Re: Benefits of omega 3 for Type I Diabetes

The greater the AA metabolites, the higher your risk of all kinds of
"chronic disease." They are assuming that certain things are the
case, based upon other assumptions, some of which have been refuted
long ago. Do you realize that the "EFA" claim was directly refuted at
M.I.T. in the 1940s? Just go to pubmed.com and do the relevant
searches.

Those of you who feel confused by various "studies" cited only have to
look at the undeniable facts:

1. The consumption of certain foods have increased significantly in
nations like the USA over the last several decades. The soybean oil
chart indicates this clearly, and there are books that your library
might possess, such as "Diet and Health" by the National Research
Council. You will see that butter consumption has decreased
significantly over the last several decades.

2. Consider the diet and lifestyles of your relatives that have lived
to advanced ages. Ask yourself if this is better scientific evidence
than a study done on indirect markers over a period of a few weeks or
a couple of months (assuming you are interested in living a long and
healthy life). Look at the old recipe and cookbooks. They were
eating "pound cake" (with a pound of sugar and butter in it) and there
was hardly any "heart disease" (prior to W.W. II).

3. Those of diets very rich in saturated fatty acids (and low in
unsaturated fatty acids) should have very high rates of heart disease
(if the most of the "experts" were correct), but this is not the case
(I cite studies of such people on my free site), and in fact such
people have no heart disease problems. In science, this is a direct
refutation - that is how the scientific method works. Nothing can
change these facts, and they are now part of the historical record.

4. Any claim about the "badness" of "saturated fat" needs to explain
such data, not ignore it and hope it "goes away." Of course, in
science, terms and phrases must be defined. Many "experts" still
consider lard (only 40% saturated) a "saturated fat," but this is
semantic, and has no scientific reason behind it. The fact that they
do this means that they are likely to create a view of the
experimental findings more misleading than illuminating (my
investigation has led me to believe that this is the case, and you can
see the evidence I present for this case on my site).

.