Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

10

Is there no such thing as NADS any more? Today's post by Stephan Guyenet addresses seed oils. It seems that his focus has been on causes of obesity and he is taking down the NADs one at a time. Are we confusing the causes of obesity with the causes of the diseases of civilization? I am certainly confused. There were some good posts asking about inflammation that he may answer in the future. What do you think about seed oils in the diet? I thought there was plenty of evidence that these contributed to inflammation, etc.

edited Aug 23 2011 at 2:02

Paul
10.6k●2●12●57

asked Aug 23 2011 at 1:56

nancy64
1,398●3●16

11

I think if he really wants to understand fat people, he should focus on fat people instead of rats. – The Loon Aug 23 2011 at 5:17

1

Totally agree with this.....but that is much tougher to do. Rats present few problems but their biology does not come close to ours. Same for any rodent. – The Quilt Aug 23 2011 at 12:14

@nancy64 and All: "I'm not saying that seed oils aren't harmful, this post was specifically about body fatness. I still believe in the diseases of civilization." Posted by Stephan in his questioon responses for the cited post. August 23rd, 2011 @ 11:24AM – Atkins-witha-loincloth Aug 23 2011 at 19:38

@Stephan Your comment to Chris Kessler "the basis for saying that n-6 causes inflammation is mostly hypothetical" sounds as if you are questioning more than n-6 just as a cause for obesity. That is my confusion. Are seed oils a cause of inflammation? – nancy64 Aug 23 2011 at 22:24

sorry should be CHRIS KRESSER. at least I think that is who you were responding to in your comment section – nancy64 Aug 23 2011 at 22:33

show 1 more comment

Bread-Eating Beelzebub · Answer 1 · 2011-08-23 02:18:38Z UTC

17

It might not make you fat, but it sure as heck can make you sick.

answered Aug 23 2011 at 2:18

Bread-Eating Beelzebub
55.6k●9●62●236

4

That's a point I've been focusing on throughout the latest paleo community dramas. A lot of people are focused on what does and doesn't make you fat, and it's easy to forget that we don't avoid all foods because of their fat-inducing qualities, but rather because they're not good for you in other ways. Too much of this community is built around weight loss, when the central theme should be overall health (weight loss being a component thereof for some people). – WyldKard Aug 23 2011 at 12:50

3

But the sickenss can include fatty liver from n6/fructose/alcohol - which seems implicated in insulin resistance (along with magnesium deficiency). Insulin resistance (and the associated leptin resistance) clearly lead to obesity. I think SG has gone off the deep end, as interesting as his palatability hypothesis is. – Dave S. Aug 23 2011 at 13:05

1

You can have fatty liver and be thin. I have family members with fatt liver who are pretty lean. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Aug 23 2011 at 13:14

1

And a host of other problems as well. My adoptive mom is quite slender, yet has heart failure, hypertension, colitis, and diabetes. – Rose Aug 23 2011 at 13:49

Eric · Answer 2 · 2011-08-23 02:28:00Z UTC

3

Metabolic Disease is a main cause of diseases of civilization of which obesity is one of them. Modern oils are the cause of much disease with their high PUFA levels.

edited Aug 23 2011 at 2:28

answered Aug 23 2011 at 2:05

Eric
22.5k●1●17●68

Atkins-witha-loincloth · Answer 3 · 2011-08-23 07:30:42Z UTC

I don't think Stephan is letting the the O6/O3 ratio off the hook at all.

The following is my interpretation:

He's saying that he can't find any evidence that O6 fats, as the dominant fat/oil source in industrialized food like substances/combos is any more fat promoting than animal based fats would be if replaced as the dominant fat in frankenfoods.

The door is still wiiiiiiiiiiiide open re: dominant O6 in diet and diseases of civilization and for other industrial ingredients contributing to same, as well as the whole or sum of all the industrialized ingredients resulting in fat promotion.

Other possible pictures exist -

For instance, if O6 seed oils in industrialized food combos (think inner grocerstore aisles and all kinds of meal bars, for instance) were replaced with animal source fat, do we think those products would be inherently less fattening?

On the other hand, might it be possible, in one of these bars that is say all fruit, some macadamias and lots of sugar, stuck together with animal fat instead of seed oil fat,that it would infact STILL promote fatness but be far less implicated with autoimmune disorders and some other DOC?

We'll say for the sake of argument that the same bar exists with only fruit, macadamia nuts, sugar and soybean oil. Might this bar also equally promote fatness, but also put one at greater risk for some autoimmune and other DOC?

And lets not forget about all the additional soup of chemicals in both bars, independent of either type of fat, that may be fat and disease promoting.

I agree that FAT (basically of any kind) +SUGAR is an excellent fattening combo from a food reward standpoint as well as a caloric and carbohydrate/insulin theory standpoint, nevermind which kind of fat it is.

From an autoimmune (and other DOC as well) promotion standpoint, I'd stick with animal based fat. :)

The Quilt · Answer 4 · 2011-08-23 02:38:13Z UTC

2

Plenty of them. Fibromyalgia, MS, ALS, AD, SLE, Guillian Barre, Sporadic Inclusion Body Myositis......plenty of them but no one is talking about them Their incidences are growing at exponential rates. And they are commonly seen with other neolithic diseases.

answered Aug 23 2011 at 2:38

The Quilt
27.4k●1●13●82

2

You may have misunderstood the question. (Either that, or I did.) Neolithic agents of disease (as opposed to diseases of civilization) are commonly thought to be added sugar (especially fructose), seed and vegetable oils, and wheat. – maurile Aug 23 2011 at 3:45

You might realize this but those diseases I mentioned all are caused in some fashion by those agents – The Quilt Aug 23 2011 at 11:39

But there's a difference between a disease, on the one hand, and an agent of disease, on the other. The original question asked about the latter. – maurile Aug 24 2011 at 19:03

The Loon · Answer 5 · 2011-08-23 04:53:06Z UTC

To me, the whole issue is irrelevant. Since I have switched from a vegetarian diet, I have no use for seed oils. There is plenty of fat for cooking attached to meats. I used to be a huge fan of butter, and rarely eat it anymore either. Soybean oil would not add any variety or interest to my diet at this point.

andrew · Answer 6 · 2011-08-23 07:55:57Z UTC

0

Having read his post, I think all he is talking about is the fattening (or not) effects of seed oils - nothing at all about inflammatory effects. So as far as I can see, he isn't discussing or addressing neolithic agents of disease here.

answered Aug 23 2011 at 7:55

andrew
5,193●1●12●27

3

This is an oxymoron. Pufa to excess cause an increase in series two peostagladins and directly cause inflammation – The Quilt Aug 23 2011 at 11:41

1

This isn't necessarily true and underlines the hazards of relying on the logic of biological pathways to make conclusions. Excess linoleic acid (short chain omega 6) actually seems to causes a decrease in tissue (red blood cell) levels of arachidonic acid, a precursor to PGE2. It seems, contrary to expectations, that excess LA actually causes lower levels of AA and PGE2. I still think most cases of CVD, cancer, and numerous other diseases could be prevented by avoiding excessive intakes of LA; just not for the mechanistic reason you state. – Jay Aug 24 2011 at 20:53

Are there no Neolithic Agents of Disease now?

6 Answers