Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

This is my first post in the forum, but I'm planning to be a frequent poster.

 

I choose this topic since I also use EVOO to provide me some easy calories (I struggle to keep some weight on despite the fact that I eat a lot) even though I think they are not a health food. The study Micheal posted proves this argument: EVOO shows no correlation between CHD which indicates that one of the best EVOO in the world is as CHD promoting as the rest of their diet, so regular EVOO would be much worse. No one needs to get a hearth attack.

 

IMO, if someone needs to prove that EVOO and nuts are health foods (in absolute terms, not just added to suboptimal control diets), they need to be shown to improve or at least not harmful when added to +95% WFPB diet (let's be realistic, it's almost impossible to do 100% WFPB in modern world). I am pretty sure that if you add EVOO to that diet, you are going to increase CHD risk and probably not statistically significant difference for stroke and breast cancer risk.

 

I'm also from folks who want to hear good news about their bad habits but I also don't like people who use faulty science to make themselves be comfortable and misguide other people.

 

P.S. The criticism I raised here for general and not against a specific person of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also use EVOO to provide me some easy calories ... even though I think they are not a health food. The study Micheal posted proves this argument: EVOO shows no correlation between CHD which indicates that one of the best EVOO in the world is as CHD promoting as the rest of their diet, so regular EVOO would be much worse. No one needs to get a hearth attack.

 

What are you talking about? The studies I cited showed very clearly that it does reduce CHD, and a lot of other nasty health outcomes, notably age-related cognitive decline, dementia, and atrial fibrillation!

 

IMO, if someone needs to prove that EVOO and nuts are health foods (in absolute terms, not just added to suboptimal control diets)

Done! (Except in the circular sense that a diet is suboptimal until it contains lots of premium EVOO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to argue against the research Michael described, not to mention the new research showing the Olive/EVOO BAT connection.  Many health gurus out there like to lump all oils into the same bottle, but EVOO is loaded with polyphenols (while other oils aren't).  

 

Has anyone been able to track down the best EVOO polyphenol bang for the buck?  This is challenging since the various studies out there use different techniques for measuring, it varies year to year, each study looks at different products, and the available product may not always have a recent press date.

 

I do wonder about just eating olives instead - I guess you have the same problem as EVOO where you can't easily tell the phenolic content and from what I've read they have a short shelf life (much shorter than EVOO). 

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone been able to track down the best EVOO polyphenol bang for the buck?

I've long endorsed the fine folks who run Veronica Foods/Delizia Olive Oil, whose oils you can get through any of the client stores listed with the "VF" tag in EVOO author Tom Mueller's database of producers and sources of premium extra-virgin olive oil. These people are absolutely passionate olive oil fanatics — and I know, because I've been geeking out with them on and off on the subject since June, 2010. Part of what they do to make sure they have some of the best damned EVOO on the planet is the obvious: they have intimate familiarity with their sources' operation, and own several of the farms and presses where the oils are made; AND they have the oils tested at reputable labs, including not only the basic IOC stuff, but novel quality tests introduced in Germany and Australia (diacylglycerol (DAG) ratio and pyropheophytin A), as well as concentration of phenolics and oleic acid content. (Indeed, it was the hereditary owner of the company, the eponymous Veronica Bradley, who first alerted me to the huge variation in oleic content in olive oils).

 

This is challenging since the various studies out there use different techniques for measuring,

Most of the methods are standardized. The one most important variation is the variable reporting units for phenolic counts. Many vendors report their poly counts in tyrosol-equivalents, which tends to exaggerate the level of phenolics in a given oil compared to caffeic or gallic-acid equivalents, which are more commonly used in the scientific literature. This isn't intended to be deceptive — it's like when you say you're whizzing down Main street at 55, but you mean in km/h when the benighted locals are used to mph, which makes a big difference! — but you do have to bear it in mind. And unfortunately, whereas there is a definite formula to convert from metric to Imperial units, poly measurement units' exaggeration of TOTAL polys varies, because of the differing SPECIFIC MIX of polys present in different oils, and variable experimental conditions for doing spectrophotometry from one lab to the next. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that the 'apples-to-apples' poly level of oils reported in tyrosol-equivalents, compared to most scientific studies or CoAs you'll see, is ~20% lower.

