Corn Oil Linked To Villous Atrophy
A study published in the medical journal, Pediatric Research, investigated different dietary fats and their influence on gut damage and inflammation. The findings revealed that corn oil increased villous atrophy, and also caused an increased production of inflammatory chemicals. One of the mechanisms suspected as the cause is the high level of omega 6 fatty acids found in corn oils. Source: Pediatr Res. 1997 Dec;42(6):835-9.
The Gluten Free Warrior's Comment
Most packaged gluten free products contain heavy quantities of corn. Aside from the corn gluten itself posing a threat to health, this study identifies that the high levels of omega 6 fatty acids in corn oil contribute to increased levels of inflammation.
Corn oil is a major ingredient used in restaurants. It is commonly mixed with genetically modified soy oil, and together the two toxic compounds are typically referred to as vegetable oil. Despite the fact that neither corn or soy are vegetables (corn = grain & soy = legume). Add to this the fact that most corn in the U.S. is genetically modified. Bt toxin and Round Up are both chemicals found in GMO corn that have been shown to cause gastrointestinal changes, and increased food allergy reactions. Mold toxins in corn have also been shown to cause severe health issues. The diagram below illustrates many of the detrimental health impacts of corn:
Always looking out for you,
Dr. Osborne - AKA The Gluten Free Warrior
So true, polyunsaturated fats are toxic. This includes the so-called essential fatty acids, flax seed and fish oils. Ray Peat is a resource to consider when the topic of health turns to "safe fats." His views include the following:
"Reading medical journals and following the mass media, it's easy to get the idea that fish oil is something any sensible person should use. It's rare to see anything suggesting that it could be dangerous.
During the recent years in which the U.S. government has gone from warning against the consumption of too much of these omega-3 oils ("to assure that the combined daily intake of two fatty acids that are components" "(i.e., eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)) would not exceed 3 grams per person per day (g/p/d)") to sponsoring biased industry claims, there has been considerable accumulation of information about the dangers of fish oils and omega-3 fatty acids. But there has been an even greater increase in the industry's promotional activities.
The US government and the mass media selectively promote research that is favorable to the fish oil industry. The editorial boards of oil research journals often include industry representatives, and their editorial decisions favor research conclusions that promote the industry, in the way that editorial decisions in previous decades favored articles that denied the dangers of radiation and reported that estrogen cures almost everything. Marcia Angell, former editor of the NEJM, has observed that the "significant results" reported in published studies can be properly interpreted only by knowing how many studies reporting opposite results were rejected by the editors.
One way to evaluate published studies is to see whether they tell you everything you would need to know to replicate the experiment, and whether the information they provide is adequate for drawing the conclusions they draw, for example whether they compared the experimental subjects to proper control subjects. With just a few minimal critical principles of this sort, most "scientific" publications on nutrition, endocrinology, cancer and other degenerative diseases are seen to be unscientific. In nutritional experiments with fish oil, controls must receive similar amounts of vitamins A, D, E, and K, and should include fat free or "EFA" deficient diets for comparison.
In declaring EPA and DHA to be safe, the FDA neglected to evaluate their antithyroid, immunosuppressive, lipid peroxidative (Song et al., 2000), light sensitizing, and antimitochondrial effects, their depression of glucose oxidation (Delarue et al., 2003), and their contribution to metastatic cancer (Klieveri, et al., 2000), lipofuscinosis and liver damage, among other problems."
Peat may not have all the answers, but his views are worth considering.
[Link]