificate from Peat himself if pboy is telling the truth!,
is that the complete turnover of PUFA in the body
is about 4 years,
depending of how much fat one has.

He didn't say 4 years
except for the brain PUFA,
that stays forever. :D
So...I hope you're wrong on this. :)

It does make me think of the French experiment Peat talked about in an interview, though.
In that experiment
some frenchies somehow got the idea in their head
that the best brains are the ones with a lot of PUFA in them.
So they fed babies a lot of PUFA.
But, sadly, it resulted in stupid babies.
I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but that is the long and short of it.

Which makes me wonder:
where did those french experimenters get the idea about good brain = PUFA brain
in the first place?

Now...thinking back on it...
it may've been in the same interview
that Peat said
if you take most modern brain
and analyze the contents
you will find a lot of "chicken fat and fish oil."

But that does not, from Peat's view, provide a basis for saying
that the best brains are PUFA brains.
On the contrary,
Peat sees that as evidence of the sad massive consumption of chicken fat and fish oil
in our modern, fallen world. :cry:

All brains have about the same amount of DHA and EPA (and small amounts of other PUFA that other cells have). All this heavy load of DHA was installed during fetal development (3rd trimester) and during the first 2 years post-partum. It's part of your genetics. Mothers pass it down through their milk after birth. Non-nursed babies glean it from any foods/formula they take in, increasing it quite rapidly until they are over 2 years old. You don't really have control of it. You can't control it with diet very well. If you manage to put a neonate on such a diet that restricts PUFA that much, you will have a brain-deficient animal. All the rat tests I know of that remove fats use rats that are juvenile to adult, but not infants. Rats have developed their brain after infancy.

In this link:
http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf

You will find:

Brain is the fattiest organ of the body. Almost two-
third of the weight of the human brain is accounted by
phospholipids. DHA is the predominant structural fatty
acid in the brain which is mostly distributed in the
cerebral cortex, membranes of synaptic communication
centers, mitochondria and photoreceptors of the retina.
13
It comprises approximately 40% of the PUFAs in the brain
and 60% of PUFAs in the retina. Almost 50% weight of
the neuronal membranes is accounted by DHA.


You will also find there how infants pack in the fats, including lots of PUFA during their first 2+ years.

Though infants can get DHA and other PUFA from formula, I would never suggest formula be selected over breast milk. As for any "manufactured foods" there are risks. Vendors are totally not careful enough and get all kinds of things past the FDA:

Suspect ingredients in baby formula

Just because PUFA is essential doesn't mean all sources are equally healthy.
 

Nicholas

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
666
this is truly a fascinating thread and i agree with many things said by EnoreeG & Narouz. I couldn't help but think of the Clara Davis study yet again amidst all the debate....which is reflective of my mind sometimes - that sort of "trying to make sense of it" and you find yourself hanging onto statements of others which causes stress....*****BECAUSE***** your gut knows that you have detached from it.....you have sold out to thinking more than feeling.....not trusting that your body and your body alone can give all the direction and research needed.

This is really profound and it always comes back to this: "You think you are the host and "host" implies control. No. You have no control. Relinquish the control. The best you can do is bring the right food to the little beasts and they will do the rest, including building you a good immune system." - EnoreeG

When you stop trusting your body and think it's out to get you or that it is *prone* to dysfunction...if we step away from that truly daring place in modern life of just throwing all you have researched and studied to the wind, then that knowledge never becomes useable.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
OK, I will just summarize what I have seen/read and combine with what I have gotten from Peat.

1. The argument for PUFA being essential is not only wrong, it is obsolete. New evidence has accumulated since the 1930s when the single study "proving" PUFA being essential was conducted. I am not even mentioning the fact that basing public health/nutrition policy on a SINGLE study almost 100 years old is highly irresponsible, even if that study was legit. Many other studies have come out since then that invalidate much of the original claims of PUFA being "essential". While Peat does cite an old study, I have posted several threads on this forum showing that as recently as 1990s there were studies saying that PUFA is at best semi-essential and its daily dietary "requirements" come down to no more than 0.5% of calories. So, at the very least we have an upper bound on how essential PUFA is - i.e. if you are eating more than 1g-2g of PUFA daily at best you are not getting any benefit and at worse you are increasing the risk of cancer.

2. PUFA and its derivative eicosanoids and leukotrienes, are the major pathway to inflammation. Peat has written that his view is quite contrary to the medical dogma in the sense that he does not think there is a "healthy" level of inflammation. As far as I can see from his articles, and he is pretty explicit on this one, he thinks the lower the inflammation the healthier the organism. As such, restricting PUFA (and depleting iron, tryptophan, etc) is perhaps THE definitive approach to controlling inflammation rather than rely on later factors in the cascade such as taking aspirin to combat inflammation. The eicosanoids/leukotrienes are the major trigger of histamine/serotonin/estrogen synthesis and release and without them, histamine/serotonin/estrogen become a much smaller burden on the organism.