 

VF reports in caffeic acid-equivalents.

 

it varies year to year, each study looks at different products, and the available product may not always have a recent press date.

VF always has the freshest oil they can get, from sources all over the world: this is a key feature of their business model . They order in oil from both hemispheres all year round, so that they can always offer oil that is no more than 6-8 mo old: they bring fresh oils in from the S hemisphere in the (northern hemisphere) summer, and from the N hemisphere in the (northern hemisphere) winter, with a few oddball locations' oils turning up in between. And they give full transparency on the chemistry and the crush date, so you can choose the best. Which specific oils are carried by individual stores sourcing from VF does vary, however.

 

I do wonder about just eating olives instead - I guess you have the same problem as EVOO where you can't easily tell the phenolic content and from what I've read they have a short shelf life (much shorter than EVOO).

I argued against likely equivalence earlier in the thread, tho' I've never gotten my act together to document my reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Veronica Foods source, thanks for that info, you mention their testing but do they publish the results?  I don't see anything like that on the sites you mention.  I found a VF retailer pretty close to me, which I will definitely check out, their product offerings look promising but no info on phenolic content or crush dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordo, I see the results in red in all the oils. Go for example to the first oil, Uruguayan Cortina:

 

http://amphoranueva.com/store/index.php?p=product&id=204

 

and you'll find:

 

"Harvest Date: June 2016

FFA .2, Peroxide 5.2, Oleic 78, Poly 333"

which is what you need. FWIW, I've been buying in bulk from them for several years now, communicating directly with Nate who usually has some feel for when new harvest shipments will arrive and will be tested - then based on the chemistry I buy a 10 liter cube that lasts me a few months and then I buy the next one when it's finished and this way always have fresh oil. In 2011 Michael R. organized a list buy in which I participated, but that has not been repeated, so I buy on my own. Some years are better than others when it comes to chemistry. A word of warning: I take EVOO for health reasons, so the chemistry is my #1 concern, and taste is irrelevant. That said, I happen to like the taste of high poly EVOO - which not everyone enjoys. I have a very good friend who has lived in both Italy and France and is a pretty worldly gourmand, and he tasted one of my high poly oils and it was way too harsh for him! I generously offered him a bottle which he refused :). It can be very peppery and almost burn your throat - plus it can taste very grassy, like you're drinking freshly cut lawn :). As I said, I happen to like that taste, but most people are not used to real fresh high-poly EVOO, and their idea of what EVOO is supposed to taste like is based on old - often musty - oil that is very mild and often adulterated. Real fresh EVOO then represents a shock.

Also - as always, with all food, or medicine, it's all about the dose. Michael R. I believe maintains that you need a minimum of two tablespoons of EVOO daily to reap any health benefits... which is A LOT, especially for someone who is not used to consuming it regularly (Michael R., if I am mispreresenting your position, please chime in!). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[in Table 5: Arrhythmias occurring in reperfusion after 5 min of acute regional ischaemia in rats fed lipid-supplemented diets for 12 weeks:

------------------------------------------

Ventricular fibrulation frequency was 50% in the three other oils and 10% in canola and the mortality in ventricular fibrulation was 30% for two and 20% for one other oils and 0% for canola oil.  The pdf is availed.]

-------------------------

Dietary canola oil modifies myocardial fatty acids and inhibits cardiac arrhythmias in rats.

McLennan PL, Dallimore JA.

J Nutr. 1995 Apr;125(4):1003-9.

