Re: Tell me what is wrong with this "study."

Mr-Natural-Health said:

montygram said:

but I want to keep this to an examination of
the report only.

Why?

The full text of the study is available for free online. I found
nothing glaringly wrong with the full text study itself. My only
complaint is that you should not be calling the new oil: Sunflower oil.
It kind of strikes me as using a blend of canola and olive oil in
order to get more PUFAs. I also question whether or not the average
American diet contains so much MUFAs.

Where is the full text available free?

Dr. Zarkov said:

Quoted message said:

The full text of the study is available for free online.

Where is the full text available free?

http://www.adajournal.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=as0002822305004839

Mr-Natural-Health said:

Dr. Zarkov said:

Quoted message said:

The full text of the study is available for free online.

Where is the full text available free?

http://www.adajournal.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=as0002822305004839

Thanks. I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the study either. It
is limited by the limited time frame and number of subjects.
I think it is oil from a hybrid sunflower plant that was developed to
contain that ratio of fatty acids. That's OK, but it would have been
nicer to have some omega-6.

Note also in the results that the total/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios were not
changed by either diet. And those are really the most important
parameters. And there was a trend (though not significant) for improved
lipid profile with olive oil, which is about what I would expect.

Dr. Zarkov said:

Mr-Natural-Health said:

Dr. Zarkov said:

> The full text of the study is available for free online.

Where is the full text available free?

http://www.adajournal.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=as0002822305004839

Thanks. I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the study either. It
is limited by the limited time frame and number of subjects.
I think it is oil from a hybrid sunflower plant that was developed to
contain that ratio of fatty acids. That's OK, but it would have been
nicer to have some omega-6.

[Sorry, I meant to say to include some omega-3 fatty acids. It is 32.6%
C18:2 (omega-6), but with no omega-3.

Quoted message said:

Note also in the results that the total/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios were not
changed by either diet. And those are really the most important
parameters. And there was a trend (though not significant) for improved
lipid profile with olive oil, which is about what I would expect.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:22:23 -0400, Dr. Zarkov wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

[Sorry, I meant to say to include some omega-3 fatty acids. It is 32.6%
C18:2 (omega-6), but with no omega-3.

By the way, what do you make of this article, saying that "Over the past
100-150 y there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of n-6
fatty acids due to the increased intake of vegetable oils from corn,
sunflower seeds, safflower seeds, cottonseed, and soybeans. Today, in
Western diets, the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids ranges from
{approx}20-30:1 instead of the traditional range of 1-2:1."...?

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/560S
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 560S-569S,
September 1999
© 1999 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
Supplements
Essential fatty acids in health and chronic disease1,2
Artemis P Simopoulos

1 From The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, DC.

Human beings evolved consuming a diet that contained about equal amounts of
n-3 and n-6 essential fatty acids. Over the past 100-150 y there has been
an enormous increase in the consumption of n-6 fatty acids due to the
increased intake of vegetable oils from corn, sunflower seeds, safflower
seeds, cottonseed, and soybeans. Today, in Western diets, the ratio of n-6
to n-3 fatty acids ranges from {approx}20-30:1 instead of the traditional
range of 1-2:1. Studies indicate that a high intake of n-6 fatty acids
shifts the physiologic state to one that is prothrombotic and
proaggregatory, characterized by increases in blood viscosity, vasospasm,
and vasoconstriction and decreases in bleeding time. n-3 Fatty acids,
however, have antiinflammatory, antithrombotic, antiarrhythmic,
hypolipidemic, and vasodilatory properties. These beneficial effects of n-3
fatty acids have been shown in the secondary prevention of coronary heart
disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and, in some patients with renal
disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Most of the studies were carried out
with fish oils [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid
(DHA)]. However, {alpha}-linolenic acid , found in green leafy vegetables,
flaxseed, rapeseed, and walnuts, desaturates and elongates in the human
body to EPA and DHA and by itself may have beneficial effects in health and
in the control of chronic diseases.
[...]

