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

montygram wrote:
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.

Vitamin E has functions beyond being an antioxidant. Since it is the
best chain-breaker in lipoproteins (whether they contain Mead acid or
any other PUFA) it's a good idea to have it present to prevent free
radical damage.

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.

Who has said the latter? Since you started posting what you eat we now
know you are getting omega 3 and 6 in your diet, so almost certainly
don't have a clinical EFA deficiency.

Thus, at this point I will make clear to those interested that
"science" cannot trump logic.

It can if it reveals there's something unusual about a particular
situation. Logic would say that molecules present in the human diet for
millions of years which are delibearately elongated by body enzymes and
used as signalling molecules aren't poisons - yet that's what you
claim. Your science, therefore, defies logic.

Genuine poisons in the diet cause animals to stop eating the food
containing them, or develop enzyme systems for destroying them. The
body is perfectly capable of breaking down EFA for use as fuel, yet
keeps a certain level of them present in the membranes of cells, which
defies logic if they are just unwanted toxins.

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.

And EFA satisfy that.

The professional literature is clear: my diet should not supply enough
"EFAs."

The professional literature has analysed your diet?

The professional literature is wrong about "EFAs," as I have
shown,

No you haven't.

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,

Okay, if you think you have then we can add "hypothesis" to the list of
scientific terms you have your own definition of.

but have proposed an experiment to demonstrate
that it is accurate (which is something scientists are supposed to do
after they propose the hypothesis).

Experiements test hypotheses to see if they are correct, they shouldn't
be an exercise in proof.

As I have demonstrated before, all the experiments to date, which have
been done on animals, have been flawed.

You haven't done this, and I can't see why you think you have.

Sometimes
they look for "markers," but then don't see which animals actually
lived longer. My hypothesis is unrelated to "markers."

Then it is useless in investigating mechanism.

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,"

Almost ceratinly sufficient to prevent clinical deficiency diseases.

which hardly any American should even consider supplementing,

Unless they convert particularly poorly, or have a gross imbalance that
needs evening out.

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).

This is where you always get it wrong. You claim no EFA is best and
anyone who disagrees must think lots of EFA is best, but that's your
inference, not the truth. Most people who accept EFA are essential also
recognise that too much PUFA of any sort isn't desirable. Some, not
lots.

My most persisent critic, "MattLB," insists that my diet is sufficient.

I haven't insisted anything of the sort. I cast doubt on your claims of
EFA deficiency and, having seen jaym1212's post of the EFA content of
the foods you claim to eat, that seems to be the case.

Even if we ignore the fact that most nutritionists disagreee with him,

You're always claiming "they" know nothing, don't try and use them for
support now.

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.

Like I said before: I don't know what you actually eat, so it would be
a ridiculous offer to accept, even if I cared that much anyway.

I am willing to spend my own money on
this if I am not correct

Why not do it anyway, for piece of mind? Then you can publish as the
first EFA-deficient person to be in perfect health. You can post on
usenet insisting you can fly all you want, but only by demonstrating
your flying ability do you prove it.

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.

I think you mean "rather than question-dodge the way I have in so many
previous threads".

MattLB

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The critics agree: you dont need to supplement with "essential fatty acids."
    ... Let's get back to the point of this post: do you need to supplement ... acid in my cells replaced with the Mead acid), ... If something is "essential," there must be an amount that is needed ... my diet should not supply enough ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
    ... claims such as (in the context of the typical American diet) it "is not ... sources high in linolenic acid)." ... because it is known that a certain amount of "turnover" ... physically impossible to get enough omega 3s for even moderate turnover ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
    ... Yes, there are trace amounts of omega 6s in many foods, but when they ... LTB4 or PGE2 out of AA, so if Mead acid is there instead, you will make ... To be EFA deficient and incorporate Mead acid into your cells you must ... If your diet consist daily ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Normal pregnancy is not normal?
    ... it is EFAD because of Mead acid appearance - at least the experts say ... Biochemical EFA status of mothers and their neonates after normal ... fatty acids were less in arterial than in venous plasma. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Cold-water fish, hot questions ;)
    ... > and feed half a diet of 30 percent canola and fish oil, ... Seems a very artificial diet. ... If you looked at the kittens they'd have EFA in them. ... recall of the paper the majority of cats didn't have healthy kittens. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)