PMID: 7722678

Abstract

Previous research showed that dietary fish oil was potently antiarrhythmic in rats but olive oil was not. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that canola oil, another major dietary source of oleic acid additionally containing the (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid [18:3(n-3)], can reduce vulnerability to cardiac arrhythmia in rats. Rats were randomly assigned to one of four experimental diet groups for 12 wk. The fat source in the diets was 12% olive (63% oleic acid), canola (55% oleic, 8% alpha-linolenic acid), soybean [50% linoleic 18:2(n-6), 7% alpha-linolenic acid] or sunflower seed oil (64% linoleic acid). Arrhythmias were induced by coronary artery occlusion and reperfusion. Incidence of ventricular fibrillation, mortality and arrhythmia score during reperfusion were significantly lower in rats fed the diet containing canola oil than in those fed the olive oil diet. No difference in the severity of arrhythmias was seen in groups fed diets containing soybean or sunflower seed oils. Analysis of myocardial phospholipid fatty acids showed that consumption of canola oil decreased the ratio of (n-6)/(n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids relative to the other diets, as does dietary fish oil. These results suggest that regular substitution of canola oil for other dietary lipid sources may assist in reducing the likelihood of a transient ischemic event leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, but the effectiveness of alpha-linolenic acid is reduced by high levels of linoleic acid.

Edited by AlPater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[in Table 5: Arrhythmias occurring in reperfusion after 5 min of acute regional ischaemia in rats fed lipid-supplemented diets for 12 weeks:

------------------------------------------

Ventricular fibrulation frequency was 50% in the three other oils and 10% in canola and the mortality in ventricular fibrulation was 30% for two and 20% for one other oils and 0% for canola oil.  The pdf is availed.]

-------------------------

Dietary canola oil modifies myocardial fatty acids and inhibits cardiac arrhythmias in rats.

McLennan PL, Dallimore JA.

J Nutr. 1995 Apr;125(4):1003-9.

PMID: 7722678

Abstract

Previous research showed that dietary fish oil was potently antiarrhythmic in rats but olive oil was not. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that canola oil, another major dietary source of oleic acid additionally containing the (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid [18:3(n-3)], can reduce vulnerability to cardiac arrhythmia in rats. Rats were randomly assigned to one of four experimental diet groups for 12 wk. The fat source in the diets was 12% olive (63% oleic acid), canola (55% oleic, 8% alpha-linolenic acid), soybean [50% linoleic 18:2(n-6), 7% alpha-linolenic acid] or sunflower seed oil (64% linoleic acid). Arrhythmias were induced by coronary artery occlusion and reperfusion. Incidence of ventricular fibrillation, mortality and arrhythmia score during reperfusion were significantly lower in rats fed the diet containing canola oil than in those fed the olive oil diet. No difference in the severity of arrhythmias was seen in groups fed diets containing soybean or sunflower seed oils. Analysis of myocardial phospholipid fatty acids showed that consumption of canola oil decreased the ratio of (n-6)/(n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids relative to the other diets, as does dietary fish oil. These results suggest that regular substitution of canola oil for other dietary lipid sources may assist in reducing the likelihood of a transient ischemic event leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, but the effectiveness of alpha-linolenic acid is reduced by high levels of linoleic acid.

Edited by AlPater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These results suggest that regular substitution of canola oil for other dietary lipid sources may assist in reducing the likelihood of a transient ischemic event leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, but the effectiveness of alpha-linolenic acid is reduced by high levels of linoleic acid.

 

In rats. For emphasis: in rats. I am deeply skeptical regarding how this translates into humans. Not only was this in rats, but the arrythmias were induced artificially, and not through an underlying pathology, which in turn might not necessarily reflect how arrythmias happen in humans. I am not sure this paper is in any way actionable for folks reading this board, unless they have reason to suspect vulnerability to arrythmias and even then they must keep in mind this was a result in rats where the arrythmia was artificially induced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordo, I see the results in red in all the oils. Go for example to the first oil, Uruguayan Cortina:

 

http://amphoranueva.com/store/index.php?p=product&id=204

 

OK, I was going by the websites of the retailers near me, and those do not show polyphenol content.  I guess some of the VF sites do and others don't, I don't have time to go through the whole list, but it seems that the South African Don Carlo is the best polyphenol bang for the buck at this time.  I have asked the retailers near me if they can get it (neither had it on their website).  Like you, I don't care about the taste, but I'm sure I'd grow to appreciate it, I eat all sorts of pungent things already ;)  I'm not sure yet if it's worth the money, and getting 10+% of calories from EVOO every day just doesn't seem right to me, I don't think I will take it that far... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted some possibly useful info about Berkeley Olive Grove's high phenol EVOO of the Mission Olive variety here.  At around $13 per 500ml bottle (if purchased by the gallon), this is hard to beat, especially for a product that is extremely reputable and has been put through more testing probably than any other, and made on a small scale by a hard core olive enthusiast (who aparently is also perfectly willing to talk your ear off about olive oil if you call them).

 

Anyway, the "cheap" stuff I had been occasionally using is:

AldiSimplyNatureOrganicMediterraneanExtr

$3.99 per 500ML bottle.  Says "bitter and spicy" right on the label (a good sign) and USDA certified organic. But there is absolutely no info online about phenol counts, even old tests.  I decided to track down the supplier (in Spain), and was able to get in contact with them directly.  They said they don't normally test their oil, but they would.  Not long after, surprising to me, they actually sent me test results supposedly from the same lot I had purchased. Unless they bent over backwards to make a fake document, it seems like they actually did go do testing at my request:

AldiSimplyNatureOrganicMediterraneanExtr

 

Phenols came in at 322.  Not too bad for "the cheap stuff", this is higher than average, and meets the standards in the EU for:

EU 432/2012 health claim that 5mg per day of hydroxytyrosol and derivatives (oleuropein complex and tyrosol) offer protection against LDL oxidation: “Olive oil polyphenols contribute to the protection of blood lipids from oxidative stress.”

 

But there are probably better bang for the buck brands out there that can be purchased locally for many people (in the US).  I'm not sure how to interpret:

https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/phenolic-compounds-olive-oils-bought-california

Does "D3" equate to what everyone else just calls "phenols"?  If so, it would seem that 

Trader Joe's Spanish Extra Virgin Olive Oil: $7.99 (1L)  (same price as Aldi's cheap stuff, very good "D3" in the test report above)
Trader Joe's Extra Virgin California Estate Olive Oil: $5.99 (500ML) (also looks good in the above report)

 

But I'll have a gallon of Berkeley Olive Grove's highest phenol oil soon, will probably stick to that from here on out...

I did also try the Apollo Sierra Organic (which seems to have tested out at the highest phenol content).  Its great, but quite expensive.  One family member that taste tasted it immediately started choking, so I guess that's a sign of its potency, haha.  I didn't think it was particularly harsh though personally, flavorful, but not overwhelmingly bitter or pungent.

 

-Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, Gordo, for your splendid reports - very much appreciated!

 

You linked to Trader Joe's Extra Virgin California Estate Olive Oil. Amazingly enough, this is the exact oil I used to buy years and years ago, and mentioned that on the CR list - noting, that it was made from Arbequina varietal olives. My reasoning was that there is generally less fraud in CA EVOO compred to various dodgy European (particularly Italian) EVOO, unfiltered, and that you can also be assured of it not being old and absusively stored/transported. Michael R. thereupon remarked that the chemistry of the Arbequina varietal is one of the least impressive in polyphenol count - which coincidentally might account for the mild taste they brag about on the bottle. I checked in an online database (I think from U.C. Davis), and indeed Arbequina numbers were dismal. This was subsequently borne out in other places that test for polyphenol count, such as Amphora Nueva. I thereupon dropped the TJ"s Extra Virgin California Estate Olive Oil, like a hot potato (guess, what - I don't eat potatoes, generally :)), and have avoided the Arbequina varietal ever since.

 

Indeed, when you look at the numbers in the link you provided, that oil might have OK (not stellar) D3 numbers, but seems exceptionally low in other groups of phenolic compounds. How this shakes out from the point of view of health impact, I can't say, but it does seem like the global phenolic content of Arbequina varietal olives is pretty low. If we speculate that phenolic content is important, then perhaps this is not an optimal EVOO, but who knows... ladies and gentlemen, pick your oils and place your bets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...One family member that taste tasted it immediately started choking, so I guess that's a sign of its potency, haha.  I didn't think it was particularly harsh though personally, flavorful, but not overwhelmingly bitter or pungent.

 

-Gordo

 

Often it just depends on how you gulp it down and the quantities. Sometimes I too almost choke myself on my usual EVOO, if some of it goes right down the throat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Michael Greger people keep insisting how unhealthy olive oil is, confusing me further. For example, I read a comment like "...Olive oil and wine can be considered essentially fruit juices...." and just stop reading much more: http://nutritionfacts.org/2017/01/19/four-ways-to-improve-on-the-mediterranean-diet/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=c9c666ea95-RSS_BLOG_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-c9c666ea95-24310229&mc_cid=c9c666ea95&mc_eid=c544a11e29

 

Since olive oil is granted entry into my system as a leading calorie source because of alleged benefits, it's no trivial issue.

Edited by Sthira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya Sthira - I'm still contemplating how much EVOO I want to consume.   I feel like the benefits are very well documented, but the reasons for caution are there at the same time.  But calling olive oil a "fruit juice" like wine is just absurd.  I'd love to see Dr. Greger analyze the scientific evidence on both sides, he seems to completely ignore the pretty well established benefits.

 

Here is a decent summary video of the "no oil" argument (I'm not saying I agree with the conclusion, just that these are the studies that Dr. G and others like to reference):

https://youtu.be/LbtwwZP4Yfs

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olive oil is a "fruit juice" in the sense that it is the juice expressed from a whole food. I don't think anyone is trying to say anything beyond that. But it is also worth thinking of it that way to make sure that you don't let it spoil. Like other fruit juices, it has a shelf life.

 

Greger's analysis, as best I can gather, is that the health benefits of olive oil are almost entirely from replacing animal fats as a source of fat. So if you are going to run a bunch of tests that compare people who cook their food in animal fat to those who cook in olive oil, the olive oil people are going to look much healthier. But that is not because olive oil itself is healthy, only because it is replacing something unhealthy. I haven't done enough research myself to make a decision about this yet. I'm also eager to at least try one of these super high polyphenol olive oils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greger's analysis, as best I can gather, is that the health benefits of olive oil are almost entirely from replacing animal fats as a source of fat.

 

... which thesis is decisively disproven by the PREDIMED trial, as I documented extensively in my first post in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I would love to know your opinion on the observations that after consuming olive oil one gets post postprandial impaired artery function, increased coagulation factors, fat in the blood, and angina (details and studies noted in the video I posted above, I believe these are the same studies Dr. Greger likes to reference).  If other studies show "very clearly that [EVOO] does reduce CHD, and a lot of other nasty health outcomes, notably age-related cognitive decline, dementia, and atrial fibrillation" then would you say these other "side effects" are irrelevant (or perhaps exaggerated, or maybe "high phenol" was a missing factor)?

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Greger's analysis, as best I can gather, is that the health benefits of olive oil are almost entirely from replacing animal fats as a source of fat.

... which thesis is decisively disproven by the PREDIMED trial, as I documented extensively in my first post in this thread.

Thank you. Reread your post from earlier and it set me straight again. There's nothing new in this guy's video posted above that Michael hasn't already addressed.

 

Consider, too, that we aren't consuming "oil" or randomly bought unknown shelf-dated olive oil. Rather, we're buying freshly harvested, chemically tested EVOO that's been vetted as well as is possible, I suppose, for retail commodity consumers.

 

Whenever I come across "news" about olive oil that's either pro or con I think oh maybe there's some new study or reinterpretation of an earlier look. But usually there isn't. Usually it's just click bait.

 

We should send Greger Michael's post, see how he'd react. I like Greger, and I like Clapper, too, but I think from what I've read that Michael's arguments are in much finer detail and seemingly without agenda. Although I can't imagine what "agenda" Greger would have against EVOO (if he's truly interested in basing his marketing upon "science based" reasoning -- if EVOO is indeed healthy, what's the big deal about not eating it? I mean, it's not like animals are slaughtered so we can consume the stuff)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I would love to know your opinion on the observations that after consuming olive oil one gets post postprandial impaired artery function, increased coagulation factors, fat in the blood, and angina

 

The short answer is that, of course, a long-term randomized controlled trial with hard outcomes beats a three-hour acute metabolic study any day. If I show you that Pill X lowers your risk of a heart attack, the fact that it also raises your postprandial LDL and TG is a mere metabolic curiosity.

 

I apologize (sincerely) for not having the time to dissect those studies, but the bottom line is that they're bunk. First, the dosages used are absurd: 50-80 grams of olive oil (≈1/4-1/3 of a cup) taken with a slice of bread is the typical design, which (a) is not a sensible dose, (b) lets the fat get into your system very quickly (if it doesn't give you the runs ...), and © combines the incoming lipemia with a shot of high-glycemic carb. "Use as directed" as part of a Mediterranean diet.

 

Also, despite what he says, the "Methods" section of at least some of the cited studies just say they use "olive oil" — not EVOO. And, of course, if they just went to the store and bought "olive oil" (or even labeled "EVOO"), they could have wound up with either the old, peroxidized junk that passes for EVOO (70% of oils on the supermarket shelf in the UC Davis study), or (though I hasten to add that it's uncommon) with sunflower oil tarted up with chlorophyllin and beta-carotene.

 

There's also an untested assumption (or, possibly, bait-and-switch) built into them.  It's true that spontaneous impairments in endothelial function have been linked to bad cardiovascular outcomes. But he's here assuming that provoked decrements on the same test will have the same deleterious consequences – which AFAICS has never been tested. To make an analogy: if your resting heart rate looked like it does in the middle of a jog, you'd be on your way to a heart attack — but going for a jog is good for you, not bad. (And no, I am not pushing the analogy so far as to suggest that chugging oil to impair endothelial function is some kind of hormetic health protocol — just that you can't simply draw a line between unchallenged and challenged metabolic outcomes).

 

Finally: angina? Seriously?? I — and hundreds of millions of people — bought and used refined olive oil (let alone real EVOO) for years; I never once recall suddenly suffering chest pains. I don't dispute that it may have happened, but if so, it's a testament to the ridiculous conditions under which the tests were carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If EVOO's health benefits come from the phenolic compounds not from oleic acid which I remember does not reduce your CVD risk even with lowered LDL, then the best advice for consumption of olive oil is not to consume it unless you are sure it is the highest quality. Since most of the EVOOs out there are not high in quality, then the best practical advice from a health professional to the public is saying not to consume them. And yes, I support those experts about their decision. If your diet is already very healthy, it's just not worth to add EVOO to it.

 

Even though I still consume EVOO, I still don't have the justification why I bother myself trying to find a good quality EVOO and paying tons of money for it, while I can spend my time finding other healthy stuff and paying them less, and plus not mentioning my mind will be at ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Burak, your line of thinking is very similar to my own.  Now that you are no longer in the White House, perhaps you can post more on these forums ;)

I have been thinking a little bit about the economics and polyphenol comparisons of EVOO.  For optimal nutrition, you don't want junk calories (low phytonutrient sources), but it can be kind of challenging to get enough quality calories day after day.  A TBSP of EVOO seems "convenient" in that regard.  I already eat lots of nuts, and avocados, and flax/chia seed (in addition to boat loads of high fiber, most carb, whole plant foods).  It seems like a good idea to diversify where the nutrients are coming from.  On a cost comparison basis, it's kind of interesting how it works out:

 

Based on Berkeley Olive Grove's: 

100% Organic California Mission Classic 551 (Ultra-Premium)

$94 shipped for a gallon, which is the equivalent of 7.57 500ml bottles, comes to $12.42 per 500ml bottle.

For that $12.42, you get 4,058 calories.  Compared to quality premium mixed nuts (cashews, almonds, brazil nuts, hazelnuts, and pecans), at $12.99 per 30 oz, you get 5100 calories.  That's $0.306 per hundred calories for EVOO, and $0.255 per hundred calories for mixed nuts.  So they are pretty similar, when you consider nut calories aren't fully absorbed, I'd bet the high quality EVOO actually wins on a true cost per calorie absorbed basis, not to mention you can find decent relatively high phenol EVOO for almost a 1/3rd the cost of the example above, in which case it beats the socks off of nuts on a per calorie basis.

