Food and Diet Obsession

Well, it's now officially spring, although if you're in Michigan it sure doesn't feel like it yet. Spring means that summer is right around the corner and for many people that means beach and bathing suit season. Put another way, it means it's time to diet. Lots of people have these types of goals year in and year out but many people are in a perpetual cycle of dieting and falling off a diet, trying something new, (re)committing to an exercise regimen, etc. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on diet and food and just why people seem to be so obsessed with their diet (that is, what they eat), how they look (if it's up to magazine standards), and their health/longevity as it relates to food.

I believe the statistic is that 80% of people are on some form of diet, oftentimes restrictive, at least once per year. Now, this diet may be for aesthetic purposes (weight loss, muscle gain, fat loss, etc.), for health purposes (dealing with heart disease, diabetes, inflammation, etc.), or for some, an attempt to find the fountain of youth. If you  look at most magazine covers, pay attention to the fitness industry, or are somewhat up to date on Hollywood actors/actresses then you know that thin is in, with  maybe a sprinkle of muscle if it's the fitness scene, which leaves most of us mortals feeling like we should and ought to lose a few, or many, pounds. Some people deal with obesity and they probably do need to lose weight to be at their healthiest, but most people who are "overweight" are probably healthier there than they would be in a perpetual diet cycle to try to get to some arbitrary weight goal. The cycle of losing and gaining weight, called "yo-yo-ing," has been shown to be unhealthier than being overweight when it comes to all cause mortality. Meaning, if you're forty pounds overweight it's probably healthier to just stay there and be active and eat healthy (whatever that means), than it is to try and lose the forty pounds only to lose thirty, gain twenty, lose ten, gain twenty, etc. Not only is dieting a stress on the body, with very real physiologic consequences, every time weight is lost (unless done very tactically), muscle is lost, which if there is a fountain of youth then it's probably having a good deal of muscle and strength. With each yo-yo cycle one would technically become fatter and fatter at the same body weight. If a woman weighs 160 lbs. with 35% body fat and wants to be 130 lbs she would lose approximately 30-50% of her weight as muscle on her way to 130. Even at the low end she is losing 9 lbs of muscle. Now, at 130 lbs., depending on how she got there and how long it took, she is unable to sustain the weight loss and regains all 30 lbs. that she has lost. However, now she is 160 lbs, minus the 9 lbs of muscle she lost, and figuring 10% of the weight she regained was muscle tissue (could be more or less depending on her activity levels and how quickly she regained it), she is now almost 39% body fat at the same weight. If this cycle continues she will yo-yo up and down, but every time she comes back to that starting weight she will be fatter than the time before and her subsequent weight loss attempts will be harder due to having less muscle, even without accounting for the damage she's doing to herself metabolically and/or hormonally. I'm not telling you to just accept being fat or overweight, because there is risk there as well, especially if the fat is stored viscerally (on the organs), but I am telling you that you must adopt a healthy lifestyle that is conducive to maintaining the weight loss and to set a realistic goal that can be maintained plus or minus 3-5 lbs year round. If you feel weak, lethargic, cold all the time, impotent, ravenously hungry, have mood swings, etc. most of the time whilst maintaining your new weight then it's probably too low for what is sustainable and healthy.

These attempts to lose body weight or to get our bodies to look more like that of some celebrity or athlete is a common occurrence. We all want to look good and feel good about how we look. Most people want to be healthy and live a long, active life. However, we get a very distorted perception of what most celebrities or athletes body's look like most of the time. Sure, there are some athletes that are always lean and muscular, but that has more to do with their time spent exercising, which most of us can't or won't do, and their genetics than their diet. Also, celebrities, when preparing for a role get to devote all of their time and attention to losing fat, gaining muscle, or whatever and they get the help of personal chefs, persona trainers, all the best foods, and get to do it without having to go to work 40+ hours a week or managing a household, among other things. So, these people peak for their movie or event, get their six pack abs and toned arms, get photographed and put all over social media, and then we are lead to believe they look like that year round. For example, Brad Pitt's physique in Fight Club has been an iconic goal of many young  men due to his muscle definition and extremely  low levels of body fat, but to see Brad when he's not filming or preparing for a role and sure, he still looks good and in shape, but he's not 5% body fat and fight club ready year round. Again, there are some freaks out there who are always lean and/or skinny (if that's your thing), but most people fluctuate a little (sometimes massively) throughout the year. If you want to get to the physique level that some of those people get to then do what they do and do it for a little while, enjoy it, then move on and get back to a manageable weight/body fat so that you can maintain your sanity and not adversely affect your health and social life.

It is said that we are sicker today than we ever have been at any point in history. When I say sicker I  mean from chronic diseases and not infections per se. There are lots of mystery ailments popping up all over nowadays like fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivities, food sensitivities, autoimmune conditions, etc., so it makes sense that something we have to do everyday, eating, gets focused on immensely when it comes to these conditions. There is always some guru out there telling us that this food or that food is the root cause of all of our illnesses and maladies. Whether it's wheat, meat, eggs, dairy, soy, corn, GMO foods, nightshades, mercury in fish or our fillings, BPA in canned foods, mold, synthetic estrogens in our milk, lotions, plastics, or make up, we are left with a hefty list of things that may or may not be a problem with our condition(s). That list is not exhaustive by any means but it represents a good number of the things we are told could be causing X, Y, or Z in our bodies. We can become fearful of eating a piece of bread, a hamburger, a glass of milk, or a potato. We no longer put any substance on our body that we wouldn't put in our mouths. We can no longer shop at the grocery store, go out to eat, or walk down the street for fear of being poisoned by one of these culprits of our condition. We insist that any child who has eaten peanuts, when our child has a peanut allergy, have his or her mouth washed out and sanitized before returning to the classroom. We become obsessed and completely strangled by fear. Fear can be much worse than any sensitivity or allergy you have to a food (peanuts aside, because that shit can kill you), because fear produces a physiologic reaction in the body which then manifests in a multitude of negative ways. Ask victims of psychological abuse how many strange ailments they suffer from or how many foods seem to disagree with them. It can be astounding. Now, I'm not saying that foods can't be a cause of some of those problems, but stress, lack of sleep, alcohol, and certain drugs are more than likely the underlying culprit making you sensitive to certain foods in the first place. There are also people that are so compromised from an illness that they really DO need to pay that much attention to what goes in their mouths, but this shouldn't last forever when the underlying cause(s) are dealt with and probably isn't you. There are also certain diets that can lead to nutrient deficiencies, leaky gut syndrome, and adrenal/thyroid issues, which all predispose to sickness, disease, and/or food sensitivities. So, if you have health issues, make sure you deal with the root cause of the condition, address the food sensitivities if present, but don't just assume some food is evil/harmful just because it becomes popular to say so or some "expert" is crusading against it (especially when it's in his or her financial best interest). I am just as guilty of this as any other knowledgeable health professional. Whatever we are doing or thinking about at the time, whether substantiated through research, experimentation or anecdote, is what we tend to tell people is best or healthiest while we are doing it.

