Not consuming enough fat...

moonage

What are the negative effects of a diet too low in fats?

Also, are saturated fats a necessary part of a healthy diet?

>>>>

EileenG

Yes, you need saturated fat. In men, they keep testosterone levels high, in women, they help to keep bones strong. The amount you need is still up for debate.

You need fat in your diet. Without it, you will go short of all the vat soluble vitamins, and many metabolic pathways won't work. Also, a diet without fat has to be high in carbs, which can often lead to insulin problems.

El_Dangeroso

You need to consume fat to be healthy.

Fat deprivation long term results in gall stones, depression and deficiency of fat soluble vitamins amongst other things.

Like Eileen said, how much is definitely a matter of debate.

However this much is known, it is impossible to find a healthy population that consumes less than 20% fat by calories. If anyone can find one please let me know. I have personally not come across one.

The American heart association have just raised their recommended intake from 10% to 20% and they are the most lipo-phobic group you will ever find.

But the conventional wisdom is to consume polyunsaturated fat instead of saturated. This strategy backfired as not only did saturated fat have no evidence against it but increasing polyunsaturated fat had the side effect of creating a imbalance between omega 6 and 3 essential fatty acids in our diet. We are supposed to eat them in a 1:1 ratio, but now we eat them in a 20:1 ratio which creates a whole host of health problems.

From http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/for-those-not-scientifically-inclined.html

In the modern U.S. and most other affluent nations, we eat so much omega-6 (mostly in the form of liquid industrial vegetable oils), and so little omega-3, that we create a very inflammatory and pro-clotting environment, probably contributing to a number of chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease.

There are two ways to stay in balance: reduce omega-6, and increase omega-3. In my opinion, the former is more important than the latter, but only if you can reduce omega-6 to below 4% of calories. If you're above 4%, the only way to reduce your risk is to outcompete the omega-6 with additional omega-3. Keeping omega-6 below 4% and ensuring a modest but regular intake of omega-3, such as from wild-caught fish, will probably substantially reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses.

Bottom line: ditch industrial vegetable oils such as corn, soybean, safflower and sunflower oil, and everything that contains them. This includes most processed foods, especially mayonnaise, grocery store salad dressings, and fried foods. We aren't meant to eat those foods and they derail our metabolism on a fundamental level. I also believe it's a good idea to have a regular source of omega-3, whether it comes from seafood, small doses of cod liver oil, or small doses of flax.

Saturated fat is so essential that your body will make it out of other fats if you don't eat it. All the soluble fibre you consume is fermented into saturated fatty acids in your gut, these in turn lower your risk of colon cancer.

Saturated fat is good for you and co-incidentally delicious. Enjoy it!

Iristxo

Cod liver oil is contaminated with PCBs though, isn't it? And tuna is contaminated with mercury, which doesn't come up very often in this forum and a lot of people here are very fond of consuming canned tuna very often...

As always I stand open to correction

Transform

Iristxo wrote: »

Cod liver oil is contaminated with PCBs though, isn't it? And tuna is contaminated with mercury, which doesn't come up very often in this forum and a lot of people here are very fond of consuming canned tuna very often...

As always I stand open to correction

good quality cod liver oil will NOT have PCB's in it (eg carlsons) and eating a tin of tuna every other day is nothing to worry about as there are farrrr worse things that would have a negative effect on health - eg. a latte a day will put on almost a stone in fat in one year.

on the saturated fat debate -

1. the ration sould be 2:1 favouring Omega 3s not 1:1

2. There is also a false belief that eating fat is bad for our heart. In 2003 The British Medical Journal did a fourteen year study and found:
“There is no support for dietary fat/cholesterol and risk of stroke in men”

3. We are surrounded by advertisements touting junk and drug foods as ‘fat free’ or ‘reduced fat’ when in actual fact we NEED fat for our body to survive.