 

It is kind of difficult and perhaps hairbrained to compare EVOO to say, blueberries, obviously you aren't going to use calories, and it's difficult to come up with some "equivalent health promoting impact" comparison (just looking at polyphenol content seems kind of silly since they are all different compounds with different impacts on human health).  But just for fun, here are some numbers anyway (hopefully I didn't make any glaring basic math errors but I wouldn't be surprised):

 

Here are some berry polyphenol measurements:

The polyphenol content (Folin assay) in berries may vary from 30 to 2000 mg/100 g. The highest levels are found in black elderberry (1950 mg/100 g), black chokeberry (1752 mg/100 g), black raspberry (980 mg/100 g), and blackcurrant (821 mg/100 g). A wide range of phenolic compounds are present in berries and polyphenol profiles are characteristic of each species (70). The main polyphenols in berries are the anthocyanins, the ellagitannins (Rubus and Fragaria genus), and the proanthocyanidins. Because of their polymeric nature and complex molecular structures, ellagitannins and proanthocyanidins are difficult to quantify and could be underestimated. Phenolic acids and flavonols are less abundant and less studied, except in some species such as blueberries rich in 5-caffeoylquinic acid. 

 

Converting the above to mg/kg, that is 300 to 20,000 mg/kg, an extremely big range.  Black raspberries were at 9,800 mg/kg.

Looking at blueberriesThe total polyphenol content ranged from 2522.90 mg.kg-1 to 4960.20 mg.kg-1 with organic fertilization, and 2278.25 mg.kg-1 to 3350.23 mg.kg-1 not-organic.

 

 

1/3 pint of blueberries = 113 grams or 0.113 kg which represents (lets just use 3000 mg/kg polyphenols) 339 mg of polyphenols, at a cost of maybe $0.50 to $0.75 (for in season blueberries, not organic).  If you ate the same quantity of black raspberries, you'd get three times the polyphenols, at perhaps 2 times the cost.

 

In the above mentioned high phenol EVOO, there are 698mg/kg polyphenols.  1 TBSP of the above mentioned EVOO is 13.47g or 0.01347kg which represents just 9.39mg of polyphenols and costs $0.37

 

Is there actually any value in comparing polyphenols like this?  At the end of the day, after I've had my mega dose of plant/berry polyphenols, I'm still hungry and need me some calories  ;)  Plus the EVOO may do "weird things" like prevent the oxidation of LDL, not to mention boost the absorption of fat soluble nutrients I'm eating along with it, and has been associated with brain benefits and stroke reduction.

 

Of course you could argue that a giant bowl of black rice with black potatoes, both of which have as many polyphenols as blueberries but a lot more calories, would be a better option.  Then again a little high polyphenol EVOO drizzled over the top of that meal may just be the icing needed on that cake!  Haha.

 

At any rate, I did receive that Berkeley California Mission Classic the other day and have already bottled it (which was more of a pain than I was expecting, not easy to cleanly pour that stuff).  I can say it is way more pungent than the Apollo Sierra Organic, and also somewhat bitter, but not overwhelmingly so.  It has far more flavor than any EVOO I've tasted before.  I could definitely get used to it.

 

-Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polyphenol intake from a Mediterranean diet decreases inflammatory biomarkers related to atherosclerosis: a substudy of the PREDIMED trial.

Medina-Remón A, Casas R, Tressserra-Rimbau A, Ros E, Martínez-González MA, Fitó M, Corella D, Salas-Salvadó J, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Estruch R; PREDIMED Study Investigators..

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan;83(1):114-128. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12986. Review.

PMID: 27100393

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12986/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12986/epdf

