Re: MUFA, PUFA on Grain & Grass

[Guest guest]

> The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in omega

> 3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

> compared to grass-fed.

Im a little puzzled about the above statement, because the literature

below says something a little different. Maybe someone could educate

me...

-Colby (Raleigh, NC)

---------------

Fatty acid composition, including conjugated linoleic acid, of

intramuscular fat from steers offered grazed grass, grass silage, or

concentrate-based diets (see below).

J. Anim. Sci. 2000. 78:2849-2855

" As animals become fatter an increasing proportion of the fat

deposited is in the form of MUFA. "

" The concentration of PUFA in i.m. (intramuscular) fat was higher for

animals offered GO [grazed grass] than for those offered any other

ration, among which no significant differences were noted. "

" There was no effect of treatment on n-6 fatty acid concentration in

i.m. fat. Decreasing concentrate intake increased the n-3 fatty acid

concentration and linearly decreased the n-6:n-3 ratio... Animals

offered grass had higher intakes of n-3 PUFA because of the higher

concentration of 18:3 in grass than in concentrate (approximately 30

times higher - see below) "

---------------

Effects of Time on Feed on Beef Nutrient Composition

J. Anim. Sci. 1993. 71:2079-2088

" The monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) demonstrated a 22% linear

increase from day 0 to 196 (on Grain). This increase was largely due

to a 20% linear increase in oleic (C18: 1) acid concentration. "

" The polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content changed quadratically

over TOF (Time of Feed), resulting in a 72% decrease from day 0 to

196 (on grain). "

---------------

I found the composition of various forage interesting. Note the

differences btw 18:1 and 18:3.

Table 1. The chemical composition of grass, grass silage, and

concentrates

Grass - Grass Concentrate - Silage

----------------------------------

Crude protein, g/kg DM 224 125 149

Fatty acids (g/100 g)

14:0 4.64 2.45 5.44

16:0 20.81 32.70 24.00

16:1 2.37 .80 .58

18:0 3.29 20.59 2.90

18:1 5.74 25.07 6.32

18:2 14.00 16.53 14.53

18:3 49.15 1.86 46.23

GC - mixture of ground barley (46%), unmolassed sugar beet pulp

(42%), soybean meal (8%), tallow (1%), and a proprietary

mineral/vitamin mix (3%)

S - primary growth of perennial ryegrass cut with a rotary mower.

J. Anim. Sci. 2000. 78:2849-2855

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, colbygeiman <colbygeiman@...> wrote:

> > The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in omega

> > 3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

> > compared to grass-fed.

>

>

> Im a little puzzled about the above statement, because the literature

> below says something a little different. Maybe someone could educate

> me...

Colby,

I was too. What I've seen in the past, as well as the data you

showed, seems to indicate that the fatty acid composition difference

is basically an increase of n-3s at the expense of MUFA.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> > > The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in

omega

> > > 3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

> > > compared to grass-fed.

> >

> >

> I was too. What I've seen in the past, as well as the data you

> showed, seems to indicate that the fatty acid composition difference

> is basically an increase of n-3s at the expense of MUFA.

>

> Chris

Ok, so maybe you could elaborate a little more. Cause your first

statement above said " excessive pufa " and " less mufa " in grain finished

beef, but I dont see that in the literature I posted. Can you help me

out?

-Colby (Raleigh, NC)

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, colbygeiman <colbygeiman@...> wrote:

> > > > The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in

> omega

> > > > 3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

> > > > compared to grass-fed.

> > >

> > >

> > I was too. What I've seen in the past, as well as the data you

> > showed, seems to indicate that the fatty acid composition difference

> > is basically an increase of n-3s at the expense of MUFA.

> >

> > Chris

>

> Ok, so maybe you could elaborate a little more. Cause your first

> statement above said " excessive pufa " and " less mufa " in grain finished

> beef, but I dont see that in the literature I posted. Can you help me

> out?

The post you are directly replying too is my first in this thread.

You were originally quoting Christie, iirc, not me. Does that help?

:-)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> >> You were originally quoting Christie, iirc, not me. Does that help?

