A question MattLB absolutely must answer!

MattLB is very good at dodging issues, but I was trained in grad.
school to deal with such individuals, as many of you may have noticed
in previous posts. One way of dealing with them is to compel them to
take a stand. In politics this is sometimes difficult, but in science,
you either must take a stand or step aside and admit that you are
unsure, which makes his dodging all the more egregious. I have
requested that he state the "essential fatty acid" claim as a
hypothesis, which is required in science, for example, but he refuses
to do so, insisting that if the body cannot make a molecule on its own
it is thereby essential, which means that all kinds of
naturally-occuring toxins would have to be classified as essential.
For some reason, he cannot grasp this basic logical flaw, nor does this
mitigate in any way his inability to state his claim as a formal
hypothesis.

Now, in a recent criticism of one of my posts, he made the point that
he believes that my diet does supply an adequate quantity of
"essential fatty acids," despite no source of omega 3s (except for
the possibility of a tiny trace amount). Fair enough, if there is a
basis in his claim. He did not supply any evidence of this claim,
however, and the nutritional "experts" argue that one needs about a
tablespoon of omega 6 rich oil and a teaspoon of omega 3 rich oil each
day (some claim that there is "rapid DHA turnover" in the brain of
adult humans, which would mean quite of bit of omega 3s are necessary
each day, certainly at least a teaspoon). There are a very small
number of exceptions, such as Ray Peat, who points out that the
evidence suggests that "essential fatty acids" are only dangerous,
and do nothing to enhance health. Thus, this brings up a question
which MattLB must answer, if he wishes to be taken seriously by anyone
in this newsgroup who is not a shill, at this point: if I contact
several leading "experts" on fatty acids and "EFAs" in
particular, such as Mary Enig, and he/she examines my current diet and
states definitively that there is no way I can be getting enough
"essential fatty acids" (especially after about 4 years on this
diet) what wil be his position at that point? He will have to either
admit his that his interpretation makes no sense or suggest that he has
special knowledge that nobody else possesses and for which there is no
scientific evidence. In this way, he will either have to state his
claim clearly, without dodging the issue, or else everyone who reads
these posts should have no difficulty seeing that this individual must
have an agenda (or else possess severe and basic reading comprehension
skills). The textbooks are clear on this point: you must eat more than
trace amounts of omega 6s and 3s, or else you will experience
undeniably noticeable signs of "essential fatty acid deficiency."

MattLB's position, if one can call it that, does not make any sense.
This can be demonstrated by basic logic: let us say that he is correct,
hypothetically. If a person who does all that is practical, from a
dietary perspective, to avoid all major sources of omega 6s and all but
the tiniest trace amounts of omega 3s, and if that diet is fine in the
context of avoiding "essential fatty acid deficiency," then why is
anyone advocating supplementing with "EFAs?" At best, it is a
total waste of money. And at worst, as the professional literature
makes clear, damaging lipid peroxidation, which cannot occur with
saturated fatty acids, will occur and possibly lead to what doctors
call a particular "disease," especially as one gets older.
Thus, there are only two logical possibilities: either I am eating too
little "EFAs," and should be experiencing terrible symptoms or
death at this point, or else the "EFA" claim is nothing with which
one should be concerned. Because the former has not occurred after
four years, there is no reason to allow this "EFA" notion to enter
your consciousness, except to avoid any major source of them, in order
to protect yourself against excessive lipid peroxidation.

Here is the diet in question (each day):

3 slices of homemade bread (coconut oil is the only major source of fat
used, and it is only used to "greasse" the pan), made with
all-purpose unbleached flour, organic sugar, bananas, spices, and a
touch of salt

All of the dairy products listed below are not from grass-fed cows, and
have little if any omega 3 content:

3-4 ounces of whole milk cheese (cheddar, swiss, or monterey jack)

4-5 ounces of whole milk yogurt

1 ounce or less of butter

½ ounce of bittersweet chocolate

1/8 ounce of dark chcocoate (70% cocoa mass)

3 ounces of whole milk ricotta cheese or ice cream (Breyer's
"Natural Vanilla")

1 boiled egg (organic, but not enhance with omega 3s)

1 large banana or 2 small ones

1 or 2 prunes

a few dozen raisins

1 ounce of strawberry preserve

3 ounces of shredded coconut

1 apple, 1 pear, or several pineapple chunks

.

Quantcast