With the wrong fats, you eat up to 6 times more in order to get the right fats
Budwig, Johanna (Nobel Prize nominee)

4. · In October 2005 the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study in which the diets of 2,200 post-menopausal women with low total fat intake and they discovered:
“A higher saturated fat (from meat, eggs, dairy foods) is associated with LESS progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD) whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with greater progression”
- i.e. counting those bloody weight watchers points is total nonsense

5. “Although it is commonly believed that saturated fats and dietary cholesterol "clog arteries" and cause heart disease, such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, Russell Smith, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig, Uffe Ravnskov and other prominent researchers. Dr Stephen Byrnes www.powerhealth.net

“On the contrary, studies have shown* that arterial plaque is primarily composed of unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut.” Dr Mary Enig
* Felton CV et al. Dietary Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Composition of
Human Aortic Plaques. Lancet. 344:1195. 1994.

hope this makes a few people less fat phobic and understand that the primary issue for many people is the excessive refined foods, carbs and sugar in their diet that is causing so much weight gain and long term health problems

corkcomp

fat is necessary / essential nutrient but personally I dont consume very much saturated fat - just whatever I get via meat mostly and its not doing me any harm. jut because something is good doesnt meant you should go over board though, most people do need to count calories to some extent.

the advice to consume plenty fat should be given with a disclaimer not to have it at the same time as foods that are likely to raise insulin.

El_Dangeroso

Transform wrote: »

1. the ration sould be 2:1 favouring Omega 3s not 1:1

You're right, I stand corrected.

And yeah, cheeseburgers are still bad for you and if you eat that bacon with a pile of hashbrowns you'll probably put on weight. But I think most people know that from personal experience, I know I do

But bacon and eggs are all good.:D

Transform

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

You're right, I stand corrected.

And yeah, cheeseburgers are still bad for you and if you eat that bacon with a pile of hashbrowns you'll probably put on weight. But I think most people know that from personal experience, I know I do

But bacon and eggs are all good.:D

hydrogenated fats and trans fats are the ones you want to watch out for - total total killer and massively toxic

Sapsorrow

Great selection of posts there everyone! No need for me to reply nothing I can add to that so I'm off to study for my exam

corkcomp

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Great selection of posts there everyone! No need for me to reply nothing I can add to that so I'm off to study for my exam

never mind that. come to the boards beers instead :P

Sapsorrow

corkcomp wrote: »

never mind that. come to the boards beers instead :P

Don't tempt me! It's bad enough that it's my birthday's this weekend AND an amazing DJ I would kill to see live is coming to Cork the same day and my exam is on Monday so I can't do anything

rubadub

Transform wrote: »

eg. a latte a day will put on almost a stone in fat in one year.

If drank on top of your usual food of course, but I would count it in as part of my daily calorie intake, but I would agree with the warning as some might not acknowledge it.

Transform wrote: »

i.e. counting those bloody weight watchers points is total nonsense

Yes, WW points have a strong bias against sat fat so people might unconciously avoid them. A mate of mine is on it and I was warning against this and he said "but I can eat what I like", I don't think he even knew how points were calculated, from reading the epic "how many WW points" thread it seems very few know how to do it. I have posted many times
600kcal portion of coconut is 21.5points
600kcal portion of sugar is 8.5points

Iristxo wrote: »

tuna is contaminated with mercury, which doesn't come up very often in this forum

It has come up a few times, and in the fitness forum since that is where weightlifters mainly post who would want a high protein intake. I use google to search boards, I find it far better.

e.g. type in

+tuna +mercury +"nutrition & diet" site:boards.ie

The + means the word must appear, and the "nutrition & diet", means those words must appear in that exact order, so I think it would only show posts in this forum. If you leave it out you will get posts in fitness, but I see ones in the pet forum too which you might want to filter out. The "quotes" are very good for searching for common words which would not ordinarily be paired together. site: only searches that site, this is very useful you can also type site:.ie or site:.co.uk

Pembily

Transform wrote: »

- i.e. counting those bloody weight watchers points is total nonsense

For some people it is all that works!!!!

