I was going to clean up the following before posting it, but
since Wolfbrother mentioned "trans fats," I decided to go
ahead and post it. I was posting as "nick," so Wolfbrother's
question about where I've been has a simple answer. I had
some viruses, malware, etc. on my system, and that may be
why I can't post from that computer. Anyway, before moving
on to the trans fat post, I'd like to answer Wolfbrother's
other question regarding Enig and the other "cholesterol
skeptics." I sent a study to Uffe, but he said he didn't
understand biochemistry well enough (or something like
that), and that was the extent of any direct contact with
this group. The experiment was done by Parassasi (I think
that's the correct spelling), and it was called something
like "Cholesterol protects the phospholipid bilayer." This
group and I part company with the notion of the
"essentiality" of polyunsaturated fatty acids. I think the
reason why humans can't make PUFAs is due to the simple fact
that they are cytotoxic. I ran across an experiment which in
fact called arachidonic acid "cytotoxic," and other
scientific papers have similar things to say. This means, fo
those who don't know, that arachidonic acid is a kind of
cellular poison. My position is closer to biochemist Ray
Peat's. You can go check out his web site. He has some free
newletters you can read there. I've also run across some
HIV/AIDS studies which demonstrate that cholesterol is
protective, whereas arachidonic acid stirs up viruses. And
there are plenty of papers which show how much damage
arachidonic acid and the other PUFAs can do to you.
In response to MattLB's criticisms to my "saturated fat"
post: I agree with what he said about oxidized LDL, and
thought that I had said basically the same thing, though
there are studies that demonstrate that oxidized HDL causes
serious cellular-level problems as well. The issue of what a
"biochemical reaction" is seems semantic to me, in that if
nearly everyone is loaded with PUFAs, and lipid peroxidation
is inevitable (see Gower's work, starting in the 1970s, for
example, though you can read complete newletters by Peat on
this subject too), then I consider this a "biochemical
reaction." It generates cellular signalling that can lead to
cancer (see Whelan's work, for example), among other things,
but if it's a chemical reaction happening in your body on a
regular basis, I think that's what it should be called. The
last point is most important, so I'll be clear: All people
have a fatty acid in the sn-2 position of "phospholipids,"
and this fatty acid is arachidonic acid, an omege 3 fatty
acid, or the monounsaturated Mead acid. From my reading of
the evidence, if you are a fully-grown adult and you don't
want to get pregnant, then your best bet is to have Mead
acid there. It is more stable - resistant to free radical
attack as well as to minor stresses. Almost all Americans
under the age of 50 or so have arachidonic acid in the sn-2
position, and any little stress releases this fatty acid,
which is converted to an even more unstable molecule, such
as prostaglandin E4. Search for prostaglandin E4 and cancer
and see all the interesting results that are generated. Mead
acid gets converted into different molecules that do the
same sorts of things, but in a much attenuated way. Having
Mead acid instead of arachidonic (only people like Eskimoes
have an omega 3 in the sn-2 position, and they often bled to
death from minor injuries because of the effects of the
omega 3s) would mean that you would be considered "essential
fatty acid deficient," yet when you look at the actual
scientific papers what you find are benefits of this
"condition," not "chronic disease." The papers that purport
to show that such a "deficiency" is unhealthy are outright
moronic. Do the research and decide for yourself. This is
why I'm not a supporter of Enig in every respect. She and
the other skeptics have debunked one myth, but have fallen
for another. Practically, you can't totally avoid PUFAs, but
you want to eat very little, so that Mead acid is used by
your body when it is stressed, instead of arachidonic or an
omega 3. Now on to the original, unedited "trans fat" post.