There is certainly a lot that can be written about the detrimental effects that certain sports and their dieting practices have on young men and women which can last for a lifetime, but there has already been a lot said about all of that. I want to address a fairly recent phenomenon that can affect any age group but tends to show up most in middle-aged and/or the retiree populations. The focus in these populations becomes all about increasing longevity, and especially maintaining a youthful vitality and appearance as one ages, so food then becomes the tonic of youth and exuberance. This is the arena in which very strange and often extreme dietary practices can be adopted.

Firstly, what comes to mind is caloric restriction (CR), where people eat 20-30% (or more) fewer calories than their bodies require on a daily basis with the idea that by eating less metabolism will be slowed and lifespan lengthened. It all stems from research done on animals showing that if food is restricted the animals live longer, but are also depressed, lazy, and uninterested in sex (bummer). However, most of the time those animals are restricted from birth, so it may only convey benefits if done from birth, or may not apply to humans at all. There is also research showing the same effects can be accomplished with alternate day fasting, that is eating for 12 hours (as much as you want), and then not eating for 36 hours. This sounds awful to me as it combines the two things I hate most. Being ridiculously hungry and ridiculously full in the same regimen. Intermittent fasting, periods of fasting for 16-20 hours, followed by feasting for 4-8 hours, also seems to convey similar benefit to that of CR or alternate day fasting. These diets, CR in particular, are based on the theory called the rate of living theory in which it appeared that animals with the highest metabolic rates died earlier than animals with lower metabolic rates. Examples can be found when comparing metabolic rates across species but intra-species comparisons refute this theory as animals with the highest metabolisms live longer, more disease free lives than their lower metabolic counterparts.

Other types of diets that become popular in those seeking increased longevity are those that tend to villainize one particular component of diets in general and then exclude it or take the "one" thing about a particular diet and then seek to maximize it. Examples of the former are vegetarian and vegan diets that contend that meat is the cause of all modern disease and that by avoiding it health and longevity are almost guaranteed. Studies like the China Study are very good, and even somewhat convincing, without any counterarguments to refute most of their claims. Strangely enough, most vegetarian and vegan diets are also moderately to severely calorie restricted, usually demonize fat as fattening (as in, will make you fat), see sugar in a negative light, and see dietary fiber as a panacea (what are you supposed to eat besides vegetables and beans?). The most extreme forms of this diet is the raw vegan diet where the only foods that are eaten have to be raw because apparently raw food is more easily digested, contains life enhancing enzymes and vitamins, and isn't ruined by the cooking process. Ever try eating 2,000 calories worth of raw carrots, broccoli, apples, and chia seeds? It ain't easy, and even if you make it there you're likely to have more gas and bloating than you'd ever thought possible and spend half your day on the toilet shitting your brains out. Then there's the paleo diet, which I already covered, and this diet is all about avoiding processed and "new" foods like legumes, dairy, and grains. Remember, just because a food was or was not eaten by a certain people at a certain period of time does not mean that that food is inherently good or bad for you, only that it was available to be eaten at the time and was not acutely toxic or disease causing. There are also the low carbohydrate camps that blame aging, disease, and obesity on carbohydrates/sugar. These people eat lots of meat, eggs, cheese, oils, sometimes vegetables, and may or may not partake in periodic carbohydrate refeeds for the sole purpose of replenishing muscle glycogen or increasing metabolism for athletic performance or weight loss (which is incredibly ironic and funny to me). These diets, which can be low or devoid of ferementable carbohydrates and fiber, can have profoundly negative influence on gut health as it pertains to the intestinal microbiome (bacteria in your gut). Not only that, but diets very low in carbohydrates diminish the production of mucous in the eyes and intestines increasing the likelihood of developing dry, itchy eyes and a permeable, leaky gut which can cause a whole host of health issues (as I've alluded to countless times now).

Fat is another nutrient that has been shunned in the past as a means of increasing health and reducing disease risk. The Pritikin diet, which advocated getting as little as 10% of calories from fat, was one such diet. Pritikin ending up committing suicide after being told he would soon die from cancer. However, upon autopsy it was found that his coronary arteries were clean of atherosclerotic plaque. He was 70 at the time of his death. Most of the bad press about fat results from the lipid hypothesis formulated by Ancel Keys and his Seven Countries Study. The theory has been widely criticized and refuted in the last 10-15 years and has largely fallen out of vogue. There are those that still hold onto the low fat paradigm despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Conversely, there are plenty of isolated populations around the globe that eat a low fat diet and are perfectly health, so eating low fat, if that's is what you choose to do, can be done in a healthful manner given other lifestyle and dietary factors.

Protein is one nutrient that doesn't get too much press as far as it's exclusion for health, but there is some research suggesting that limiting protein, especially certain amino acids, could increase lifespan by increasing the amount of cellular recycling and cleaning out our bodies do (called autophagy). The idea goes that as cells go through their daily metabolic functions that certain proteins become less functional or non-functional and need this autophagy process to clean out and recycle old parts. However, if you are always in a fed state (eating or just finished eating) and don't give the body adequate time without food that this process can't happen, because it's too busy processing what you just ate, and over time your cells function less efficiently, which leads to (some) aspects of the aging process. Normally, when we hear about protein it's about how it can fill us up better than fat or carbohydrates, how it increases our metabolic rate (not technically true), or how it can increase muscle mass. Sometimes its said that it's hard on the kidneys, the liver, and makes our bodies overly acidic which could theoretically lead to diseases like cancer or osteoporosis. The China Study, from my understanding, talks a lot about the link between meat consumption and cancer rates. The big problem with most of their studies is that they don't control for the type or quality of  meat eaten. If you don't think there's a difference between a humanely raised grass fed steak and a feed lot raised beef/pork hot dog then we might have a problem.