> :-) <<

>

> No, it wasn't me... and I don't think I've seen this whole thread, either. I

> keep seeing things being quoted that I didn't see in their original version.

> I'm sort of lost, to tell the truth.

>

> Is having a nervous breakdown again?

Ok, I don't know where it came from then. I was thinking of the quote

below, where you said something similar:

>The high levels of Omega SIX fatty acids in grain fed beef (around

three times >what's in grass fed) change the EFA picture completely.

It isn't just that you >get " more " Omega 3s but that you get a better

ratio of 3:6. Furthermore, as I said >before, the EFA problem is far,

far from the only problem with grain fed beef.

....But from what I've seen and what Colby's posted, the n-6s in beef

are relatively constant. Grass-fed has a *lot* more n-3s (in relative

terms-- not much in absolute terms), and it increases at the expense

of MUFAs. That's what I've seen so far.

I don't know where the original quote came from in question, but I

would be surprised if it came from me. I must have been blacked out

if it did.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> Table 2 on this page from Cal State University at Chico seems to say the

> same... almost double the Omega 6 fatty acids in grain fed beef, not just a

> ratio difference:

>

> http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/

No, look again: 5.66 for GRASS-FED, and only 3.92 for grain-fed for

n-6s. The grass-fed has MORE. But the difference in n-3s is much

bigger than the difference in n-6s, leading to a much lower n-6:n-3

ratio. This is more consistent to what I've seen than the table

showing lower n-6s on grass-fed.

Actually, the first website likewise does not support the idea of

higher n-6s. The table shows the absolute amounts, and the total fat

is twice as much in the grain-fed, which is a LARGER difference than

the n-6 difference, which means that the concentration of n-6s went up

slightly in grass-fed-- but the concentration of n-3s went up a HUGE

amount more. The grain-fed had a disproportionate rise in MUFA.

Both websites are consistent with the general picture that n-3s rise

considerably at expense of MUFA, whereas the difference in n-6s is

pretty small (though usually greater in grass-fed.)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> I am not sure what you're seeing in the first page ... the first page

> lists Omega 6 in grass fed as 139 and Omega 6 in grain fed as 275. That's

> around double the Omega 6s in grain fed, which is what I said.

I responded to this once and got a server error, and unfortuantely

everything I wrote disappeared. I hope it comes out right this

time...

Christie, the chart shows a doubling of total fat from 2.5g in

grass-fed to 5 g in grain-fed. The n-6 less than doubles, which means

that as a proportion of total fat the n-6 slightly declines. There is

roughly 5 times more n-3 n the grass-fed, which means that it has

increased by about a factor of 10 in the grass-fed as a proportion of

total fat.

I think this is more important than as a proportion of total mass,

because total amount of fat will vary between cuts and breeds of cow.

Also, with hamburger subcutaneous scrap fat can be ground in with the

meat. So if two hamburgers were compared, standardized for total fat

percentage, the grass-fed burger would have slightly more n-6s than

the grain-fed and about 8-10 times more n-3s.

I also found

> this table, indicating Omega 6 levels around twice in grain fed than grass

> fed, giving a citation to a 1986 study or article from the Journal of Food

> Quality as its source:

>

> http://www.sevensons.net/benefits.htm

It gives it as a proportion of total mass, so it's probably consistent

with all the other data we've seen, where as a proportion of total fat

the n-6 is about the same or slightly higher in grass-fed.

By the way, I recall an analysis someone posted to this list a long

time ago-- it may have been buffalo rather than bovine-- where the

total fat was only slightly lower in grass-fed, and the n-6 was about

the same.

> I agree on the second page it's the ratios that are the issue using their

> data, rather than the absolute amounts.

Ok, my point though was that the n-6 in the grass-fed was much higher

than the grain-fed, which is the opposite of what you said.

> I really don't know what the truth is, or if there even IS one truth - it

> seems that diet has a huge impact on Omega 3s and an effect that is much

> less, minor, or nil on Omega 6s, depending on who you ask and also, perhaps,

> on what exactly the cows are eating, time of year, geographical location,

> age, breed ... there are probably a lot of variables that could explain this

> discrepancy. Or perhaps a lot of people are just parroting outdated

> information. Maybe even me. <G>

Everything I've seen so far is consistent, including everything that

you and Colby presented: grass-fed has a MUCH higher n-3 content, both

as a proportion of total fat and total mass, and has a roughly

equivalent or somewhat higher n-6 content as a proportion of total

fat, while having a significant drop in total fat, to varying degrees.

I don't recall ever seeing anything contrary to this.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/7/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> >> Everything I've seen so far is consistent, <<

>

> Which is also RESEARCH or things that appear to be DATA, and has nothing to

> do with what I said, which is " parroting, " ie, " what people say. "

Ok, I see. I don't pay much attention to what people say except here,

and in research, so I guess I'm not perceiving the same talk you are.

I grant you you definitely did say that and I'm sorry for

misinterpreting you.

> I guarantee you, if you lower your standards substantially below what either

> you or I are willing to accept as reliable data, you will find plenty of

> people saying that 6s are higher in grain fed cattle.

I really can't stomach what people consider acceptable data, and

unfortunately this goes even for the sources I like most. It really

bugs me what a lot of people on " our side " consider to be justified

deductions from data, because those flimsy standards are what allows

all the junk science in the mainstream to pass as sensible.

> They either don't understand the idea of a ratio (that 6s can stay the same

> or go up, but as long as 3s go WAY up, the ratio will improve), or like me,

> didn't consider for an instant the change in the total amount of fat. Math

> is not my thing, but it never would have crossed my mind to look at the data

> that way. I'm sure lots of other people with my kind of brain are doing the

> same thing.

Yup. There are so many ways to slice statistics that it is really

easy to come up with deceptive things by failing to analyze it in

enough detail or just tweaking how you analyze it.

> I'm no longer arguing with you on the main point, which was a tangential one

> for me anyway.

Ok. Your main point-- just to show I was paying attention ;-) -- was

that there are lots of reasons to not eat grain-fed beef aside from

the fatty acid composition, even if it's not a good source of n-3s.

:-)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

In the book The Maker's Diet, he says fast growing grass has the most

nutrition; in France they feed a variety of different greens to get

the cheese flavor they want. So there are certainly many variables.

Bob

>

> > Table 2 on this page from Cal State University at Chico seems to

say the

> > same... almost double the Omega 6 fatty acids in grain fed beef,

not just a

> > ratio difference:

> >

> > http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/

>

> No, look again: 5.66 for GRASS-FED, and only 3.92 for grain-fed for

> n-6s. The grass-fed has MORE. But the difference in n-3s is much

> bigger than the difference in n-6s, leading to a much lower n-6:n-3

> ratio. This is more consistent to what I've seen than the table

> showing lower n-6s on grass-fed.

>

> Actually, the first website likewise does not support the idea of

> higher n-6s. The table shows the absolute amounts, and the total fat

> is twice as much in the grain-fed, which is a LARGER difference than

> the n-6 difference, which means that the concentration of n-6s went up

> slightly in grass-fed-- but the concentration of n-3s went up a HUGE

> amount more. The grain-fed had a disproportionate rise in MUFA.

>

> Both websites are consistent with the general picture that n-3s rise

> considerably at expense of MUFA, whereas the difference in n-6s is

> pretty small (though usually greater in grass-fed.)

>

> Chris

> --

> Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

> Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0

Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire

message archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

OWNER:</A></B> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>I said. I also found this table, indicating Omega 6 levels around

twice in grain fed than grass fed, giving a citation to a 1986 study or

article from the Journal of Food Quality as its source:

>

> http://www.sevensons.net/benefits.htm

>

Christie, Thanks! I'd be interested to read that article by if

you can find it:

G.J. , " Lipids in Wild Ruminants Animals and Steers. " J. of food

Quality, 9:331-343,1986.

Because, the figures are quite dissimilar to that of:

J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:1202–1211

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/1202

-Colby

[Guest guest]

>

> The post you are directly replying too is my first in this thread.

> You were originally quoting Christie, iirc, not me. Does that

help?

