L,
   
  I am not a scientist but I work in science communications and thus read a lot of scientific studies as a part of my job (biomedical research primarily).
   
  The best I can make of all this is that the jury is out on these fats and on all fats.  Essentially, there has not been enough studies using rigorous methodologies for anybody to may any claims whatsoever (although this doesn't seem to stop people).
   
  I believe, based upon what we are learning from other fields of study (just did an interview today with a scientist who is looking at the hundreds of mostly non-coding genes involved in breast and prostate cancer) that diet, like medicine, will become more personalized with time and that each of us possess a certain combination of genetic factors (genes, alleles and mechanisms) that in combination determination how different dietary elements affect us.  We expect to see a number of these genetic formulae equations (my terminology) being put into use in medicine within the next decade.  How much longer it will take to do the same for diet is hard to say.  We will need funding agencies to see health opportunity and fund these types of studies.
   
  So, don't believe anything you read/hear re: fats - No sufficiently rigorous studies have been done.  Until we are able to put your DNA into a microassay and look for specific combinations of genes - the only way to determine your particular ideal diet is for you to find it through trial and error.
   
  When you consider that there is no single gene determining how our body responds to foods and that there are probably at least 450 genes involved (this from the mice and long-term rhesus monkey studies on caloric restriction) in combination - individual responses to dietary intakes will be dramatically diverse.  
   
  The only logical thing to do (in my mind) is to start with a theoretical paleo diet (theoretical because there is no way of knowing precisely what a paleo diet would be and, if we could know it, not likely having the ability to faithfully reproduce it) and add items like PUFAs measuring your individual response.  Assuming that something cannot be healthy for you because it didn't exist in paleolithic times is as unsound as animal rights people assuming that meat cannot be good for them - because they want it to be so.
   
  My personal attempt at reconciling all of this (and I too am trying to lose body fat while maintaining muscle mass):  
  I try to eat only high quality saturated fat (pasture fed beef/venison/elk/bison etc.) and try to stay away from factory farmed animals.  
  I take a fish oil supplement.  
  I allow vegetable oil that is most likely to be harmless - walnut oil, flaxseed oil and EVOO - but I do not eat these fats more than once per day and do not eat them at all on many days.  
  And I do my best to avoid liquid saturated fat (drippings/gravy etc.), (cooking meat on a grill in the oven to best replicate cooking over a fire), and solid or semi-solid vegetable fat (the palm oils etc.).  This is a personal decision which doesn't take much effort as these fats make me sick.

  I grew up in a rural community eating pastured and free-range animals, farm fresh eggs etc. (we didn't know we were so cutting edge).  We purchased half a steer and half a pig every year and my mother rendered the fat and used it for cooking.  That history has provided mixed results for the entire family from a health and body fat perspective (although I sure would like to be able to go back to those days and eat that food - it was delicious).
   
  Hope some of that helps and not just muddies the waters.  But we are living in muddied - waters time and there is much investigation to be done to clarify our H2O.
   
  gale
  
L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  I am sending this again as it has been filtered as spam, I think due to the 
subject. Sorry if this did come through and is doubled up.


>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 



       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.