Re: Biochemistry of n-3 PUFA: Question for Monty.

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by MikeV, Dec 8, 2004.

  1. MikeV

    MikeV Guest

    Thank you for responding. But as usual I failed to get you to
    respond to my concerns.
    I am already relatively familiar with your argument and the points
    you make, having been reading them with only minor variations for
    about three years.

    So what is my problem? It goes something like this:
    During this time, whenever someone brings up any evidence of
    benefits of PUFA especially LCPUFA, you have avoided the issue, and
    consistently expounded the dire consequences a little louder and a
    little more forcefully than the last time. You see only free radical
    My goal was to get you to respond credibly to the fact that LCPUFA
    has documented benifits, and has been with us through evolution. I
    was unsucessful.

    You have assured us, probably at least one thousand times now how
    healthy you are on your selected diet. I have no reason to doubt
    Similarly I have reported that in my 69th year and using
    approximately balanced n6-n3 diet for ten + years, I have *no*
    health problems, and I truly cannot remember the last prescription
    drug I took, nor going to the doctor other than for routine
    check-ups. So much for the anecdotes.
    At least this suggests that your dire warnings may not be
    applicable to either one of our approaches, (at least for some

    You appear agree that there are apparently many hundreds of studies
    published that cite balancing the n6-n3 ratio as having beneficial
    effects on a thousand human frailties.
    On the other hand, you seem to be making the case that PUFAs are the
    danger, the extreme case, or the metabolic exception. You want to
    allow AA be replaced by Mead's acid, which I believe only shows up
    when n3 & n6 are absent. I think if Mead's acid were to occur in
    nature it would
    be at a 'close to starvation' diet (which I understand does have
    adherents in some quarters :-}) You are far from convincing me to
    try that. :-{ However I am prepared to accept that Mead's acid is
    probably natural, useful and not harmful.

    It is established that PUFAs have important command and control
    as well as structural. I will have to rely on others to tell me
    whether or not Mead's can substitute there.
    It appears to me that we are well adapted to the levels of PUFAs
    which (used to) occur in nature, in wild meat, nuts, green plants
    You seem to be trying to remake yourself (and us?) into a different
    form from the one that nature designed to get us through the tough
    spots of our evolution!
    My instinct is to go with the traditional model, especially when
    scientists (at least apparently) identify several new benefits each
    week for LCPUFA.
    When someone comes up with a Mead's Acid supplement, I'll give it a
    try! Maybe even MattLB and Larry Hoover will too.
    Anyway, Monty thanks for trying.

    PS I think most of us would agree that major long term distortions
    of the what I call 'pre-farming' nutrition fundamentals can produce
    undesirable health consequences, in spite of the fact that we are
    classified as omnivores. As an old engineer, I learned to go as far
    as possible with "first principles". For me and nutrition, that
    means using
    where feasible the pre-historical mainstream for basic guidance.
    That's about the best we can hope for, at least in my lifetime.

    PPS I am up to "here" with the lectures on dowsing my self in
    gallons of
    nut oils. You have been preaching that sermon to the converted
    excess for at least
    three years, and I find that is that which causes my peroxidation
    levels to rise,
    not ALA!. Keep in mind that nature has found a way to manage it for
    20 million years.
    Keep in Mind also: Obsession may be worse for your nosebleeds than
    ALA! I
    think you should consider getting a dog.