3

votes

MUFAs not so harmless after all?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Hi hackers,

according to this study, oleic acid (a MUFA) is capable of reducing thyroid function.

http://www.clinchem.org/content/33/10/1752.full.pdf

Quote:

Among the lipids, only unsaturated FFA were effective. The order of inhibitory potency (molar basis) is arachidonic acid > linoleic acid > oleic acid, which is related to the number of double bonds (four, two, and one, respectively).

Nothing new to me that PUFAs are problematic, BUT the fact that my precious olive oil may block thyroid function is no good message at all.

As far as I know, MUFAs are generally considered safe. Should we rethink this statement? (I actually suspect olive oil and the resulting impaired thyroid function to be cause of my flaky skin)

cheers

EDIT: I know this study is not really appropriate to deduce any consequences of MUFA consumption in humans. Unfortunately there's not much information out there about this topic. However, those findings are consistent with other studies that focused on PUFA consumption:

Rats fed isocaloric diets in which the fat source was varied among three groups ??? a beef tallow group (primarily saturated fat, 3% PUFA), an olive oil group (primarily unsaturated, 10-15% PUFA), and a safflower oil group (78% PUFA) ??? had highly variable weight gains. The olive oil group gained 7.5% more weight than the beef tallow group, and the safflower oil group 12.3% more weight. This is exactly the same pattern found in the Vermont overfeeding study in man: reduced energy expenditure as the consumption of PUFA increases.

If you compare the amounts of PUFA in olive oil and safflower oil and then look at the percentage of weight gain (15% - 7.5% and 78% - 12.3%), this might be a clue, that oleic acid in olive oil has also some thyroid suppressing abilities. But that's just a guess...

So did anybody experience any adverse effects after including lots of olive oil into the diet? (especially signs of lower thyroid function?)

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 01, 2012
at 12:14 AM

That's a whole other discussion which would be more useful than scratching our heads over NTI therapy.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on July 01, 2012
at 12:03 AM

Perhaps. I was responding to this part of his question "MUFAs are generally considered safe."

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:37 PM

This study isn't about food, it's about improving medical treatment. I noticed that it's a bench chemistry study too.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:31 PM

The study cited has absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:09 PM

Your conclusion about MUFA's is too broad for the narrowness of the field of study, NTI.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on June 30, 2012
at 08:30 PM

Funny, I just began using olive oil a lot, and I have been having some very flaky skin lately.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 30, 2012
at 04:29 PM

word. I was surprised to see that AA is apparently the worst though?

  • E2b72f1912f777917d8ee6b7fba43c26

    asked by

    (2384)
  • Views
    1.7K
  • Last Activity
    1282D AGO
Frontpage book

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

4 Answers

4
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:31 PM

You're stretching this study past any reasonable point, in my opinion. It's not a study done in humans, it's a study of a test kit's efficiency "dose-dependent inhibition on the binding of T4 by TBG". Whether this has any in vivo/clinical significance is not clear.

2
Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 30, 2012
at 04:20 PM

I always thought it wasn't that MUFAs are completely safe in any amount, just safer than PUFA. I think still preferred to use SFa as primary fat source for energy.

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/22/fats-and-oils.html

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 30, 2012
at 04:29 PM

word. I was surprised to see that AA is apparently the worst though?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 01, 2012
at 12:14 AM

That's a whole other discussion which would be more useful than scratching our heads over NTI therapy.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:31 PM

The study cited has absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on July 01, 2012
at 12:03 AM

Perhaps. I was responding to this part of his question "MUFAs are generally considered safe."

1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:30 PM

Non thyroidal illness is a near death state syndrome associated with starvation, stroke and heart attack. In reading this obscure 1987 lab study I fail to see anything implying that MUFA's are more harmful than SFA's. SFA's can possibly assist a course of treatment for NTI patients while MUFA's cannot, but there's nothing more that I can see.

1
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 30, 2012
at 06:25 PM

MUFA's might lower thyroid function, or they might not. I don't think you say much about it from this study alone, since it was essentially ex vivo. If conclusive evidence comes out that MUFA's reduce thyroid function in living humans then maybe we can look at this study to determine why, but as of now this study doesn't really show us the net effect of oleic acid in humans when it's actually consumed.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 30, 2012
at 11:37 PM

This study isn't about food, it's about improving medical treatment. I noticed that it's a bench chemistry study too.

Answer Question


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