So, there it is. Some of the reasons, but certainly not all, that cause people to focus on and obsess about food.  Whether for aesthetic purposes, disease states or conditions, or everlasting life and longevity, there are many reasons we tend to focus so much attention and detail on what does or doesn't go into our mouths on a daily basis. We can develop almost religious fanaticism about our dietary principles and cling to them even when all the evidence, scientific or self feedback, says they are not working or are not good for us. For instance, that bodybuilder at 3% body fat is probably not healthy nor can he/she stand up for more than ten minutes at a time without nearly fainting. That under-muscled, undernourished, grey skinned vegan shunning meat and all things animal because it supposedly causes cancer, diabetes, and heart disease is probably not healthy and certainly the food obsessed, borderline hypochondriac with every real (or imagined) health condition out there that must be the result of eating food X, Y, or Z, is probably not healthy. When it comes down to it health and longevity are probably all about mind set, proper rest and recovery, laughter and the enjoyment of life, cultivating healthy and fulfilling relationships, managing stress, worrying less about the little things in life, and being supremely grateful for the food that you eat (no matter what it is or its source), because after all, like my grandmother said, there's a child starving in India who would give anything for that food on your plate. Feel free to comment or weigh in on issues I  missed, glossed over, or that you didn't agree with.

Fish oil and the finale

So, hopefully this post I will actually get to the reason I started this mini-series in the first place; fish oil and its place in the diet. Last time, we covered some basics about fatty acid chemistry, why PUFAs (including fish oil) are more susceptible to damage, and some of the resulting consequences of lipid peroxidation. Fish oil oxidation produces similar products as other vegetable oils containing linoleic acid (omega 6), but with a  slightly different configuration. For our purposes its not that important to name the compound and confuse most of you with technical sounding  names you don't care about. Suffice to say that the oxidative products of the omega 3 fish oil are just as bad as those from the omega 6 vegetable/seed oils. So, like the omega 6's, oxidized fish oil is capable of inducing cell damage, particularly the endothelial cells lining our blood vessel walls and gastrointestinal tracts, making them leaky, inflamed, and over time capable of causing us big problems and diseases. The liver is in similar danger from the damaged fish oil fats and can predispose us to liver damage, fibrosis, cirrhosis, impaired detoxification, and impaired nutrient processing. Keep in mind that all of this is happening with fish oil independent of how much omega 6 is in the diet. I only say this because it has recently become popular to talk about the ratio between omega 3 and omega 6 in relationship to inflammation as the most important factor in our health. This matters but for a different reason than many of us have been lead to believe.

Most of you know that aspirin and the other NSAIDs reduce inflammation in the body by inhibiting an enzyme (COX) that converts the PUFAs into prostaglandins and thromboxanes, which help regulate the inflammatory process. You block that enzyme from doing its job, and poof, less inflammation. Bear with me for a second because this is the reason we are told to eat more omega 3's and less omega 6's. Omega 3 end products of COX generally tend to act in the opposing direction as that of the omega 6 end products. So, using simplistic logic, eat more 3's and less 6's and you're good to go. Pretty simple right? Well, yes and no. No, because as we've already discussed, both the omega 3's and the omega 6's degrade and oxidize rapidly and produce lots of damage in the process. Also  no, because as I'll discuss in a bit, both of the types of end products (prostaglandins) produced by the COX enzyme increase intestinal permeability, which is not a good thing and more than likely predisposes you to a whole host of disease processes down the road. The conventional thinking of improving the ratio of omega 3's to omega 6's centers around the belief that they are "essential" fats. Essential meaning our bodies are not capable of producing them on their own and without them there will be a deficiency that results in disease. The question of their essential nature came about back in the 1950's when rats fed a diet deficient in these fats developed skin problems apparently related to a disturbed barrier function. However, when the rats were fed a fat-free liver extract it "cured" them of the disease. This began the speculation that it may have been a vitamin B6 or biotin deficiency that the researchers were observing and not a fatty acid deficiency. It stands to note that in the complete absence of omega 3 and omega 6 fats, animals are able to produce "mead" acids, named after their discoverer, which function in a similar manner. It is also worth mentioning that in vitro (petri dish) studies examining human diploid cells did not require the essential fatty acids to continue dividing in culture. Basically, this means that the cells could replicate and grow despite having no "essential" fatty acids available. If there is an essentiality to these fats it is probably much lower than what we are exposed to on a daily basis through our diets. That was a long winded way of saying you probably don't have to go out of your way to seek out omega 3 and especially omega 6 fats and that you are probably better off eating foods that contain a minimal amount of them most of the time.*

Before we get to what foods to eat and what foods to avoid I want to talk a little about the supposed anti-inflammatory action of fish oil and the omega 3's (this will be detailed so if you're going to gloss over any part of this post do it here). We are all told that fish oil is anti-inflammatory, and it is. Another way to say anti-inflammatory, however, is to call it immune suppressing. What if I told you the people with the least amount of inflammation were AIDS patients? Now how great does the anti-inflammatory nature of fish oil sound? Its all about balance. Too much or too little inflammation can have negative consequences. So, how does fish oil suppress the immune system? Its a pretty complex subject that involves a lot of cells and immune system chemicals so I'll try to boil it down. There are two sides of the immune system. The innate immune system, which is non-specific and defends you against pathogens and infections, and the adaptive immune system, which is called the acquired immune system, and it is specific for certain pathogens and proteins. The adaptive immune system is responsible for antigen (protein) recognition and anti-body production. This is the part of the immune system containing the T cells and B cells. The B cells produce the antibodies in response to the innate immune system and the T cells, which present the antigens to the B cells. The T cells are the site of fish oils action. There are different sub-types of T cells, depending on the molecular marker the cells display, but for our purposes there are 2 different types of T cells (called helper T cells) we will be discussing. There are Th1 cells, which deal with intracellular bacteria and viruses, pairing mostly with macrophages (bacteria eaters), and is most active when bacteria enters an open wound. This is the arm of the adaptive immune system that perpetuates autoimmunity if left unchecked. Next up are the Th2 cells, which pair with the antibody producing B cells, defend against invaders from the GI tract through IgA (an antibody) production, and help defend against parasites by encouraging B cells to produce IgE (another antibody involved in allergic reaction and histamine release) antibodies. Th2 cells and their chemicals (cytokines) tend to suppress activity of the Th1 cells. Fish oil is very good at "convincing" Th1 cells to commit cellular suicide thereby causing a Th2 dominance. A few of the results of this are increased allergic response to environmental and food allergens (think asthma, eczema, and food sensitivities), depressed defenses against viral, bacterial, and fungal infections, and depressed functionality of the natural killer cells. Ooooh, natural killer cells, pretty badass right? Totally, as natural killer cells are really good at generating chemicals that destroy infected cells as well as being surveillance for detecting and destroying tumor cells. Depressing natural killer cell function is definitely not a good consequence of fish oil consumption and theoretically increases one's risk for cancer. So yes, fish oil does have anti-inflammatory action, but it does not come without a cost and it may create more problems than it prevents in the long run (less inflammation doesn't really help if you die from an infection). There is just not enough evidence at this point to know what the negative outcomes may be and when it comes to your health, or my  health, I'm not ready to take that risk (although I have been a fish oil fanatic in my younger years). Sigh.

