General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

A question MattLB absolutely must answer!

Started by montygram · · Last activity · 10 posts · 306 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
16 March 2006
Last activity
24 March 2006
Original author
montygram
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
306
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. MattLB is very good at dodging issues, but I was trained in grad.
    school to deal with such individuals, as many of you may have noticed
    in previous posts. One way of dealing with them is to compel them to
    take a stand. In politics this is sometimes difficult, but in science,
    you either must take a stand or step aside and admit that you are
    unsure, which makes his dodging all the more egregious. I have
    requested that he state the "essential fatty acid" claim as a
    hypothesis, which is required in science, for example, but he refuses
    to do so, insisting that if the body cannot make a molecule on its own
    it is thereby essential, which means that all kinds of
    naturally-occuring toxins would have to be classified as essential.
    For some reason, he cannot grasp this basic logical flaw, nor does this
    mitigate in any way his inability to state his claim as a formal
    hypothesis.

    Now, in a recent criticism of one of my posts, he made the point that
    he believes that my diet does supply an adequate quantity of
    "essential fatty acids," despite no source of omega 3s (except for
    the possibility of a tiny trace amount). Fair enough, if there is a
    basis in his claim. He did not supply any evidence of this claim,
    however, and the nutritional "experts" argue that one needs about a
    tablespoon of omega 6 rich oil and a teaspoon of omega 3 rich oil each
    day (some claim that there is "rapid DHA turnover" in the brain of
    adult humans, which would mean quite of bit of omega 3s are necessary
    each day, certainly at least a teaspoon). There are a very small
    number of exceptions, such as Ray Peat, who points out that the
    evidence suggests that "essential fatty acids" are only dangerous,
    and do nothing to enhance health. Thus, this brings up a question
    which MattLB must answer, if he wishes to be taken seriously by anyone
    in this newsgroup who is not a shill, at this point: if I contact
    several leading "experts" on fatty acids and "EFAs" in
    particular, such as Mary Enig, and he/she examines my current diet and
    states definitively that there is no way I can be getting enough
    "essential fatty acids" (especially after about 4 years on this
    diet) what wil be his position at that point? He will have to either
    admit his that his interpretation makes no sense or suggest that he has
    special knowledge that nobody else possesses and for which there is no
    scientific evidence. In this way, he will either have to state his
    claim clearly, without dodging the issue, or else everyone who reads
    these posts should have no difficulty seeing that this individual must
    have an agenda (or else possess severe and basic reading comprehension
    skills). The textbooks are clear on this point: you must eat more than
    trace amounts of omega 6s and 3s, or else you will experience
    undeniably noticeable signs of "essential fatty acid deficiency."

    MattLB's position, if one can call it that, does not make any sense.
    This can be demonstrated by basic logic: let us say that he is correct,
    hypothetically. If a person who does all that is practical, from a
    dietary perspective, to avoid all major sources of omega 6s and all but
    the tiniest trace amounts of omega 3s, and if that diet is fine in the
    context of avoiding "essential fatty acid deficiency," then why is
    anyone advocating supplementing with "EFAs?" At best, it is a
    total waste of money. And at worst, as the professional literature
    makes clear, damaging lipid peroxidation, which cannot occur with
    saturated fatty acids, will occur and possibly lead to what doctors
    call a particular "disease," especially as one gets older.
    Thus, there are only two logical possibilities: either I am eating too
    little "EFAs," and should be experiencing terrible symptoms or
    death at this point, or else the "EFA" claim is nothing with which
    one should be concerned. Because the former has not occurred after
    four years, there is no reason to allow this "EFA" notion to enter
    your consciousness, except to avoid any major source of them, in order
    to protect yourself against excessive lipid peroxidation.

