Contradictory Information On PUFAs

I have read TONS of Peat's work (mainly from his articles, and some from audio interviews). One thing I really like about his writings is how cohesive they are and how they all fit together so nicely.

However, there are many important themes that I find debatable based on the studies I find on, yes, PubMed. More specifically, many studies show that PUFAs (6 and 3) increase lean mass, decrease fat mass, and lower cortisol.

Here are a few about PUFAS and their benefits:
(These are commentaries on the studies, but the links to the studies themselves are at the bottom)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overfeeding Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat Causes Distinct Effects on Liver and Visceral Fat Accumulation in Humans
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/co ... /2356.long
(Commentary: http://www.uu.se/en/media/press-release ... =3&lang=en)

Polyunsaturated fatty acids make you slimmer and more muscular
http://www.ergo-log.com/polyunsaturated ... cular.html

The kind of fat in your diet helps determine how much muscle mass you build up
http://www.ergo-log.com/weight-gain-kin ... ld-up.html

Six weeks of fish oil: lose a pound of fat and gain a pound of lean body mass
http://www.ergo-log.com/sixweeksfishoil.html

Fish oil capsules reduce fat rolls
http://www.ergo-log.com/fishoilfat.html

Fish oil helps aging mice live longer
http://www.ergo-log.com/fishoillongevity.html
(I know there wasn't a good "coconut oil" control group in this one, but lard at least did not have much PUFAs as the others, and they died first.)

Omega 3 fatty acids reduce cancer mortality
http://www.ergo-log.com/omega-3-fatty-a ... ality.html

Fish oil capsules prevent psychoses
http://www.ergo-log.com/fishoilpsychosis.html

Fish fatty acids reduce age-related physical performance decline
http://www.ergo-log.com/n3physicallongevity.html

Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids regulate bovine whole-body protein metabolism by promoting muscle insulin signalling to the Akt-mTOR-S6K1 pathway and insulin sensitivity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1715 ... stractPlus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and there's more, but I'll just stop here.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm not trying to say Peat is wrong. I am trying to understand.

According to Peat, there are a lot of early studies showing pretty much the opposite of what most of the recent studies are showing. I know he has said that sites like PubMed don't post every single study, but how can you explain all of the benefits from even just the studies above? From what I learned from science, was that if the data does not fit the theory, then either the data is not being interpreted correctly or the theorry needs to be adjusted.


How can we account for the above findings (and many similar findings) on PUFAs under Peat's model? How can we understand this? I am looking for a detailed, scientific explanation.

Please, just asking for some help. Thank you for your time!

PUFAs oxidize mad easily and that creates like inflammation and sh*t. Dey ain't stable.

I understand that is the theory. Not sure if you're just trying to be a troll, but I'm looking for a scientific explanation or logical reasoning as to why there appear to be beneficial effects from them from studies like the ones above.

I guess that PUFA can be protective during scarcity, or improper nutrition/malnourishment; slowing down the metabolism to conserve energy. And nowadays is easy to get excess calories without proper micronutrient intake. In this case, slowing down the metabolic rate might be safer - which may explain the benefit that often appear in some studies. Another part of the story might be balancing the n3/n6 ratio, since it's easy to deviate from that following a standard diet. In most of Ray Peat's interviews that he touches on the subject of fats and metabolism, he mentions how improving it should be followed by an increase in many nutrients to support a more eficient and expensive state.

