Jump to content

Recommended Posts

However, after havind read your link, apparently in California all depends on the oleocanthal, which has been included among the total polyphenols in the study you cite. However, I don't know if it has been included in the Italian study, if not, of course the data are not comparable (only 1/5 of californian oils would surpass the European threshold). 

 

 

 

I don't know about that either, but one of their objectives was "to determine how many of the store-bought EVOOs would qualify for the EU labelling regulation 432/2012." so I would hope that they were using the EU standards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordo, the issue on oleocanthal and the EU regulations seems to be still open (by the way, great site!).

 

What I understood is that, according to Dr Magiatis, the inventor of the NMR analytical technique (used in the American study) and one of the authors of teh study, oleocanthal is a legitimate phenolic compound, but the European Commission agency did not issue an official statement.

 

Bottom line,  is that the Italian study has been carried out with the HPLC method

 

HPLC analysis was performed using an HPLC Shimadzu mod. LC-10ADVP equipped with a UV-Vis (Photo)Diode Array detector (Shimadzu Italia, Milan, Italy), using a reverse phase column Spherisorb S5 ODS3 250 4.6 mm i.d. (Phenomenex, Castel Maggiore, BO, Italy).

 

Now, this method, as far as I understood, is not sensitive to all hydroxityrosol and tyrosol compounds, among which oleocanthal. The NMR method used in the American study IS sensitive to oleocanthal, so the result appears to be biased, that is, the American study and the Italian study probably cannot be compared.

 

If so, then less than 20% oils would reach the European threshold. I think it is still a better percentage than the Italian study.

 

 

 

If oleocanthal were included, half of the EVOOs tested in California would qualify to make the claim. If it is finally decided that oleocanthal should not be measured, then fewer than 1 in 5 would qualify.

 

 

Good new is that, if oleocanthal is a legitimate phenolic compound and it is not measured by traditional methods, then probably we can increase the polyphenols concentrations measured with the traditional HPLC method, to the greater advantage of our health.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm all for throwing out everything about centuries of anecdotal experience and common sense . Centuries of anecdotal experience and common sense would have led you to think that smoking tobacco was a salubrious activity: look at all those healthy, strapping Native Americans!

Michael, of course I refer to the accumulated wisdom of holistic medicine, alternative medicine, healthy dietary methods which have been developed empirically thru the ages. Such methods are purely empirical but, since they use the accumulated observations of centuries, often they are able to predict correctly the benefits of a food or a regime. Why to throw the tradition away?

"Traditional medicine" is the nonsense that passes for medicine in a prescientific society where with average life expectancies of 20-30 years. Traditional medicine prescribes hepatotoxic kava kava to calm you down, hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic creosote bush to ineffectually "treat" tuberculosis, intentionally compounds Ayurvedic herbal concoctions with heavy metals, and drills a hole in your skull if you suffer from epilepsy.

 

The illusion that allows "traditional" diets to seem to be able predict correctly the benefits of a food or a regime is the result of the facts that (a) "even a stopped clock gives correct time twice daily," and (b) "traditionally," there was nothing for the vast majority of the population to eat but minimally-processed foods: food itself was a luxury, and sugar and refined flour reserved for the ultra-elite. "Eat food; not too much; mostly plants" was not a lifestyle choice, it was the only alternative to starvation.

 

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. [...] I'd bet the high quality EVOO actually wins [over nuts] 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).

Indeed. As I said in a previous post,

 

they're falling into the very essence of "nutritionism," focused on a food's micronutrients rather than its actual effects as a whole food. And, to the extent that one is going to talk about bioactives, one must be specific: it's silly to just talk about the summed "bulk of the healthful antioxidants, phytochemicals." One wants to know what phytochemicals, and what the food matrix is, and why one should pay attention to that particular bioactive and not another. Lycopene ≠ EgCG ≠ capsaicin ≠ oleuropein, and it's silly to just sum them up.

The dominant phenolics in EVOO (hydroxytyrosol and its secoiridoid derivatives, and a few dubious cases like oleocanthal (which is actually a tyrosol derivative — vide infra), and these are more or less only found in olives and olive oil — and many of them, only in the oil itself.

 

As well, just counting up "polyphenols" (even per Calorie) also ignores the fact that these phenolics are in a particular food matrix, and their metabolic (and hence health) effects will necessarily differ even if it were the same phenolics in a different food matrix.

 

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.

... and a ton of other benefits.

 

Giuliana is selling some Fall 2016 oils : https://www.goliveoil.com/de-carlo/

 

What's your opinion of this high wire act, would it make a nice Valentine's Day gift to my crazy mother?