Enrico C said:

By the way, what do you make of this article, saying that "Over the past
100-150 y there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of n-6
fatty acids due to the increased intake of vegetable oils from corn,
sunflower seeds, safflower seeds, cottonseed, and soybeans. Today, in
Western diets, the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids ranges from
{approx}20-30:1 instead of the traditional range of 1-2:1."...?

That is the primary argument against increasing the amount of PUFAs in
your diet.

Contrary to what the former study says the importance of PUFA for
cholesterol lowering is laughable. The natural method of controlling
cholesterol is with fiber from fruits, vegetables, and whole grains
along with regular exercise.

NuSun sunflower oil, however, might be interested in the commerical
market as an alternative to the hydrogenation of oil. I wouldn't object
to the commerical use of NuSun sunflower oil if it means less trans fat.

Quoted message said:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/560S

This is a great reference! I have added it to my website at:
http:/naturalhealthperspective.com/supplements/prevention.html

The topic of your post comes under "High rates of Prostanoid /
Eicosanoid Synthesis."

I developed a table of acceptable dietary ranges at:
http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/dgtable.html
quite a few years ago. The acceptable range of PUFAs, just like any
Macronutrient, is quite limited. Since you are likely to be already
consuming excessive amounts of Omega-6's, if you want to increase your
PUFAs you would do so only by way of adding Omega-3's. Eat fish and or
flaxseed. If you want to add flax oil directly to your diet than that
would preclude any cooking.

The last thing that nybody should want to do is to add more sunflower
PUFA cooking oil to their diet. If you are interested in that
approach, then why not just use a health grade Canola oil? Or, perhaps
a blend of olive and Canola? By far, an virgin olive oil is the
healthiest oil to add to your diet, IMHO, because it will mostly be
adding MUFAs to your diet.

Here again, if commercial food processors want to use this new oil,
that might actually be quite beneficial since most people have to
include some type of process food in their diets.

The same thing often happened in my classes, that is, students would
"go off on a tangent," and often miss the "big picture." My take on
the "conspiracy" notions is that these people are too conventional in
their thinking for it to cross their minds. They are just going along
with the system, and indeed it is corrupt, as all social arrangements
are to one degree or another. All you have to do is listen to the
evening news for a few days, and you hear these guys contradict each
other, and sometimes even themselves. It's truly laughable - better
than anything on Comedy Central, unfortunately, for those who listen to
them.

Now on to the science of the study. I'll just make a few observations
for now (since there are always follow-ups):

How did they come to the conclusion that a "mixture" is best?
Olive oil did nothing good, according to them, so why bother with it at
all? How can one say that there were no adverse effects? Does heart
disease develop in 4 weeks? They don't seem to realize that there
comes a time when the antioxidant resources of the body reach a
breaking point, and then serious damage occurs, often as a low-grade,
chronic inflammatory process. They talk of a typical American diet
that is higher in fat, but that almost certainly means a higher
consumption of PUFAs. They also don't seem to realize that low
quality olive oil is just about as bad as any of the high PUFA oils,
especially if those oils are fresher. Did they run a Rancimat
experiment to determine the susceptibility of the various major fatty
acid sources to free radical degradation? If not, there is no way to
predict which oils will cause more oxidative stress than another oil,
and thus thee is no reason to be surprised at the readings for the
markers of oxidative stress. It is a function of the quality of the
oil, as well as the number of double bonds (as well as other, usually
lesser, factors), which they don't seem to understand, though it's
basic biochemistry. What we see here is a concern with markers that
are out of date. Markers for oxidative stress may or may not be
useful, because a healthy body can cope with rancid lipids for a while,
but the key is how the body reacts years or even decades later. LDL
cholesterol is very healthy - people die of low LDL (mostly of
cancer, stroke, and shock from injury), but if it's oxidized then all
bets are off, and there is no way to determine whether high or low LDL
will result in higher mortality. The evidence varies greatly, as has
been demonstrated by detailed examinations of the studies (see More's
"Heart Failure" for a good examination that is not too technical).
Fortunately, it does seem that the tide is turning. A couple of months
ago, an AHA spokesman stated that only oxidized cholesterol is a
problem, and a couple of days ago, there was this report in the local,
mainstream newspaper (though the reporter clearly is using several key
terms in confusing ways):

Fat levels tied to heart disease

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 7, 2005

New research gives the first solid evidence that a type of fat in the
bloodstream can trigger the earliest steps that lead to clogged blood
vessels, the top cause of heart attacks.