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, WW points have a strong bias against sat fat so people might unconciously avoid them. A mate of mine is on it and I was warning against this and he said "but I can eat what I like", I don't think he even knew how points were calculated, from reading the epic "how many WW points" thread it seems very few know how to do it. I have posted many times
600kcal portion of coconut is 21.5points
600kcal portion of sugar is 8.5points

I do agree - when I started WW 5 years ago cut all fat out and I got severly constipated because of it!!!!

They have "allowed" avacados and 2 tsp of healthy oils now on one of the programs but eating fat is always going to be seen as making you fat!!

Good fats are a necessity to a healthy diet!!

Transform

Pembily wrote: »

For some people it is all that works!!!!



I do agree - when I started WW 5 years ago cut all fat out and I got severly constipated because of it!!!!

They have "allowed" avacados and 2 tsp of healthy oils now on one of the programs but eating fat is always going to be seen as making you fat!!

Good fats are a necessity to a healthy diet!!

for some people who want to keep on a diet treadmill WW works otherwise its total BS and have worked with a ton of clients that have jumped off that treadmill and have gotten LASTING results and do not have to buy into a BS diet mentality.

Yes keep in the fats

Pembily

Transform wrote: »

for some people who want to keep on a diet treadmill WW works otherwise its total BS and have worked with a ton of clients that have jumped off that treadmill and have gotten LASTING results and do not have to buy into a BS diet mentality.

Yes keep in the fats

I don't do the diet mentality - neither do WW to a small extent - the points / healthy eating is for life!!

The fat thing is the one thing I would change with WW!

Transform

Pembily wrote: »

I don't do the diet mentality - neither do WW to a small extent - the points / healthy eating is for life!!

The fat thing is the one thing I would change with WW!

If there was no weight watchers diet mentality then why do people go 'ON' and off it?

Paying someone who has ZERO qualifications to stand infront of a class and tell people to eat off smaller plates - wow genius.

Sorry to be cynical but I have see it all before and know there are better ways to get people to have a better nutrition approach (as is discussed here all the time) and taking someones weight every week is a terrible way of measuring progress (body fat is what i use with clients all the time).

Yes the group effect is good but thats about it.

Pembily

Transform wrote: »

If there was no weight watchers diet mentality then why do people go 'ON' and off it?

Paying someone who has ZERO qualifications to stand infront of a class and tell people to eat off smaller plates - wow genius.

Sorry to be cynical but I have see it all before and know there are better ways to get people to have a better nutrition approach (as is discussed here all the time) and taking someones weight every week is a terrible way of measuring progress (body fat is what i use with clients all the time).

Yes the group effect is good but thats about it.

The only way I know I am loosing weight is my a scales - don't know how to measure my body fat and can't afford a gym!!! I need numbers and going by my clothes is useless for me!!!

The support you get there is great too - when I started WW I was living with a guy who was trying to put on weight and I needed WW for support... There are alot of people doing jobs they have no qualifications in so why is WW any worse???

Khannie

Pembily wrote: »

The only way I know I am loosing weight is my a scales

Before and after pics in the mirror help to see improvement if you haven't got other ways of seeing it. Scales really aren't the be all and end all. For example, this morning on the scales I was 700g heavier than yesterday morning. In all likelyhood I lost about 100g of fat yesterday so you can see how they can effectively lie to you.

Clothes are the most obvious change for me. I was in my "fat trousers" after the Christmas binge up until this week.

Pembily

Khannie wrote: »

Before and after pics in the mirror help to see improvement if you haven't got other ways of seeing it. Scales really aren't the be all and end all. For example, this morning on the scales I was 700g heavier than yesterday morning. In all likelyhood I lost about 100g of fat yesterday so you can see how they can effectively lie to you.

Clothes are the most obvious change for me. I was in my "fat trousers" after the Christmas binge up until this week.

