Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A question MattLB absolutely must answer!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
montygram - 16 Mar 2006 09:21 GMT
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
montygram - 16 Mar 2006 10:16 GMT
Correction: "or else possess severe and basic reading comprehension
skills" should read: "or else possess a severe and basic reading
comprehension disability"
MattLB - 16 Mar 2006 18:44 GMT
> 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.

>  One way of dealing with them is to compel them to
> take a stand.  In politics this is sometimes difficult, but in science,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>  Thus, this brings up a question
> which MattLB must answer, if he wishes to be taken seriously by anyone
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "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.

>  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.

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

Er, that's *your* position.

>  In this way, he will either have to state his
> claim clearly, without dodging the issue, or else everyone who reads
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 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,

>  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.

> then why is
> anyone advocating supplementing with "EFAs?"

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

> 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.

> Here is the diet in question (each day):
<snip>
> All of the dairy products listed below are not from grass-fed cows,

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

> 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
Max C. - 16 Mar 2006 20:27 GMT
> 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.
GMCarter - 17 Mar 2006 11:21 GMT
>> insisting that if the body cannot make a molecule on its own
>> it is thereby essential, which means that all kinds of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>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.
jaym1212 - 17 Mar 2006 20:14 GMT
> [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

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

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

> 4 oz of whole milk yogurt

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

> 1 oz of butter

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

> 3 oz of whole milk ricotta cheese

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

> 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
montygram - 24 Mar 2006 06:44 GMT
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).
GMCarter - 24 Mar 2006 13:54 GMT
>If you can't understand basic logic, then there is little I can do
>here.

That's because logic eludes you.
jaym1212 - 24 Mar 2006 20:25 GMT
> 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?
Alf Christophersen - 25 Mar 2006 00:16 GMT
>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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.