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



M

MikeV

Guest
Monty:
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
damage/peroxidation.
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
this.
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
automatically
applicable to either one of our approaches, (at least for some
people).

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
functions
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
etc
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.
MikeV

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.