3. PUFA directly inhibit cytochrome C oxidase, unlike SFA and MUFA. In addition, PUFA are directly estrogenic by activating aromatase, again, unlike MUFA and SFA.

4. PUFA are a major inhibitor of the protective steroid pathways, especially 5-AR, but at the same time are activators of 11b-hydroxylase and aldosterone synthase. So, PUFA tend to shift the steroid pathway towards the end products cortisol, estrogen and aldosterone.

5. PUFA activate TPH, which synthesizes serotonin from tryptophan. As such, PUFA are a major metabolic inhibitor. Combined with the fact that they also promote estrogen and cortisol I am not sure there is another substance that can rival PUFA in terms of metabolism inhibition with the possible exception of ionizing radiation, which mimics PUFA effects on the body remarkably well. So, maybe the next time somebody wants to make an argument in favor of PUFA, try to think of a way to frame radiation in a positive light. If you can give me an argument for radiation, then I will listen to the argument in favor of PUFA.

6. Animals depleted in PUFA have uncoupled respiration and their metabolism and their oxygen consumption is about 70% higher than "normal" animals. The same effect was observed with people who got accidentally depleted in PUFA. You may argue for PUFA all you want, but even mainstream medicine wisened up to the fact that uncouplers are a viable treatment of several (maybe all) degenerative diseases. Go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for "uncoupler" or "uncoupling" and you will see for yourself. So, if having super fast metabolism is viable treatment for many diseases of old age and maybe aging itself then why on Earth would anybody want to consume a well-known metabolic inhibitor.

7. PUFA are immunosuppressive. This is such common knowledge that there are even several established products on the medical market based on a combination of linoleic and linolenic acid that is given IV to organ transplant patients. As far as I know the daily dose is 20g, and even though it is given IV the effects from oral intake are very similar. This should not come as a surprise given how much PUFA boosts cortisol production. Anything that suppresses your immune system chronically is likely to result in cancer in the long run.

8. PUFA is one of the main inhibitors of endogenous cholesterol synthesis. In fact, to this day this is one of their main selling point, especially the EPA/DHA kind. Anything that suppresses your cholesterol synthesis increases the risk of cancer. Statins are major carcinogen, not to mention their link to diseases like ALS and other muscular distrophies. If statins and PUFA work similarly on cholesterol and muscle then I am not sure what person in their right mind would want to load up on PUFA given the several class action lawsuits against statins and their connection to ALS, dementia, liver failure, etc.

9. PUFA is insanely hepatotoxic. I must have posted at least 10 studies on this one. Saturated fat is so far the only known substance shown to reverse chirrosis in both humans and animals. High dose vitamin K2 (MK-4) and caffeine have similar effects but probably can't fully match effects of saturated fat on fibrotic tissue. Not even acetaminophen comes close to the toxicity of PUFA to things like cytochrome P450 and glutathione reserves.

Finally, if you have read enough studies, and especially if you have worked with some sick people to see what got them better and what got them worse, then you should have enough information to decide if you want to deplete PUFA or not. Experiment is the ultimate arbiter and no amount of bickering and arguments and studies will make a difference. So, for anybody who wants to finally clear up any doubts on whether Peat is right about his stuff or not - in as little as 3-4 weeks of low fat diet, you can find out for yourself and then no amount of arguments from me or anybody else would matter.
 
Last edited:

robertf

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
65
Anyone want to comment on why Budwig got good results with flax oil stabilized with sulfur compounds in quark? Lots of people cured of cancer, also lots of counfounding other variables.
 

HDD

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,075
Ray Peat's reply:

Q: Why does the Budwig diet against cancer have so much use when they use Omega 3 oils, when RP has concluded the PUFAs are not good for us?

RP IN 1954, a professor from the university of Guadalajara, had an article in Prevention managzine, describing his success for using a purge for his laxative patients to get their intestine clean, this has been known for 3000 years that laxatives are helpful for cancer patients, because of the amont of toxins in the intestine. He used a cup of linseed or flaxseed oil, it would rush right through and clean out the intestine. Until that tine, Johanna Budwig had published as co-author of a couple of articles in a soap and fat journal, and wasn’t doing anything unconventional. Right after that article came out in Prevention Magazine, she started developing her theory of n-3 Fats, my theory was that she had gone insane when she stopped being a resea4ch assocaiate for the soap professor, and shortly after that several little booklets came out, published by a Disney subsid describing her theory in crazy terms. Anyone who is intetested in doing hr program, should get a look at those books, because they were radically changed when presented in English to make it sound way more sane than they were. Her diet consisited of mostly cottage cheese, or the equivalent curds, because of the low iron content and cottage cheese (both milk and cottage cheese are very good protective foods for people with cancer), fruits and milk because o f the low iron content, are good for cancer patients, but I think as far as the flaxseed oil can work as a laxative, it is beneficial, but when it is working as a food then it has the risk of suppressing your metabolism
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom