What "saturated fat" actually is.

monty said:

“Saturated fat” got a bad name because some of the common
saturated fatty acids tend to raise total serum
cholesterol levels (but not necessarily overall
cholesterol in the body) a small amount (especially in
those with levels below 200 orso), though other common
saturated fatty acids tend to lower serum TC. Considering
how people usually eat a variety of foods, the differences
are not often important in the TC context. What’s worse,
however, is that it is now clear (to anyone keeping upwith
the scientific literature) that it is oxidized cholesterol
(perhaps oxidized LDL most of all) that is actually
causing the problems (such as atherosclerosis – a chronic
inflammatory process).

Oxidised LDL is a requirement for atheroma formation as it
is only the oxidised form that is recognised as foreign by
white blood cells and engulfed by them, eventually leading
to them bursting and releasing a mass of peroxidized fat
into the wall of the artery.

Quoted message said:

The reason is that the highly reactive polyunsaturated
fatty acid, known as arachidonic acid (20 carbons long,
but with 4double bonds – super unstable, for those of you
unacquainted with biochemistry), that is in the LDL of
most people (in the sn-2 phospholipid position, to be
precise). Arachidonic acid is easily disturbed and
oxidized in the body (and is the reason why so many people
are taking drugs to knock out the COX-2 pathway, as well
as 5 LOX,which produces LtB4, another major problem-child
of arachidonic acid).

The susceptibility of arachidonic acid to oxidation is a
separate issue from its role as a messenger in the
inflammation pathway. Knocking out COX-2 just means
arachidonic acid stays as arachidonic acid, rather than
being converted to prostaglandins.

Quoted message said:

Now the good news is that if you go on a real
“Mediterranean” diet, with fat coming from eggs, whole
milk dairy, high quality olives and olive oil, and small
amounts of me at from animals that eat grass, not grain,
then you will get the arachidonic acid out of thesn-2
position (it will be replaced by the much more stable
monounsaturated called Mead acid). It takes about 2 years,
give or take several months, but you will then be much
more likely to avoid “chronic disease.” In general,
saturated fatty acids block biochemical reactions.

I've no idea what you mean by this. Saturated fatty acids
don't start free radical chain reactions like unsaturated
fatty acids do, but other than that...

Quoted message said:

Unless you are growing or pregnant, this is what you want.
There will be less genetic transcriptional activity,
meaning less to go wrong, such as cancerous growths. This
is why antioxidants are being pushed on you, because these
substances limit biochemical reactions (to be precise,
they are electron donors, so they “quench” free radicals).

I'm not sure calling random free radical attacks
"biochemical reactions" is very accurate. Biochemical
reactions tend to be deliberate ones in which an enzyme is
involved. Oxidation of fatty acids has no need for an enzyme
and isn't a process your body wants to happen.