no idea man, but when all else fails use the senses test, which would point away from them. Do you crave spoons of vegetable oil and old fish smell? This is a weird topic because there is in fact a lot of contradictory information. Its probably one of those things like sugar where its not ..you cant look at it in a vaccum, theres other factors that determine how and if its used properly. Im kinda trusting Ray on this one, but I think id have naturally gravtitated away from PUFA's anyways, naturally. I initially sensed via the palate that fat alone is kind of..not something ever craved or that gives energy, its sort of a seemingly useless binding feeling. Then i'd look at ape's or animals in general in wild, that don't eat fatty foods...so they get some pufa but not much (besides animals eating fish or whatever, or pre hibernating animals)
At this point im not too worried about it, I haven't eaten more than a few g in a day for probably nearly a year now and things have been getting better, mostly cause of everything im doing, but Ive never once had a craving for anything with PUFA, a genuine craving, or for fat at all for that matter, other than when ive gotten low in vit A, but I cross check the reference and if im craving butter its always also tomato sauce and carrots suddenly have an appeal. Now I don't even get to that state, I stay on top of it. When i'd eat large amounts of pufa I would shed them out of those spots on the body that oils are released from. If you look at fatty acid oxidation, you'll see that PUFA's aren't metabolized easily, they have to go through break down in peroxisome which is an energy requiring process, before being oxidized in the mitochondria. Usually only potentially toxic substances are handled in the peroxisomes. They also seem to prevent liver from making various cholesterol using substances, which is toted as good...but it could equally be bad. Overall I don't know and it doesn't seem to matter, in fact im pretty sure im better off on a low pufa diet, naturally a low fat diet. Theres also studies showing that the actual requirement of PUFA's is undetermined for humans, but that saying they are necessary, its only like 1g a day total. Maybe they aid the immune system in the sense they can be used to nuke infections and oxidize their shells, like vitamin C can be used for and iodine. They seem to just cause plugging up ness. You'll have to test it out or just...maybe we can handle more than Ray is saying, I dunno, but I have to trust senses, palate, and feel above everything else. Like a few months ago Haidut posted a bunch of studies talking about PUFA's that aligned more with what Peat says, maybe you could find em with a search or someone can link it

JRMoney's answer wasn't scientific enough or you?

I am sorry, but your intuitive explanation doesn't work to well with my research-driven mind. If I had to choose between a nice theory and data (even mixed data), I'd go with the latter every time.

Many of the studies above show the same amount of weight gain from a high PUFA diet and a high SFA diet, because both groups ate the same amount of calories (and thus no slowing metabolic rate).

Yet, the high PUFA group always seems to gain less fat and more muscle. Plus, there are those studies with decreasing alzheimer's risk and lowering cancer risk.

I can't find any studies on PubMed that shows that, given equal calories, the PUFA group ends up gaining more weight or losing less weight (suggesting a slowing of metabolism). Plus, there's the apparent body composition benefits from a high PUFA diet (see links in first post).


I understand the theory that Ray has put forth. The oxidation. The slowing metabolic rate. The thing is, I can't find modern studies that support this in humans and there seems to be many benefits from a high PUFA diet.

The studies above were not financed by companies wishing to sell things. So why is there this disconnect? Can anybody rectify these two opposing ideas (with actual research and congruent scientific explanation)?

I guess, the first thing I'm asking for is research showing the opposite of the research I have found, or at least something concrete showing the negative effects (not just history and theory).

Studies about fish oil show benefits because omega3 : omega6 ratio become better and yield health benefits. Reducing omega6 is not tested in these studies. So most of this science is useless.

As for the muscle building stuff, it is probably similar to body builders. They stress their muscles/bodies with lots of workouts and get big muscles full of water. PUFA stresses the body I can easily see that being water retention. More PUFA = more estrogen = water retention = bigger muscles.

PUFA increases estrogen: http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/0 ... -estrogen/
Estrogen = water retention: just google it, there's ample studies.

You are never going to sort things out this way, zarrin77. You've probably read RP say that abstracts sometimes directly contradict what the study actually shows. Maybe his critique of the study showing aspirin was carcinogenic that you shouldn't take aspirin and carcinogens at the same time. Or something along the lines of "any one of these seven authors could have written such a worthless study".

Science is a business, the big money drives the publications, vets the editors of the textbooks, funds the lobbies who hire the publicists that get stories in the newspapers. Studies are contracted out and the subcontractors do the research, often in third world countries with zero oversight. The subcontractors then transmit the data to the big money in code that no one else can understand. Even the FDA doesn't know what the real data is when they make decisions based on the study.

In other words, the system is a big, green, steaming pile of horse manure.

(I wish I'd bookmarked that article about contracting out the studies, sorry. You can likely find it with google)

To some extent for me, following RP's advice is a matter of trust since I have zero chance of evaluating the source material for myself. I have a high opinion of Ray and feel the trust is well placed.