Abstract

High dietary polyphenol intake is associated with reduced all-cause mortality and a lower incidence of cardiovascular events. However, the mechanisms involved are not fully understood. The aim of the present substudy of the PREvención con DIetaMEDiterránea (Prevention with Mediterranean diet; PREDIMED) trial was to analyse the relationship between polyphenol intake measured by total urinary polyphenol excretion (TPE), and circulating inflammatory biomarkers and cardiovascular risk factors in elderly individuals. A substudy of 1139 high-risk participants was carried out within the PREDIMED trial. The subjects were randomly assigned to a low-fat control diet or to two Mediterranean diets, supplemented with either extra-virgin olive oil or nuts. Dietary intake, anthropometric data, clinical and laboratory assessments, including inflammatory biomarkers, and urinary TPE were measured at baseline and after the one-year intervention. Participants in the highest tertile of changes in urinary TPE (T3) showed significantly lower plasma levels of inflammatory biomarkers [vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) (-9.47 ng ml-1 ), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (-14.71 ng ml-1 ), interleukin 6 (-1.21 pg ml-1 ), tumour necrosis factor alpha (-7.05 pg ml-1 ) and monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (-3.36 pg ml-1 )] than those inthe lowest tertile (T1, P < 0.02; all). A significant inverse correlation existed between urinary TPE and the plasma concentration of\VCAM-1 (r = -0.301; P < 0.001). In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) decreased and plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased in parallel with increasing urinary TPE (T3 vs. T1) (P < 0.005 and P = 0.004, respectively). Increases in polyphenol intake measured as urinary TPE are associated with decreased inflammatory biomarkers, suggesting a dose-dependent anti-inflammatory effect of polyphenols. In addition, high polyphenol intake improves cardiovascular risk factors- mainly BP and the lipid profile.

KEYWORDS:

Folin-Ciocalteu; Mediterranean diet; blood pressure; hypertension; inflammatory biomarkers; urinary polyphenol biomarker

---------------

Competing Interests

Dr Ros reports grants, nonfinancial support and other from the California Walnut Commission; grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support and other from Merck, Sharp & Dohme; grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support and other from Alexion; personal fees, nonfinancial support and other from Aegerion; grants and personal fees from Sanofi Aventis; grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support and other from Ferrer International; grants from Amgen; and grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Estruch reports grants from the Spanish Institute of Health ‘Carlos III’, nonfinancial support from Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero, Spain; nonfinancial support from the California Walnut Commission, Spain; nonfinancial support from Borges SA, Spain; grants and nonfinancial support from FIS, Government of Spain; nonfinancial support from Fundacion Bosch i Gimpera, Spain, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Fundación Dieta Mediterránea, Spain; personal fees from FIVIN, Spain; personal fees from Cerveceros de España, Spain; personal fees from Brewers of Europe, Belgium; grants from Bicentury, SA, Spain; grants from Grand Fountaine, Spain; grants from Novartis Farmaceutica, SA; grants from Amgen SA; personal fees from Lilly Laboratories, Spain; personal fees from Instituto Cervantes, Albuquerque, NM, USA; personal fees from Instituto Cervantes, Milan, Italy; personal fees from the Wine and Culinary International Forum; nonfinancial support from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA, and from University of Columbia, New York, NY, USA, outside the submitted work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because. Merry-go-around of confusion, the more the merrier. 

 

Diet, ‘anti-aging’ supplements may help reverse blood vessel abnormality

 

A diet low in grains, beans and certain vegetables — combined with “anti-aging” supplements — improved blood vessel function, in a study presented at the American Heart Association’s Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology 2013 Scientific Sessions.

 

The blood vessel abnormality, or endothelial dysfunction, occurs when cells lining the interior wall of blood vessels malfunction. It’s a serious condition that’s often one of the first signs of heart disease.

 

Of the 200 51- to 86-year-old people in the study, 40 percent were women. All had risk factors for blood vessel disease and nearly three-quarters had endothelial dysfunction.

The diet restricted foods high in the sugar-binding protein lectin, generally regarded as a healthy nutrient. The restricted foods included grains, beans, fruit, poultry and plants belonging to the nightshade family, which includes tomatoes. At the same time, patients consumed plenty of leafy greens, shellfish and fish, olive oil and grass-fed animal protein, while taking supplements containing the antioxidant polyphenol from fish oil, grape seed extract and vitamins. Antioxidants are thought to slow cell aging.

 

“These findings represent a fundamental paradigm shift in how the diseases of the ‘Western Diet’ should be treated,” said Steven R. Gundry, M.D., lead author and medical director of the International Heart & Lung Institute at The Center for Restorative Medicine in Palm Springs, Calif. “Simple removal of ‘healthy’ lectin-containing foods, and taking a few inexpensive supplements, may restore endothelial function to normal, which in turn can reverse high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity.”

 

Despite the study’s findings, consumers shouldn’t eliminate tomatoes or other healthy foods from their diets, said the American Heart Association, which recommends consuming a diet with plenty of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×