Jump to content

Saturated fats [esp 14:0 and 18:0] - what is their upside to downside risk ratio? (also how filling are they?)

Recommended Posts

fireinabottle.net is very pro-SFA, but its conclusions aren't longevity-related. it's better for pathway intuition than for drawing conclusions.

also, I know many have demonized SFAs. They increase LDL but LDL might not accelerate aging (even if it still increases plaque deposition - YES i know the LDL particle sizes and % apoeb matter more than LDL concentration itself)...

odd-chain SFAs seem to be opposite to long even-chain ones in determining goodness.

16:0 (palmitic) is most definitively the worst. But 18:0 (stearic) may not be that much better [chocolate is stearic].



Visual analogue scale values of hunger and desire to eat decreased significantly after EVCO consumption than EVOO consumption in normal weight subjects at 180 min. There was an increase trend in plasma PYY at 30 and 180 min after EVCO breakfast compared to EVOO breakfast. Ad libitum energy intakes after EVCO and EVOO consumption in normal weight subjects were 924 ± 302; 845 ± 158 kcal (p = 0.272), respectively whereas in obese subjects were 859 ± 238; 994 ± 265 kcal (p = 0.069) respectively.


The results of this study shows that consumption of EVCO compared to EVOO may have suppressive effect on hunger and desire to eat, may affect postprandial PYY levels differently and have no effect on postprandial energy expenditure.

Edited by InquilineKea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • InquilineKea changed the title to Saturated fats - what is their upside to downside risk ratio? (also how filling are they?)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31369090/ (SFAs increase ceramides). This is part of how they induce insulin resistance (which is not *always* bad)

Mike Lustgarten also reports cacao decreases his telomere length (just one metric), but best not to overeat cacao.

The total antioxidant concentration matters, but some of the demonization of saturated fats has some basis in it. Note that nuts have *some* SFAs in them too, so nut binges can increase SFA [even if the MUFAs in them might cancel out some of the negative effects of the extra SFA]

  • Quote


    • https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70347-w
    • The accumulation of LC3-II reached the maximum at the concentration of 100 μM PA (Fig. 1B). Because the lipidation of LC3 (e.g. LC3-II formation) indicates the steady-state level of autophagosome33, the result indicates that the amount of autophagosome was increased by palmitate. To examine whether the accumulation of LC3-II is a SFA specific response, the cells were treated with lauric acid (C12), another SFA, or oleic acid (C18), a monounsaturated fatty acid. Accumulation of LC3-II was observed when the cells were treated with lauric acid, but not with oleic acid (Fig. 1C). This result suggests that SFAs (e.g. lauric acid and palmitic acid) but not unsaturated fatty acid (e.g. oleic acid) cause the accumulation of autophagosome



Edited by InquilineKea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • InquilineKea changed the title to Saturated fats [esp 14:0 and 18:0] - what is their upside to downside risk ratio? (also how filling are they?)

FWIW, I consume a modified Dean's Witches Brew - one of the ingredients is cacao powder. I use non-dutched on account of flavanol content. Apparently flavonols make it through the paper coffee filter, which is good otherwise putting in the cacao powder would be pointless.

Using a coffee paper filter has two objectives. One, the filter can cut down on heavy metals such as cadmium, which unfortunately appear to significantly contaminate cacao powder (trying to source non-contaminated cacao is a fraught and unreliable endeavor). Two, the filter takes out a lot of the fats from cacao (and the cholesterol-raising molecules from coffee!). This way I'm hoping to obtain some of the potential cacao benefits without all of the potential harms.

One trick that I only figured out recently, despite many years of drinking the various versions of Dean's Witches Brew, is the layering of the ingredients in the filter. I came across information that ground coffee is a pretty effective filter. I have tried to find out how effective wrt. how deep the ground coffee layer, how fine the grinds etc. vs size of molecules being filtered out, but as you can imagine that's very hard to establish reliably. Therefore, I decided that it's best to bypass the whole concern by placing all the ingredients including cacao powder AT THE BOTTOM of the coffee filter and then putting the ground coffee on top, that way the extracts from the ingredients only pass through the paper filter and not the coffee grounds. For all these years, like a dummy I've been placing the coffee in the filter first and then all the other ingredients on top of the coffee, thus filtering out who knows how much by having everything pass through the coffee grounds. Oh well, live and learn.

Nibs I wouldn't touch, as I see more potential risks than benefits, but obviously, that's based on my personal assessment, and everyone must do their own research. Studies that I have looked at evaluated cacao flavanols from chocolate and cacao powder, so that's why I've elected to consume them from cacao powder (mediated through the paper coffee filter). I haven't come across any particularly compelling studies focused on cacao nibs, but I may have missed them, so obviously your milage may vary.

Edited by TomBAvoider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...