I know that most of this post was a bit detailed and dense but  I thought it important to inform the reader as to the potential dangers inherent to fish oil and omega 3 fats outside of their ability to create free radicals. I mean, who doesn't want less inflammation, especially if you have an inflammatory condition? Well, I heard fish oil is good at reducing inflammation so I'm going to go buy the cheapest bottle I can find at Sam's Club and take 27 pills a day because some dude said that primitive man ate tons of fish and that's the reason he was super healthy and buff. Unfortunately, what we aren't told is that the buff, healthy dude was eating the WHOLE fish and not just the oil which is mechanically and chemically separated from the fish (which contains compounds and antioxidants that protect against damage to the fat). So, if you still think fish oil is healthy, and it may be for the right person at the right dose (but probably not anybody with intestinal issues), then eat the whole fish and make sure its wild caught so that you're getting all the antioxidant compounds at appropriate levels. If the salmon you eat is white or pinkish and not a deep, dark red or if it's farm raised, then don't eat it. You're better off eating some grass fed beef or lamb.

What to eat and what to avoid
Eat plenty of beef, lamb, and wild game, or even goat if you're into it (baahh! those eyes just creep me out), for the best saturated to unsaturated fat ratio, and make sure they're grass fed/finished or else their fat looks more like what they were fed (which is soy and corn and full of PUFA). Chicken, turkey, and pork, because unlike the former animals, aren't ruminants, meaning they don't have a specialized stomach to ferment the food (grass) they eat, and therefore their fat looks like what they consume (like ours does; so if you want to know what you've been eating, cut off a hunk of fat and have it analyzed...really though, don't do this), so if they've been eating those super healthy vegetarian diets of corn, soy, and the majestically wonderful flaxseed, then their fat will contain roughly the proportion of fats they have been eating. Corn oil, soy oil, and flaxseed oil are all very high PUFA fats, and thus, animals fed them will be high PUFA animals and not so good for eating regularly. If you insist on eating those animals choose the leaner cuts and avoid the skin and sausages which are high in fat, and therefore PUFA. However, if you raise your own pigs/chickens/turkeys, and you want to eat them more regularly, put a sweater on them and their fat becomes more saturated. No, seriously, it totally does. Maybe that's where the pigs in a blanket thing came from. Healthier pork and bacon. Who knows.

Milk, because it comes from cows, which are ruminants, has a fairly low PUFA content even if fed nasty grains and soy, but if grass fed its way better for you in that regard. Plus, you can get grass fed butter and cheese at Sam's Club for super cheap. Winner winner. Eggs are great too, but again, because chickens aren't ruminants they have more PUFA, and specifically more AA, which is inflammatory. Eggs are great but there's no reason to eat six a day (like I USED to).

Coconut oil, macadamia nut oil, and cocoa butter (from chocolate) are the best fats to eat and cook with from the vegetable family (honorable mention to palm oil and palm kernel oil) as they are mostly saturated (coconut, cocoa, palm) or monounsaturated (macadamia nut oil). Avocados and olives/olive oil are also alright in moderation but contain a fair amount of PUFA so should be eaten in moderation (although they contain a good amount of antioxidants and nutrition so are generally pretty  healthy in comparison to other oils/fats).

Nuts (almonds, cashews, pistachios, brazil  nuts, hazelnuts, etc.), seeds (chia, hemp, sunflower, pumpkin, sesame, etc.), legumes (peanuts, soybeans, etc.) and vegetable oils (sunflower, safflower, corn, soy, grapeseed, canola, rapeseed, flaxseed, hemp, cotonseed, etc.) are all high PUFA fats and should be avoided and/or minimized in the diet. I don't think obsession is healthy (although I'm not one to talk) and I don't think a little of this stuff from time to time (say at a family event, holiday, or post-drinking binge(worst time)) is going to kill you, although it might, it sure ain't doing you any favors, so just avoid it when you can and eat all the other deliciously tasty stuff most of the time and you'll be pretty well off. Keep in mind that all grains contain polyunsaturated fats so just because you aren't using vegetable oils doesn't mean you're minimizing them. For instance, a cup of oatmeal contains about 2.5g of PUFA. The goals being to keep PUFA levels at less than 4% of total calories. Also, if you do indulge or find yourself having to eat some PUFA heavy foods, then at least minimize the nasty effects by consuming a good dose of saturated fat like butter, coconut oil, or beef fat with it. This is probably why a big juicy half-pound burger is protective against the vegetable oil fried french fries or onion rings and the six beers you have while watching the game. Too bad those damns fries aren't still fried in beef fat like the good ol' days. Then I wouldn't even feel bad about it or tell you not to do it if you want to be as healthy as possible, except for the acrolein produced with high heat frying, which probably causes brain damage, but if you ate enough of the fries you wouldn't likely remember that anyway.

