Active Low-Carber Forums - View Single Post - A comparison of fats from NutritionData.com

I asked a question on her blog "Ask Monica" and got this as a response:

http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblo...me-to-nutr.html

Quote:

Posted by: Martin Levac | Jan 20, 2010 1:15:19 PM

Compare these three fats' inflammation factor numbers:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/509/2
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/482/2
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/3478/2

Considering what we now know about omega 3/6, and that we have recently concluded that saturated fats are not associated with atherosclerosis nor CVD, could you explain why olive oil is strongly anti-inflammatory while beef suet is moderately inflammatory?

To elaborate. Beef suet contains more omega 3 and less omega 6 than olive oil (per 100g: 860mg vs 761mg and 2150mg vs 9763mg) and has a much better o3/o6 ratio than olive oil (1:2.5 vs 1:12.8). These numbers say that beef suet should be better for us than olive oil yet it's olive oil that's on top of the IF scale.

Thank you and keep up the good work.

Monica's Response: Monounsaturated fats also have a strong (positive) effect on IF Ratings. But, more to your point, the IF Rating formula (still) considers saturated fat a minus. I'm always open to consider revisions based on newer/better research but that might be premature. The recent AJCN analysis which found no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease doesn't necessarily address the issue of whether or not saturated fats provoke inflammation--which some studies suggest it does.

I don't want to make this a simple refutation of what she's saying but it's come down to this anyway. So she doesn't disagree with the omega 3/6 argument, how could she. But she holds monounsaturated fats in high regards, high enough to completely counteract the omega 6 inflammation potential. And she still sees saturated fats as inflammatory for no reason that I can see. You see, atherosclerosis is just another form of inflammation. If saturated fat is not associated with atherosclerosis, then it's also not associated with inflammation thereby making it, at worse, inconsequential on the IF scale. That leaves us only with monounsaturated fats in direct opposition to omega 6 PUFA. Considering that we now eat little, if any, saturated fats from animal sources, and that we eat instead a lot of vegetable fats that contain a boatload of monounsaturated fats, it should make us healthier, not sicker. Yet here we are growing sicker, fatter, weaker and probably stupider. Actually, certainly stupider since we do continue to avoid the saturated fats and do continue to eat the vegetables fats in spite of what it obviously does to us. But I digress. The point is that she gives an arbitrarily high value to monounsaturated fats in order to, probably, agree with the current nutritional and health dogma which says that saturated fats are bad for you.

But then, we also eat a boatload of omega 6 from the same oils which contain the monounsaturated fats. That MUFA starts to look quite impotent when pitted against omega 6. It is starting to look pretty bad for her inflammation factor idea thingy.