Posted by larryhoover on June 18, 2011, at 18:29:14
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 17, 2011, at 17:10:10
> But even though our bodies are equipped to neutralize/reduce free radicals and make many free radicals themselves, does not of course mean that we cannot help or hurt our bodies in this area by what we ingest. So could the intake of oxidizing molecules from eating rancid fats contribute in any significant way to increased cellular oxidation?
Oxygen gas, the stuff we breathe, is an incredibly corrosive molecule. Rancid fats are far less active as oxidizers. Hemoglobin delivers the real deal, oxygen itself. Oxygen gas is a free radical, barely stable, in a relative sense. Ozone, even moreso. Truly, an oxidized fatty acid is of little concern.
> Or is the amount ingested from rancid fats so negligible compared to other "pro-oxidative" behaviors that it's not really worth considering?
I absolutely believe that to be the case. I tried to find some background information, but nobody has ever tried to measure the uptake from the gut of fatty acid oxidation products. For all I know, they don't even enter the bloodstream. But if they do, they are indistinguishable from the intermediates encountered from oxidation of fatty acids for energy. They are not a novel risk factor.
> Also... But what do you think the biologically beneficial reasons are for why we've evolved to not want rancid food?
We're stepping into philosophical/rationalization realms now. I believe, with no evidence to support it, that we evolved to discrimate fresh foods from those less fresh. How much would hunger weigh into the determination of whether you'd ingest the food anyway? I don't know. I'm personally much more sensitive to "off" tastes in dairy than others are, but I know sooner when milk might best be poured down the drain than my family would determine. Are they at greater risk because of that, or am I missing out on nutrition?
> Is it because it indicates a greater likelihood of bacterial contamination as well?
I absolutely believe that. Yes, rancidity or putrefacation scents are indicative of bacterial degradation.
Some protein breakdown products are named putrescine and cadaverine. Need I say more about those?
> Or is it merely because fresh fats have more biologically useful fatty acids compared to rancid fats? Or something else?
Taking that to a simple logical conclusion, then, freshness detection is beneficial. That's all I assume.
> "The bottom line is, we're well protected, even from rancid fats. I think people get too caught up in the details."
>
> Well, no one in the world is more guilty of that than i am. ... It's a problem.
>
> Thanks again.Selected details are used to influence people. There is a politics/science interface. For example, there has been a huge hoo-haa made of the toxic effects of PCBs and dioxins, especially insofar as they are carcinogens. But, did you know that modest exposure to these chemicals protects you from cancer? No, of course not, because it does not fit the political message that these man-made chemicals are toxic at all concentrations. They are not.
Lar
poster:larryhoover
thread:904699
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110610/msgs/988710.html