Oh, one last thing, Jared, if you ever get the brilliant idea of trying the eskimo diet of fish, rotten fish, and whale or seal blubber, because you know, the eskimos were wicked healthy and jacked, just don't plan on fathering children whilst doing it cause your sperm count will drop to zero and your MDA levels will be high enough to be teratogenic. So yeah, not a good idea. Seriously, this happened to a guy who tried to eat like the eskimos for 100 days. He just forgot to eat the meaty parts in the head and neck as well as the organs. Oops! Butter him than me ;-)

Until next time,
CH

Fun with Fat continued

Last time we covered a few of the reasons as to why polyunsaturated fats are harmful to the body and the metabolism. This time we're going to cover some of the basics behind fatty acid chemistry and some of the more serious harm these PUFAs are capable of inflicting upon the body.

Fats, or more precisely fatty acids, are composed of long (14+), medium (6-12), or short (<6), chains of carbon atoms that are bonded to hydrogen atoms with a carboxylic acid head group (this is where each of the three carbons forming a triglyceride attach to the glycerol backbone). Whether the carbon atoms are bonded to their maximum number of hydrogen atoms determines whether they are saturated, no double bonds, monounsaturated, one double bond, or polyunsaturated, containing two or more double bonds. The configuration of the hydrogens around the double bond, whether they are on the same side or opposite, determines whether the fat is a trans fat (opposite side) or a cis fat (same side). Saturated fats tend to be solid at room temperature, like butter, tallow, lard, and coconut oil, but because coconut oil is composed of lots of medium chain fatty acids, it has a lower melting point and may be liquid in a warmer environment. Monounsaturated fats, like olive, avocado, or macadamia nut oil, are going to be liquid at room temperature but will partially solidify if put in a refrigerated environment. The polyunsaturated fats, like canola, soy, grapeseed, corn, flax, etc. will be liquid at room temperature and remain liquid until well below freezing.

Polyunsaturated fats are most prevalent in temperate (areas of mild temperature) seeds, nuts, and their extracted oils. This means all grains, nuts, seeds, and non-ruminant animals (pigs and poultry) fed things like corn, soybeans, and/or flaxseeds will contain a large percentage of polyunsaturated fat. The most common vegetable PUFAs are linoleic acid (18:2) and linolenic acid (18:3). The first number is how many carbons are contained in the fatty acid and the second number is how many double bonds it contains. Linoleic acid (LA) is what you think of when someone says omega 6 fat. Its first double bond is six carbons from the last carbon in the chain. Linolenic acid (ALA) is the plant omega 3 which means its first double bond is three carbons from the last carbon in the chain. Both of these fats need chemical conversion in the body to the "active" biological forms like arachidonic acid (AA) a 20:4 fatty acid, made from LA, and EPA (20:5) and DHA (22:6), which are made from ALA. There is a lot to be said about the function of AA, EPA, and DHA in the body and the chemical reactions they undergo for prostaglandin and leukotriene synthesis(regulators of inflammation) but I want to focus more on the problems associated with the consumption of these fats in general rather than their supposed biologic function and role in inflammation (which is another article completely).

Like we discussed in the previous post, the polyunsaturated fats, oxidize quicker than Tyrion Lannister jumps into bed with a harlot, especially when exposed to heat and oxygen. The formation of the PUFA oxidation products, which are reactive aldehydes like malondialdehyde (MDA), 4-HNE, and acrolein, are the heavy hitters in producing many of the toxic effects of the polyunsaturated fatty acids. MDA and 4-HNE are especially toxic to the liver allowing for the formation of fatty liver disease and cirrhosis. It has been suggested that fatty liver and cirrhosis are impossible without the damage induced by PUFA free radicals. It should be mentioned that very low levels of 4-HNE are hormetic (a stressor/toxin that is paradoxically beneficial to the cell/organism) much like radiation, exercise, or alcohol mostly by increasing the antioxidant status of the cell. MDA and 4-HNE are also especially good at increasing the permeability of the intestinal epithelial cells making them leaky to both resident bacteria as well as proteins from food. Leakiness to bacteria is especially nasty, as certain strains (the gram negative) like E. coli, Salmonella, and Shigella contain a very toxic component in the outter porton of their cell membraine called lipopolysaccharide (LPS). LPS is responsible for the nasty symptoms of sepsis or sometimes called blood poisoning. High levels of LPS are very serious and a medical emergency but lower levels of plasma LPS are very damaging to the blood vessels and the liver due to the immune reaction they illicit once inside the blood. Strangely enough, cholesterol, which we are told is bad, is able to bind and inactivate LPS and its toxic effects.  It is very possible that leaky gut, regardless the cause, is a significant contributor to heart and vascular disease. The leaky gut produced by exposure to toxic PUFA lipid peroxides also sets the stage for developing food sensitivities and food allergies. There are other things and substances that can cause and/or contribute to developing a leaky gut but considering the rise in PUFA consumption and their potent ability to increase intestinal permeability, they are likely the greatest single contributor to leaky gut in all but a few cases.

Next up will be a discussion of what foods to eat, what foods to avoid, how to protect yourself if you have to ingest some PUFA, and what to do about the PUFA you already have stored in your body.

Summary

• fats come in a variety of shapes (saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated) and sizes (4-24+ carbons long)
• fats with more double bonds (PUFAs) are more susceptible to oxidation and damage
• oxidized/damaged fats, called lipid peroxides, are responsible for a myriad of nasty effects in the body
• lipid peroxides damage the liver and the intestinal wall/lining (among other things)
• a damaged liver is less capable of processing nutrients and regulating metabolic processes like fatty acid transport, cholesterol synthesis, and detoxification
• a leaky gut allows bacteria and food proteins into the bloodstream (inappropriately) which can set the stage for more liver damage, blood vessel damage, inflammation, and food sensitivities/allergies

In good health,
CH

fish oil, fats, and false advertising

There has been a lot of debate in recent years about how diet and specific macronutrients are linked to modern diseases and obesity. You can go back and look at the statistics regarding food intake and how it has changed in the U.S. since the mid 1950's and its pretty interesting and disturbing. Sugar intake, of course, has gone up dramatically, beef consumption has gone down, chicken intake has risen substantially, butter and dairy consumption have gone down, and vegetable oil consumption has increased A LOT, like 1450% a lot. This rise in consumption happens to have coincided with the decreased use of vegetable and seed oils in the varnish and paint industry as petroleum based products became the new standard. The advent of the lipid hypothesis also coincided with the astronomical rise in seed and vegetable oil use. The lipid hypothesis, if you're unaware, was coined following a study by Ancel Keys, called the seven countries study, showing (erroneously) that countries that ate the most fat had the most heart disease, supposedly because eating fat raised serum cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, he decided to eliminate countries from the study that didn't fit his hypothesis, thus invalidating the study. However, because vegetable/seed oils were shown in research to lower cholesterol levels, they were promoted as heart healthy and pushed to replace saturated animal fats, which due to the seven countries study were now seen as harmful (despite having been eaten for generations without problem). Now, this article is more about modern fats and fish oil, rather than disease and why disease rates have gone up in recent decades, so I will save further correlations and other changes to our culture and lifestyle for a future post.

