Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense

On Nov 29, 10:15 pm, monty1...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Facts got your tongue again, MattLB?

What does that even mean?

I was suggesting possibilities
to be investigated, which people like Willett rarely if ever do.

Backpedalling noted, but you're still making sweeping statements with
no basis:

"Reductions of linoleic acid to "improve" this ratio would likely
increase rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes."

That's suggesting a possibility.

Instead, they look at the "variables" they think are causative and
then play their statistical games.

Better to wave around vague terms like "lots" and "most" like you do,
I suppose.

Can you explain the scientific
reasoning being Ancel Keys' decision to study certain groups of men in
only seven nations for his "landmark" study? How does that make any
sense?

What's that got to do with anything?

"Native LDL does not lead to the accumulation of cholesteryl ester in
many types of macrophages... However, modified forms of LDL, such as
acetyl-LDL, oxidized LDL, and malondialdehyde-LDL, do lead to massive
accumulations of cholesteryl ester in cultured macrophages...
Haberland
et al. (1988) found immunochemical evidence for the existence of
malondialdehyde-LDL in atherosclerotic aortas. Is a byproduct of
arachidonic acid metabolism, which is an active process in the
arterial wall.

Yes. Arachidonic acid is involved in immune responses to damage
therefore damaged arteries are likely to have AA metabolities.

"...fats such as butter, coconut oil, and beef tallow have little
effect
on mammary carcinogenesis (Carroll et al., 1981). The requirements
for omega-6 PUFAs in mammary tumor promotion have been explored
systematically by Ip et al. (1985), who reported 4 to 5% of total
calories as the threshold at which the yield of mammary tumors
increased."

Existing tumours get bigger, or tumours appear?

You statement about glucose just demonstrates how deranged your
thought process is.

That you would think so says plenty about yours.

Of course glucose will feed cancer, as it feeds
just about everything, and the brain desires sugar, as is well known.

You miss the point that you were misusing terminology again. Glucose
is fuel for cancer cells; omega 6 isn't fuel for cancer cell, so
saying it is, is simply wrong.

Omega 6 PUFAs cause the cancer in the first place, at least in terms
of the AA metabolites.

How do AA metabolites cause this genetic mutation?

Since you've never acknowledged the now
voluminous literature showing how AA metabolites cause cancer,

Cause or exacerbate an existing condition?

MattLB
.