> :-)

>

> Chris

>

Hmmmm... well, maybe someone stole your login info, impersonated you

and signed your name. I bet thats it! Check Message 75092

" The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in omega

3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

compared to grass-fed. "

I have not seen this in the literature and that is why I was asking.

Perhaps you meant to say " grass-fed " rather than " supermarket beef " ,

because that is EXACTLY what we see in GRASS finished beefers... just

thought you [or your impersonator] could provide some explanation for

that statement. Thanks!

-Colby

[Guest guest]

>

> Hmmmm... well, maybe someone stole your login info, impersonated

you

> and signed your name. I bet thats it! Check Message 75092

>

> " The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in

omega

> 3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

> compared to grass-fed. "

>

> I have not seen this in the literature and that is why I was

asking.

> Perhaps you meant to say " grass-fed " rather than " supermarket

beef " ,

> because that is EXACTLY what we see in GRASS finished beefers...

just

> thought you [or your impersonator] could provide some explanation

for

> that statement. Thanks!

>

> -Colby

Just want to clarify my last post (Message 75377), so that I am not

misunderstood.

Here is where I need clarification:

GRAIN FED BEEF was asserted to be ... " excessive in total pufa, with

more n-6 fats and less MUFA "

Is this statement true?

-Colby

[Guest guest]

On 9/8/05, colbygeiman <colbygeiman@...> wrote:

> Hmmmm... well, maybe someone stole your login info, impersonated you

> and signed your name. I bet thats it! Check Message 75092

>

> " The fat profile of supermarket beef is basically deficient in omega

> 3s, excessive in total pufa, with more n-6 fats and less MUFA,

> compared to grass-fed. "

Oh, I see. I assumed it was Chistie since she made a recent post with

a similar view, whereas since this is from an older post in the thread

" Mastering Leptin, " with the subject line changed without any

indication from what thread it came, I totally forgot about this

statement.

I definitely goofed in it and did not mean to write that.

> I have not seen this in the literature and that is why I was asking.

> Perhaps you meant to say " grass-fed " rather than " supermarket beef " ,

> because that is EXACTLY what we see in GRASS finished beefers... just

> thought you [or your impersonator] could provide some explanation for

> that statement. Thanks!

Well I think it my subsequent emails I've pretty clearly explained

what I think. Just disregard this goof-up: my understanding, again,

is that grass-fed tends to be lower in total fat, and as a proportion

of total fat, is about the same or a little higher than grain-fed in

n-6, much higher in n-3, yielding a higher total PUFA at the expense

of MUFA.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/8/05, colbygeiman <colbygeiman@...> wrote:

> >>>I said. I also found this table, indicating Omega 6 levels around

> twice in grain fed than grass fed, giving a citation to a 1986 study or

> article from the Journal of Food Quality as its source:

> >

> > http://www.sevensons.net/benefits.htm

> >

>

> Christie, Thanks! I'd be interested to read that article by if

> you can find it:

>

> G.J. , " Lipids in Wild Ruminants Animals and Steers. " J. of food

> Quality, 9:331-343,1986.

>

> Because, the figures are quite dissimilar to that of:

>

> J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:1202–1211

> http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/1202

That's because the former is showing mg fat/100g meat, whereas the

latter is showing the individual fatty acids and the n-6/n-3 figures

as " weight percentage of fatty acids. "

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/8/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> On 9/8/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> > Well I think it my subsequent emails I've pretty clearly explained

> > what I think. Just disregard this goof-up: my understanding, again,

> > is that grass-fed tends to be lower in total fat, and as a proportion

> > of total fat, is about the same or a little higher than grain-fed in

> > n-6, much higher in n-3, yielding a higher total PUFA at the expense

> > of MUFA.

> >

> > Chris

>

> I'm thinking this must be a function of the age at which grass fed

> beef is slaughtered rather than an absolute standard. I have been told

> that older grass fed beef is much fattier than the the normal stuff we

> see at market.

That sounds right. Breed and type of grass make a difference too.

But I think in terms of PUFA, MUFA, n-6 and n-3 proportions of the

fat, the general trend seems pretty reliable.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com