{"id":4380,"date":"2018-09-21T18:03:48","date_gmt":"2018-09-21T10:03:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nutritional-humility.me\/oxystaging\/\/?p=4380"},"modified":"2021-12-26T22:17:51","modified_gmt":"2021-12-26T14:17:51","slug":"omega-6-bad-pufas-much-better-ketosis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nutritional-humility.me\/oxystaging\/omega-6-bad-pufas-much-better-ketosis\/","title":{"rendered":"Omega-6 \"BAD\" PUFAs = much better ketosis?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This was completely unexpected.\u00a0Having read\u00a0this study <\/a>over the last few months led me some serious re-questioning on my current perception of Omega 6 PUFAs.\u00a0How or why that study has not been picked up by any wider Keto or ZC \/LC \/ IF communities, is beyond me.<\/p>\n

I'd like to thank Peter @ Hyperlipid<\/a> to have brought this firstly up for discussion. Despite my unfamiliarity within the comments' intense discussion surrounding all possible causality (from mitochondrial structures and superoxidations) I'd wager anyone with a grip on Biochemistry to please consider sharing a\u00a0thought or two over there.<\/p>\n

I very seldom express my \"opinion\" on any journals or research papers of controversial reception. But this particular study? Is just unmissable.<\/p>\n

The study recruited ten healthy males and females, free of diabetic or suspecting renal damage or CVD risks divided into two groups - one as PUFA group using\u00a0predominantly walnuts<\/strong>\u00a0 and (undisclosed) soy products - pitted against the SAT fats group on cheese, coconut creams and animal fats. Five day clinical trial<\/strong> . Goal = examine any differing metabolic markers\u00a0between the two groups.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Feast your surprising eyes to the result charts below.<\/p>\n

Preposterous, Truly?<\/p><\/div>\n

Yes, I am shocked. The notoriously \"bad\" PUFAs group - won favourably in all metabolic markers.<\/strong> Much higher beta hydroxy ketones. Much lower glucose readings. Least LDL. Lower Trigs. Plus surprisingly - much higher - Insulin Sensitivity.\u00a0In other words? Flawless victory.<\/strong><\/p>\n

However...<\/h1>\n

Some bullet points below do raise some question marks:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \"Twenty Young Healthy Subjects\" -<\/em> \"Young\" - wasn't disclosed as to what age specifically.<\/li>\n
  2. \"Crystal Light\" (presumably a beer but unsure), \"potato sticks\", \"frittos corn chips\", \"turkey with gravy\",<\/strong> \"soy crisp\" were put on the PUFA fats Group of foods.\u00a0<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. \"WASA Sourdough Rye Crackers\", \"Crystal Light\" (presumably a beer), \"Ice Cream\", Ham and cheese \"Wrap\" (could be anything - corn wrap tortilla?) were put on the SAT fats Group of foods.<\/em><\/li>\n
  4. \"Oil and vinegar\" appeared on BOTH GROUP's diet. It is very unclear<\/em> as to what oil and vinegar they're talking about.<\/li>\n
  5. Interestingly, the PUFA group uses relatively lean meats - chicken and turkey.<\/em> Whereas the SAT group? Beef, cheese, pepperoni, the works.....except - Bacon. There was no bacon on the SAT menu. But ironically -\u00a0there were \"bacon imitation strips\" on the PUFA group menu. What that consists of is a mystery...<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    From the above foods: could these (the crisps, the Crystal Light, \"gravy\", etc) actually SKEW their reportedly faithful 70\/15\/15 Ketogenic ratio?<\/strong> I'd say more than possible. Because very-low carbohydrate interventions, politically speaking - mainly revolves on restricting to less than 50 grams per day. Even if participants were to include those things - such amounts MUST HAVE BEEN VERY low to the point of no more than two or three small bites and prohibited from there onwards.<\/p>\n

    Interestingly, side effects wise - the PUFA group experienced more Nausea than the SAT fats group. Otherwise, no significant adverse effects were noted. What is even more startling (to me at least), there was seemingly no reported evidence of Keto-flu or side effects we commonly expect as transitionary carbohydrate withdrawals. The only relevant note is in page 3, the\u00a0\"Change in ability to concentrate\"<\/em>\u00a0were all returned as \"non-significant\".\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Lastly -\u00a0a subtle yet noteworthy concern - the study was done completely by in-house. In-University -<\/em>\u00a0grants, volunteers and members.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Think about this. The opening paragraph of this study was to \"hypothesize\"<\/strong> that PUFAs may offer a more beneficial route to Ketosis. So already, we have an expectation<\/strong> out of an existing, speculative hypothesis. If the \"student\" subjects\u00a0noted adverse reactions which counters this expectation, which then also consequently to that of their very own existing Institution....then you get my concern.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>