I know but I am a very very very critical girl and although I know logically I have lost some weight my "fat" head is saying I havn't!!! Could also be the engineer in my needing numbers as proof :eek: This is why WW helps and why "fat" is bad, I wish it was different!!!!

I know my personal expereince that you need fat but WW are kinda anti fat - getting better though!!! An avacado (amazing food in my opinion) is about 5 pts - all I remember is that it was way too high to eat it whereas a packet of snax is 1pt!!! So I can eat 5 packets of snax to one avacado - it is not the best system but it works for a lot of people...

Its pshycological (sp) too - eating fat = putting on fat!!!

Iristxo

Khannie wrote: »

Scales really aren't the be all and end all. For example, this morning on the scales I was 700g heavier than yesterday morning. In all likelyhood I lost about 100g of fat yesterday so you can see how they can effectively lie to you.

Funny you should say that, I've noticed the same. I am about a kilo heavier now that I've been for a while, however, some trousers that fitted me fine before need a belt now! I think it must be because I am trying to drink more water so it must be all that hydration

I am not trying to loose weight by the way, I am perfectly fine as it is. Except for a bit of cellulite!

rubadub

I was talking to my mate who is on WW last night, he had some quote, probably from WW, something like "if you eat 1 burger everyday for a year its the equivalent of drinking X litres of oil", I told him I drink shotglasses of oil for health reasons and he looked at me like I was mental. I wonder how many bags of white flour those burgers tot up to.

Pembily wrote: »

Could also be the engineer in my needing numbers as proof

As an engineer you should be well aware of the dangers in trying to measure/evalutate something using just one variable which is only loosely related. In this case fundmentally people are trying to measure how good they look by tracking how much gravitational force they exert on the earth.

I presume you would have measured calories in college and so would also know they are a very rough estimate for estimating how much fuel humans need -then when you bring in the sat fat bias of the WW points it makes even less sense. If anything I would have a bias against simple carbs which WW in effect encourage, due to the bias against fat.

You can get a cheap bodyfat calipers on ebay to track fat losses, you do not even have to use the forumlas (which I find useless) you can just measure the same places and note your overall total in mm. Just like you could measure waist, hips etc and tot up overall inches. I am not sure why you would find clothes useless as a guide, a well washed pair of tight jeans is in effect a whole series of inch tapes up and down your legs.

Transform

rubadub wrote: »

I was talking to my mate who is on WW last night, he had some quote, probably from WW, something like "if you eat 1 burger everyday for a year its the equivalent of drinking X litres of oil", I told him I drink shotglasses of oil for health reasons and he looked at me like I was mental. I wonder how many bags of white flour those burgers tot up to.

As an engineer you should be well aware of the dangers in trying to measure/evalutate something using just one variable which is only loosely related. In this case fundmentally people are trying to measure how good they look by tracking how much gravitational force they exert on the earth.

I presume you would have measured calories in college and so would also know they are a very rough estimate for estimating how much fuel humans need -then when you bring in the sat fat bias of the WW points it makes even less sense. If anything I would have a bias against simple carbs which WW in effect encourage, due to the bias against fat.

You can get a cheap bodyfat calipers on ebay to track fat losses, you do not even have to use the forumlas (which I find useless) you can just measure the same places and note your overall total in mm. Just like you could measure waist, hips etc and tot up overall inches. I am not sure why you would find clothes useless as a guide, a well washed pair of tight jeans is in effect a whole series of inch tapes up and down your legs.

what he said

Pembily

rubadub wrote: »

I was talking to my mate who is on WW last night, he had some quote, probably from WW, something like "if you eat 1 burger everyday for a year its the equivalent of drinking X litres of oil", I told him I drink shotglasses of oil for health reasons and he looked at me like I was mental. I wonder how many bags of white flour those burgers tot up to.