 

"De Carlo Tenuta Torre di Mossa 2016: 500 ml - $21.24:

 

Polyphenol count: 885 ppm

Free Acidity:

Harvest and Crush Date: October 2016

I would trust these guys. They have a glowing profile on Tom Mueller's Extra Virginity/Truth in Olive Oil website, which backs up their claim of having been Flos Olei (very prestigious EVOO competition) winners as does the Flos Olei competition website and they're also praised on this site.Of course, an oil can be of good quality an dstill be low in phenolics, but I think a reputable Frantoio such as this can probably be relied upon when making as explicit a claim as this.

 

One thing they might be doing that would puff up their phenolic counts ≈20% is reporting in tyrosol-equivalents, as explained here; you could email them and ask.

 

And, again: VF and most of their local vendors sell ultra-premium EVOO at reasonable prices and full transparency on chemistry.

 

If anyone has access to the BBC series "Trust Me, I'm a Doctor", they may want to watch Series 4, episode 3:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ykj7l

 

... They have a Glasgow University researcher who - the claim is - helped develop proteomics that measure the protein profile in your urine, and based on that assess quite precisely various health conditions, including cardiac status - this he distinguishes from other biomarkers such as cholesterol, as cholesterol is not a direct measure of the heart health status, whereas the protein profile is (according to him).

 

... they also ran an experiment where they compared the effect of ordinarly OO and EVOO. In that experiment, there was NO difference in the proteomic profile - both showed equal benefits when it comes to heart health. Go figure!

This is really a pretty crummy study. The proteomic panel score used in the study has been shown (once ...) to distinguish people with no existing coronary artery disease from people with existing disease; it hasn't been shown to have any prospective value in predicting healthy people who will develop CAD, nor progression or regression of CAD in people who have it. Without that, showing that you can move the score one way or another really isn't useful information. And, of course, there are ways you can lower your LDL or raise your HDL that don't actually improve your health ...

 

 

From the abstract it looks like EVOO purchased at retail in Italy failed miserably: "Only 3 of the 32 samples had a phenolic content above 250 ppm" (this compares to EVOO purchased in California where 50% of samples exceeded 250).

Gordo, I retire what I wrote in a previous post.

However, after havind read your link, apparently in California all depends on the oleocanthal, which has been included among the total polyphenols in the study you cite. However, I don't know if it has been included in the Italian study, if not, of course the data are not comparable (only 1/5 of californian oils would surpass the European threshold).

First, the California study used NMR, whereas the EU regulation is based on HPLC, so they aren't directly comparable — and neither is directly comparable to oils measured using the colorimetric Folin–Ciocalteu method, which is what's used for essentially all of the numbers you see used commercially and in nearly all studies comparing EVOOs of differing phenolic contents on human health risk factors and surrogates.

 

The oleocanthal issue is actually a regulatory dispute in the EU. The EU regulation specifies that to make a narrow health claim based on LDL oxidation, an oil must have a phenolic content sufficient to provide 5 mg of "hydroxytyrosol or its derivatives" per 20 g (≈1.5 T) of oil, which usually corresponds to 250 ppm of total phenolics on HPLC. The dispute centers around the fact that a lot of EVOO-specific phenolics — including oleocanthal — are not HT derivatives, but derivatives of tyrosol. And it's not clear whether this is so simple an error that you can just throw in the tyrosol derivatives and still only require the 5 mg/250 ppm threshold, or should recalibrate to account for the inclusion of these other phenolics.

 

I don't think we can say at what point the health benefits max out for EVOO phenolics, but it's at least clear to me that you want a value based on the Folin–Ciocalteu method of ≥350 ppm, using caffeic or gallic-equivalents (or ≈20% higher in tyrosol-equivalents). This is also a more actionable target, because (again) it's what's used by nearly all commercial operators including VF, and is also what's used in the human health literature.

 

In the Italian study only 8 oils were 100% Italian and among these only 3 were of a protected trademark. Probably the latter were those which resulted in over 250 ppms. In the supermarkets you find everything, oil from spain, Morocco, Greece, olive which is actually olio lampante but has been spiked with a green juice from olive leaves, I think and sold as EVOO.

(Similar comments from Todd Allen). The key thing is to ignore "places of previously high reputation." Good and bad EVOO (and, amongst good EVOO, high-phenolic, high-oleic, minimally-oxidized EVOO) as well as outright fraudulent product comes out of every country. There is lampante Italian oil and ultra-premium Greek, Spanish, and Moroccan oil (although Moroccan oil is very rarely high-oleic and -phenolic because of the heavy reliance on Chemlali and Chétoui olive cultivars, which are low in both). The key is not the nation of origin, but the weather, agronomy, and processing practices of the particular farm and mill, and the ensuing chemistry of the final product.

