Mead acid vs EFA (is it possible?)

Davide:

If Mead acid incorporates into your cells, then you are considered "EFA
deficient." According to the professional literature, I am not getting
enough "EFAs." I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it's
difficult to be "EFA deficient." Perhaps you could provide a citation
for it. On the contrary, the "experts" are now claiming that it is
very easy to be "EFAD." And yes, one can have biopisies or blood tests
done, and I have suggested that if someone does not believe me, he or
she could pay for the test to be done, but if I have not incorporated
Mead acid, then I will refund thte money. Nobody was interested in
taking me up on this, or any other similar offer. Also, I have seen
the results in the various problems I had - all of which are gone now.
It is so amazing that it's the kind of thing that has to happen to you
or else you would have trouble believing it, because of course what it
means is that the "experts" are about as wrong as they possibly could
be here (though some, like Ray Peat, did get it right).

Note that in science, if you refute a claim of "essentiality," that is
it - it is done, but for some reason, this has not happened in this
case. For example, why do the "experts" keep citing the 1930 study,
which was conclusively refuted. You can get the Encyclopedia
Britannica Book of the Year, 1948, and turn to page 121: "Pyridoxine [a
B vitamin] was found to relieve the deficiency state resulting from the
absence of dietary fat, and to cause the deposition of linoleic [the
most common omega 6 PUFA in diets] as well as di- and tetraenoic acids
in the tissues of rats on fat-free diets... This contradicts the idea
that linoleic acid cannot be synthesized by by rat tissues..." Thus, on
a fat-free diet, the rats were fine, so long as they were given proper
vitamin supplementation (some truly essential vitamins were not known
in 1930, and so they seem to have basically guessed that PUFAs were the
vital substance).

In addition, Mead acid is in key tissues, as some studies have found:
"...Young cartilage is characterised by the presence of high levels
of 20:9 w-9, Mead acid, indicating a relative deficiency of EFA.
Skeletal muscle from the same subjects showed normal EFA levels, and no
Mead acid. Age decreases the Mead acid level and increases the EFA
level, with weight-bearing cartilage having more EFA and less Mead acid
than costal tissues. Cartilage from osteoarthritis affected joints
showed even lower Mead acid levels and even higher w-6 EFA levels,
leading the authors to speculate that accumulation of w-6 EFAs in
cartilage might predispose towards the development of OA, and that the
presence of Mead acid might somehow be protective...."

Source: Poster Presentation at the Third International Conference on
Essential Fatty Acids and Eicosanoids, Adelaide, Australia March 1 1992

I now have my own forum, which is moderated, so that obnoxious or
irrelevant posts are deleted. You can read through some of my latest
research/essays, which connects the fatty acids in your body to
"disease" and the "inflammatory" response. If you like the Mead acid
"debate" and if you can "think outside the box," you will enjoy reading
these. Go to:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/

[email hidden] ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

Davide:

If Mead acid incorporates into your cells, then you are considered "EFA
deficient." According to the professional literature, I am not getting
enough "EFAs." I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it's
difficult to be "EFA deficient." Perhaps you could provide a citation
for it.

It's not a matter of citation but a matter of food composition
n-3 and n-6 are everywhere, not even sugary watery fruits are devoid of
them and as long as you consume a normocaloric diet of whole foods
you're at least getting 1g of n-3 daily which is all we need.
That's why I think the test is so important and I don't believe it will
cost you much, but it would be interested and would make the debate
more concrete if you do know that you're EFA deficient

The reason why it's not easy for me to believe it is that whatever you
eat there's EFA in it, even melon, even grass, even berries.
The reason why many studies claim that we're EFA deficient is because
we consume highly refined diets.
Two McDonald menus easily provide you with more than 2500 calories but
there's not enough elements, vitamins, minerals, efa, phytochemicals in
that stuff even thought calorically is more than many need

When I said that it's hard to be EFA deficient I mean that as long as
we eat whole foods that we can pick, grasp, cultivate, fish or hunt
we're getting at least 1g of n-3 daily because all foods on this planet
contain EFA even foods that we don't recognize as fatty or fat sources

