Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Medicine - Nutrition Forum » Fresh new anti-"saturated fat" piece of...

Author Message
montygraham...
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:30 am
 
Here is the post I wrote about about it for my site:

Yet another "saturated fat is bad" type of report (below), but again,
when you actually examine the study (http://www.biomedcentral.com/
content/pdf/1472-6793-10-20.pdf) you find that it is anything but
scientific. Instead, as I have said many times before, one would need
to make sure the animal has Mead acid rather than arachidonic acid in
its cells to begin with. Then you need to furnish a diet that a
person might actually eat. Then you need to compare that to someone
else on a "typical Western diet," with calories, fat content, etc.,
being just about the same. Then you have to make sure that the lipid
sources are not oxidized. Then you have to let the experiment run a
while to let the organisms adjust to it ("wash out period"). Only hen
you can introduce the stressor and determine the effects. Instead,
the authors of this study assumed that what they did is consistent
with eating a "Western diet," even though they did not control the way
I suggested above, and the did not use other fat sources as controls
(so for all we know linoleic acid would have produced more pronounced
results). To me, this is misleading to the point where it may be best
described as propaganda:

QUOTE: High fat diets cause a dramatic immune system overreaction to
sepsis, a condition of systemic bacterial infection. An experimental
study in mice, published in the open access journal BMC Physiology,
has shown that a diet high in saturated fat, sugars and cholesterol
greatly exaggerates the inflammatory response to sepsis...

Dr. Rivera lead a team of researchers to carry out the surgical
induction of sepsis in mice that had been fed normal chow or western
diet for 3 weeks. Mice on the western diet, which was enriched in
saturated fat, showed exacerbated inflammation that was found to be
mediated by signaling via the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4) pathway.
UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101018211818.htm
 
montygraham...
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:37 pm
 
For those who don't know, a saturated fatty acid cannot contribute to
"inflammation" directly, because the molecule would need to be
biochemically viable, but instead it is inert (resistant to free
radical degradation too). The fact that they don't know this (or are
deliberately not pointing this out) is beyond disturbing, on more than
one level (certainly on the level of scholarly standards, for
example). It is possible to make an animal eat a lot of a particular
fatty acid, and then when the organism rids itself of arachidonic
acid, trying to replace it with the natural Mead acid, lipid peroxide
levels can rise, temporarily. And it's also possible to achieve all
manner of "results" when you manipulate cells in a test tube,
especially when you don't use proper controls. It's like "smoke and
mirrors" without even having a mirror.
 
Taka...
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:58 pm
 
It looks like the proinflammatory effect are mediated by sugar which
rises when palmitic acid is present in the blood stream. Palmitic
acid induces physiological insulin resistance to preserve sugar for
the brain. And excessive sugar triggers the arachidonic acid
signaling cascades ... Perhaps the Mead acid would trigger just an
adequate response upon the rise of blood sugar but this has never been
tested ...

Taka
 
montygraham...
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:37 pm
 
What I want to know is whether this would make any difference if you
just fed some animals with a little more butter or palmitic acid in
the diet, over the course of the animal's lifetime (assuming the fat
source was fresh, and not going rancid).
 
montygraham...
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:49 am
 
In their "study" they talk about how this relates to actual diets, yet
the study is not related to diet, but instead indirect effects. Nor
is it controlled properly. If you want to eat a diet based upon this
"study," good luck to you, but I am pointing out that it is
scientifically impossible (because SFAs cannot contribute to
inflammation) and that you can "prove" that anything is
"dangerous" (just keep drinking pure water nonstop and it will
eventually kill you). If you don't understand this and want to remain
ignorant, that is fine, but I am posting for those with an open mind
and a willingness to think critically about what was actually done,
and how their interpretation makes no sense and was not done in
accordance with the scientific method.
 
montygraham...
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:10 pm
 
Note that I could "deconstruct" this "study" in intricate detail, but
I have pointed out these things before, and it's all on my free site.
I will just mention one example here, which is their citation of
footnote 10, "Arterial endothelial dysfunction in baboons fed a high-
cholesterol, high-fat diet."

They say, "These results are
supported by findings in vivo of inflammation and endothelial
dysfunction in baboons
fed a high cholesterol/high saturated fat diet," when they cite this
study. I found that study and it does not say anything about
"saturated fat" or saturated fatty acids, just "high fat." Again, we
do not know if the fat source was fresh or if the cholesterol was
largely oxidized, in addition to not being told what the fatty acid
profile of this "high fat" source was. It's a sophisticated "shell
game," and my only question is, do they realize what they are doing or
are they so blinded by textbook dogma that they see what they think
must be there, automatically discard evidence they don't like, and
misinterpret findings?

I'll also mention that we don't know exactly how they ran the study.
It sounds like the subject animals would have eaten more PUFAs than
the control animals, so one could come to very different conclusions
here, especially in light of the professional literature (which they
seem to have "cherry picked," and then misrepresented), and we don't
know if the butter was going rancid (butter has MUFAs and PUFAs, not
just SFAs, and the cholesterol in it could be largely oxidized).
 
Taka...
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:04 pm
 
On Oct 22, 7:10 am, montygraham <monty1... at (no spam) lycos.com> wrote:
[quote]It's a sophisticated "shell
game," and my only question is, do they realize what they are doing or
are they so blinded by textbook dogma that they see what they think
must be there, automatically discard evidence they don't like, and
misinterpret findings?
[/quote]
I have talked to and heard many certified "experts" and my feeling is
it's the latter. Even more disturbing is that these certified
"scientists" are making decisions about out diet and health backed and
enforced by the governments/politicians. Imagine e.g. that the
terminally ill cancer patients are given infusions containing Omega-6
"EFAs" together with sugar in the hospitals what makes the cancers
quickly overgrow and kill them. This is not much different from a
dead sentence and execution.

Taka
 
montygraham...
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:46 am
 
If you don't understand how unscientific what they did, and then
claimed, was, then so be it, but it may be the worst nutritional
"study" I have ever examined in about 10 years of this (probably
averaging a few studies a day). Since you have failed to explain your
argument (let along providing examples), as I have done, there is
nothing I can respond to. When you decide to address a specific
scientific issue, I can respond to it. In the meantime, I am
confident that those with an open mind now have the understanding to
perceive how poor a job these "researchers" have done here.

I'd be most interested in your explanation of this claim: "The study
answered the questioned it set out to do," because it did nothing of
the sort (I'll leave aside the issue of academic dishonesty, since
that is obvious even to those without any "technical knowledge" at
all, and I'd like to hear any kind of reasonable response to the
question about how they did what they set out to do).
 
montygraham...
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:53 am
 
I will try to make it simple here, so that those reading this may
actually get a response that makes some sense from you.

1. They claim that a certain kind of organ inflammation (or perhaps a
lot more of it, or it will be more severe) will occur if a "Western
diet" is consumed than the control diet.

2. They do not state exactly what the nutritional profile of this
"Western diet" is.

3. They do not state exactly what the nutritional profile of the diet
they fed the experimental animals was.

4. They do not state exactly what the nutritional profile of the diet
they fed the control animals was.

5. They do not allow for a "wash out" period, which is considered
standard in such studies.

6. They took cells and exposed them to only one kind of fatty acid,
and therefore there was no control for this (so for all we know, a
common PUFA or MUFA would have had more of the effect they saw with
the palmitic acid).

7. Their claims about what eating a "Western diet" does to a persons
organ (s) is impossible to know, because they did not do such an
experiment (they experimented on an animal, didn't control properly,
and didn't even determine how the animal was affect over time, just
cells in a test tube).
 
 
Page 1 of 1    
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:12 pm