MattLB

"monty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

As far as scientific rigor is concerned, you might as well
ignore the phrase ?saturated fat.? This phrase has been
used to describe (in the pronouncements of ?experts? as
well as in ?scientific? experiments and studies) lard,
which is less than 40% SFAs, as well as coconut oil, which
is 92% or more SFAs. Not only that, but the kinds of
saturated fatty acids in lard and coconut oil are quite
different, and each fatty acid has unique physiological
effects. However, only if you bombard cells in a test tube
with massive amounts of one kind of fatty acid does one
usually see any measurable effect (with the major
exception of arachidonic acid, discussed below).
?Saturated fat? got a bad name because some of the common
saturated fatty acids tend to raise total serum
cholesterol levels (but not necessarily overall
cholesterol in the body) a small amount (especially in
those with levels below 200 orso), though other common
saturated fatty acids tend to lower serum TC. Considering
how people usually eat a variety of foods, the differences
are not often important in the TC context. What?s worse,
however, is that it is now clear (to anyone keeping upwith
the scientific literature) that it is oxidized cholesterol
(perhaps oxidized LDL most of all) that is actually
causing the problems (such as atherosclerosis ? a chronic
inflammatory process). The reason is that the highly
reactive polyunsaturated fatty acid, known as arachidonic
acid (20 carbons long, but with 4double bonds ? super
unstable, for those of you unacquainted with
biochemistry), that is in the LDL of most people (in the
sn-2 phospholipid position, to be precise). Arachidonic
acid is easily disturbed and oxidized in the body (and is
the reason why so many people are taking drugs to knock
out the COX-2 pathway, as well as 5 LOX,which produces
LtB4, another major problem-child of arachidonic acid).
Now the good news is that if you go on a real
?Mediterranean? diet, with fat coming from eggs, whole
milk dairy, high quality olives and olive oil, and small
amounts of me at from animals that eat grass, not grain,
then you will get the arachidonic acid out of thesn-2
position (it will be replaced by the much more stable
monounsaturated called Mead acid). It takes about 2 years,
give or take several months, but you will then be much
more likely to avoid ?chronic disease.? In general,
saturated fatty acids block biochemical reactions. Unless
you are growing or pregnant, this is what you want. There
will be less genetic transcriptional activity, meaning
less to go wrong, such as cancerous growths. This is why
antioxidants are being pushed on you, because these
substances limit biochemical reactions (to be precise,
they are electron donors, so they ?quench? free radicals).
A traditional Asian diet, high in coconut oil, or a
traditional African diet, high in palm products (such as
palm kernel oil)are also healthy in this context, though
you?ve got to be moderate with the foods that contain
polyunsaturated fatty acids. While not all of these kinds
of fatty acids are as unstable as arachidonic acid, they
are also very susceptible to free radical degradation in
your body (?in vivo,? as they say), so don?t eat a ton of
fatty fish thinking that this is healthy. A little
unpolluted fish with a lot of coconut or palm product
makes the most sense, if you feel you must eat fish
(shellfish make the most sense). Another interesting
product is tahini (made from sesame seeds) because,
although high in omega 6 polyunsaturates, it has
antioxidants that prevent arachidonic acid from being
created (metabolized) in your body. I would suggest small
amounts of tahini for taste purposes, but not as a dietary
staple. So if anyone can find a scientific paper that can
distinguish all the fatty acids in the diets of at least a
few hundred people, then follow the health of those people
for several decades, I?d like to see it. Most of the
?studies? are based on questionnaires, and make all kinds
of assumptions about what is ?saturated fat? and how much
a person ate. This is the realm of a statistician?s
fantasy, nothing more. While it may be interesting on some
abstract level, it?s close to, if not absolutely worthless
in the context of what an individual (with a unique family
history and personal history) should do. For example, it?s
clear from recent biochemical studies that cholesterol is
protective against cancer and viruses. In recent
Russianstudies, those with high HDL, low LDL, and low TC
are the ones dying of heart attacks. And of course almost
everyone has heard of the ?French Paradox? by now. If you
asked my advice, and I learned that your family had a
history of cancer but n o history of heart disease, I
would tell you that keeping your cholesterol levels high
(such as my last blood test, which was 209 TC, 63 HDL, and
123 LDL), would be best, in light of the recent scientific
papers, as long as you don?t let it get oxidized, either
before you eat it, or after it is circulating in your
body. That?s what the evidence suggests, and that?s all
science is, namely, what the evidence suggests at a given
point in history. You can do your own research on sites
like www.pubmed.comand come to your own conclusions, but
don?t be fooled by studies that begin with assumptions
about concepts that are not even defined, which brings us
back to the fact that ?saturated fat? really doesn?t mean
anything. I guess you could argue that it means a food
that has some amount of at least one saturated fatty acid
in it, butby this definition, almost any food that has
some fat content would be called a ?saturated fat.? Some
on this newsgroup have said that lard is healthy because
it is only about 39% saturated, but that?s precisely why
it?s not healthy. It?s got plenty of polyunsaturates, and
these are the molecules that are susceptible to free
radical degradation (called lipid peroxidation in the
body). If you look at the scientific papers on the
products generated in your body from lipid peroxidation
you had better be wearing adult diapers, because the stuff
damages just about everything it touches, and in major
ways). Since few Americans are eating coconut oil these
days, there are very few foods that are very high in
saturated fatty acids, so the statistical, or
?epidemiological? studies, don?t make much sense at all.
In most of these kinds of studies, if you ate lard (39%
SFAs), you be a ?saturated fat?person, but if you eat the
equal amount of fat from Brazil nuts (24% SFAs), you would
be classified as a ?non-saturated fat? person, even if you
made up the 15% SFAs difference in other foods. Often,
nobody, even other scientists, is allowed to know exactly
how the numbers are crunched. It?s a total scam. In one of
these ridiculous studies, pasted below, they say that
animal fat was not correlated with AD, but that ?saturated
fat? was. Now these are old people in Minnesota or
wherever. Are some of them eating massive amounts of
coconut oil? I contacted the Rush Institute and spoke to a
secretary, who said she would get an explanation for me.
After the second attempt, I gave up ? they must have known
that what they wrote was ludicrous, and just hoped I
wasn?t a big-time journalist who would make them look
stupid in a major newspaper. When you eat lard, you cook
it, and it?s been lying around for who knows how long
before you even purchased it. There is little if any
antioxidant protection in it. When it gets into your body,
unless you eat a big bowl of blueberries (or something
similar) with it, you?re going to have plenty of lipid
peroxidation in your body. In fact, experiments designed
to see how good a particular herb or spice is in terms of
its antioxdant power use pork sausage, because
peroxidation of these kinds of foods is so quick and
massive. Try the samex experiment with coconut oil and
you?d have to wait years, not minutes or hours, to
determine the differences, because all those saturated
fatty acids in coconut oil don?t allow free radical
reactions to occur. Free radical science has made leaps
and bounds lately, leaving ?medicine? and ?nutrition? in
the dust, and what?s great isthat you can now come to your
own conclusions, if you?re willing to investigate
thoroughly, and with an open mind, the way I did starting
a few years ago. What that study below suggests is that
free radical exposure is the key, though unless they are
willing disclose exactly what they did, there is no way to
be sure. So stop listening to ?experts? who have more
conflicts of interest than the number of stars you can
count in the night sky and you?ll be well on your way to
avoiding ?chronic disease.?