    Here is the diet in question (each day):

    3 slices of homemade bread (coconut oil is the only major source of fat
    used, and it is only used to "greasse" the pan), made with
    all-purpose unbleached flour, organic sugar, bananas, spices, and a
    touch of salt

    All of the dairy products listed below are not from grass-fed cows, and
    have little if any omega 3 content:

    3-4 ounces of whole milk cheese (cheddar, swiss, or monterey jack)

    4-5 ounces of whole milk yogurt

    1 ounce or less of butter

    ½ ounce of bittersweet chocolate

    1/8 ounce of dark chcocoate (70% cocoa mass)

    3 ounces of whole milk ricotta cheese or ice cream (Breyer's
    "Natural Vanilla"😉

    1 boiled egg (organic, but not enhance with omega 3s)

    1 large banana or 2 small ones

    1 or 2 prunes

    a few dozen raisins

    1 ounce of strawberry preserve

    3 ounces of shredded coconut

    1 apple, 1 pear, or several pineapple chunks

  2. Correction: "or else possess severe and basic reading comprehension
    skills" should read: "or else possess a severe and basic reading
    comprehension disability"

  3. montygram said:

    MattLB is very good at dodging issues, but I was trained in grad.
    school to deal with such individuals, as many of you may have noticed
    in previous posts.

    Ho,ho.

    Quoted message said:

    One way of dealing with them is to compel them to
    take a stand. In politics this is sometimes difficult, but in science,
    you either must take a stand or step aside and admit that you are
    unsure, which makes his dodging all the more egregious. I have
    requested that he state the "essential fatty acid" claim as a
    hypothesis, which is required in science, for example, but he refuses
    to do so,

    I asked that you put your claim as a formal hypothesis first, but you
    refuse to do so.

    Quoted message said:

    insisting that if the body cannot make a molecule on its own
    it is thereby essential, which means that all kinds of
    naturally-occuring toxins would have to be classified as essential.

    I addressed your embarassingly simplistic misconception in the last
    post.

    Quoted message said:

    For some reason, he cannot grasp this basic logical flaw,

    The flaw is in *your* understanding of "essential", not mine (or
    conventional science's). As I said before: explain why vitamins are
    essential and you have explained why EFA are essential also.

    Quoted message said:

    nor does this
    mitigate in any way his inability to state his claim as a formal
    hypothesis.

    Now it's an inability; before I was just refusing to. You're
    disagreeing with yourself.

    Quoted message said:

    Now, in a recent criticism of one of my posts, he made the point that
    he believes that my diet does supply an adequate quantity of
    "essential fatty acids," despite no source of omega 3s (except for
    the possibility of a tiny trace amount). Fair enough, if there is a
    basis in his claim. He did not supply any evidence of this claim,

    I didn't make that claim. I said: "None of us knows exactly what you
    eat, so have no way of knowing if you are getting EFA or not. Even you
    may not know. "

    Just before we get to the bit where you suggest I have problems with
    comprehension, re-read that and notice I didn't claim to know what you
    eat and I could hardly provide evidence for that claim when the whole
    point was none of us know what you actually eat. I could claim to have
    eaten no fats apart from arachidonic acid and DHA for the last two
    years and be in the same position as you.

    Quoted message said:

    however, and the nutritional "experts" argue that one needs about a
    tablespoon of omega 6 rich oil and a teaspoon of omega 3 rich oil each
    day (some claim that there is "rapid DHA turnover" in the brain of
    adult humans, which would mean quite of bit of omega 3s are necessary
    each day, certainly at least a teaspoon).

    More "facts" plucked from the air. You didn't address my previous query
    about where your "couple of weeks" to become EFA deficient came from.

    Quoted message said:

    Thus, this brings up a question
    which MattLB must answer, if he wishes to be taken seriously by anyone
    in this newsgroup who is not a shill, at this point: if I contact
    several leading "experts" on fatty acids and "EFAs" in
    particular, such as Mary Enig, and he/she examines my current diet and
    states definitively that there is no way I can be getting enough
    "essential fatty acids" (especially after about 4 years on this
    diet) what wil be his position at that point?

    That the only way to prove you are actually EFA-deficient is to have a
    blood test that shows you are. Assuming the facts of your diet are as
    you claim then you may be eating tiny amounts now, but have had a large
    excess before you began, that is being depleted over time.

    Quoted message said:

    He will have to either
    admit his that his interpretation makes no sense

    The essentiality comes from a lack of synthetic enzymes, just as does
    for vitamin C. It's only your own layman's definition of essential that
    fits your unproven argument.

    Quoted message said:

    or suggest that he has
    special knowledge that nobody else possesses and for which there is no
    scientific evidence.

    Er, that's *your* position.

    Quoted message said:

    In this way, he will either have to state his
    claim clearly, without dodging the issue, or else everyone who reads
    these posts should have no difficulty seeing that this individual must
    have an agenda (or else possess severe and basic reading comprehension
    skills). The textbooks are clear on this point: you must eat more than
    trace amounts of omega 6s and 3s, or else you will experience
    undeniably noticeable signs of "essential fatty acid deficiency."

