Re: The critics agree: you don't need to supplement with "essential fatty acids."

I did not list my supplement usage, but remember that the
vitamin/mineral requirements assume that a certain amount of stress is
present. For example, "vitamin E" deals with lipid peroxidation, so if
there's not much of that going on, you may not need any
supplementation. In some old people who are in very good health and
take no supplements, vitamin E levels are found to be optimal.

I do eat an occasional carrot, but again, no fatty acids there. Leafy
greens have anti-nutritive qualities, though I do use herbs and spices
in small amounts (parsley, basil, oregano, etc.). Legumes should be
fermented if you are going to eat them regularly or in large amounts
once in a while.

Let's get back to the point of this post: do you need to supplement
with "essential fatty acids?"

Now, if you've read my old posts, you know that my meticulous
examination of the evidence finds nothing to be gained by doing so, and
plenty of risk involved.

However, those who attack these posts make contradictory claims: some
say that I am getting plenty of "EFAs" on my diet and cannot be
"essential fatty acid deficient" (and thus have had the arachidonic
acid in my cells replaced with the Mead acid), while others say that I
must be doing terrible damage to myself, despite 4 years of seeing only
benefits. This is one reason why I will only get involved in long
responses at this point if we have a moderated, academic-style debate,
me against one of them at a time.

Thus, at this point I will make clear to those interested that
"science" cannot trump logic. They must be consistent with each other.
If something is "essential," there must be an amount that is needed
that can possibly have a physiological effect, and moreover, there must
be symptoms of a "disorder" if one does not obtain this amount.

The professional literature is clear: my diet should not supply enough
"EFAs." The professional literature is wrong about "EFAs," as I have
shown, but if you want to defend the professional literature on this
point, then you cannot do so by disagreeing with it. If it is wrong,
then a new hypothesis needs to replace it, and my critics have
continually refused to state their position as a scientific hypothesis,
and thus, again, there is no point is getting involved in a
"point/counterpoint" type of situation with them, unless they agree to
a formal debate.

One recently said that he would not state a hypothesis because I don't,
which is false (and leads me to believe what I've suspected for a
while, that is, he/she only reads parts of my posts). I not only have
stated my hypothesis, but have proposed an experiment to demonstrate
that it is accurate (which is something scientists are supposed to do
after they propose the hypothesis).

Here it is, once again:

Primates, dogs, pigs, rats, and many other mammals will live longer
lives if they consume a common lab diet with 30% of their calories
coming from fresh coconut oil, as opposed to a diet of 30%
canola/safflower/fish oil. Basic vitamin/mineral supplement only.
Anyone can take me up on this experimental offer, but you must put the
money for all expenses in escrow, and if I am correct, that money will
not be refunded to you, but will pay for the experiment. If I am
wrong, I will pay for all expenses and you will get your money back.

As I have demonstrated before, all the experiments to date, which have
been done on animals, have been flawed. A fat free diet versus a mixed
fat diet has been used, or else a high safflower diet is compared to a
diet in which safflower oil and fish oil are consumed. They never
compare a group of animals, once they reach adulthood and are in good
health, that eat fresh coconut oil as their fat source versus any
combination of the common highly unsaturated oils of today. Sometimes
they look for "markers," but then don't see which animals actually
lived longer. My hypothesis is unrelated to "markers." Most people
want to live long lives in at least fairly good health and would prefer
this to good "markers" and and early death or poor health, so "markers"
are only relevant if they correlate with what people want, not what the
scientific establishment uses to make itself feel better, to get
funding, to receive tenure, etc.

But again, if we just use logic at its most basic, there are only a few
possibilities: either my diet is sufficient in terms of "EFAs," in
which hardly any American should even consider supplementing, OR "EFAs"
need to be consumed in far larger amounts that my present diet
supplies, in which case I should have seen symptoms more than 3 years
ago (not benefits), OR the "EFA" claim is just a misinterpretation of
the evidence (as I have demonstrated in previous posts).

My most persisent critic, "MattLB," insists that my diet is sufficient.
Even if we ignore the fact that most nutritionists disagreee with him,
there is no doubt that if I have replaced the arachidonic acid in my
cells with Mead acid, then he is undeniably WRONG. There is no other
possibility. Thus, I have made an offer to him (and anyone else): put
the money is escrow, then I will do the test to see what my Mead acid
level is, and if it is clearly in the "essential fatty acid deficient"
range, he will pay for the expenses. If I have a "normal" level of
arachidonic acid and/or EPA (the omega 3 analogue), I will pay for the
expenses.

This is very simple. One need not be a professor of logic to see that
there are only a few possibilites, at most, and that simple experiments
can demonstrate who is correct. I am willing to spend my own money on
this if I am not correct, but of all the critics, none is willing to
take me up on any of these offers.

Perhaps someone who is not biased on this issue would be so kind as to
ask these individuals why they have no interest in doing so, but at
this point, as I said, I will wait for a moderated debate, rather than
write up the same kinds of responses that I already have in many
previous threads.

.