4 ms·

You can get both essential ω-3 and ω-6 short chain polyunsaturated fatty acids from flaxseed, without the baggage of eggs (high cholesterol) and fish oil (high

by noondip 11y ago

You can get both essential ω-3 and ω-6 short chain polyunsaturated fatty acids from flaxseed, without the baggage of eggs (high cholesterol) and fish oil (high levels of persistent organic pollutants).

gorena 11y ago
http://examine.com/faq/will-eating-eggs-increase-my-cholesterol/ http://examine.com/faq/will-eating-eggs-increase-my-choleste...
- noondip 11y ago
  Many of the studies referenced on that site are funded or carried out by egg lobbying groups. One study literally compares eggs' effects on cholesterol levels compared to a diet of sausage and cheese. It's important to be critical of biased research! This is not good science.
  - saosebastiao 11y ago
    And a tiny glimpse at your post history shows that you are a rabid advocate of a vegan diet. Not exactly unbiased yourself.
    - noondip 11y ago
      Please reply to my comment based on its scientific merit without resorting to an ad hominem attack.
      - saosebastiao 11y ago
        There was no scientific merit in your comment. You mentioned that some studies out of a list of many that disagreed with your opinion had potential for bias in their conclusions due to external motives. I merely pointed out the same potential for bias in your conclusions.
        noondip 11y ago
        I don't have a financial incentive to promote healthy food, whereas the studies I've criticized do have a serious conflict of interest. It isn't difficult to see the difference.
        saosebastiao 11y ago
        You're right...there is a substantial difference. Financial motives generally tend to be much weaker than religious or philosophical motives because financial stakes are much easier to trade, liquidate, or abandon. If the evidence ever becomes overwhelming that eggs are bad for you, proponents of egg consumption can easily become a proponents of kale consumption. Veganism, being a fundamentalist philosophical extension of more pragmatic vegetarian diets, does not share the same strength of motive; evidence to the contrary is a refutation of the validity of the entire belief system. It will always be much harder to move away from a belief system than it is to move away from money.
        noondip 11y ago
        I'm sorry, but I really think you are just trolling and I won't have any of it. You see, veganism is based on scientific fact and nutritional research, not conjured beliefs. If you have reason to think there is significant scientific research to dispute my claims, please cite those as I've asked, rather than appealing to another attack on my character. By the way, the evidence is already overwhelming to implicate eggs as damaging to your health. One just has to be reasonable and willing to seek out the information to make own unbiased conclusions.
        CuriouslyC 11y ago
        I'm sorry, but the one absolute metric we do have in terms of nutritional quality (athletic performance) shows that intelligent inclusion of animal products provides better results than a vegan diet. In terms of longevity, basically all the "blue zone" diets do include animal products in moderation. You might be able to push your cholesterol numbers down slightly with a vegan diet, but note that some cholesterol is necessary for optimal health, so there is no reason to play "how low can you go". Furthermore, you can't make blanket claims like "eggs are damaging to your health", because there are tons scenarios where that is untrue. Are eggs a bad dietary choice for someone who already consumes a high saturated fat, low fiber diet? Probably. On the other hand, eggs are an integral part of my diet and I would be much less healthy without them. You should at least be honest about your motivations as a vegan. I don't care if you want to take a stand against subjugation of animals, that's fine, but don't try and sell the diet to people who don't share your feelings in that regard with health scare tactics. That's just plain lame.
CuriouslyC 11y ago
Because my diet is so low fat, I actually want the cholesterol. Low fat/high fiber diets basically shut down the genes responsible for endogenous cholesterol synthesis (via SREBP2), I'm pretty sure if I didn't eat lots of eggs my testosterone would be in the toilet (among other things). Additionally, eggs are very high in arachidonic acid, which is the thing your body actually needs (linoleic acid is only essential as a precursor to arachidonic acid production), and the eggs I buy also contain very high levels of vitamin D, vitamin E and iodine. As for the fish oil, I buy a high quality supplement that claims to be extremely high purity (though of course this being supplements, that could mean anything). The rational for fish oil over flax is that it contains EPA/DHA, which are the fatty acids that are actually responsible for most of the beneficial effects; your body is pretty poor at metabolizing alpha-linolenic acid to EPA/DHA.
- noondip 11y ago
  If you're concerned with the metabolization of shorter chain omega-3’s found in flaxseeds, you can take an algae-based DHA supplement and still avoid toxic industrial pollutants found in fish oil. Still, flaxseed is amazing stuff.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    For a vegan diet, I'd prefer chia seed over flaxseed. Its greatest advantage is that the seed does not need to be milled (exposing the oils inside to light and oxygen) to be digested. Second, it has more of that mucilaginous fiber coating than flax, making beverages such as chia fresca possible. Third, I just like the flavor better. The disadvantage is cost per kg. Chia still costs more than flax. But one need not pick just one or the other; they're both excellent foods. Non-vegans can go lower on the food chain than fish oil by eating krill oil. Krill are only one step up from algae. In theory, krill-based foods could be farmed more sustainably than fish, but in practice, most of the wild krill catch is fed to fish farms. If krill were more popular as a direct-to-human food, there might be more financial incentive to farm it rather than catch it wild.
jobu 11y ago
Flaxseed oil contains mostly the omega-3 called alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), whereas fish oil has a more balanced profile of omega-3s, specifically EPA and DHA. Many people can convert ALA into other omega-3s just fine, but some people have deficiencies in diet or genetics (e.g. MTHFR mutation) that prevent efficient conversion.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Also, flaxseed oil goes rancid rather quickly in comparison to other oils, and polymerizes into semisolid or solid forms. This process begins as soon as the seed hull is cracked. If you're trying to change the diet of an entire city, it is probably better to promote unmilled chia seed and whole oily fish or krill. Unlike flax seed, chia seed can be digested without milling. There's also something to be said for algae and algae oil, but it isn't likely to be useful until someone works out how to change its flavor to be more palatable.