There are a lot of reasons why vegetable and seed oils replaced traditional animal fats in the American diet but certainly the lipid hypothesis, radical vegetarianism, and food lobbyists all played some part. Saturated fat looks ugly at room temperature. Its usually solid and white or yellowish in color and it is not difficult to imagine that same substance caking up your arteries and/or making you fat. However, that is not really how the story goes. When arterial lipid deposits are analyzed they contain approximately 60-70% polyunsaturated fats, which are much more susceptible to oxidation and damage than monounsaturated or saturated fat. The problem with the PUFA-dominant fats like corn, soy, safflower and the  nut oils is not just with the extensive production process, which uses lots of heat, pressure, chemicals, and exposes them to oxygen, but also with the environment of the human body once ingested. The human body is full of oxygen and is approximately 97-99 degrees Fahrenheit. As the name implies polyunsaturated fats contain at least two double bonds within the fat molecule but can contain up to six. This means that they contain less hydrogen and electrons than their saturated counterparts. This is what makes them especially susceptible to the effects of oxidation by free radicals. Free radicals are produced by normal metabolism, the immune system, inflammatory processes, and exposure to toxins and stress. Those free radicals, like the hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl free radicals, steal the electrons contained within the double bonds of the PUFA forming a lipid radical. The lipid radical then interacts with molecular oxygen (O2) to form a lipid peroxyl radical. Both the lipid radical and the lipid peroxyl radical are unstable and rapidly undergo conversion. The lipid peroxyl radical reacts with another free fatty acid (PUFA) to produce a lipid peroxide and another lipid radical which continues the chain reaction. The chain reaction continues until quenched by antioxidants like vitamin E, peroxidase, catalase, or superoxide dismutase (the latter three being made inside the body). The end products formed from this process are aldehydes like malondialdehyde, 4-hydroxynonenal (4HNE), and acrolein. 4-HNE is the most studied and is called second messenger of free radicals. All of the end products of lipid peroxidation are capable of damaging cell membranes, damaging DNA, as well as disturbing endothelial function and thus open the door for damage to the brain, blood vessels, and/or gastrointestinal tract.

 Bottom line: increased likelihood of inflammation, atherosclerosis, cancer, dementia/alzheimers, and leaky gut syndrome, just  to name a few. The next post will continue the discussion about polyunsaturated fats, their physiologic effects in the body, and then we will wrap up with some actionable steps one can take in light of this information.

Thinking it Through: The Paleo Diet

Unless you've been living under a rock the past ten years you have heard about the paleo or ancestral diet. The basic premise is that humans evolved eating a certain diet composed of foods that could be hunted or gathered. Our diet, as a species, has changed dramatically over the last 10,000 years and it is argued that our genes have not had time to catch up to many of those changes. This, it is said, is where modern diseases of civilization have begun and by reverting to a "paleo" diet, many can be prevented or corrected. The paleolithic diet is composed of real foods such as meat, vegetables, fruit, and depending on the subsection, sometimes seeds/nuts, starchy tubers/roots, and honey. Basically, if you could go out and kill it or find it you can and should eat it. Conversely, things that could not be found or hunted should not be eaten, especially things like grains, which are cultivated, and dairy, which deals with the domestication of animals. Both of which are argued to be relatively recent phenomena and therefore humans have not fully adapted to dealing with them. The problem with this kind of thinking is the assumption that anything paleolithic man ate is inherently healthy and that anything paleolithic man didn't eat is inherently unhealthy. This, in my opinion, is faulty logic. There are some aspects of that thinking that work, like grains being potentially problematic for some people, as well as beans/legumes, but then to say that all dairy, regardless of form is unhealthy and/or harmful, as well as something like roots/tubers just because they may not have been a paleolithic staple. In my opinion when discussing what one should or should not eat it depends on a myriad of factors. What stage of life are you in? What is your current state of health? Are you afflicted with a particular condition or disease? What is the current state of your gastrointestinal microbiome and GI tract in general? What are your goals? Are you interested in weight loss, building muscle, or fueling activity? These are but a few of the questions that should be asked before you consider what diet or foods are best for you. That being said, I think paleo-type eating is a good starting point for most people, especially overweight and/or sedentary people looking to improve their baseline health and energy levels. The rest of the post is going to be devoted to what paleo-style diets advocate and the positives and negatives associated, as well as some of the things they leave out, and a few other factors that don't often get considered. As always, this post will be longer than I intended.
Paleo principles:

1. eat meat; preferably pasture raised or wild and lean (not all paleo factions agree about the latter)
2. eat some fruit, but  not too much
3. eat lots of green, leafy vegetables
4. eat nuts, seeds, and fat containing fruits (olives, avocados, coconut, etc.)
5. eat eggs preferably pasture raised
6. eat seafood like salmon, mackerel, and tuna for the omega-3's
7. avoid grains in all forms including the "ancient" grains like quinoa, amaranth, teff, kamut, etc.
8. avoid starchy tubers like potatoes and sweet potatoes* (not all paleo factions agree here)
9. avoid dairy in all forms
10. avoid beans and legumes in all forms
11. don't eat processed food
12. get plenty of sunshine
13. get plenty of sleep
14. drink enough water

Focusing a lot of attention on eating enough pasture raised or wild game is a good thing. Animal flesh is rich in protein, vitamins, minerals, the right kinds of fats for human health, and is damn tasty. Eating factory farmed meat is not much different than eating the foods (corn and soybeans) that they are fed. Paleo advocates often times miss the fact that when an animal was killed, in paleolithic times, that the entire animal was consumed. This means not only the fat, but also the organs, marrow, and brain. The fat is a great energy source and mostly of the saturated and monounsaturated variety, the healthy kind, with very little polyunsaturated fat (the not so good kind which I'll discuss more later or in another post) and when you're potentially going long periods of time without eating, fat is a very dense source of calories. Not such a problem in today's society but that doesn't mean fatty cuts of meat should be shunned. In fact, just the opposite is true. Fatty cuts of meat should be sought out. As an added bonus, these are often the most economical in value. Next up is the lack of focus on organ meats. Not only is this where most of the minerals and vitamins are stored but they all fit the "lean" recommendation, besides the brain tissue. Organ meats are an acquired taste for most but when mixed with muscle meat and spiced properly they are very palatable and only need to be consumed about once per week. Liver is probably the densest and most important source of nutrition but the heart, kidneys, and brains are all good sources as well. 