Thanks for your reply

Davide

"EFA deficiency" is a human construct. You can have Mead acid in some
cells and arachidonic acid in others. You are talking ghosts here.
Yes, there are trace amounts of omega 6s in many foods, but when they
say "EFAD" they are talking about the ability to make metabolites like
LTB4 or PGE2 out of AA, so if Mead acid is there instead, you will make
LTA3, and not LTB4, PGE2, and the other very dangerous molecules that
many "experts" deem to be "essential." Actually, these molecules are
the direct cause of most of the "chronic disease" of today. Go to
pubmed.com and search for PGE2 cancer or LTB4 cancer, for example.

Now, if you think that trace amounts of omega 6s are "essential," it is
your obligation to demonstrate how they are essential in such a
context. And it certainly would be inconsistent to argue that one
needs to worry about "EFAs" at all, if one only did need the tiniest of
trace amounts. But again, with tiny trace amounts, you will not have
AA in your cells, and most of the "experts" believe, for whatever
reason, that you cannot survive without it there, though all the
evidence points to it as the cause, and not the cure, for various
diseases and conditions.

[email hidden] ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

"EFA deficiency" is a human construct. You can have Mead acid in some
cells and arachidonic acid in others. You are talking ghosts here.
Yes, there are trace amounts of omega 6s in many foods, but when they
say "EFAD" they are talking about the ability to make metabolites like
LTB4 or PGE2 out of AA, so if Mead acid is there instead, you will make
LTA3, and not LTB4, PGE2, and the other very dangerous molecules that
many "experts" deem to be "essential." Actually, these molecules are
the direct cause of most of the "chronic disease" of today. Go to
pubmed.com and search for PGE2 cancer or LTB4 cancer, for example.

To be EFA deficient and incorporate Mead acid into your cells you must
consume periodically less than 0.50g of n-3. If your diet consist daily
of 1-2g of EFA that's enough to prevent EFAD
The trance amounts in foods is enough to provide all the EFA we need,
the fuss about EFA (for those that believe in the essentiality of EFA)
is that as you diet becomes more refined and processed we get most of
our calories in the form of naked calories

But as long as whole diet provides 1g of n-3 daily it is not an EFA
deficient diet
That's why I think it's so important that you take a blood test to show
you're EFA deficient and incorporate Mead acid in your cells, because
it's not easy to believe that, even though you struggled to keep EFA
out of your diet, what you eat daily doesn't contain enough EFA to
provide not less than the very small amount your body is believed to
need

The body is believed to required so little EFA that even 0.020 grams
per 100g of a non fatty food make a huge difference
I'm actually afraid the test will confirm that you're consuming enough
EFA daily to prevent deficiency and the massive synthesis of Mead acid,
but only the test will say

Davide

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]." 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.

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? 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. 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.

Note that with a "fast food" or "junk food" diet you will get plenty of
omega 6s, especially linoleic acid.

Here's another quotation, from "Perspectives
in Nutrition" by Gordon Wardlaw (see pages 120 and 135 of the fourth
edition). The author claims that one needs at least "1 tablespoon of
polyunsaturated plant oil a day," which he claims is acceptable even
on a very low fat diet. If not, "one's skin will become flaky and
itchy, and diarrhea and other symptoms such as infections often are
seen. Growth and wound healing may be retarded..."

Another thought that blinked in my mind
I may agree that concentrated unsaturated oils are unhealthy ...
actually oil itself is not the healthiest of the food as it is nothing
more than naked calories, while those calories could have been used to
rise one's intake of essential elements

But it's hard to believe that eating avocados, nuts or fish in any
moderate amount can be as detrimental. After all they are foods
everyone have been consuming for years
There are studies that show the health of traditional population or
hunter/gatherer societies, when we look at these population all
diseases we've been for granted as unavoidable part of life on earth
are nonexistant and it's not genetics since when these people move to a
western country and adopt a western lifestyle they develop the same
diseases everyone has
The Bushmen are a population known for they health and strength

Well, the staple of their diet is nuts. Either nuts or fish have been
the staple of many traditional and hunter/gatherer diets that are
documented to be healthy and immune to western diseases

Then I thought that maybe in USA unsaturated oils have been pushed on
the population as necessary and healthy so you have all kind of
safflower oils, canola oil, flaxseeds oil and so on. Where that didn't
happen where I live and you can't find those oils even if you look for
them on a bioshop.
My uncle and my aunt (not from the same family) died of cancer at the
age of 45 and 59 and I've always thought about their lifestyle and diet
so as to understand why it happened and how to prevent it.

