how sure are we really that sugar w/o high n6 consumption is an issue? lot of peaters twitter that seem to be doing well on high sugar. and if we've accepted that high-starch diets can be healthy, how different is sugar really, metabolically? table sugar has a similar glycemic index to white rice, eg
That was a good read. I think that the other factor is that sugar and it's digestible polymers shows its downsides earlier in diabetes and all that goes with that. We know that you can reverse type 2 diabetes in weeks if you cut out the sugar and processed carbs. Seed oils are a longer term slow poison and because of the long half-life of linoleic acid in tissues if you cut that from the diet it will take years to note the difference.
Fat consumption per capita in India --isn't it low by Western standards?
Fats, even seed oils, are expansive relative to starches. Indian diets were very low-fat--South Indian vegetarian diet was estimated to be 80% carb and less than 10% fat.
Now, with increasing affluence, fat percentage is increasing and with it PUFA.
So, certainly PUFA is causing trouble in the newly affluent.
Very poor still are thin--not just slim but actually rather emaciated.
I have to wonder if the studies on trans fats are not confounded by the LA presence?
Also wonder if there is any data on how the LA content of pig and chickens have changed over time. That is potentially a big missing factor in LA consumption, or?
"I have to wonder if the studies on trans fats are not confounded by the LA presence?"
For sure.
"Also wonder if there is any data on how the LA content of pig and chickens have changed over time. That is potentially a big missing factor in LA consumption, or?"
It's gone up. Humans have gone up too. All animals accumulate increased n-6...
Palm oil is cheap and India imports a lot of it. It is only 9 percent omega-6, rest being saturated and monounsaturated equally. Packaged food tends to have palm oil.
I suppose than a wide use of palm oil does not contribute to obesity. While the richer countries scorn lowly palm oil, poorer Asian countries do not.
So, the vegetable oil tables of consumption per capita across countries need to adjust for this.
But obesity and diabetes is on march even in palm oil dominant countries.
how sure are we really that sugar w/o high n6 consumption is an issue? lot of peaters twitter that seem to be doing well on high sugar. and if we've accepted that high-starch diets can be healthy, how different is sugar really, metabolically? table sugar has a similar glycemic index to white rice, eg
And a lean hunter-gatherer won't turn his nose up at a tree full of honey, either.
That was a good read. I think that the other factor is that sugar and it's digestible polymers shows its downsides earlier in diabetes and all that goes with that. We know that you can reverse type 2 diabetes in weeks if you cut out the sugar and processed carbs. Seed oils are a longer term slow poison and because of the long half-life of linoleic acid in tissues if you cut that from the diet it will take years to note the difference.
A possible rejoinder to Native Americans, Pacific Islanders etc.
These people were not adapted to consuming wheat. So, if provided a flour-heavy diet, perhaps it is sufficient to cause obesity etc among them.
Wheat is what I looked at originally, as I am extremely gluten-intolerant. I could't find any evidence that wheat per se causes obesity.
Prior to recent decades the primary symptom of celiac was weight loss from impaired gut absorption.
If shift to wheat or white flour lowered protein quality/density, then to satisfy the protein demand, a person would have to over-consume energy?
A possible obesity mechanism if calories are cheap but protein is not?
Under-consumption of protein does not cause obesity through over-consumption of calories.
Well, I read someplace that hypothalamus senses circulating amino acids and signals hunger if these levels fall too low.
I do not vouch for it.
Indian vegetarians consume a low-protein diet relative to Americans. And are prone to metabolic disorder at lower BMI.
They also consume a lot more omega-6 fats, and under-consume other, healthy fats. That's been shown to have a clear impact in metabolic disorders.
Fat consumption per capita in India --isn't it low by Western standards?
Fats, even seed oils, are expansive relative to starches. Indian diets were very low-fat--South Indian vegetarian diet was estimated to be 80% carb and less than 10% fat.
Now, with increasing affluence, fat percentage is increasing and with it PUFA.
So, certainly PUFA is causing trouble in the newly affluent.
Very poor still are thin--not just slim but actually rather emaciated.
Best article I have read in a while. Great stuff.
I have to wonder if the studies on trans fats are not confounded by the LA presence?
Also wonder if there is any data on how the LA content of pig and chickens have changed over time. That is potentially a big missing factor in LA consumption, or?
"I have to wonder if the studies on trans fats are not confounded by the LA presence?"
For sure.
"Also wonder if there is any data on how the LA content of pig and chickens have changed over time. That is potentially a big missing factor in LA consumption, or?"
It's gone up. Humans have gone up too. All animals accumulate increased n-6...
Palm oil is cheap and India imports a lot of it. It is only 9 percent omega-6, rest being saturated and monounsaturated equally. Packaged food tends to have palm oil.
I suppose than a wide use of palm oil does not contribute to obesity. While the richer countries scorn lowly palm oil, poorer Asian countries do not.
So, the vegetable oil tables of consumption per capita across countries need to adjust for this.
But obesity and diabetes is on march even in palm oil dominant countries.