Have you read Ray's fish oil article? http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml He talks about how the PUFA can have an initial anti-inflammatory benefit. So it seems like it's working.

"In experiments that last just a few weeks or months, there may not be time for cancers to develop, and on that time scale, the immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory effects of oxidized fish oil might seem beneficial. For a few decades, x-ray treatments were used to relieve inflammatory conditions, and most of the doctors who promoted the treatment were able to retire before their patients began suffering the fatal effects of atrophy, fibrosis, and cancer. (But a few people are still advocating x-ray therapy for inflammatory diseases, e.g., Hildebrandt, et al., 2003.) The fish oil fad is now just as old as the x-ray fad was at its peak of popularity, and if its antiinflammatory actions involve the same mechanisms as the antiinflammatory immunosuppressive x-ray treatments, then we can expect to see another epidemic of fibrotic conditions and cancer in about 15 to 20 years.
Around 1970 researchers reported that animals given fish oil in their food lived longer than animals on the standard diet. Alex Comfort, who was familiar with the research showing that simple reduction of food intake increased longevity, observed that the animals were very reluctant to eat the food containing smelly fish oil, and were eating so little food that their longevity could be accounted for by their reduced caloric intake. " - RP

If they falsified the studies arguing for PUFAS being essential for life, surely, they can falsify those studies you just referenced ?

Peat has written extensively about how these original studies, from the 1930's, were invalid, and gave the reasons for it. Why not investigate, using your research capabilities, whether his arguments are right or wrong, and start from there ?

Max Gerson cured hundred of hopeless cancer patients by maintaining them on a fat free diet for 1.5 years.

It's in the Congressional record.
How does one explain surviving for 1.5 years without so called essential PUFAS ?
Why do PUFAS enhance cancer in these terminal cases ?

( he only introduced flaxseed oil 6 months before his death, and never understood why and how it worked)

Most of the studies that you cited use weight as a measure. Even though it's relevant, but it can be tricky. As we know, adipose tissue acts also as an immune organ, to dispose toxins or excess energy.
I'm not sure about this but I guess that when those PUFA-rich oils are consumed in moderate amounts, the organism will preferentially use them for energy to avoid being stored, treating in a certain way as a toxin. But in excess, it has to store to prevent further damage from their oxidation.

On the longevity study, both groups that restricted calories, dimished the damage and lived longer. That can be accomplished to a certain degree by slowing down the metabolism - as long as it's not excessively. The fish oil restricted group lived longer than the group that was fed corn oil, both of them were supplemented antioxidants. n3 has antiinflammatory properties that can make them more desirable than corn oil.

From Dietary modulation of body composition..
"In an earlier investigation into the influence of dietary fat types on the composition of weight regained, we found that the exacerbation of fat deposition shown with certain dietary fats (lard, olive oil and menhaden fish oil) does not occur with coconut oil (rich in medium-chain fatty acids) or in safflower oil which is rich in n-6 PUFA (26). Although diets high in these fatty acids are well known to be more thermogenic and less fattening during spontaneous growth than diets high in long-chain SFA (27–29)"

On the study from the American Diabetes Association, they suggest that when PUFA are stored, they are stored in subcutaneous tissue, away from the core, which makes sense considering its volatility and instability.
Due to the metabolic nature of SaFA, in case of energy excess, they probably will potentialize the effects of ROS generated in the process. Unlike the supressive nature of PUFA in the long-run.