I've seen a lot of mistakes in the statements posted on this
newsgroup regardingtrans fatty acids. I'll try to simplify
the issue as much as possible. Oils you buyor that are in
products, such as margarine, are composed of many kinds of
fattyacids. Nutritionists and other "experts" like to
classify fatty acids into thecategories "saturated,"
"monounsaturated," and "polyunsaturated." Over the
lastseveral years, many have also talked about the
difference between omega 3 and omega6, which are both
polyunsaturated. This omega 3/omega 6 difference has
beendiscussed mostly in the context of physiological
effects, meaning what the fattyacids actually do inside your
body, and this makes a lot more sense than thethreefold
classification of earlier days. Why? Here's an example:
oleic acid, amonounsaturate (MUFA), found in many food
products (and high in olive oil) is fairlystable, whereas
erucic acid, another MUFA, found in high amounts in rapeseed
oil(which is ofte n used in "junk food"😉 is highly unstable
and has all kinds of strange, destabilizing properties
(something to be avoided, if you know anything about human
physiology). Another point is that some saturated fatty
acids tend to raise total serumcholesterol whereas others
don't. So the point is that you really need to know whatthe
individual fatty acid does before jumping to conclusions,
and there have beenexperiments done (you can find them on
www.pubmed.com) that demonstrate thephysiological properties
of various fatty acids. In general, the biggest problem with
fatty acids is that the polyunsaturates generatefree
radicals in ways that are dangerous to human health – this
is called lipidperoxidation, and the studies/experiments
linking this process to all kinds of"diseases" is
overwhelming. It is the double bonds carbon atoms have with
each otherin these fatty acids that makes them susceptible
to this degradation. It can happento MUFAs too, but it
depends on the actual fatty acids and the conditions
involved (high heat cooking while exposed to air is
generally the worst thing, though some ofthe fatty acids
will be changed into harmless, though nutritionally useless
compoundsby such processes). For the most part, trans fats
are polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) that have
beenchanged, so that they no longer have the biochemical
activity of the PUFAs (cannot bea part of the lipid
peroxidation phenomenon), and are more like saturated
fattyacids, except that they have a twisted shape to them.
PUFAs can be changed in theguts of certain animals, such as
cows, or by the "artificial" hydrogenation processused by
margarine makers. It is true that some of the actual shapes
created in the artificial process are not found in the guts
of animals that make small amounts oftrans fats (you've seen
these sold as CLA – they can be created artificially and
inthe same shape made by animal guts), but I don't know of
any scientific papers thatdemonstrate that these shapes have
different, unhealthy properties, at least in smallamounts
(large amounts of any one thing tend to disrupt
physiological processes, andare like "medicine," and can be
beneficial or not, but it gets ver y complicated, and most
scientific papers only follow people for a short time
period,and often the controls are lacking in one way or
another). If anyone knows of suchpapers, please post a link.
Saturated fatty acids got a bad name because they tend to
raise cholesterol levels abit (not much if at all if your
cholesterol levels are around 200 or higher), but thenew
experiments demonstrate that it is only in the cholesterol
that possessesarachidonic acid in it (which is an omega 6
PUFA) that one needs to worry aboutoxidized cholesterol,
which is the cholesterol that can cause the major
healthproblems. I think some labs like Great Smokey are
doing tests now for oxidizedcholesterol, but nobody (except
me and a few others) tell you that getting thearachidonic
acid out of your body is the only smart way to avoid
"chronic diseases." If you are like most Westerners, you
have ararchidonic acid in the sn-2 position ofyour
phospholipids. What you want instead is Mead acid in this
position, but if you eat too many PUFAs, this is not
possible. In order to achieve this, I have eaten adiet high
in unrefined coconut oil, organic butter, 70% cocoa mass
chocolate, raw go at milk cheese, and organic omega 3 eggs
for the last few years. I can see the difference. For
example, I get bloody noses when I get a cold, and the way
the blood clots isdifferent – quicker. But also the scabs
tend to be rubbery now instead of like ahard plastic. Also,
there is evidence that your body can't fight infections as
wellas it should if there is constant lipid peroxidation
going on, which suggests thatPUFAs are a very bad idea. And
there is plenty of evidence that arachidonic acidenhances
viral activity and may reactive latent viruses such as Epstein-
Barr. And…(do your own research and prove it to yourself).
The "establishment" experts, however, tell you that
arachidonic acid is "essential,"even though there are many
papers that demonstrate benefits from being "essentialfatty
acid deficient." It all comes down to whether the
arachidonic acid is in thephospholipid sn-2 position,
because it's nearly impossible to completely avoid PUFAs(and
your body can make other omega 6 PUFAs into arachidonic
acid, and in fact willdo so if you eat too much omega 6
PUFAs). The experiment that supposedly showed thatPUFAs are
essential was done in 1930 on rats, and before the B
vitamins were known. The rats got no Bs and also no fats.
Since they thought at the time that MUFAs and SFAs were not
essential, they concluded that the problems the rats had
(which we nowknow were due to B deficiency) were caused by
no PUFAs in the diet. Since then, whatyou see are
experiments that show that too much omega 6 PUFAs and very
little omega 3PUFAs cause problems. The omega 3s do
counteract the omeg a 6s (due to competitive enzymatic
inhibition), but this does not mean they are essentialin
some "balanced" intake. All PUFAs are very susceptible to
lipid peroxidation,though some are a bit worse than others.