They for sure didn't consume any source of unsurated oils. They were
not particularly health conscious but my aunt loved to walk everyday
and my uncle was a bricklayer and the opposite of a coach potato. I
remember their diet was rich in butter, they cooked and seasoned
everything with butter ... it may seem strange for someone living in
today's big cities but they lived on a very small town basically
comprised of just farm and my uncle had his chickens and such. Other
things they used to eat was pasta of course, eggs, vegetables, bread
and especially milk product since they lived in a region near france
which is famous for its cheeses (in fact in the town even children
snacks were bread and cheese) They never consumed purposely any source
of PUFA

Davide

[email hidden] ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

[email hidden] ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

Here's another quotation, from "Perspectives
in Nutrition" by Gordon Wardlaw (see pages 120 and 135 of the fourth
edition). The author claims that one needs at least "1 tablespoon of
polyunsaturated plant oil a day," which he claims is acceptable even
on a very low fat diet. If not, "one's skin will become flaky and
itchy, and diarrhea and other symptoms such as infections often are
seen. Growth and wound healing may be retarded..."

Well, so the "experts" became more idiot from consuming all that oil
because just four years ago I still remember that the claims was about
"amount" of grams of fat in the diet, not claims about liquid oils
measure in tbs. The reccomended amount I remember was : 1 gram of n-3
and 2.5 grams of n-6 from whatever source including lettuce

Davide

Just get several cheap mice, feed them fresh coconut oil as their only
source of fat, along with proper nutrition, etc., otherwise, and see if
they live to the typical age. Remember that in 1948 they gave the rats
no fat and the rats were fine, and rats are the kind of animal that one
would expect to need omega 6s more than adult, non-pregnant humans
would.

On 7 May 2006 21:11:04 -0700, "Davide" <[email hidden]> wrote:

snip

Quoted message said:

But as long as whole diet provides 1g of n-3 daily it is not an EFA
deficient diet

Corrrect. You have to understand that Monty is an idiot. He doesn't
believe HIV causes AIDS either.

Perhaps he has suffered from a deficiency of fatty acids in his diet
resulting in neurological dysfunction?

George M. Carter

***
One of HUNDREDS of examples.

Yehuda S, Rabinovitz S, Mostofsky DI. Essential fatty acids and the
brain: from infancy to aging. Neurobiol Aging. 2005 Dec;26 Suppl
1:98-102. Epub 2005 Oct 13.

Psychopharmacology Laboratory, Department of Psychology and Brain
Research, Institute, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel.

The major effects of essential fatty acids (EFA) on brain structure
and functions are reviewed. EFA determine the fluidity of neuronal
membrane and control the physiological functions of the brain. EFA is
also involved in synthesis and functions of brain neurotransmitters,
and in the molecules of the immune system. Since they must be supplied
from the diet, a decreased bioavailability is bound to induce major
disturbances. While the brain needs a continuous supply during the
life span, there are two particularly sensitive periods-infancy and
aging. EFA deficiency during infancy delays brain development, and in
aging will accelerate deterioration of brain functions. In discussing
the role of EFA two issues must be considered-the blood-brain barrier,
which determines the bioavailability, and the myelination process,
which determines the efficiency of brain and retinal functions.

Davide said:

Bottomline: it's virtually impossible to be deficient in EFA you would
have to consume a purified synthetic laboratory diet or also eat a diet
comprimed of naked calories ... which isn't then the reason why it's
claimed we're more deficient of EFA than we used to be? Because our
diet worldiwde is mostly comprised of junk food and denaturated food
and less of real food?

In USA, yes, it should normally be impossible.

And given the possibility to eat some greens, you would neither suffer
from it.