I know that Ray Peat cites numerous studies in his articles so you might want to start with reviewing those. They aren't directly linked, but you can copy and paste his citations into google and most of the studies he cites will be found on pubmed. The following studies I found while I was bored:

Substituting polyunsaturated fats in place of saturated fats resulted in a statistically significant increase in death from cancer:

"In an eight-year controlled clinical trial of a diet high in polyunsaturated vegetable oils and low in saturated fat and cholesterol in preventing complications of atherosclerosis, 846 men were assigned randomly to a conventional diet or to one similar in all respects except for a substitution of vegetable oils for saturated fat... 31 of 174 deaths in the experimental group were due to cancer, as opposed to 17 of 178 deaths in the control group (P=0·06)." (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 5/abstract)

Polyunsaturated fats increase the risk of death from all causes:

"Conclusions Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats." (http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707)

Polyunsaturated fats increase cancer as well as the severity of cancer when compared with coconut oil, olive oil and low fat diets:

"Analysis of tumor incidence, latency, and multiplicity data obtained from the 7 experimental groups indicated that animals fed the HF safflower and corn oil diets exhibited enhanced mammary tumor yields when compared to animals fed HF olive or coconut oil diets or their LF counterparts." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3459924)

In the following study we can see that polyunsaturated fats enhanced tumor growth, while a fat free diet caused a reversal of some of the cancers:

"Young female Sprague-Dawley rats were administered 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, and a week later the rats were transferred from commercial feed to a semipurified diet containing 20% corn oil. Eight weeks after receiving the carcinogen, half of the rats were changed to a fat-free diet to determine the effects on mammary tumor growth and development. After another 20 weeks, rats fed the fat-free diet had significantly fewer tumors per tumor-bearing rat and the tumors were smaller than those of rats that continued on the high-fat diet. Rats fed the fat-free diet weighed somewhat less, but showed no physical evidence of essential fatty acid deficiency. Tumors regressed in about half of the rats on the fat-free diet and in some cases became nonpalpable. After 28 weeks on this diet, the remaining rats were transferred back to the high-fat diet and subsequently showed a marked stimulation in tumor growth and development. This continued even after the rats were returned to the fat-free diet 8 weeks later, indicating that the tumors were no longer susceptible to the deprivation of dietary fat. The results of this study provide further evidence that dietary fat affects the promotional stage of mammary carcinogenesis." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6815624)

The following study concluded that at a 4% linoleic acid intake, tumor growth was maximized compared with diets lower in polyunsaturated fat:

"Each diet contained 20% of fat by weight, with varying amounts of coconut oil and corn oil added to achieve the desired levels of linoleate. Mammary tumorigenesis was very sensitive to linoleate intake and increased proportionately in the range of 0.5 to 4.4% of dietary linoleate. Regression analysis indicated that a breakpoint occurred at 4.4%, beyond which there was a very poor linear relationship, suggesting the possibility of a plateau. From the intersection of the regression lines in both the upper and lower ranges, the level of linoleate required to elicit the maximal tumorigenic response was estimated to be around 4%" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3921234)

This study noted an increase in the metabolic rate of rats consuming a diet deficient in EFA:

"Basal respiration in relation to the body weight is significantly increased by EFA deficiency; it is unchanged when related to total animals under the employed experimental conditions. Oxidative phosphorylation in isolated liver mitochondria is unaffected by EFA deficiency, i.e., the increased metabolic rate of EFA-deficient rats, related to the body weight, cannot be explained from impaired functional integrity of the inner mitochondrial membrane." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6693988)

zarrin77 said:

I have read TONS of Peat's work (mainly from his articles, and some from audio interviews). One thing I really like about his writings is how cohesive they are and how they all fit together so nicely.

However, there are many important themes that I find debatable based on the studies I find on, yes, PubMed. More specifically, many studies show that PUFAs (6 and 3) increase lean mass, decrease fat mass, and lower cortisol.

Here are a few about PUFAS and their benefits:
(These are commentaries on the studies, but the links to the studies themselves are at the bottom)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overfeeding Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat Causes Distinct Effects on Liver and Visceral Fat Accumulation in Humans
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/co ... /2356.long
(Commentary: http://www.uu.se/en/media/press-release ... =3&lang=en)

Polyunsaturated fatty acids make you slimmer and more muscular
http://www.ergo-log.com/polyunsaturated ... cular.html

The kind of fat in your diet helps determine how much muscle mass you build up
http://www.ergo-log.com/weight-gain-kin ... ld-up.html

Six weeks of fish oil: lose a pound of fat and gain a pound of lean body mass
http://www.ergo-log.com/sixweeksfishoil.html

Fish oil capsules reduce fat rolls
http://www.ergo-log.com/fishoilfat.html

Fish oil helps aging mice live longer
http://www.ergo-log.com/fishoillongevity.html
(I know there wasn't a good "coconut oil" control group in this one, but lard at least did not have much PUFAs as the others, and they died first.)