Today's fruit is much different than it was even two or three generations ago as we have bred it to contain more sugar per unit volume which dilutes the nutrient content and increases the caloric load. Soils are also less nutrient rich due to over farming and mono-culture practices. That being said, fruit is still low in toxins (important to remember for later), can contain a hefty dose of antioxidants, and is a good source of sugar and calories because after all, we have to eat something. Plus, the more active a person is and the better his or her body composition (muscle to fat ratio), the better he or she is able to handle sugar and carbohydrates. Fruit then, should probably be looked at as a conditional food. The fatter you are the less fruit you eat, to a point, and the less active you are the less fruit you eat, again, to a point. There is a time and a place for eating less carbohydrates, but not all the time, as that can lead to negative repercussions, which I'll discuss in a later post. 

If you don't eat your green vegetables its impossible to be healthy right? Not so fast, unlike animals who have fast moving legs or big teeth to deal with their predators, plants aren't so lucky. Plants then, have developed an arsenal of internal defense systems to discourage being eaten, because if they're eaten they don't reproduce and ultimately die out. So, these defense systems can be protection against the sun like the pigments in tomatoes and blueberries, which turn out to be beneficial for human health, or they can be developed to resist predation by mammals and/or insects, which are sometimes downright harmful to human health. The main compounds we will concern ourselves with are the lectins, of which gluten is one, technically a prolamine, the agglutinins, like wheat germ agglutinin, the nutrient binders, like phytates and oxalates, as well as the enzyme inhibitors. The lectins (present in seed grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, and some fruits and vegetables) mainly target the gut and irritate the mucosal lining, punch holes in the gastrointestinal cells, or increase the permeability of the gut through activation of our intrinsic proteins. All of this means that stuff (like proteins and bacteria) that should remain inside the gut end up leaking into the bloodstream where they can cause problems like low grade inflammation and food sensitivities. Agglutinins, like wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), have some pretty nasty effects on the body as well, like activating immune cells to produce inflammatory compounds, binding to the insulin receptor making fat loss more difficult, interfering with the leptin receptor in the brain, which throws off nutrient signaling (makes you eat more or feel like you didn't eat enough), and even prevents cells from producing the vitamin D receptor so despite your supplementation or sun exposure your cells may not actually be taking up the vitamin D. Interestingly enough, its the whole grains with the bran intact that contain the most agglutinin. The nutrient binders like phytates or oxalates are responsible for sequestering the minerals present in the plant and thus make their nutrient unavailable for absorption and can also bind free minerals ingested with said plant material. Uncooked vegetables have much more of these compounds, so cooking the plants first is the best choice here. Lastly, are the protease inhibitors present in plant foods which prevent the digestion of the plant and harm the animal (by preventing protein digestion), which at best makes the plant matter less nutritious and at worst increases the consumer's need for protein. All that being said, some plants have less of these defense systems than others, ironically its the pesicide/insecticide sprayed ones, and plants still contain vitamins and minerals which are rendered more bioavailable upon cooking. Am I saying not to eat vegetables? No. What I am saying is that there probably is too much of a good thing and some reasons to eat very little of them. I think you can be perfectly healthy without eating much green plant matter at all. If you choose to eat it, fine, just know there are risks, some which I haven't mentioned like thyroid suppression and damaging DNA, but there are also beneficial compounds in these plants as well, so its really a mixed bag. The best advice would be to eat a variety and focus most of your efforts on the low toxin foods. 

A lot of the issue with consuming a large quantity of nuts and seeds has already been discussed, like the lectins, nutrient binders and the protease inhibitors, but nuts/seeds present another problem; potentially bigger and more important than the grains issue. Nuts and seeds contain, by percentage, the most polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) of any food group. We have been told that polyunsaturated fats lower our cholesterol, are heart healthy, and should make up a good proportion of our fat calories. We are told that omega 6's are more inflammatory, but still essential, and that omega 3's are anti-inflammatory, and of course, essential. There is a good bit of research that refutes the essential nature of both kinds of fats, but that is the subject of another article. The real problem with the large amount of PUFA contained within nuts and seeds (including seed grains like corn and wheat) is that due to the multiple number of double bonds contained within the fat they are susceptible to oxidation and damage. Two things in particular are capable of causing this damage to the fats. Heat and oxygen. Two things abundant within the human body. Once these fats are damaged they become lipid peroxides (free radicals) that participate in reactions that damage cell membranes, DNA, and cause inflammation. Research shows that diets containing more than 3% of calories from PUFA increase cancer risk by about 40%.  The damage they cause is most directly harmful to the liver, blood vessel walls, and the gut wall. I will delve into this topic to a greater degree in future posts but all of these effects are pretty bad and correlate rather well with the increasing incidence of vascular disease and bowel disease since they became a dietary staple in Western society. Fat from fruit like olives, avocado, and coconut are much healthier, contain far less PUFA, and in the case of coconut, contain a very special kind of saturated fat that plays very well with carbohydrates and has many beneficial effects on the body. More on this in future posts.

Not much to say about eggs. They are pretty awesome, especially the yolks. As always, pasture raised is best. Some people with gut issues can have a reaction to the egg white proteins and some people with no gut issues to speak of can develop a problem if they are consumed too often due to a compound present in the white (lysozyme). Eat eggs, just not everyday, well, unless its the yolk. Then, go nuts (figuratively). 