 

As you can see, including EVOO to the diet is pain in the butt.

As you can see, including EVOO to the diet requires a small modicum of effort and education to optimize its benefits.

 

I say again: the benefits of consuming EVOO are backed by seven decades of scientific research culminating in a massive, randomized, multi-year controlled trial with hard outcomes. There is no other food in the world with that level of scientific support. If you aren't including 2 T of it in your diet a day, you're either ignorant sensu stricto, desperately poor, or a Damned Fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm all for throwing out everything about centuries of anecdotal experience and common sense . Centuries of anecdotal experience and common sense would have led you to think that smoking tobacco was a salubrious activity: look at all those healthy, strapping Native Americans!

Michael, of course I refer to the accumulated wisdom of holistic medicine, alternative medicine, healthy dietary methods which have been developed empirically thru the ages. Such methods are purely empirical but, since they use the accumulated observations of centuries, often they are able to predict correctly the benefits of a food or a regime. Why to throw the tradition away?

"Traditional medicine" is the nonsense that passes for medicine in a prescientific society where with average life expectancies of 20-30 years. Traditional medicine prescribes hepatotoxic kava kava to calm you down, hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic creosote bush to ineffectually "treat" tuberculosis, intentionally compounds Ayurvedic herbal concoctions with heavy metals, and drills a hole in your skull if you suffer from epilepsy.

 

The illusion that allows "traditional" diets to seem to be able predict correctly the benefits of a food or a regime is the result of the facts that (a) "even a stopped clock gives correct time twice daily," and (b) "traditionally," there was nothing for the vast majority of the population to eat but minimally-processed foods: food itself was a luxury, and sugar and refined flour reserved for the ultra-elite. "Eat food; not too much; mostly plants" was not a lifestyle choice, it was the only alternative to starvation.

 

 

Michael, I never wrote 'traditional medicine', rather 'holistic medicine, alternative medicine, healthy dietary methods which have been developed empirically thru the ages'.

 

And you should not disagree much with such culture since just about all the material I read strongly suggested the use of EVOO (and many other healthy suggestion which are followed by nost members of this forum).

 

I do agree that in such a wide arena we can also find something weird or unhealthy, use of discrimination should not be a problem though.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren't including 2 T of it in your diet a day, you're either ignorant sensu stricto, desperately poor, or a Damned Fool.

 

How poor before you're "desperately poor"? 2TBSP=30cc  1L=33TBSP, so you'd be using roughly 1L a month, and good chemistry EVOO cannot be had for much under about $20/L (at least I have not found such, and I've looked). That's about $20 a month on EVOO. However, that's very misleading, because it's the totality of the diet that matters, not any individual component. After all, you cannot eat garbage SAD and imagine that you're fixing it by gulping down 2TBSP EVOO/day. So it's really irrelevant to single out EVOO in your cost scheme. Good quality anything costs a fair amount. Good quality nuts, good quality wine, good quality tea, good quality coffee, good quality cocoa, good quality fruits and vegetables, and not least of all, good quality supplements, protein, etc. When you add it all up, it costs a ton to eat healthy. Sure, EVOO in that cost stack is not a big element (I spend far more on good quality nuts, for example), but you cannot separate EVOO from the rest - it is an integral part of the cost structure. And that cost, when you add it all up, in my case (two healthy-diet eating adults) is about $1000/mo, or some $500/mo per person on food - and I regard myself as something of a wizard in scoring good quality at the lowest possible cost - I doubt there is anyone who gets the quality I get at lower cost (short of growing your own food). If you cannot afford $500/mo on food, are you "desperately poor"? Of course, all this is predicated in turn on your overhead in general, as part of cost of living - I happen to live in a very expensive area as far as housing costs (Los Angeles, CA) - so that's going to take a big chunk out monthly, several times more than the food bill. But if I lived in an inexpensive area, the $500/mo per person would not register as much of a cost. So I'm not sure the cost argument is so simple.

 

As to good quality EVOO, I expect the cost to keep escalating - demand will keep going up, and what with land use cost, climate change and pest/disease issues, it can only get worse. Get rich, or stay poor and die earlier.

 

Btw. my single biggest cost is the daily berry mix - blackberries and blueberries, with raspberries and strawberries and other berries thrown in seasonally. This exceeds the cost of EVOO by leagues

 

Admittedly, I have not performed a careful cost/health effectiveness analysis of my diet - as just one example: would it be better from a cost versus health benefit point of view to drop berries and substitute with something cheaper? I don't know. It's outside the scope of this thread, so I'll drop it.