I was saying the quote as a bad point - as in I would rather eat the avacado than the snax - yes I agree that the points allow you to eat badly but for some people they will neve eat healthily - I always ate healthily just too much and ate sweet and crap too but the quantity was my problem!!!

rubadub wrote: »

As an engineer you should be well aware of the dangers in trying to measure/evalutate something using just one variable which is only loosely related. In this case fundmentally people are trying to measure how good they look by tracking how much gravitational force they exert on the earth.

That is an excellent comment - I love it!!!! Total engineer speak - classic!

Yes as an engineer I know that one methond of measuring something is not enough but I find it works for me (50lb of a loss is proof enough)!!!

rubadub wrote: »

I presume you would have measured calories in college and so would also know they are a very rough estimate for estimating how much fuel humans need -then when you bring in the sat fat bias of the WW points it makes even less sense. If anything I would have a bias against simple carbs which WW in effect encourage, due to the bias against fat.

ts not only WW that is biased towards fat - the government and most people are too - people see Nigella Lawson cooking and say she her food is way too fatty - every day yes, but not in moderation!!

rubadub wrote: »

You can get a cheap bodyfat calipers on ebay to track fat losses, you do not even have to use the forumlas (which I find useless) you can just measure the same places and note your overall total in mm. Just like you could measure waist, hips etc and tot up overall inches. I am not sure why you would find clothes useless as a guide, a well washed pair of tight jeans is in effect a whole series of inch tapes up and down your legs.

The jeans always stretch - just find my clothes dont show anything as such!!I might get a body fat calipers - not sure if I want to know the answer but am intrigued now!!! WW works for some people cos of its simplicity - people need simple and yes it does bias towards bad carbs but so does life.... I am in college with a guy on one of the Irish rubgy teams (he plays professionally) and he eats 2 nutrigrain bars some days - they are not healthy in the slightest but he says they are good for you as they are good with the sugar!!!

Melia

Transform wrote: »

If there was no weight watchers diet mentality then why do people go 'ON' and off it?

Paying someone who has ZERO qualifications to stand infront of a class and tell people to eat off smaller plates - wow genius.

Sorry to be cynical but I have see it all before and know there are better ways to get people to have a better nutrition approach (as is discussed here all the time) and taking someones weight every week is a terrible way of measuring progress (body fat is what i use with clients all the time).

Yes the group effect is good but thats about it.

Both of my parents are morbidly obese. I worry a lot about their health. I live in constant fear of them having heart attacks or developing diabetes. I've tried to get them to be more health-conscious, and it's been hard. The one thing my mother will try is WW, because she can go and be just one in a crowd of people in the same situation, and feel less self-conscious. My father, by extension, is eating healthier because of it.

I do see what you're saying, and the system is far from perfect, but I think you're being a bit harsh. The leaders are all people who have gone through the weight loss process themselves, which I think makes it easier for them to relate to the problems some members have. Ideas like the smaller plates do help and wouldn't have occurred to some before. I know my mother will never go to a nutritionist or a personal trainer, but she's made friends with her WW leader and feels comfortable asking her for advice. It may not always be perfect, but she's doing a hell of a lot better than she was a year ago.

The WW meetings give people great support and the weigh ins help with motivation. Obviously body fat percentage is a better indicator, but again, someone like my mother would never go to someone to have that measured.

I'm losing weight too, but I couldn't do WW. It's not for me. But for people like my mother, it's a good way of easing into healthier eating. She's made a new group of friends at WW, people to talk to about eating better and exercising, and while she doesn't always stick to it, she's trying, and her bad days now are better than her average days were before. I give her a bit of a nudge to eat healthy, filling foods rather than 50 pink & whites a day. Her health has improved drastically.

It's not ideal but it's a more realistic option for some.

