Re: Who is willing to do the "Supersize Me" experiment with fish oil?
- From: monty1945@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:59:53 -0700
"I'm looking at a basis of nutrients (including fiber, etc) and toxic
substances that have optimal intakes."
You don't seem to realize how little is actually known, and how
relative or contextual what is thought to be known actually is. For
example, if your body is exposed to a great deal of lipid
peroxidation, you may need a lot more selenium that the person whose
body is dealing with almost no lipid peroxidation, due to glutathione
being needed in much larger amounts than normal. As you can read in
the Ottoboni book, it's the dose that makes the poison (I think that's
the title of the book, in fact), and so water can be toxic under the
wrong conditions. However, what I have found is that more than a few
researchers have found that arachidonic acid is a cellular toxin at
what are considered "normal" physiological levels, and that is very
dangerous - if you don't understand this point, there is little more
than I can say about it (I have cited some of these studies on my
site).
"You seem to be saying that omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids are toxic,
which seems to me in disagreement with most research studies."
Every study you or those like you have cited in this context I have
explained, but you don't want to listen or attempt to understand, so
again, what am I supposed to do? I can't open your mind, can I? One
example is the short term study on animals that already have AA in
their cells. Then, when they are fed coconut oil as their only fat
source, the AA gets released and some of the lipid peroxidation
markers might be raised temporarily. There are simple ways to control
the experiment properly (such as seeing how long the animals live on
these different fat sources or feeding coconut oil to those animals
that don't have AA in their cells, but instead have Mead acid, but I
did not do the experiment, so what am I supposed to do?). I have
offered to fund a study that we can both agree upon, but I'm not
willing to pay if I am correct, and people like yourself, who seem so
sure of yourself, appear to be very fearful that you will be shown to
be wrong? Once again, what can I do if you won't even enter
negotiations to do such an experiment?
As to "MUFA" and lauric acid; it's clear that lauric acid is not a
problem in any way, or else the peoples who eat large amounts of
coconut would have all kinds of "diseases." The fact that you are not
able to perceive this is troubling, as I think you are a medical
doctor, correct? As to "MUFA," remember that this is a classification
term and so is of limited use in practical dietary contexts, and may
in fact be misleading. Here is how that might happen: someone on a
diet rich in fresh, high-quality olive oil (uncooked) would have his/
her diet classified as "high MUFA" by people like yourself. Another
person eating a lot of "junk food" (twinkies, devil dogs, ring dings,
etc.) might also have a "high MUFA" diet, since these items are rich
in rapeseed or canola oil. Most likely, the former diet is quite
healthy wheres the latter is quite unhealthy (we'd have to know what
else is in the diet, of course). Thus, the notion of "MUFAs" in a
dietary context and without further explanation is at least as likely
to mislead as it is to illuminate.
My impression is that people like yourself don't have the time or
inclination to do much research, and to think about it in a highly
critical way, attempting to understand it all comprehensively. I am
more than willing to help out here, but it's irritating when I explain
to you exactly what appears to be happening in a particular study that
you cite, and then you act as if I didn't say anything. Yes, it is
frustrating that many experiments were not conducted in an especially
intelligent way, but that is no reason to abandon critical thinking
and fall back on textbook dogma that was refuted in the 1940s at
M.I.T. I've asked you specific questions before, and you either
ignore the question or you cite a study that is either not on point or
has obvious flaws in it, and so I don't expect there to be much of an
intelligent discussion proceeding from here. However, I'm still
willing to put the past aside and to use human reasoning and the
scientific method to try and sort through the data. Several years
ago, I feared "saturated fat" and "cholesterol" as if these were PCBs
or something along those lines. When I decided to do my own research,
I was not expecting to find what I did, but the hallmark of a scholar
is that he or she can put aside personal bias, making a search for the
truth the top priority. I hope that you will give this some thought,
and also put your biases aside; from past experience, however, my
guess is that this is unlikely to occur.
.
- References:
- Re: Who is willing to do the "Supersize Me" experiment with fish oil?
- From: monty1945
- Re: Who is willing to do the "Supersize Me" experiment with fish oil?
- From: Ron Peterson
- Re: Who is willing to do the "Supersize Me" experiment with fish oil?
- Prev by Date: ezproxy, pass
- Next by Date: Which grains should I add?
- Previous by thread: Re: Who is willing to do the "Supersize Me" experiment with fish oil?
- Next by thread: Re: Who is willing to do the "Supersize Me" experiment with fish oil?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