Edited by TomBAvoider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TomB, I think a lot of people get sucked into spending way more than they need to.  Why spend $2 for a single organic avocado from my fancy local supermarket when I can get the same thing for $0.67 from my local produce junction?  I did a post a while back on how much I spend in a day.  What makes your nuts better than the $12 deluxe 30oz mixed nuts from Aldi? (I get walnuts for even less).  I stock up on things when they are a good deal, and fill the chest freezer as well (cost of $2-3 per month for electricity if you pay for electricity, which I don't, but that's another story).  

 

I'll agree with you on certain products like cocoa, considering testing has shown so many cocoa products contain toxic substances, you would have to pay a lot of money for one that is reputable and tested pure, my answer to that is to just not eat it anymore ;) there are plenty of other sources of phytonutrients that aren't of questionable purity.  As for EVOO itself, I'll agree with you that for the very top rated products, $20/liter is pretty much the best you can do.  But as noted in this thread, through various independent testing, you can find relatively high phenol EVOO for $8/liter (Kirkland Signature Organic EVOO (Costco) probably the best, Trader Joes Spanish EVOO, Aldi Organic Mediterranean EVOO).  

 

I don't see why you couldn't get down to $8/day, or $480 for two people, per month.  Then again food costs vary wildly by location...  you mention "quality protein" - you get protein from lentils, all types of beans, and whole grains, these are dirt cheap. I started cooking beans and grains up once a week, using a mix of varieties, I use the "faster" prep method described on the packaging, and a pressure cooker (30 minute cook time after soak and rinse for beans, grains cook in 10 minutes).  Nuts are of course another major source of protein, then all the minor sources from fruits and veges, that's all you need.  Cost of supplements is very low (B12, D, and iodine are all under a penny a day).  Vegan DHA is the most expensive supplement that most people would probably want to take, at $0.12 a day if taken every other day or 24 cents a day if taken daily.

 

$240/month per person is close to what someone on SNAP (formerly 'food stamps') could even get per month!

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordo, good points (although I wonder if we should carry on the "cost" derail in this thread). I might be slightly more pedantic when it comes to quality real or perceived - although I really do try to make it real, and not just perception. For example, the specific nuts you linked to - I don't want brazil nuts in my mix. And I want to control my mix - almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, walnuts. And I don't want the salt in that mix you linked to. Plus, I want my nuts raw, unroasted, unprocessed in any way (except blanched to kill stuff like listeria) - and most important I want them guaranteed fresh because of the fat content - nuts in stores often languish or are stored for long time in bad conditions - I don't want rancid nuts. All that costs money.

 

I hear you on "organic". I don't particularly favor organic when not needed - but sadly, and very unfortunately, there is a whole range of stuff that simply must be organic. Strawberries are very high in pesticides - so I have no choice but take organic. I eat a lot of berries daily - organic is very, very expensive. My "citrus mix" daily: 1/4 orange + 1/4 grapefruit + 1/2 mandarin - of these three I can only use normal grapefruit - both orange and mandarin must be organic, because I consume small bits of peel from my oranges and mandarins. Other things that are expensive and must be organic - I import premium organic Japanese sencha - very expensive, but I would not drink the dodgy pesticide and metal laden Chinese teas, since I drink a fair amount of it, daily. Organic coffee beans and select cocoa. Select wines. All very, very expensive. Sure, otherwise most of my F&V are not organic - I don't pay a premium where I don't absolutely have to. Supplements - same story. Very, very unfortunately, you cannot trust supplement makers to source their raw ingredients properly (usually it's cheap dodgy stuff from places like China), or have the right amounts - that means going with a very select few supplement makers like Orthomolecular, which unfortunately signifcantly raises costs over what you indicate - yes, I know I can get that stuff much, much, much, cheaper but it's playing Russian roulette.

 

Finally, I agree with you 100% on "well then just don't eat that particular expensive food" - but it's not so simple. If there is something that can substitute, fine. But often you can't - sure, I could drop the berries, but they have phytochemicals that are unique and not found elsewhere, so I can't substitute, especially that they're absolute champs on a very important measure to me - nutritional bang for the caloric buck. Berries are low calories high nutrition (classic Walford Lo-Hi). Maybe I should drop berries anyway - or any other of my high cost foods, but I have not performed a careful analysis of how to get adequate health benefits from the cheapest possible foods - not because I'm lazy (although I am), but because it is so complicated. Anyhow, for the quality of stuff I get, I think I'm an absolute no-holds-barred wizard of low cost, if I say so myself. I get top of the top quality at shockingly low overall cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you mention organic strawberries, because I just bought some TODAY (already in season in Florida) for $1/pound (bought 4 lbs, will  probably go get more, haha).  As for the nuts, Aldi sells both salted and unsalted, they have good turnover, they are always fresh and have a date right on the label so there is no doubt. Brazil nuts are VERY sparse in there, and it's very easy to pick out just one a day if that's what you want (I do this myself).  Getting even further off topic, but personally I buy the salted ones, I think some people avoid all salt to the detriment of their health. A little salt is important for human health and doesn't seem to have any impact on my (very low) blood pressure.  In fact I was going to post about this topic, as my Dad recently was hospitalized after blacking out, they found a "heart flutter" which his doc told him was the result of excessively low salt in his diet. I had never heard of this before, but apparently it's a real thing.  So just curious, do you eat ANY salt?  If so, from what source?  The salted nuts taste so much better to me than the unsalted version (I have bought both types).  As for raw vs. roasted, roasted has some benefits, not sure how much acrylimides are in the nuts I eat, but apparently it doesn't matter:

https://youtu.be/jhWKI74SC3U

Actually acrylimides might protect humans from cancer:

Dietary acrylamide and cancer of the large bowel, kidney, and bladder: Absence of an association in a population-based study in Sweden

 

I tried to find details of the nuts used in PREDIMED (back to a major topic of this thread) but only see they gave the nut group walnuts hazelnuts and almonds, could not find info on the processing of said nuts.

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: salt - I must plead guilty. I don't add salt to any of my food, and I don't eat processed food, so all the salt I get is from natural food sources. It is highly possible that I take in too little salt. I can't be sure exactly how much I take in, because I don't believe things like cronometer are accurate enough, merely estimates. That may account in part for my high blood potassium. Add to that my consuming quite a bit of liquids and I can fully imagine that I'm low on salt. On the other hand, I don't like the taste of salt (unusual, I know), and find it hard to add to my diet.

 

Re: roasted - good point. I myself, in one of the threads around here, cited a study that showed benefits of specifically roasted nuts as greater in some respects than raw, so point taken. Furthermore, many of the studies showing benefits of nut consumption, and peanut consumption, were done on people who consumed roasted nuts/peanuts. But it's a case of "pick your poison" - you can't possibly cover all foods that might conceivably provide you with health benefits. So you must pick and choose. I chose fresh nuts benefits over roaste nuts benefits. Because even though epi studies are done in nuts that are often roasted or otherwise processed, that may simply reflect the practices of people who consume stuff that's available - yes, it shows benefits, but perhaps the benefits are even greater with raw or higher quality nuts - this is a gamble. We don't have all studies of all things, so when we make choices, we make them on limited info and speculation, necessarily gambling. That's how I chose to throw my dice - I reason "if fats are a component of the health benfits of nuts, then making sure the fats are not oxidized or otherwise compromised are probably an additional benefit" - it's speculation, but in absence of studies, it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been eating all of my nuts raw, except peanuts and pistachios (they can rarely be found in the raw state). And unsalted, I can tolerate the taste of salt if it is in small amounts, it tends to be overused though. I like roasted hazelnuts but all other nuts I like much better raw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26148926

The role of olive oil in disease prevention: a focus on the recent epidemiological evidence from cohort studies and dietary intervention trials

 

Consumption of olive oil within the Mediterranean diet has been long known to have many health benefits. However, only over the last decade has epidemiological research confirmed its protective role against developing several chronic diseases. The objective of this review was to give an overview of the state of art epidemiological evidence concerning the relationship between olive oil and key public health outcomes including mortality, CVD, diabetes, metabolic syndrome (MetS), obesity and cancer, with a particular focus on recent results from cohort studies and dietary intervention trials. Recent epidemiological research has shown that regular consumption of olive oil is associated with increased longevity. This benefit is partly due to the olive oil's unequivocal cardio-protective role. There is converging evidence on the benefits of olive oil for preventing several CVD risk factors, including diabetes, MetS and obesity. Olive oil is also implicated in preventing certain cancers, with the most promising findings for breast and digestive tract cancers, although the data are still not entirely consistent and mainly from case-control studies. These health benefits are supported by strong mechanistic evidence from experimental studies, demonstrating that specific components of olive oil have antihypertensive, antithrombotic, antioxidant, antiinflammatory and anticarcinogenic action. Despite the accumulating epidemiological research, there is still a lack of consistent results from high-quality studies for many health outcomes (i.e. certain cancers and metabolism-related disorders). Further research is mandatory, above all from prospective studies and randomised dietary intervention trials when feasible, to confirm some of the still potential health benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my go to source for oil, neutral at worst, with beneficial phytonutrients at best ( great resource here: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=132, along with Michael R's posts ).