    And there are the I/V feeding studies to prove it, that I've cited, oh
    I think seven or so times without refutation from you,

    Quoted message said:

    If a person who does all that is practical, from a
    dietary perspective, to avoid all major sources of omega 6s and all but
    the tiniest trace amounts of omega 3s, and if that diet is fine in the
    context of avoiding "essential fatty acid deficiency,"

    Those two sentence fragments contradict.

    Quoted message said:

    then why is
    anyone advocating supplementing with "EFAs?"

    Where did supplementation come from? You're saying people shouldn't eat
    foods with them in.

    Quoted message said:

    And at worst, as the professional literature
    makes clear, damaging lipid peroxidation, which cannot occur with
    saturated fatty acids, will occur

    That will occur as long as there are PUFA in the body which there
    always will be even if it's only Mead Acid.

    Quoted message said:

    Here is the diet in question (each day):


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    All of the dairy products listed below are not from grass-fed cows,

    So what are they fed on and does it contain EFA?

    Quoted message said:

    1 boiled egg (organic, but not enhance with omega 3s)

    Again, what did the chickens eat? It makes a difference. If you don't
    know, you don't know whether or not there are EFA in your eggs.

    MattLB

  4. Quoted message said:

    insisting that if the body cannot make a molecule on its own
    it is thereby essential, which means that all kinds of
    naturally-occuring toxins would have to be classified as essential.

    uuummmm.......... what? The body not being able to make a specific
    molecule does not make that molecule essential. The definition of
    essential is "Basic or indispensable; necessary." The body can not
    make mercury. That does not make mercury essential.

    Max.

  5. Max C. said:
    Quoted message said:

    insisting that if the body cannot make a molecule on its own
    it is thereby essential, which means that all kinds of
    naturally-occuring toxins would have to be classified as essential.

    uuummmm.......... what? The body not being able to make a specific
    molecule does not make that molecule essential. The definition of
    essential is "Basic or indispensable; necessary." The body can not
    make mercury. That does not make mercury essential.

    It would appear monty misunderstood that and has been eating lots of
    Hg while wearing that funny hat.

  6. Quoted message said:

    [does] my diet does supply an adequate quantity of "essential fatty acids,"
    Here is the diet in question (each day):

    Following data from nutritiondata.com

    Quoted message said:

    4 oz of whole milk cheese (cheddar, swiss, or monterey jack)

    LA (18:2) - 652.0 mg
    ALA (18:3) - 412.0 mg

    Quoted message said:

    4 oz of whole milk yogurt

    LA (18:2) - 73.5 mg
    ALA (18:3) - 30.5 mg

    Quoted message said:

    1 oz of butter

    LA (18:2) - 77.1 mg
    ALA (18:3) - 89.0 mg

    Quoted message said:

    3 oz of whole milk ricotta cheese

    LA (18:2) - 252.0 mg
    ALA (18:3) - 103.5 mg

    Quoted message said:

    1 boiled egg (organic, but not enhance with omega 3s)

    LA (18:2) - 594.0 mg
    ALA (18:3) - 17.5 mg
    AA (20:4) - 74.5 mg
    EPA(20:5) - 2.5 mg
    DHA(22:6) - 19.0 mg

  7. If you can't understand basic logic, then there is little I can do
    here. When anyone who posted a response here is interested in a
    moderated, academic-style debate, just let me know.

    I will be waiting...
    (but I will not hold my breath).

  8. On 23 Mar 2006 21:44:57 -0800, "montygram" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    If you can't understand basic logic, then there is little I can do
    here.

    That's because logic eludes you.

  9. Quoted message said:

    If you can't understand basic logic, then there is little I can do here.

    Could you explain the logic in replying as above to a post that merely
    lists the amount of various fatty acids (from nutritiondata.com) in
    foods that are part of your diet?

  10. On 23 Mar 2006 21:44:57 -0800, "montygram" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    If you can't understand basic logic, then there is little I can do
    here. When anyone who posted a response here is interested in a
    moderated, academic-style debate, just let me know.

    I will be waiting...
    (but I will not hold my breath).

    jaim just did show that you don't need any tablespoon of omega-5 nor
    any teaspoon of omega-3. Your diet contain more than that. Already.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.