Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: "Davide" <davideb_music@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 May 2006 01:40:35 -0700
monty1945@xxxxxxxxx ha scritto:
You are making a claim, and you need to cite a reference for it. If
you look at the professional nutritional literature, you will see
claims such as (in the context of the typical American diet) it "is not
easy to acheive [EFA sufficiency] with present dietary patterns unless
fish or fish ois are included in the diet (or more unusual vegetable
sources high in linolenic acid) [such as flax oil]."
This is clearly nonsense. Maybe it's believable in USA but in the rest
of the world were other foods are staple and people eat more
traditionally than commercially no one has ever purposedly focused on
eating concentrated sources of EFA yet they've thrived no more or less
than others
It sounds to me like claiming that you can't get enough protein without
consuming protein powder, we have survuved for centuries without any
concentrated refined and commercially extracted source of EFA
But if we look at food composition we can see that you can secure,
without focusing on concentrated source of EFA, the amount of EFA that
is needed to be essential for health
Also, the traditional diets I'm talking about may not know what canola
oil is but many of them have fish or nuts as their staple, so while I
believe that concentrated source of EFA are not desirable I can't
believe that all foods containing unsaturated fats as part of a whole
food diet also containing lot of disease-preventing antioxidants and
phitochemicals from fruits, veggies and greens, are dangerous and to be
avoided
That wouldn't be consistent with the documented health of
hunter/gatherer societies consuming lot of nuts and fish
I am arguing
against this kind of claim, however, your claim doesn't make sense
scientifically, because it is known that a certain amount of "turnover"
occurs, and some argue that the turnover is "rapid." It would be
physically impossible to get enough omega 3s for even moderate turnover
to occur if you did not take the advice in the quotation. When you
claim that tiny amounts are needed, my question to you is, needed for
what purpose? I don't know where you stand on this issue.
Well, if you take that blook work it will tell whether you're getting
enough EFA to prevent your body from syntheting massive amount of Mead
acid.
My position is that it's crazy to believe that we actually need
concentrated oils to thrive but that it's also very hard to avoid
consuming sources of unsaturated fats as they belong to the food class
we as primates have been consuming for centuries, staple in the
traditional diets or hunter/gatherer diets that would have to rely more
on them since they lack all refined foods that we have access to, and
yet these population are known for their immunity to western diseases.
So my position right now is that oils are probably toxic and
uneccessary but that eating avocados, nuts and fish as part of whole
natural diet is not dangerous or disease promoting
As to my status, if you want to take me up on my offer, just let me
know. I've seen the results for myself: a different kind of healing, a
keloid go away after about 2 decades, a great attenuation of cold
symptoms, less itchiness, no more skin rashes, etc., and I'm more than
willing to put my money where my claims are. Here's a question for
you: if I do the test and it comes back Mead acid, are you willing to
admit that you are totally wrong about this?
Of course, we're theorizing ... facts will tell who is right and
there's no reason why I shouldn't admit I was wrong.
Mind you, I'm not interested on being right; the knowledge of what to
avoid to prevent diseases and be in good health is shape is way more
important to me
The claims about
"essential fatty acids" are basically "all over the map," and the basic
assertion was refuted in 1948. If you are correct, then just about all
the recent nutritional literature is wrong. The "experts" are claiming
that one needs about a tablespoon of omega 6s (linoleic) and a teaspoon
of omega 3s EACH DAY, and my diet is certainly not supplying anything
remotely near that amount.
This sounds to me like a "commercial" claim ... because it implies
those fats must come from processed concentrated oils
I remember less commercials claims stanting that we need 1 gram of n-3
and 2.5 grams of n-6, I believe your diet may still supplying that
amount but the test will tell whether I'm completely wrong
I agree that this is incorrect, but I agree
with them that one will incorporate the Mead acid into cells if one
falls well below these dietary consumption levels. The literature says
that this may occur within a few weeks, so being over 4 years into this
personal experiment, and seeing the changes in myself, there is no
reason to doubt that I've incorporated Mead acid, displacing the
arachidonic acid.
I still think a test is more realiable
Note that with a "fast food" or "junk food" diet you will get plenty of
omega 6s, especially linoleic acid.
Yes, that's true but as a matter of fact I remember the "experts"
claiming that we were consuming too much omega 6s and that a balance
between omega 6 and omega 3 was more important than the amount
Davide
.
- References:
- Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: Davide
- Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: monty1945
- Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: Davide
- Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: monty1945
- Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: Davide
- Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- From: monty1945
- Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- Prev by Date: Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- Next by Date: Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- Previous by thread: Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- Next by thread: Re: Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|