    Patrick Tomasso @ Unsplash.com<\/p><\/div>\n

    Has this outcome been succesfully replicated elsewhere?<\/h1>\n

    My existing reference source of all things Keto -\u00a0Lyle McDonald's Ketogenic Diet<\/a> - did nevertheless briefly mentioned a study<\/a> (Page 115) upon determining various forms of fats for their thermogenic potential - between olive oils, butter, safflower oil and corn oil; whilst also - keeping close to Ketogenic parameters.<\/p>\n

    The winner? Corn oil, surprisingly.<\/strong>\u00a0Considering that it is just slightly behind the world's highest and notorious source of omega 6-oils - Safflower oil.\u00a0<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Even though that study is old (1974) - it was nonetheless noteworthy as it tracked throughout a period of 40 days. Two groups of subjects (men & women) - one group as lean and the other - obese. Both groups were instructed to eat a range of daily calories from 2100,<\/strong>\u00a0then increased gradually to all the way up to a monstrously (as recorded)\u00a06800<\/strong>. Per day. Yes, in kilocalories.\u00a0<\/strong>From the study's own conclusion: \"It was striking to observe that the weight gain did not correlate with the caloric intake. Particularly if fat was given in the form of corn oil<\/span>, a distinct discrepancy between the caloric intake and the response of the body weight was detectable.\" (Kasper, H., et al, 1974).<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    Fast forward today's pedestrian normalcy, with all my efforts of searching sadly - nothing else I could find comparatively of a similar analysis between PUFA vs SFA or MUFAs within Ketogenic contexts or parameters.<\/p>\n

    What about anecdotal source\/s?<\/h2>\n

    Very few sources out there. Only two (2) exist.<\/p>\n

    The first belonged to one of (perhaps earlier) books on Cyclical Keto interventions - \"BODYOPUS\". The author,\u00a0<\/a>Dan Duchaine<\/strong><\/a> (whom unfortunately passed away due to hereditary polycystic kidney disease) preached fervently on Flaxseed PUFAs above all other source of fat intakes (Chapter 15).<\/p>\n

    ...He even stated that monounsaturated sources (Olive oils) - was \"unessential\" (Chapter 16).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Amidst today's glorifying prescription of Flaxseeds, they still remain open to debate. First obviously being the seemingly difficult metabolic conversion<\/a> from ALA to EPA\/DHA. Then, there's the Flaxseed = not-as food debate. But as an expensive wood varnish<\/a>. Next - many would dispute flaxseed is low in Omega 6. But still, it's of relevant concern considering the N6 component is just behind canola oil<\/a>. Lastly - I am aware over its extremely estrogenic<\/a> yet confusingly - a viable protection against prostrate cancers. Yet still genetically factorial.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

    A second possible source would be Schwarzbein Principle by Diana Schwarzbein<\/a>. I unfortunately have not read the book. But the program seems derived from the familiar Atkins induction. Then followed by gradual re-introduction of carbohydrates. The author reportedly advocates canola oils (<\/strong>as well as soybean oil<\/a>) as fat source intakes. At least as accordingly from the Weston A Price Foundation's review on the book<\/a>. But what about the reviews from real readers? Apparently, at least a 3.75 to five stars were a common sight on Amazon<\/a>, and Goodreads <\/a>. Nothing thus far comes up on Google that I have seen as real, journalling accounts.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

    Relying on \"book<\/strong> reviews<\/strong>\" are somewhat vague. As evidently it is hard distinguishing the real\u00a0authenticity.<\/strong> Whether the readers have truly experienced the program itself authentically or just whimsically.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \n

    *** Update 22nd September 2018***<\/h3>\n

    Chris Bair @ Ketochow<\/a>; posted his N=1 experimentation focusing on individual type of fat source intakes. One week at a time lasting throughout four week period (\"Week 0\" as the baseline). The timeline were as follows:<\/p>\n