 

Not required for a longevity diet given low consumption in Blue Zones such as Okinawa and some heathy indigenous cultures, but a very healthiful option unless you are going for an Ornish-like intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gordo for the reference.

 

It's not that hard to reconcile the views of the cardiologists (Ornish, esseltsyn, Barnard) with the benefits of EVOO. Said cardiologists do not encourage the use of fats, not even EVOO, in the context of CVD reversion, and that I can perfectly understand. Once you have that problem, the safest and quickest remedy appears to keep the fats almost to zero. Such diets have been proven to work and surely enough, should I develop such a problem, I guarantee you that I'd rule out any fats as well.

 

In a context of health mantainance and prevention though, with no overwhelming evidence of genetic predisposition, those guys show to be biased if they insist on ruling out EVOO. Apparently, Dr. Esseltsyn has such radical ideas. I do not agree, albeit my respect for him stands unchanged.

 

Dr. Ornish is more moderate: he explicitly says that reversal need drastic measures, whereas prevention calls for more relaxed measures.

 

Also, in a weightloss scheme I appreciate that all fats, EVOO included, subtract volume=satiety from the daily diet. Those who follow strict CR may choose not to include much EVOO and fats because of that.

 

There is an alternative scheme though, that is, use hi-polyphenols EVOOs like the De Carlo Torre Di mossa so that even only one third of a tablespoon has a positive protective effect.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCoy, your post is most serendipitous - tonight my wife and I attended a Vegan meetup ( no we are not vegan but we love vegans!), and one of them's loved one did the esselstyn program and ( albeit anecdotally, we have no real control ) reversed What was thought to be dialysis requiring ESRD that she has had for years with deteriorating kidneys, and another did the Ornish plan and reversed his hyoercholesterolemia despite having one of the familial ( genetic ).

 

While chance, misdiagnosis or other attributable interventions may very well account for the anecdotes, quite provocative nevertheless, hearing about the experiences in person, in the context of other background data ( not bulletproof but well above the case series level of evidence from basic science, to animal studies, some limited observational & interventional data).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS- I follow neither of these protocols myself, but then I have a good BMI, do not have hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerosis ... but I would certainly consider it if I did and was not fully responding to the more common less aggressive nutritional approaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not find this study referenced in the forum, so here it is:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26192450

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281821451_Extra_virgin_olive_oil_use_is_associated_with_improved_post-prandial_blood_glucose_and_LDL_cholesterol_in_healthy_subjects

 

-----

Extra virgin olive oil use is associated with improved post-prandial blood glucose and LDL cholesterol in healthy subjects

 

Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is a key component of the Mediterranean diet and seems to account for the protective effect against cardiovascular disease. However, the underlying mechanism is still elusive.
DESIGN:
We tested the effect of EVOO, added to Mediterranean-type meal, on post-prandial glycemic and lipid profile.
SUBJECTS:
Post-prandial glycemic and lipid profile were investigated in 25 healthy subjects who were randomly allocated in a cross-over design to a Mediterranean-type meal added with or without 10 g EVOO (first study), or Mediterranean-type meal with EVOO (10 g) or corn oil (10 g; second study). Glycemic profile, which included glucose, insulin, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) protein and activity, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and lipid profile, which included, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C), oxidized LDL (ox-LDL), triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (HDL-C), were analyzed before and 2 h after the meal.
RESULTS:
In the first study, 2 h after meal, subjects who assumed a meal with EVOO had significantly lower blood glucose (P<0.001), DPP-4 protein (P<0.001) and activity (P<0.001), LDL-C (P<0.001) and ox-LDL (P<0.001) and higher insulin (P<0.05), GLP-1 (P<0.001) and GIP (P<0.05) compared with those without EVOO. The second study showed that compared with corn oil, EVOO improved both glycemic and lipid profile. Thus, a significantly smaller increase of glucose (P<0.05), DPP4 protein (P<0.001) and activity (P<0.05) and higher increase of insulin (P<0.001) and GLP-1 (P<0.001) were observed. Furthermore, compared with corn oil, EVOO showed a significantly less increase of LDL-C (P<0.05) and ox-LDL (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS:
We report for the first time that EVOO improves post-prandial glucose and LDL-C, an effect that may account for the antiatherosclerotic effect of the Mediterranean diet.
-----
 
The meal they tested is not perfect (chicken breast for inflammation, white bread for glucose spike) but very representative and definitely healthier than a standard diet. There needs to be something bad to be improved to see EVOOs effect though, therefore I cannot blame them.
 
The effects of glucose control and preventing LDL oxidation are phenomenal, but I don't get why EVOO causes more insulin secretion. Has anyone a clue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

The effects of glucose control and preventing LDL oxidation are phenomenal, but I don't get why EVOO causes more insulin secretion. Has anyone a clue?

