Re: Enig vs. Peat - "EFAs" vs. Mead Acid: The Debate.

Let's be clear about your positions:

1. Is there "rapid turnover of DHA in the human brain," as "EFA
experts" claim, or not? If so, how do people who do not consume flax,
oily fish, canola, etc. get enough DHA? Does it magically appear
somehow? How am I getting enough of this DHA? If a person like
myself, who avoids all sources of omega 3 PUFAs, is getting enough, why
would anyone need to tell the general public that they need to
supplement with flax, fish oil, etc? I am asking a scientific
question, but you are not providing a scientific explanation, nor any
on point experimental data to support it.

2. If you think that any experiment I propose is flawed, then this
must mean that Burr & Burr is flawed, yes or no? If so, then you must
also conclude that a correctly designed experiment needs to be
conducted now in order to put this claim to the test, yes or no? I am
only saying that if Burr and Burr were repeated, except using fresh
coconut oil instead of no fat at all, then we would know if fat is
essential, or if specific fatty acid moleclues are. You have not
explained why this is an unscientific idea. Until you do, the only
reasonable conclusion is that you are deluded (for whatever reason) or
are industry shills (perhaps both).

3. I am not citing the 1930, but the professional nutritional
literaure is. When they stop citing it and instead cite another study,
I will then examine that study. You are correct, in a sense, in that
the evidence since 1930 demonstrates that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are very
dangerous, especially in how they are consumed in Western nations. The
proponents of the "EFA" claim point to Burr & Burr (1930), not me, but
I can only examine what they put forth to suppor their claims.
Otherwise, I have presented dozens if not hundreds of studies that
support my claims. You have placed the cart before an invisible horse
here.

4. What is the "EFA deficiency produced in animals?" It is the same
as B6 deficiency, which was not known in 1930. And how are fat soluble
vitamins going to be absorbed on a totally no fat diet? Why won't you
address these basic points? Again, you must be psychologically
deranged (from too much arachidonic acid in your body) or else you are
industry shills (how do you like it when someone makes such claims
about you?).

5. My experiment offer is not at all vague - it is a repeat of Burr &
Burr (1930) with one substitution. If you cannot understand that, then
you are beyond science - you need remedial education. But the question
you all need to answer is: if I can puposely avoid omega 3 and 6 PUFA,
with the exception of the tiny amount of omega 6s in things like
coconut, then why should anyone take supplements? This is a basic
question that everyone can understand, and yet you won't address it.

So who will take me up on my offer to repeat Burr & Burr, substituting
fresh coconut oil for no fat, and accepting overall mortality as the
"endpoint?"

Again, I am waiting...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT, Cycled today
    ... Burr wrote: ... You're going to get so old and fat you ... can't turn your knob to tune anything, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Surprise view today.
    ... Wot is a "Blur Movie"? ... ...and erotic movie filmed by Burr? ... I got fat fingers!!! ...
    (uk.rec.waterways)