But, as long as food industry continue to refine food, and omega-3 is
a main attack target since presence of omega-3 shorten shelf life,
diet content of omega-3 is being less and less, while omega-6's are
more and more dominating, giving a ratio of 20 and more btw. them.

Quoted message said:

"...Young cartilage is characterised by the presence of high levels
of 20:9 w-9, Mead acid, indicating a relative deficiency of EFA.

Such an acid, C20:9 w-9 doesn't exist at all.

Davide said:

To be EFA deficient and incorporate Mead acid into your cells you must
consume periodically less than 0.50g of n-3. If your diet consist daily
of 1-2g of EFA that's enough to prevent EFAD
The trance amounts in foods is enough to provide all the EFA we need,
the fuss about EFA (for those that believe in the essentiality of EFA)
is that as you diet becomes more refined and processed we get most of
our calories in the form of naked calories

There is a way to get EFA deficiency even if eating a lot of EFA's and
that happens when liver do break down the EFA's faster than the rate
of feeding them, like convering arachidonic acid immediately into
isoprostanes and other eicosanoids before reaching the target cells,
like what seem to happen in areas of active growth of plaques in
arterial walls or in cancer colonies.

Quoted message said:

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]." I am arguing

Until quite recently, omega-3 acids was not considered needed per se
at all. EFA deficiency was defined as deficient in omega-6 acids.

That's a case impossible to reach in US.

But, what is dangerous, it turns out, is a too high ratio btw. omega-6
and omega-3 since omega-3 acids inhibits (slow down) production of
eicosanoids derived from arachidonate because cyclooxygenase and other
enzymes involved has about 10 times higher affinity to omega-3 acids
than do omega-6, while Vmax of omega-3 is far lower than for
arachidonate. Also Vmax for dihomogammalinoleic acid is lower, while
also some metabolites cannot be formed at all from that fatty acid
which are made from arachidonate.

Davide said:

Well, so the "experts" became more idiot from consuming all that oil
because just four years ago I still remember that the claims was about
"amount" of grams of fat in the diet, not claims about liquid oils
measure in tbs. The reccomended amount I remember was : 1 gram of n-3
and 2.5 grams of n-6 from whatever source including lettuce

Over here it is at least 0,5 g omega-3 and 4 g omega-6 (which I think
is too high ratio)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Alf Christophersen said:

.. omega-3 acids inhibits (slow down) production of
eicosanoids derived from arachidonate because cyclooxygenase and other
enzymes involved has about 10 times higher affinity to omega-3 acids
than do omega-6, while Vmax of omega-3 is far lower than for
arachidonate. Also Vmax for dihomogammalinoleic acid is lower, while
also some metabolites cannot be formed at all from that fatty acid
which are made from arachidonate.

Would that be Vmax for
- the chain lengthening steps that take LA/LNA up to 20 carbons?
- one of the phopholipases that free the LC-PUFA from the WBC membrane?
- COX-1?
- COX-2?

DRT

Alf Christophersen said:

There is a way to get EFA deficiency even if eating a lot of EFA's and
that happens when liver do break down the EFA's faster than the rate
of feeding them, like convering arachidonic acid immediately into
isoprostanes and other eicosanoids before reaching the target cells,
like what seem to happen in areas of active growth of plaques in
arterial walls or in cancer colonies.

Is that liver condition considered a disease or is it the result of
some nutritional deficiency?

--
Ron

Carter cites the same kinds of evidence he does for the ludicrous
"HIV/AIDS" nonsense, that is, there is no science but instead all kinds
of proclamations without any citations to actual experiments that meet
the standards of the scientific method. In 1948 an experiment was done
to confirm the original, Burr & Burr experiment of 1929/30, and it
refuted it. The rats had no source of any fat and were fine. The
difference was vitamin B supplementation. And that is how you do
science. And it was in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Carter is interested in establishing some sort of cult in the name of
science. For the sake of our health, let us hope that the scientific
method prevails. If anyone wants to cite real evidence, go right ahead
and I will evaluate it. I will not get involved in the name calling
and insults - that is exactly what this kind of indiviual does to
deflect attention away from the science.