If further research bears this out, people might someday be tested for
this fat, just as they are for cholesterol now, to see if they're in
danger of having a heart attack. The study found that levels of the fat

strongly correlated with the risk of heart disease, especially in
people under age 60.

"It is an important study," said Judith Berliner, a professor of
medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who had no role
in the research but wrote an editorial accompanying it in today's New
England Journal of Medicine.

Doctors say the findings give people another reason to limit fat in
their diets.

No one really knows what causes the formation of blockages, which can
squeeze blood vessels shut and deprive the heart of nourishment.

"Most of the studies in the past have revolved around cholesterol," but

other factors also must be involved because cholesterol levels are
normal in many heart attack victims, Berliner said.

Scientists have long suspected that one such factor might be oxidized
phospholipids, a type of fat that's a major component of LDL or "bad
cholesterol." Research in animals has found that this fat, floating in
the bloodstream, contributes in many ways to blockage formation. The
new research, led by Dr. Sotirios Tsimikas at the University of
California, San Diego, is the first to show the same is true in people.

Tsimikas studied 504 people being tested for clogged arteries.

Among those 60 or younger, people with the highest levels of oxidized
phospholipids were three times more likely to have blockages than those

with the lowest levels.

Those who had high phospholipids and high cholesterol were at even
greater risk. Getting a measurement of the level of this fat must be
done separately from tests for total cholesterol and LDL.

More research of phospholipid levels in all types of people is needed,
said Dr. Sidney Smith, director of the center for cardiovascular
diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and past
president of the American Heart Association.

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-hshart074333752jul07,0,1689927.story

montygram said:

consumption of PUFAs. They also don't seem to realize that low
quality olive oil is just about as bad as any of the high PUFA oils,
especially if those oils are fresher. Did they run a Rancimat

YES, that could explain why the olive oil diet in this study was not
very effective.

Did they use a dark green olive oil which would indicate a high
antioxidant content or was it a golden brown colored oil? Was the
olive oil extra virgin, virgin, or only a very low grade oil? It was
almost certainly not cold pressed. The study, like the most of the
vitamin E studies, was conveniently silent as to the specifics of what
olive oil was actually used, as if that fact was totally insignificant.

On 10 Jul 2005 16:09:33 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

montygram said:

consumption of PUFAs. They also don't seem to realize that low
quality olive oil is just about as bad as any of the high PUFA oils,
especially if those oils are fresher. Did they run a Rancimat

YES, that could explain why the olive oil diet in this study was not
very effective.

Did they use a dark green olive oil which would indicate a high
antioxidant content or was it a golden brown colored oil? Was the
olive oil extra virgin, virgin, or only a very low grade oil?

I don't know.

Anyway, as a bit of maybe useful information, if you buy Italian olive oil
and it just says "olio d'oliva", then it contains mostly the refined type,
not my favorite one!
The 100% extra virgin olive unrefined oil, instead, has "extra vergine"
written on its label [and, according to this Italian web page,
http://www.aziendabettini.com/legislazione_olio.htm , if it's "extra
vergine" that also implies it's cold-pressed].

All that applies for Italian products, other countries may have different
laws on olive oil labelling.

Quoted message said:

It was
almost certainly not cold pressed.

Probably.

Here is an Italian web site about the different methods for cold-pressing
olive fruits (in Italian "spremitura", that is to say "squeezing"😉
http://www.aziendabettini.com/spremitura.htm
It says that, by law, cold pressing of olive fruits has to be made at no
more than 27 degrees Centigrade.

Quoted message said:

The study, like the most of the
vitamin E studies, was conveniently silent as to the specifics of what
olive oil was actually used, as if that fact was totally insignificant.

And, on the other side, they used a quite special type of "sunflower oil"
😉