2

votes

Frying in PUFA is bad: any proof?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created November 08, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Our company cafeteria uses this frankenoil for frying that is 30% PUFA. I've been trying to convince them to switch to a low-PUFA fat like palm oil but they don't want to do that because of "the environment". They don't want to use tallow either because of "the vegetarians". I cannot see their budget stretching to ghee, coconut or macadamia nut oil :-(

Like you, I read a bunch of books and blogs to become convinced that PUFA is not good news. However, I can't force the cafetaria manager to do the same.

So I'm looking for concise material explaining any of:

  • PUFA is bad in excess
  • O6/O3 ratio is a problem
  • frying in PUFA creates troublesome substances
  • frankenoil is toxic (I believe theirs includes rape seed oil)

Please hit me with your most convincing links!

PS: Please note that I think peeled cooked white potatoes are a non-toxic source of starch, and that frying starch isn't great but not horrible either. So those things are not up for debate in this question :-)

Medium avatar

(115)

on April 19, 2014
at 01:48 PM

I beg to differ about, "Biochemists understand what oxidized PUFAs do in the body and how they affect things at the cellular level."

Obviously nutritionists and biochemist are NOWHERE NEAR understanding how many of these basic things still work in the body. That's why there are still so many conflicting views among scientists regarding these issues. And every other week we see new controversial studies giving us more clues about how things work, but still there is a long way to go.

82166cc32b6cf26de33b69f58fb583b1

on November 22, 2012
at 08:28 PM

It's a nice surprise to see something like this on Paleohacks. Thanks.

Cbdc8318738324492f2d5918868ce4c9

(1211)

on November 08, 2012
at 01:40 PM

Hi Wout, lots of references in the PHD book you're probably already aware of ... are those too dense then and looking for something more friendly than that?

  • A64ed062eb5e2c3407122fcf16c5de6b

    asked by

    (715)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1409D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

3
8c42d9790e5b4c881f91c910964ee615

on November 08, 2012
at 02:06 PM

Ray Peat explains this very well.

The amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids often said to be essential (Holman, 1981) is approximately the amount required to significantly increase the incidence of cancer, and very careful food selection is needed for a diet that provides a lower amount.

Read more here:

Unsaturated Vegetable Oils: Toxic

Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?

East West ??? Dangers of PUFA: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthealing/2010/11/18/the-science-behind-the-dangers-of-polyunsaturated-fats-with-ray-peat-phd

Another Interview about fats: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/47121

2
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on November 22, 2012
at 04:38 PM

Sorry, you're not going to find "proof". The only way to get "proof" is to run a gold-standard metabolic ward study where you control everything that people eat and only change one thing (PUFA or SFA). This study would take billions of dollars, 60 years, and still probably not give you any real answers. So "proof" is not something you'll find.

On the other side, you have the epidemiological studies that every grad student with a cursory knowledge of statistics does and one gets published every week and picked up by the media and turned into a scare story. Those also have zero (or less) value.

So what you do? You need to go by plausible mechanisms. Chemists understand things like how easy it is to oxidize PUFAs in heat vs SFAs. Biochemists understand what oxidized PUFAs do in the body and how they affect things at the cellular level. So you take all of the stories from the chemists, biochemists, and biologists and make a reasonable assumption that some things are likely bad for you compared to others. Using all of this, I don't eat food fried in PUFA. I think it's bad.

How is this different than the whole lipid hypothesis and heart disease? That was making up a story to fit the (poorly collected) data they had. There is no valid chemical/biochemical story that describes that. You need to go with valid chemical mechanisms and weave a story from there.

Sorry for the rant, it's just that this type of question comes up on PH way too much. You'll never find and article that gives you "proof" of anything. Science doesn't work that way.

82166cc32b6cf26de33b69f58fb583b1

on November 22, 2012
at 08:28 PM

It's a nice surprise to see something like this on Paleohacks. Thanks.

Medium avatar

(115)

on April 19, 2014
at 01:48 PM

I beg to differ about, "Biochemists understand what oxidized PUFAs do in the body and how they affect things at the cellular level."

Obviously nutritionists and biochemist are NOWHERE NEAR understanding how many of these basic things still work in the body. That's why there are still so many conflicting views among scientists regarding these issues. And every other week we see new controversial studies giving us more clues about how things work, but still there is a long way to go.

0
Medium avatar

on April 16, 2014
at 05:35 PM

Many (I would guess ALL big names) paleoists claim that PUFAs increase inflammation and cause fatty liver. Here is proof that that is not always, if ever, the case.

A Swedish trial from 2012: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22492369

Note that subjects were overweight but I don't see why that will nollify the findings of the study.

Oxidized PUFA or Omega-3 then?

"The acute effect of increasing doses of animal O3 is a reduction in arachidonic acid-derived inflammatory metabolites, increases in membrane permeability and anti-inflammatory molecules derived from EPA/DHA, as well as reduction in T-cell activation and antigenic stimulation. O3 also have direct effects: inhibition of LPS or lipopeptide-stimulated COX2 expression and LPS-induced NFkB activation (24,25). Interestingly, there is evidence that the anti-inflammatory effects seen for O3 are dependent on their oxidation. Oxidized EPA, but not unoxidized EPA, inhibits NFkB activation and expression of inflammatory molecules in a PPARa dependent manner, as well as chemotaxis (26,27,28). Oxidized, but not unoxidized DHA, inhibits polychlorinated biphenyl-induced NFkB activation and MCP-1 expression, effects probably mediated by its oxidation products (A4/J4 neuroprostanes) (29). Thus, it seems that contrary to what is believed, oxidation of O3 PUFA is necessary to mediate their beneficial biological effects."

Source: http://www.lucastafur.com/2012/07/nutritional-immunotherapy-dietary-fatty.html

So oxidized Omega-3 is not only good for you but a must for its good properties to be beneficial if this study is to be believed.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!