Omega 3 fatty acids reduce cancer mortality
http://www.ergo-log.com/omega-3-fatty-a ... ality.html

Fish oil capsules prevent psychoses
http://www.ergo-log.com/fishoilpsychosis.html

Fish fatty acids reduce age-related physical performance decline
http://www.ergo-log.com/n3physicallongevity.html

Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids regulate bovine whole-body protein metabolism by promoting muscle insulin signalling to the Akt-mTOR-S6K1 pathway and insulin sensitivity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1715 ... stractPlus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and there's more, but I'll just stop here.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm not trying to say Peat is wrong. I am trying to understand.

According to Peat, there are a lot of early studies showing pretty much the opposite of what most of the recent studies are showing. I know he has said that sites like PubMed don't post every single study, but how can you explain all of the benefits from even just the studies above? From what I learned from science, was that if the data does not fit the theory, then either the data is not being interpreted correctly or the theorry needs to be adjusted.


How can we account for the above findings (and many similar findings) on PUFAs under Peat's model? How can we understand this? I am looking for a detailed, scientific explanation.

Please, just asking for some help. Thank you for your time!

Click to expand...

Well, with so many contradictory studies I think it is helpful to see what they do agree on and see which side holds more weight. Virtually all scientists, pro- or against-PUFA, agree on the following:

1. PUFA inhibit pyruvate dehydrogenase (PD) - the enzyme responsible for the proper processing of carbs. Saturated fat activate PD. Things that inhibit PD will cause increased aerobic glycolisys (more lactate, less CO2) and will slow down oxidative metabolism. Things that enhance PD will generally do the opposite. While there is some small disagreement on the topic, MOST studies agree that PD is greatly suppressed in tumor tissue and greatly enhanced in healthy organisms.

2. PUFA enhance pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK) and saturated fat inhibits it. This is the enzyme reponsible for inhibiting PD above. Again, PDK is overexpressed in tumor tissue and suppressed in healthy one.

3. PUFA is the main source of prostaglandin production. Without PUFA, I am not sure what the body does, but I guess inflammation decreased to a great degree. Some people argue that inflammation is good, others claim that it is pathological. Peat says that inflammation is behind virtually all degenerative diseases of aging, so the lower the better. I think the mainstream medicine at this point conceded that low inflammation and weaker inflammatory response to trauma is in fact better in the long run. Btw, some of the muscle growing effects of PUFA you mention are mediated through arachidonic acid (PUFA) and some of the prostaglandins derived from it.

4. PUFA strongly increase estrogen synthesis by promoting aromatase activity. With estrogen being listed as an official carcinogen on the NIH website, and the disasters of HRT decades ago I think I don't need to say more on this one.

5. PUFA inhibit 5-alpha reductase, saturated fat enhance it. This is the enzyme responsible not only for converting T into DHT but also for converting pregnenolone into various other beneficial steroids. Thus, drugs like Finasteride not only make you impotent through decreased DHT, but also make you zombified due to inhibiting the conversion of pregnenolone into allopregnanolone. Suicidal depression and permanent impotence are known side effects of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors. Peat has said that testosterone (T) is almost as dangerous as estrogen, and the studies agree on it. Competitive, long term athletes like soccer players, basketball players, NFL players, etc have abnormally high rates of ALS and the latest research has tied it to abnormal testosterone metabolism (I think it was the fluctuations between very high and very low seen in athletes due to sporting events).

6. PUFA promote the expression of NF-kB and it is thought to be one of the causes of insulin resistance and diabetes. I don't know if saturated fat inhibits NF-kB but at least I have never seen a study showing it increases it.

7. PUFA lower core body temperature, saturated fat increases it (at least in theory). Saturated fat uncouples mitochondria and increase thermogenesis, while PUFA (especially through its influence on estrogen) lowers body temperature. It is generally agreed upon that warm-blooded organisms with uncoupled mitochondria live longer and are much healthier than the same species living at lower temperature or having their temperature lowered artificially.