Boxoffrogs

Just wondering if you guys could suggest some foods which are rich in 'good fats'.
I have been trying to put on weight for some time but really want to know which foods I could eat in order to do this without causing the cholesterol to sky-rocket or have other negative effects. Also, my skin seems to be quite dry and I've been told that eating certain fats can be likened to giving your skin a drink.
I realise that it's probably all there to be researched, but it would be nice to have some recommendations.
Thanks

Melia

Fish, nuts, nut butter, seeds, avocado, olives, olive oil, coconut, coconut oil...

I love peanut butter. Actually, I think it goes beyond 'love' and into 'obsession'...

Boxoffrogs

Melia wrote: »

Fish, nuts, nut butter, seeds, avocado, olives, olive oil, coconut, coconut oil...

I love peanut butter. Actually, I think it goes beyond 'love' and into 'obsession'...

Many thanks Melia, not fond of peanut butter, or olives, but some of the others could be slipped into my diet easy enough.

Melia

diddledum wrote: »

Many thanks Melia, not fond of peanut butter, or olives, but some of the others could be slipped into my diet easy enough.

You could try hazelnut or cashew butter? The nuts themselves are probably better anyway.

EileenG

Oily fish has so many health benefits it should be on prescription. After that, nuts and flaxseeds. Also eggs and fresh meat. People tend to start muttering about Saturated fats, but some is essential, and eggs and steak are a great way to get them.

El_Dangeroso

diddledum wrote: »

Just wondering if you guys could suggest some foods which are rich in 'good fats'.
I have been trying to put on weight for some time but really want to know which foods I could eat in order to do this without causing the cholesterol to sky-rocket or have other negative effects. Also, my skin seems to be quite dry and I've been told that eating certain fats can be likened to giving your skin a drink.
I realise that it's probably all there to be researched, but it would be nice to have some recommendations.
Thanks

Pork Belly, bacon, sardines, grass-fed butter (Kerrygold).

Pembily

Melia wrote: »

You could try hazelnut or cashew butter? The nuts themselves are probably better anyway.

Hazelnut butter is gorgeous :):) Fab on chopped veg!

EileenG wrote: »

Oily fish has so many health benefits it should be on prescription. After that, nuts and flaxseeds. Also eggs and fresh meat. People tend to start muttering about Saturated fats, but some is essential, and eggs and steak are a great way to get them.

Oily fish - mackeral, salmon - is fab in a omlette :) Good fat hit!

Stella777

It's all so confusing...

Is olive oil OK or not?

@Melia:
You'd probably love West Africa cuisine, as they use lots of peanut butter in their sauces and soups!

El_Dangeroso

Olive oil is ALL kinds of good. EVOO should not be used to fry with though.

Melia

Stella777 wrote: »

@Melia:
You'd probably love West Africa cuisine, as they use lots of peanut butter in their sauces and soups!

I'll do some Googling for recipes, thanks!

Stella777

Since this thread seems to be all about fats, I'll ask this question here rather than starting a new thread.

I bought some coconut oil today to try in stir frys. At the store I noticed there were two types. Regular and "extra virgin." What's the difference? (besides price, the extra virgin was about twice the price of the regular.)

EileenG

Regular is processed and heat treated, the virgin is better quality and more natural. I'd go for the virgin unless you plan to cook for an army.

rubadub

I read some of the non-virgin ones can be hydrogenated and so have trans fats. I got some in the chinese/indian type shop in blackrock market in dublin, it was not virgin but listed transfats as zero. I think the virgin stuff has more of a coconut taste too.

Iristxo

What do you guys use this oil for? Just frying stuff like stir-frys and meat and the likes?

rubadub

diddledum wrote: »

Many thanks Melia, not fond of peanut butter, or olives,

I have "light & mild" olive oil, which has no real taste of olives.

Iristxo wrote: »

What do you guys use this oil for? Just frying stuff like stir-frys and meat and the likes?

I fry with coconut oils, I am also currently mixing olive oil with protein shakes which I think slows the digestion of the protein. I also add coconut flour to pancake mixtures sometimes, it is 65% fat so I do not bother with oil in the nonstick pan.

