saturated fat vs olive oil

johndela1 · Post by **johndela1** » Mon 08 May 2006 06:33

I don't know if this is the right forum because I'm not advising but asking...

I read an article at http://blog.dogdoright.com/?p=80#comments that implies that we should get our fats from saturated fat because that is what we have been eating for some time (paleo diet type stuff) and that olive oil is a realativly new substance.

Does anyone here see logic in the paleo diet? It seems to make sense to me. If it is the diet that is our 'natural diet' doesn't it make sense we are most adapted to it?

I'm pretty confused...

I am seek the best diet for my health. sometimes I think that just because we may have eaten a certain way for a long time doesn't make it our best diet. Other times I think that it does. I've been puled back and forth so much over the last few months. One good thing is I am open to change and not searching for stuff to confirm my beliefs but searching for the truth. (if there is a truth to how we should eat)

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Mon 08 May 2006 09:27

Eh.

That's wrong.

Just look up the facts about countries that consume high amounts of saturated animal fat and their rates of heart disease.

specifically, finland.

then compare it to a mediterranean diet, which is low in heart disease.

saturated fat should only be consumed in limited amounts.

Post by **Oscar** » Mon 08 May 2006 13:22

I'm not sure if we need both saturated and unsaturated, or that either is fine because we can use both without any problem. If they are raw, that is.

The connection (saturated) fats and heart/vascular diseases is based on a cooked diet, where fats and cholesterol are changed by heat.

I think there is no way we can tell the paleo diet is the most natural, because too many factors are unknown. It might well be that was how mankind ate, at some point in history, at some location, under certain circumstances. But even if that's the case, do we know that it was/is the most ideal diet?
In my opinion the Wai diet combines what is possibly the most natural with, biochemically speaking, what is the most ideal.

finnishfiend · Post by **finnishfiend** » Mon 08 May 2006 15:45

Well, the connection with saturated fat and cardiovascular disease could have some merit... but from what I've read, the Finnish are just much more predisposed to cardiovascular disease.

Take a look at the French for example. They eat a lot of saturated fat, and yet they still have low rates of heart disease (if I'm not mistaken). Scientists have called this the "French Paradox", and they have tried to blame the low rates of heart disease on their moderate consumption of wine. But as far as I know, this has never panned out in hard research.

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Mon 08 May 2006 21:32

It does bring up the cooked vs raw equation again. Only recently did I know about our enzyme reserves being finite. What a mind blower that is. Do many people know this? It sure makes one consider that feeling of tiredness after a big cooked meal...ehh, not that I do that sort of thing, anymore

Good read:

http://www.naturalchoice.net/articles/raw.htm

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 09 May 2006 01:24

Some good things in that article. Like they say: our bodies can digest 'natural' foods, but not the unnatural substances which are formed by heating food. Those partially digested substances will accumulate in our bodies, for instance in the blood vessels.

Could it be that heated saturated fats are more harmful than heated unsaturated fats?

I'm not exactly sure what the reason is for The French Paradox, but one of the differences between the french meals and (for instance) the american meals, is the portion size.

Cairidh · Post by **Cairidh** » Tue 09 May 2006 02:34

There's a substance in frogs legs that completely protects against heart disease.

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 09 May 2006 11:03

johndela1 · Post by **johndela1** » Tue 09 May 2006 11:28

Oscar wrote: I think there is no way we can tell the paleo diet is the most natural, because too many factors are unknown. It might well be that was how mankind ate, at some point in history, at some location, under certain circumstances. But even if that's the case, do we know that it was/is the most ideal diet?
In my opinion the Wai diet combines what is possibly the most natural with, biochemically speaking, what is the most ideal.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense. I like the fact about this being biochemically correct. This seems to be the holy grail for me. I am always searching for what is biochemically correct for us.

I am blown about from Wai's research and all the sources she lists. I've learned more here in the last few months than in the last few years of my own research. I probably come across as argumentative, but that is just my curiousity mixed with my excitement.

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 09 May 2006 13:30

Good to hear John.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning!

dadasarah · Post by **dadasarah** » Tue 09 May 2006 17:08

I've never been to France, but what I've experienced of French cooking is the exceptional quality of ingredients they use (less processed = fewer damaged nutrients). And when I eat this amazing food, I'm more likely to savor every bite, which reduces the (typical American) mindless over-eating-until-you're-so-stuffed-you-need-to-unbutton-your-pants.

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 09 May 2006 17:38

Good point.

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Tue 09 May 2006 19:35

Oscar wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with questioning!

what do you mean by that?

THE MEANING OF LIFE! LOL

"Yeah,... with the eggs on top."

dadasarah · Post by **dadasarah** » Tue 09 May 2006 22:53

Ew.

Then there are those people with an EXTREME sensitivity to the appetite-stimulating substances in cooked food, and have to be removed from their house by a crane, like my mom.

dadasarah · Post by **dadasarah** » Tue 09 May 2006 22:55

Just kidding!

My mom is healthier than me.