 

 

Not at all! Unless it's related to the increase of intramyocellular lipids, which tis thought to be a cause of insulin resistance... But olive oil in some studies has been shown to increase insulin sensitivity and not resistance, so it may be a statistical fluke.

 

Skeletal intramyocellular lipid metabolism and insulin resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

The effects of glucose control and preventing LDL oxidation are phenomenal, but I don't get why EVOO causes more insulin secretion. Has anyone a clue?

 

Well, if you read the paper ;) , it says:

 

Post-prandial glycemic control is regulated by incretins, which upregulate insulin secretion and in turn lowers blood glucose. Incretins such as GLP1 and GIP are secreted by distal small intestine in response to its stimulation, bind receptors in the endocrine pancreas so eliciting insulin secretion and lowering post-prandial blood glucose and are rapidly inactivated by DPP-4.14, 15 Our approach was to evaluate whether EVOO may stimulate intestinal cells and trigger endogenous incretin release. Analysis of GLP-1 and GIP after Mediterranean-type lunch demonstrated that supplementation with EVOO was associated with an increase of both incretins coincidentally with a decrease of DPP-4 activity suggesting that EVOO behaves as a DPP-4 inhibitor. The antioxidant effect of EVOO6 may account for the improved post-prandial glycaemia as oxidative stress is implicated in incretin secretion and metabolism. Oxidative stress affects, in fact, insulin signaling cascade, leading to insulin resistance3 and cumulative hyperglycemia and resultant AGE-induced ROS generation16 might impair the incretins’ effects via elevation of circulating DPP-4 concentration.4 Of note, we found that, compared with control, post-prandial ox-LDL increase was almost blunted by EVOO and paralleled DPP-4 activity changes with a direct correlation between these two variables, reinforcing the concept that oxidative stress upregulates DPP-4 activity4 and eventually inhibits insulin secretion.

GLP-1 may also be protective of beta-cells. And MUFA, unlike SaFA, also reduce beta-cell demand by improving insulin sensitivity.

 

Not at all! Unless it's related to the increase of intramyocellular lipids, which tis thought to be a cause of insulin resistance... But olive oil in some studies has been shown to increase insulin sensitivity and not resistance, so it may be a statistical fluke.

 

Skeletal intramyocellular lipid metabolism and insulin resistance

The relationship between intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) and insulin resistance is quite complex and poorly understood, and the relationship between dietary fat and intramyocellular lipid is clearest in two opposing extremes: severe insulin-resistant obesity, and trained exercisers, in which latter group the accumulation of IMCL correlates with increasing insulin sensitivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The relationship between intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) and insulin resistance is quite complex and poorly understood, and the relationship between dietary fat and intramyocellular lipid is clearest in two opposing extremes: severe insulin-resistant obesity, and trained exercisers, in which latter group the accumulation of IMCL correlates with increasing insulin sensitivity.

 

 

At this point, I wonder about the proposition of the vegan  cardiologists like Neil Barnard, who insist that the main mechanism underlying IR is IMCL, hence they suggest very low fat diets to reverse obesity and T2D, demonizing all kinds of vegetable oils (including EVOO).

 

According to your opinion, their suggestions are being stretched a little too far and would apply rigorously only to obese patients (the athletes not being an issue here).

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Colella

Purity issues keep coming up on this list. Consumerlabs tests many products like tea and olive oils and they take 0 advertising revenue. I think there modest fee is well worth the money. For instance California Ranch was recently rated hVing considerable polyphenol content, low rancidity and purity ( meaning its really evoo). The other factor is check the harvest dates before you buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The relationship between intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) and insulin resistance is quite complex and poorly understood, and the relationship between dietary fat and intramyocellular lipid is clearest in two opposing extremes: severe insulin-resistant obesity, and trained exercisers, in which latter group the accumulation of IMCL correlates with increasing insulin sensitivity.

 

 

At this point, I wonder about the proposition of the vegan  cardiologists like Neil Barnard, who insist that the main mechanism underlying IR is IMCL, hence they suggest very low fat diets to reverse obesity and T2D, demonizing all kinds of vegetable oils (including EVOO).

 

According to your opinion, their suggestions are being stretched a little too far and would apply rigorously only to obese patients (the athletes not being an issue here).

 

 

Sorry but, as an afterthought, the empirical evidence that very low-fat, high carbs diet can reverse T2D, would imply that the IMCL effect envisaged by Dr. Barnard or something similar is potentially really at work, at least in those who are affected by T2D, who are also usually very insulin-resistant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The relationship between intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) and insulin resistance is quite complex and poorly understood, and the relationship between dietary fat and intramyocellular lipid is clearest in two opposing extremes: severe insulin-resistant obesity, and trained exercisers, in which latter group the accumulation of IMCL correlates with increasing insulin sensitivity.