by noondip 11y ago

gorena 11y ago

http://examine.com/faq/will-eating-eggs-increase-my-cholesterol/ http://examine.com/faq/will-eating-eggs-increase-my-choleste...

noondip 11y ago
Many of the studies referenced on that site are funded or carried out by egg lobbying groups. One study literally compares eggs' effects on cholesterol levels compared to a diet of sausage and cheese. It's important to be critical of biased research! This is not good science.
- saosebastiao 11y ago
  And a tiny glimpse at your post history shows that you are a rabid advocate of a vegan diet. Not exactly unbiased yourself.
  - noondip 11y ago
    Please reply to my comment based on its scientific merit without resorting to an ad hominem attack.
    - saosebastiao 11y ago
      There was no scientific merit in your comment. You mentioned that some studies out of a list of many that disagreed with your opinion had potential for bias in their conclusions due to external motives. I merely pointed out the same potential for bias in your conclusions.
      - noondip 11y ago
        I don't have a financial incentive to promote healthy food, whereas the studies I've criticized do have a serious conflict of interest. It isn't difficult to see the difference.
        saosebastiao 11y ago
        You're right...there is a substantial difference. Financial motives generally tend to be much weaker than religious or philosophical motives because financial stakes are much easier to trade, liquidate, or abandon. If the evidence ever becomes overwhelming that eggs are bad for you, proponents of egg consumption can easily become a proponents of kale consumption. Veganism, being a fundamentalist philosophical extension of more pragmatic vegetarian diets, does not share the same strength of motive; evidence to the contrary is a refutation of the validity of the entire belief system. It will always be much harder to move away from a belief system than it is to move away from money.
        noondip 11y ago
        I'm sorry, but I really think you are just trolling and I won't have any of it. You see, veganism is based on scientific fact and nutritional research, not conjured beliefs. If you have reason to think there is significant scientific research to dispute my claims, please cite those as I've asked, rather than appealing to another attack on my character. By the way, the evidence is already overwhelming to implicate eggs as damaging to your health. One just has to be reasonable and willing to seek out the information to make own unbiased conclusions.
        CuriouslyC 11y ago
        I'm sorry, but the one absolute metric we do have in terms of nutritional quality (athletic performance) shows that intelligent inclusion of animal products provides better results than a vegan diet. In terms of longevity, basically all the "blue zone" diets do include animal products in moderation. You might be able to push your cholesterol numbers down slightly with a vegan diet, but note that some cholesterol is necessary for optimal health, so there is no reason to play "how low can you go". Furthermore, you can't make blanket claims like "eggs are damaging to your health", because there are tons scenarios where that is untrue. Are eggs a bad dietary choice for someone who already consumes a high saturated fat, low fiber diet? Probably. On the other hand, eggs are an integral part of my diet and I would be much less healthy without them. You should at least be honest about your motivations as a vegan. I don't care if you want to take a stand against subjugation of animals, that's fine, but don't try and sell the diet to people who don't share your feelings in that regard with health scare tactics. That's just plain lame.

CuriouslyC 11y ago

Because my diet is so low fat, I actually want the cholesterol. Low fat/high fiber diets basically shut down the genes responsible for endogenous cholesterol synthesis (via SREBP2), I'm pretty sure if I didn't eat lots of eggs my testosterone would be in the toilet (among other things). Additionally, eggs are very high in arachidonic acid, which is the thing your body actually needs (linoleic acid is only essential as a precursor to arachidonic acid production), and the eggs I buy also contain very high levels of vitamin D, vitamin E and iodine. As for the fish oil, I buy a high quality supplement that claims to be extremely high purity (though of course this being supplements, that could mean anything). The rational for fish oil over flax is that it contains EPA/DHA, which are the fatty acids that are actually responsible for most of the beneficial effects; your body is pretty poor at metabolizing alpha-linolenic acid to EPA/DHA.

noondip 11y ago
If you're concerned with the metabolization of shorter chain omega-3’s found in flaxseeds, you can take an algae-based DHA supplement and still avoid toxic industrial pollutants found in fish oil. Still, flaxseed is amazing stuff.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  For a vegan diet, I'd prefer chia seed over flaxseed. Its greatest advantage is that the seed does not need to be milled (exposing the oils inside to light and oxygen) to be digested. Second, it has more of that mucilaginous fiber coating than flax, making beverages such as chia fresca possible. Third, I just like the flavor better. The disadvantage is cost per kg. Chia still costs more than flax. But one need not pick just one or the other; they're both excellent foods. Non-vegans can go lower on the food chain than fish oil by eating krill oil. Krill are only one step up from algae. In theory, krill-based foods could be farmed more sustainably than fish, but in practice, most of the wild krill catch is fed to fish farms. If krill were more popular as a direct-to-human food, there might be more financial incentive to farm it rather than catch it wild.

jobu 11y ago

Flaxseed oil contains mostly the omega-3 called alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), whereas fish oil has a more balanced profile of omega-3s, specifically EPA and DHA. Many people can convert ALA into other omega-3s just fine, but some people have deficiencies in diet or genetics (e.g. MTHFR mutation) that prevent efficient conversion.

logfromblammo 11y ago
Also, flaxseed oil goes rancid rather quickly in comparison to other oils, and polymerizes into semisolid or solid forms. This process begins as soon as the seed hull is cracked. If you're trying to change the diet of an entire city, it is probably better to promote unmilled chia seed and whole oily fish or krill. Unlike flax seed, chia seed can be digested without milling. There's also something to be said for algae and algae oil, but it isn't likely to be useful until someone works out how to change its flavor to be more palatable.