West Africa cuisine, as they use lots of peanut butter in their sauces

I fry chicken pieces in a pan, add some garlic, chilli, soy sauce & peanut butter at the very end.

El_Dangeroso

Just want to draw peoples attention to this new study as there was a mention of CLO earlier in this thread.:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan21_3/b5500?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=retinol&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

It is a huge study of 520,000 people that reveals a possibility that high doses of vitamin A can increase the risk of colon cancer by thwarting the effect of vitamin D. This is shocking to me as I had been considering adding in cod liver oil to my supplements.

They specifically cite cod liver oil as the provider of excess A. I would advise people to avoid cod liver oil and only eat liver max once a week.

Some A is good but too much seems to be toxic.

Pembily

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Just want to draw peoples attention to this new study as there was a mention of CLO earlier in this thread.:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan21_3/b5500?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=retinol&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

It is a huge study of 520,000 people that reveals a possibility that high doses of vitamin A can increase the risk of colon cancer by thwarting the effect of vitamin D. This is shocking to me as I had been considering adding in cod liver oil to my supplements.

They specifically cite cod liver oil as the provider of excess A. I would advise people to avoid cod liver oil and only eat liver max once a week.

Some A is good but too much seems to be toxic.

Was it not always known that too much A was toxic as it is a fat soluble vitamin?? CLO is not something I ever took but some people swear by it!!! Its a bit shocking to find that out :eek:

Sapsorrow

Pembily wrote: »

Was it not always known that too much A was toxic as it is a fat soluble vitamin?? CLO is not something I ever took but some people swear by it!!! Its a bit shocking to find that out :eek:

No it's been known for a good while that it's a teratogen.

El_Dangeroso

Pembily wrote: »

Was it not always known that too much A was toxic as it is a fat soluble vitamin?? CLO is not something I ever took but some people swear by it!!! Its a bit shocking to find that out :eek:

Yes, but they had always demonstrated toxicity of A in sythetic supplements.

CLO doesn't produce the classic symptoms of A toxicity but it seems that prolonged excess intake of even natural forms of retinol does raise cancer risk. I'll be sticking to butter, eggs and occasional liver for my A needs in future.

Iristxo

Provided you have an adequate intake of vitamin A, what would people be taking CLO for? EFAs? We take one daily capsule of MorDHA Omega-3 by Minami which they claim is pharmaceutical-grade deep-sea fish oil. I would not go near the CLO because of PCB contamination. I give my kids (under-5s) the MorDHA mini IQ one, will be switching to MorEPA when they're 5. They're pricey, though.

El_Dangeroso

Iristxo wrote: »

Provided you have an adequate intake of vitamin A, what would people be taking CLO for? EFAs? We take one daily capsule of MorDHA Omega-3 by Minami which they claim is pharmaceutical-grade deep-sea fish oil. I would not go near the CLO because of PCB contamination. I give my kids (under-5s) the MorDHA mini IQ one, will be switching to MorEPA when they're 5. They're pricey, though.

I agree, 30 euro is far too much to pay each month. But I haven't found any cheaper alternative. Have ordered various different capsules online and they always seem to disappoint. They are either so huge rendering them impossible to swallow or stick so so badly of rotten fish. If anyone has found a viable alternative that doesn't have those issues I'd be very grateful.

Transform

anything by carlsons

Catenaccio!

I bought some KTC Pure Coconut Oil at lunchtime and it seems as if that was a waste of money as I don't think it's unrefined. Am I right?

EileenG

That's pretty cheap and nasty. But on the plus side, it's cheap, you didn't fork out too much. It's okay for cooking.

Catenaccio!

Where can I get unrefined oil as I really don't want to use this stuff?

Catenaccio!

Also, where's the best place to get some good bacon? Every time I go to look for it it's overloaded with salt and nitrates...

EileenG

Most health food shops, including H&B, carry unrefined coconut oil.