 |
|
Reply
| |
This message is both an introduction and a topic for discussion. I follow the Weston A Price principles of nutrition which are, for the most part, similar to what you advocate here. One of the major exceptions, which you have pointed out in various threads (Enig vs. Peat, for example) is that the WAP Foundation recommends intake of n-3 fatty acids in the form of oily fish, cod liver oil and nuts & seeds.
I've done a lot of research into this area and have written a little about it on my blog, The Healthy Skeptic (http://thehealthyskeptic.org). I've read all of Ray Peat's work, Chris Masterjohn's latest EFA report and a lot of his posts on another message board, several clinical and epidemiological studies, etc. A lot of this research points to an optimal PUFA intake of no more than 0.5 - 1% of calories.
However, I have also read the work of Dr. Price who found that traditional peoples who were entirely free of many of the modern diseases which plague us (autoimmune, allergies, heart disease, etc) shared certain dietary principles. One of these principles was an intake of n-3 fatty acid that would seem to be higher than what Peat, Masterjohn and yourself are recommending.
It seems likely to me, for example, that any coastal population that ate oily fish several times a week, if not every day, would have a relatively high PUFA intake. Yet these populations, according to Price's accounts, were free of modern diseases.
I also wonder about traditional peoples who consumed nuts and seeds. These populations would likely be exceeding the PUFA intake recommended by Peat etc., and again, they were free of modern disease.
Many nutrient-dense foods which these cultures enjoyed in abundance have significant levels of PUFA. Eggs, seafood and nuts are three primary examples.
I'm having trouble reconciling what we know about the diets of traditional peoples and the recommendations made here. I have great respect for modern scientific inquiry, but I have an equal if not greater respect for the wisdom of traditional peoples that evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.
The danger of relying too heavily on our current method of scientific inquiry is that it is perhaps overly reductionistic. We have gained a lot of understanding about how things work on a molecular level, but not nearly as much about how things work on a molar level.
I would be very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. |
|
 First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
Reply
|  0 recommendations | Message 2 of 8 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
The problem with "traditional wisdom" is that it can never be defined precisely and tested scientifically, which is also true of claims considered "scientific" by most people, such as those about "saturated fat." It's more likely that coastal people ate a lot of shellfish, rather than fish, and why do you think that such fish would be oily? Humans came out of Africa, so what fish in those hot climates would have been very rich in omega 3s? In any case, we simply don't know exactly what they ate, how much variability there was (between coastal and inland peoples, for example), etc. We also don't know how long they lived. We do have good evidence on native Greenlanders who died young on omega 3-rich diets, just as one would suspect, due to bleeding issues.
I've spent the last several years researching this and related issues, and I don't see any other reasonable interpretation that the one I put forth on this site, but if you'd like to put forth an alternative, go right ahead. However, this is a scientific forum, not one based on "traditional wisdom," so you'll need to cite some scientific evidence. If you can't cite evidence that is very specific about the diets and mortality rates of particular "traditional peoples," then there's nothing to discuss on this site. Moreover, the two key issues seem to be whether you have arachidonic acid in your cells and how much lipid peroxidation is occurring in your body. The latter can be dealt with by eating a diet containing a lot of antioxidant-rich foods, but if the AA is still in your cells, and you change your diet and experience a traumatic injury, you could be in big trouble. The molecular-level evidence is clear, so the epidemiological evidence needs to be examined very carefully, as it is often terribly flawed in various ways. |
|
Reply
| |
Hans,
I personally try to limit my intake of PUFA to 1 or 1.5 percent of calories. I am not disagreeing with your conclusions - only trying to understand them better. I have been researching this stuff for some time as well, but I am still learning and still have many questions.
What percentage of calories from PUFA do you believe is appropriate in order to reduce AA and increase production of mead acid? Do you agree with researchers like Masterjohn who recommend limiting intake to less than 1%? Do you think that requirement changes for nursing or pregnant mothers?
|
|
Reply
| |
I apologize if this is a re-post. I tried posting my last reply from a public computer and it was unclear whether it went through or not.
I don't disagree at all with the notion that PUFA should be dramatically restricted, or that AA may be the cause of or contributing factor in many modern diseases. A lot of the research I've seen elsewhere and here has convinced me of that.
I guess my question is how much does it need to be restricted exactly? I've heard various opinions that PUFA intake should be somewhere between 0.5 and 4% of calories. After reading Chris Masterjohn's report, I have been trying to limit my intake to 1-1.5%, but I sometimes wonder whether even that is too high.
What is your opinion on this subject based on all of the research you've done? Do you shoot for a specific percentage of calories? Is that percentage consistent across all populations regardless of their condition (i.e. pregnancy, lactation, chronic illness, etc.)? What is the "threshold" in terms of PUFA percentage of calories at which AA production begins?
|
|
Reply
| |
Well, how do you know that you have AA in your cells now? You might have the Mead acid, for all I know. I was raised on a corn oil based diet (real bad), and when I restricted dietary PUFA rigorously, I could see a big difference. Some examples:
When cut, the scabs are rubbery rather than like a hard plastic.
I felt that I could breathe easier.
Cuts can take a long time to heal now, but there is no scarring.
Cuts have inflammation for a few hours, not a few days.
A keloid I had turned white, doesn't itch any more, and got smaller.
My hair is stiffer and never gets "greasy."
I used to get at least two colds a year, which lasted two weeks or longer, and I have yet to get a cold since 2002 (possibly 2001).
Now, I don't worry too much about fatty acid intake, since I limit food rich in UFAs. I basically use the "greasy hair" test. If my hair seems to get a little greasy in less than a week, I cut back on dietary UFAs. I should be able to go more than a week without washing my hair, and if I can't, I'm eating too much UFAs. So, what I'm saying is, listen to what your body is telling you. You can never know exactly how many UFAs are too much (we will assume you now have Mead acid in your cells), as other factors are also important (vitamin/mineral imbalances and antioxidant in the diet, for example). I'm not against "junk food" (if you have Mead acid in your cells), but what I instead I buy items that are more than 50% SFAs (with no, or hardly and cholesterol content), and only eat small amounts of them with my meals in order to make them tastier. Cooking also seems highly problematic, and I don't cook food any more, except for something like pasta, which needs to be cooked, obviously, but I would only eat it warm (usually cold, as in a "pasta salad"), not hot. |
|
Reply
| |
| Two of my great grandparents lived to advanced ages, and they were short and ate a diet that would not lead to AA in their cells. Two grandparents who are still alive, and now quite old (early 90s, mid 80s) are taller and suffer much more from "chronic disease." They take a lot of drugs for various conditions. They most likely had Mead acid in their cells, but sometime over the last couple of decades it started to get replaced by AA. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Nutrition