 

At this point, I wonder about the proposition of the vegan  cardiologists like Neil Barnard, who insist that the main mechanism underlying IR is IMCL, hence they suggest very low fat diets to reverse obesity and T2D, demonizing all kinds of vegetable oils (including EVOO).

 

According to your opinion, their suggestions are being stretched a little too far and would apply rigorously only to obese patients (the athletes not being an issue here).

 

Sorry but, as an afterthought, the empirical evidence that very low-fat, high carbs diet can reverse T2D, would imply that the IMCL effect envisaged by Dr. Barnard or something similar is potentially really at work, at least in those who are affected by T2D, who are also usually very insulin-resistant

 

I don't believe that Dr. B has any evidence at all  that very low-fat, high carbs diet can reverse T2D, any better than any other equally energy-reduced diet (unless it's an energy-reduced diet composed of Twinkies and Krispy Kremes). His only published study on the subject doesn't show reversal: it shows that it is modestly better than a conventional 2003 American Diabetes Association guidelines at managing diabetes metabolic dysfunction (not reversing it). Cf. in this context this study of low- and high-meat, low-and high-fiber diets working equally well in diabetes.(6)

 

Many studies find Zonish and low-carb diets yield better results than low-fat diets for at managing diabetes (mostly because of better adherence and weight loss: see eg.(4), and this prior meta-analysis (5) finding that "The low-carbohydrate, low-GI, Mediterranean, and high-protein diets all led to a greater improvement in glycemic control [glycated hemoglobin reductions of -0.12% (P = 0.04), -0.14% (P = 0.008), -0.47% (P < 0.00001), and -0.28% (P < 0.00001), respectively] compared with their respective control diets, with the largest effect size seen in the Mediterranean diet."

 

The few published studies of diet-induced diabetes reversal (not management) use very-low-calorie diets , and while often somewhat low-fat, they are also usually high-protein, contra Barnard, mostly because when there's so few Calories protein takes up a high percentage of Calories by default.(1-3)

 

Anyway, this is getting further and further afield from olive oil ;) ; if we're going to continue the perpetual macronutrient debate, we should start a new thread or join an existing one.

 

References

1: Gow ML, Baur LA, Johnson NA, Cowell CT, Garnett SP. Reversal of of type 2 diabetes in youth who adhere to a very-low-energy diet: a pilot study. Diabetologia. 2017 Mar;60(3):406-415. doi: 10.1007/s00125-016-4163-5. Epub 2016 Nov 26. PubMed PMID: 27889809.

 

2: Lim EL, Hollingsworth KG, Aribisala BS, Chen MJ, Mathers JC, Taylor R. Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol. Diabetologia. 2011 Oct;54(10):2506-14. doi: 10.1007/s00125-011-2204-7. Epub 2011 Jun 9. PubMed PMID: 21656330; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3168743.

 

3: Steven S, Lim EL, Taylor R. Population response to information on reversibility of Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013 Apr;30(4):e135-8. doi: 10.1111/dme.12116. PubMed PMID: 23320491.

 

4: Tay J, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Thompson CH, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Wittert GA, Yancy WS Jr, Brinkworth GD. Comparison of low- and high-carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes management: a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Oct;102(4):780-90. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.112581. Epub 2015 Jul 29. PubMed PMID: 26224300.

 

5: Ajala O, English P, Pinkney J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of different dietary approaches to the management of type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Mar;97(3):505-16. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.042457. Epub 2013 Jan 30. Review. PubMed PMID: 23364002.

 

6: Nowotny B, Zahiragic L, Bierwagen A, Kabisch S, Groener JB, Nowotny PJ, Fleitmann AK, Herder C, Pacini G, Erlund I, Landberg R, Haering HU, Pfeiffer AF, Nawroth PP, Roden M. Low-energy diets differing in fibre, red meat and coffee intake equally improve insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes: a randomised feasibility trial. Diabetologia. 2015 Feb;58(2):255-64. doi: 10.1007/s00125-014-3457-8. Epub 2014 Nov 26. Erratum in: Diabetologia. 2016 Jun;59(6):1329. PubMed PMID: 25425219.

 

These other papers are all just additional reports on the same trial, and they don't add anything about diabetes management or reversal per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need a translator?:

 

https://translate.google.com/

"For olive oils of the best quality, the bottle must contain "Extra virgin olive oil" as well as "first quality class - directly from olives exclusively with mechanical methods", as well as indicate the origin. The manufacturers are not allowed to print health promises."

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

×