8. PUFA is a powerful immunosuppresant. In fact, they are used as intravenous injection in hospitals to prevent the body of a patient reject a transplanted organ. Anything that suppresses your immune system will increase the risk of cancer and some other degenerative conditions.

9. PUFA lower LDL cholesterol. The mechanism is not completely known by I think they act similar to a statin. Statins are now implicated in dementia and cancer. In general, low LDL cholesterol has been tied to higher risk of cancer and can predict cancer decades in advance. Peat said something along the lines of "anything that artificially lowers cholesterol will increase risk of cancer". I think by artificially he meant not doing it the proper way, which is only one - metabolize cholesterol into the steroids derived from it. Here is something to consider - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113713.htm

10. Finally, many of the studies you cite have already been refuted, or at least are seriously in question. For instance, it appears that even the food industry is giving up on the omega-3 fad given the several negative findings from highly publicized, large controlled trials. Here are some.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/omega ... ancer-risk (aggressive prostate cancer)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244205.php (MS)
http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scrip ... easeID=368 (dementia)
http://www.livescience.com/44141-omega- ... nefit.html (heart disease)
http://www.healio.com/cardiology/chd-pr ... s-with-chd (depression)
http://food.ndtv.com/health/caution-a-d ... cer-694912 (omega-6 cause liver cancer)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2646971, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2221295 (saturated fat prevents liver disease)

Remember, the points above are more or less agreed upon by BOTH sides of the debate. I can probably dig up many more points on which both sides agree and are very pro-Peat, but I think this is good as a start. If you search Google for "omega-3 clinical trials" or "omega-6 clinical trials" you will find a lot of official info and will see that most of the trials using these interventions either reported no benefit, were stopped early due to serious adverse events (SAE), or reported worsening in outcomes. Why these trials were funded and started at all is beyond me, but I guess at least the benefit is that we know for sure that PUFA is at best not helpful for the conditions in which it was tested.

Oh, I forgot to add this gem. It is controversial, but this guy seems to essentially quote Peat, with the exception of his take on omega-3 oils. Make sure to look at the references too.

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4596/rr/762078

"...The article fails to mention the main causes and most effective treatments for NALFD. This is not surprised because, although well researched, these causes and treatments are not well known. Consumption of vegetable oil, containing omega-6 fatty acids such as linoleic acid, is the most effective way of inducing fatty liver disease [1]. Saturated fats reverse NAFLD and beef fat does this most effectively [2]. Sugar, particularly fructose, also causes NAFLD. Omega-3 fats and medium chain triglycerides are beneficial. Omega-6 is an essential fatty acid. We need to consume 0.5% of total calories as omega-6. The problem is that in the West we have 10%, which is twenty times as much as is good for [3]. Vegetable oil is widely used in cooking and food processing. Excess omega-6 fats are converted to inflammatory prostaglandins and liver inflammatory changes result. This pathway is inhibited by omega-3 fats. Ideally omega-3 and omega-6 intake should be equal but in the West omega-6 intake is twenty times greater [4]. Heating polyunsaturated omega-6 fats results in toxic oxidation products, which are far worse than the trans fats that vegetable oil has replaced [5], and these may cause further liver damage.
Olive oil is probably almost as bad. It contains 20% linoleic acid when pure and more when nut or vegetable oil is added. This practice is universal to cut the cost of olive oil production [6].
The inclusion of vegetable oil and the reduction of saturated fat continue to be seen as part of a healthy diet. We can therefore expect to see a continuing rise in the incidence of NAFLD.

So, another morale of the story is - cut olive oil consumption too since most of it is adulterated with linoleic acid!!!

That's a great post, Haidut.
I believe this thread exemplifies perfectly why we need a database of scientific studies backing up each main assertion by Ray.

Otherwise, we could still have the same post resurfacing every six months on the forum, with new people still asking the same questions.

yeah I wonder about that, how do people from Asia stay healthy with all the PUFAs in their diet?