Now, Mary Enig and many other well-intentioned scientists
argue that trans fats willderange your lipid bilayers, but
Gilbert Ling (his A-I hypothesis) debunks thisnonsensical
idea in several books he has written. When a margarine is
created,usually an oil such as soy is used. It has to be
partially hydrogenated, or else itwill not have the
properties of what most people think of as margarine. If
almostall the PUFAs were hydrogenated, it would be somewhere
between cold butter and candlewax in its consistency, but
what is desired is something that is like warm butter, even
when it's in the refrigerator, and that means only some of
the PUFAs can be hydrogenated, hence the phrase "partially
hydrogenated." Interestingly, the notionof a lipid bilayer
surrounding cells makes absolutely no sense when you think
aboutany fatty acids. The contention is that around each
cell is a "wall" which is twomolecular layers thick and made
up of fatty acids. Now the pressures and st resses that many
cells contend with every moment are like getting hit in the
head with abaseball bat swung by Mike Piazza at full
strength. Imagine smearing fat on yourselfbefore getting hit
with that bat. It would do nothing for your, and would get
easilypushed aside. Proteins are what can be used by animals
to create very strong,durable structures, like horns/antlers
or silk, for instance. Plants make hardstructures from
carbohydrates. Fatty acids are structurally pathetic. The
longchain SFAs in candle wax are strong under limited
circumstances, as are the PUFAs inoil paintings (and oil
paintings form that hard varnish quality due to lipid
peroxidation, and it takes a long time). Other than these
kinds of limited examples(none of which could function as
"cell walls" due to electrolyte transport and otherreasons),
fatty acids just get pushed around, stored up, or changed
into othermolecules (called lipid peroxidation products, and
also things like prostaglandins when the body is stressed).
One person here posted that the jury is still out on fatty
acids(or something like that), but the evidence is probably
as clear as it is ever goingto get. The problem is that the
"experts" are reading textbooks that are out ofdate, when
instead they should be reading the scientific journals that
are breakingnew ground every day, such as Free Radical
Biology and Medicine, which you can readif you go to
www.sciencedirect.com (the abstracts are free). What is true
of trans fatty acids is that they tend to interfere with the
signalingof other fatty acids (PUFAs especially), but this
is often a beneficial thing (and isalso generally true of
saturated fatty acids as well) because arachidonic acid
tendsto be too easily changed into highly reactive (often
dangerous) metabolites with justa little stress, and this is
why CLA is being pushed by the supplement companiesthese
days (I don't like the idea because it's not like eating raw
goat cheese, forexample, but hits the body with a
pharmacological dose rather than a physiologicaldose, and
hence can be too harsh). Basically, unless you are pregnant
or growing,you want to keep the biological activity in your
body to a minimum, and if you've gotarachidonic acid in the
sn-2 position, this is very difficult to achieve – any
littlestress and your body is doing damage to itself. A good
recent paper (2001) waswritten by Watkins, et. al., entitled
"Bioactive fatty acids role in bone biology," and here the
point is made that the CLA in butter counteracts the
negativeeffects of arachidonic acid on bone formation. Of
course, my point is that if youdon't have the arachidonic
acid in you in the first place (the phospholipid sn-2
position, that is), then you don't need to worry about this
sort of thing at all,though a problem that afflicts some
people is that they don't have enough stomachacid, and hence
don't absorb calcium as well as others, but that is another
story… In Gower's "A role for dietary lipids and
antioxidants in the activation ofcarcinogens," (1998), it
is, however, noted that: "The MFO [mixed-function
oxidasesystem] is affected only marginally by the geometry
of the dietary polyunsaturatedfats," so this may be the
reason why trans-fats are problematic in specific contexts.
In particular, Gower mentions that a 1975 experiment
demonstrated how dangerousarachidonic acid is in the
transformation of common pollutants into
powerfulcarcinogens. Scary stuff, and why hasn't the media
given this the same coverage asnonsense like the Da Vinci
Code Diet, or whatever the hell it's called? Gower doesnote
that all this is contingent upon the fatty acid composition
of "cell membranes,"which is the key point. Get the
arachidonic acid out of there, get the Mead acid in,and all
the problems with pollution, mercury in fillings, iron in
processed food,etc., become much smaller in scope, both
qualitatively and quantitatively. As he says: "Unprotected
PUFAs [stored in your tissues] undergo peroxidation which
can beinitiated by intracellular free radicals produced in
small amounts under normalcircumstances or by a wide variety
of environmental toxins…" Gower isn't alone –Braganza,
Spiteller, Ray Peat, most of the scientists publishing in
Free RadicalBiology & Medicine journal, et. al. – all are
making the same point, in one way or another. Knock out the
PUFAs and the "chronic diseases" become minor or non-
existent. But perhaps we shouldn't do this, because then the
poor, little pharmaceutical corporations might not make
massive profits, and their CEO's mightonly make a few
million dollars a year. We couldn't allow that to happen,
now couldwe?