Awsome post. Very informative and full of rationality and
logic unlike most others. All I can say is what took you so
long? There are so many ignorants posting rubbish here its
about time someone else came along to spell it out for them
in such a definitive way. You gave me some new things to
consider as well, many thanks.

I agree 100% with your view of modern medical research. That
is why I appreciate so much the work of honest and ethical
scientists like Mary Enig and Uffe Ravnskov and others
affiliated with THINKS who are working for the benefit of
the public and not their own pocket book. One thing you did
not mention is anything about Trans fat and your thoughts
about it as far as biochemical affects as well as its role
in research on "saturated fat" From my understanding much of
the research on saturated fat is flawed in the ways that you
said but also because much of it involves trans fat that is
not fully disclosed or distinguished by the researchers as
different than other animal fats. What you said about
cholesterol and coconut oil is also right in line with the
views of Uffe Ravnskov and Mary Enig. Mary Enig is also
currently doing some interesting work on coconut oil. What
are your thoughts on that if you are familiar with it.

It is truely amazing what the modern medical industry
can get away with in their cholesterol campeign. Most
people have no clue about how flawed their information
about colesterol dangers are. I have found that if you
truely look at the "risk factors" high cholesterol is
really only a risk factor for about 10% of the
population or less. It is not even a risk factor at all
in the elderly and for most women, in fact those with
HIGH cholesterol end up living longer than those with
low!! And when you consider that 90% or so of all heart
attack patients are elderly it toaly shatters the
"cholesterol theroy" Yet so many of them are taking
statins. It is truely despicable.

coconutoil.comcoconutoil.comOpen ↗