Seafood is a great source of protein, vitamins, and trace minerals like iodine. That being said, fish that contains large amounts of omega 3's can be problematic, as it is a PUFA, and a more highly unsaturated PUFA to boot, can suppress the immune system, and cause liver damage if ingested with fructose or alcohol. I don't really want to get into the fish oil issue right now as I'm still undecided as to its essential nature as well as its benefit or harm. To be safe, eat lean seafood, and if you eat fatty seafood make sure its salmon, as the astaxanthin (what makes it pink) is probably protective against oxidation. 

Avoiding grains is a good idea for most people, so here, I can get behind paleo diets. Again, grains contain compounds, you can call them toxins if you want, that can harm human health. Some people, based on genetics, diet, and lifestyle, are more susceptible than others, but for most people subjective signs of energy and well being improve when grains are removed from the diet. The exception here would be white rice. With the bran removed there are no toxins present in the endosperm of rice and it is a great source of low toxin starch. Again, this will be used as an energy source for people depending on their current state of metabolic and physiologic health. The same rules that apply for fruit apply here, and for the starchy roots and tubers as well. Rice is generally only problematic for people who have preexisting gut permeability issues, i.e., leaky gut. Even then its usually safe. 

Root vegetables (carrots, parsnips, yucca, taro, etc.) are generally considered paleo approved but white potatoes and sweet potatoes generally fall into a gray area. There is an ever increasing movement towards the consumption of sweet potatoes with paleo-type diets and I think for most people that works. They are low toxin foods, although quite high in oxalates so if you are prone to kidney stones watch out, and full of starch, some sugar, and a good amount of vitamins and minerals. White potatoes, while sharing most of those similarities with sweet potatoes, have a dark side. Namely, a glycoalkaloid toxin (defense system) called solanine. Potatoes, unlike sweet potatoes, are part of the nightshade family (Solonaceae) which also includes tomatoes, peppers, paprika, and eggplant, and thus can damage the gut wall and contribute to joint as well as autoimmune problems if an individual is susceptible. But again, if you don't experience negative consequences from eating potatoes they can be a great source of nutrition and carbohydrates depending on your goals. 

Not eating any dairy because paleolithic man didn't domesticate and utilize the nutrition the animals are capable of producing is, in my opinion, the largest mistake the paleo community makes. Dairy is actually protective for the gut wall, and if you think about it it makes sense (why would milk harm an infants gut?), by actually closing down gaps or "leakiness," as well as containing an excellent source of protein, vitamins, minerals, fats, and immune enhancing compounds. There are probably people who have a casein sensitivity (major protein contained in milk) but most if not all of those people probably have a gut permeability issue first that dairy then exacerbates. Dairy is probably not causing any of that, although I can't be sure. Some people are also lactose intolerant, which can be remedied by taking enzymes, trying raw milk, drinking fermented beverages like kefir or yogurt, or simply eating cheese, butter, or ghee which are virtually lactose free. Refined dairy proteins like whey are also highly beneficial to the athlete or anyone looking for an immune boost or increased protein intake. Also, because most of the "toxic" compounds that should be avoided from commercial dairy are stored in the fat or contained in the fat, whey, being almost devoid of fat, is probably quite low in those potentially harmful compounds. Dairy is also the only significant source of a short chain fatty acid called butyrate, which besides being the primary fuel for your colonocytes (large intestine cells), improves your immune system, has antiseptic and antiviral properties, and profound positive effects on metabolism. Most of the butyrate produced in the body is from the fermentation of carbohydrates by bacteria in the gut from undigested material like fiber and resistant starch. That being said, if your gut ecology is bad, or you don't eat enough foods containing those bacteria feeding fibers, then your butyrate production is probably inadequate and your body could use a boost from high quality dairy. If you don't like milk or dairy, fine. If you think you're "allergic" or sensitive to it please get a blood test to confirm. But don't not eat it just because the paleo community says you shouldn't. 

Not much to say about avoiding beans and legumes. I pretty much agree with it in most instances (just remember that cocao beans aren't beans, they're tropical seeds). However, if the choice is between fast food and junk food or eating a whole food like beans and legumes, then eat the damn beans. The same problems that arise with grains and some plants are found with beans and legumes like lectins, nutrient binders, and enzyme inhibitors. If you do like them or are more on the vegetarian side, which I hope you aren't after reading this, then please soak them and cook them properly to negate some of the defense systems. 

Don't eat processed food. Duh. Well, maybe. Sometimes processed food has less of the stuff we want to avoid (toxins) and more of the stuff we want (carbs, protein, or fat, depending) which allows us to eat a greater quantity of calories without the bloat of eating the same calorie content of whole food. This will usually only apply to people working manual labor jobs or athletes doing a large amount of conditioning. For most people, whole foods should be eaten most of the time.

Getting enough sunshine, enough sleep, and enough water are good ideas for everyone, most of the time. The sunshine one and the sleep one are going to be topics of further posts, and water may be as well if there is interest. Hopefully you made it to the end of the post. Sorry about the length but this tends to happen when I write. Hopefully you enjoyed what you read or maybe it really pissed you off or left you confused. All of that is good if it stimulates discussion and thought which is the goal of this blog. I am always open to new information, clarifying a point, or expanding on something I said, and I have no problem amending something if I am wrong.

In good health,
CH

Starting out

My hopes for this blog are not to talk about things that are definitely true or definitely false but to provide information that makes one think about some of the conventionally or widely held beliefs that we, or a majority of people, assume to be correct.  Just as the title insinuates, it will be a place to question beliefs we all have about nutrition; what is healthy, what is unhealthy, how things tie together and relate, and what to eat because after all we have to eat something.  Sometimes we are more concerned about performance, or preventing disease, or longevity and we realize that we can't have the best of all worlds so we make compromises in the short term, but hopefully with a mind on the long term. I will be wrong at times and I will miss research but what I hope I can do most of all is get people questioning what their nutritional beliefs are and why they are what they are. Hopefully some will test the information and theories presented, at least with logic if not action, and then comment on their findings or results via the blog. I have a number of topics I already plan on talking about, some of them big picture and some of them much more focused or at the cellular level, but I am definitely willing to write about what others would like to read about. That being said, feel free to offer suggestions about topics you would like discussed.