PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 05:08:29 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:29:50 -0400, Richard Geller <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Dori Zook wrote:

>> You'll notice these are mostly unsaturated. ..

>My problem with this is that it involves a lot of lipids that peroxidize,
>unstable by definition, and I cannot see how this is healthy. Too much w3,
>w6 and w9 fatty acids are unstable. I don't think we were meant to have
>excessive amounts of PUFAs, so what is the alternative? MUFA and SFAs.

The PUFAs are unstable only in bottles or as ingredients of convenience
food. I guess we aren't ment to eat from old bottles.

And, maybe unstable in the body in the absence of natural levels of
vitamin E. I guess we aren't ment to suffer vitamin defficiencies.

I don't know what you count as excessive. But I estimate the *natural*
MUFA percentage we are *realy* ment to eat is between 25 and 35%.

Name one natural fat source that has a lower percentage
(besides only tropical coconut / palm and avocado ).
You could use http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl .

And please don't make the mistake to regard cows as a natural resource.
They are not paleolithic, not even neolithic.
They are industrial and that is reflected in their fat.

>I think a lot of researchers succomb to the "saturated fat is bad" mantra
>even though the facts seem to suggest otherwise -- that satfat is rather
>neutral for most people.

I see no reason to condemn saturated fat per se.
It just shouldn't be present in a percentage to displace EFAs,
*together* with the MUFAs.

Or your cell walls will require cholesterol, will close more and more
against nutrient entry.
(See
And your EFA metabolism will shut down and that means no more good
eicosanoids - and that means cancer and CHD.

Quite some reasons for a high EFA part, I think.

regards
Amadeus S.

On cell walls, take a look at the nice description
http://www.zonehome.com/zt65/_disc/000001d2.htm , John W writes:

"... Cells which are not flexible enough cannot twist in
the special way necessary for the port to open and admit nutrients. This can
happen when there are too many trans fats or saturated fats in the cell
wall. These types of fats are rigid. The body compensates for excessive sat
fats by sticking in a molecule of cholesterol as a pivot point to allow the
wall to flex. If the cell walls are made up of a large proportion of
polyunsaturated fats or, to a certain extent, monounsaturated fats, they
will be
much more flexible due to the kinks and bends in the structure of these
types of fats. Flexible cell walls are better able to pass nutrients,
wastes, and
hormones in and out. To a cell, this is like breathing. Block the ports and
the cell is "dead."  ..."

ATOM RSS1 RSS2