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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Friday, March 7, 2014
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)