My own view is that both the pro-PUFA and anti-PUFA crowd have serious flaws in their assumptions. As regards PUFA, I've seen scientific studies focusing on the negative effects (on rats re neural development etc.) of both PUFA-absent diets and PUFA-deficient diets, so I'm highly sceptical of the really low percentages that some of the more extremist anti-PUFA gurus advocate as a maximum limit. At the same time, all those pro-PUFA advocates who mention the benefits of  the MUFA-/PUFA-rich Mediterranean diet etc , with all its ghastly grease and olive-oil, or who advocate saturated-fat-maximum-limits of a lowly 13%(!), are clearly also wrong, given that our human ancestors could hardly have eaten such fare in Palaeo times.
 
(Another flaw on the anti-PUFA side which I quite often hear is the claim that grain-fed meats is no different from grassfed meat, in health-terms - this is presumably because it's known that the meats of grassfed animals/wild animals is much higher in omega-3 EFAs than grain-fed beef). Given that it's well-known that cattle fed on unhealthy grain-filled diets are more likely to contract disease etc., this claim is somewhat unlikely).
 
 
The way I see it if one is following a truly natural diet, then one doesn't have to worry one bit as to what exact percentages of SFAs/PUFAs there are in the diet. Nutrition  is too complicated for anyone to  assume that one nutrient is a superfood while another is a deadly poison  in larger amounts. Certainly, if one were to severely lower PUFas or SFAs down to really abnormally low levels, one would, inevitably, have to follow a very artificial, very limited diet, indeed. (A good example of a healthy natural human food, which is rich in both saturated fats and EFAs is, of course, mother's milk).
 
Geoff 



> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:00:09 -0500> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: PALEOFOOD Digest - 27 Jan 2008 to 28 Jan 2008 (#2008-25)> To: [log in to unmask]> > There are 2 messages totalling 85 lines in this issue.> > Topics of the day:> > 1. EFA's> 2. Re Coconut Oil and Palm-Oil> > ------=-=-=-=-=-=-=- IMPORTANT NOTICE -=-=-=-=-=-=--------> Make sure you have a subject line that reflects your topic> Do not have a subject that says Re: PALEOFOOD Digest - ...> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:32:15 +1100> From: L <[log in to unmask]>> Subject: EFA's> > I am revisiting the issue of PUFA's.> > In a recent self experiment I found that by consuming a fair amount of > unrefined fresh omega 6 and 3 in a 3:1 ratio that my appetite and cravings > for food was drastically reduced. As I am not as lean as I would like to be > this is a good thing.> > However I am still confused by the pro and anti PUFA's arguments out there. > Both sides cite numerous studies to support their position yet they seem > diametrically opposed in so many areas such as: PUFA's help diabetes from > PUFA proponants.PUFA's worsen diabetes from PUFA opponants.They protect > against cancer versus they worsen cancer and so on and so on.> > I'm not good at analysing research myself and so remain confused and worried > that by suppressing my appetite and all the other supposed benifits may at > the cost of doing oxidative damage to my cells.> > I can't imagine that consuming large ammounts of seed oils is paleo but nor > can I ignore potential benifits.> > What are the thoughts on PUFA's and their relative safety from others on > this list?> > Leonie >
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml