Chris Masterjohn on Cherry Picking (and the Metabolic Advantage of Fructose)
... at least in rodents ;-)
Let Us Honor Ancel Keys, Our Patron, As We Cherry Pick Studies to Bash Fructose (Revised and Extended)
Hats off to you Chris!
Let Us Honor Ancel Keys, Our Patron, As We Cherry Pick Studies to Bash Fructose (Revised and Extended)
Hats off to you Chris!
Comments
45% fat diet ≈ 21.7g PUFA
60% fat diet ≈ 27.7g PUFA
Typical PUFA consumption in SAD today ≈ 37g/day
100 yrs ago typical SAD PUFA consumtion ≈ 14g/day
PUFA consumption data based on information from this Indiana University website:
http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/Fructose.html
The HF diet had half the veggie oil composition of the control chow. IOW in addition to the lard, HF vs chow swapped out some 3-odd% PUFA for lard. The keto diet contained more than 3X the veggie oil of the HF diet yet the mices shed weight.
That gives the figures:
PUFA/Chow ≈ 3.25g/100g
PUFA/HF ≈ 4.134g/100g
The ketogenic diet was high in PUFA but had virtually no fructose with which to react (similar to the Inuit diet).
I am NOT a scientist and this is strictly my layman's theory and armchair quarterbacking.
PUFA/Chow ≈ 2.6611g/100g
PUFA/HF ≈ 3.38169g/100g
You have to watch those estimates from non-scientists like me. Speaking of which:
REVISED--The PUFA equivalent in the rat diets Chris Masterjohn's website mentioned for a person who consumes 2500 kcal/day:
45% fat diet ≈ 19.31g PUFA
60% fat diet ≈ 23.39g PUFA
These new figures are based on 9.81% PUFA in lard and 55.78% PUFA in soybean oil.
However, the USDA nutrition database shows 11.2% PUFA by weight for lard and 57.74% PUFA for soybean oil.
Genuine philosophers have demonstrated that God exists.
Genuine pundits have demonstrated that politicians are bad for the government.
Genuine commenters have demonstrated that context is unnecessary.
CarbSane does NOT represent GENUINE SCIENCE.
"They speak with 100 % certainty."
Then you say:
"No genuine science would ever do that!"
You say that as if you are 100% certain. However, it is false. Some things are certain and science does acknowledge that.
Here are some quotes to help you as you develop your philosophy:
"The existence of grey shades in no way implies the nonexistence of black and white or justifies abandoning the distinction therebetween."~~Paul Cooijmans
"It is shocking to see what hateful reactions one gets when one defends the speaking of truth, or even merely says that truth exists."~~Paul Cooijmans
That said, your calcs point out something for those following high fat diets. Lard - aka pig fat - has a high PUFA content. In a "normal diet", obviously replacing all animal fat with veggie oils is going to increase PUFA exposure, but a high fat diet - the 60-75% for the "usual" LC, 80+% for the more extreme practitioners - is almost by default going to be very high PUFA.
You don;t want to get into a pissing contest with RAZWELL . Trust me .
I will expose your DEEP IGNORANCE AND LACK OF EDUCATION.
You will see what it feels like. I will EXPOSE ALL OF YOU - KRIEGER MCDONALD COLPO HALE and on and on. EVRYDAY
Only an arrogant Internet tawt could disregard Dr. Jeffrey Friedman as a TOP epxert.
Although I'm personally convinced that PUFA plays a starring role in the rise of obesity, from my own experimental diet I can see that reducing PUFA doesn't instantly reverse the process. In fact, unless you are at death's door, I'm not sure you would want to reverse the process too quickly due to possible dangerous and/or unexpected consequences.
Good luck with your blogging Raz ma taz!
A high fat diet needn't be high in PUFA. From my Fitday report (1 Apr - to date):
Total calories 1762
Fat 123.1g (62%)
(S/PUFA/Mono)
(54g)27% (10.1g)5% (30.8g)15%
Protein 71.1g 15%
Carb 100.1g 22%
Just don't swig vegetable oil - and that includes olive oil.
Are you trying to see if cutting PUFA's will lead to spontaneous weight loss in your experiment over at Jimmy's? (Forgive me if you said so there, I'm playing lazy not reading it over again)
CS, please block him from your blog. His brilliance and eloquence are wasted here, you know.
(Or is that the depth of ignominy? Hmmm...)
Jokes aside, Evolutionary Psychiatry really is a very good blog.
the author on 180 doesn't trace his recommendations back to any study. I can't tell where his stuff comes from.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040158 or click
And what's the point of the anti-CICO rant? Has anyone ever denied different people can eat the same calories and get different results? Has anyone ever denied that any of the dozens of anabolic steroids can push calories into muscles instead of fat?
Straw man extraordinaire.
At any rate, I think Chris Masterjohn is a great critical thinker and am glad you have brought attention to some of his work.
Even if he is serious, nobody visits his website anyway. Except maybe the morbidly curious.
As for Chris Masterjohn, the group he belongs to (WAPF) got me interested in a different way of looking at nutrition, such as the possibility of remarkably healthy primitive humans, soaking grains and legumes, raw dairy, etc. Yet they often are a bit pseudoscientific. Do you think you might be interested in offering your take on WAPF or Weston Price in a future article?
I've heard a lot about WAPF but never really read all that much. Recently somebody over on Jimmy's forum posted this link about lipase supplements: http://www.westonaprice.org/ask-the-doctor/213-losing-weight
I suppose this would be an example of pseudoscientific. Perhaps I'll share some thoughts on this at some point.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..