Well, there is some useful information there - it's just not interpreted well, at least for me (a non "body builder").  For example, they say PGs are created upon stress and that they result in "inflammation."  I am trying to limit "inflammation" so that it is quick and successful, but only occurs when absolutely necessary.  It appears that Mead acid is the only fatty acid (for humans) that accomplishes this.  However, for those doing "body building," this may be what they want (assuming they don't care about the long-term health consequences).  It's also true of losing weight, that is, one can release PUFAs from their cells by adopting certain diets, but this may be dangerous for long-term health (if it is not done correctly). 

It's an interesting issue, though probably only of relevance to those who do hard physical work or intense exercise.  I would not doubt that a high omega 6 PUFA diet is considerably less dangerous for those who do such things, assuming that the diet is "good" in all other ways.  It's not a risk I'd want to take.  In any case, AA seems to speed up the healing process, which leads to things like scars, but the internal scars of things like weight lifting are what those who lift weight want, at least in terms of short term results.  Have you looked to see if there are studies on the overall mortality of those who do intense exercise versus the general public?  I did see a study about how certain kinds of exercise do damage to a particular part of the heart (one of the valves, I think), and there are also studies of the oxidative stress generated (you could probably find these on pubmed.com with a quick search).

My great grandfather, the one who lived to be over 100, was strong but short.  His son, who is now 93, is a little taller, lives a sendentary lifestyle, and does eat his share of omega 6 PUFAs (but hardly anything in the way of omega 3s).  He had a pacemaker put in nearly 20 years ago, has had hypertension for decades, and now has pain in his back and legs that can be severe.  I saw the mole rat story - Ray Peat pointed out that this animal has less oxygen available to it, which is of course necessary for oxidative stress.  Do you have a citation for it, so that I can see if it is the same story that I read?  If you look at the top killer "diseases" for humans, "heart disease" and cancer, and then look at the molecular-level mechanisms, you see that it's all about oxidized LDL (for heart disease) along with AA metabolites, in the vast majority of cases.

 

As to the muscle build up, you might want to think along the lines of cell stressors.  If cells are stressed, and there is "fuel," as well as the "building blocks" for new tissue available, there should be no "disease" in the young and healthy.  Ray Peat said something about testosterone and/or androgen having the potential to be helpful in this context, if I remember correctly.  Did you look on his site to see if he has anything on this subject?  He has more of a hormone and tissue understanding, whereas I find the molecular and cellular level to be easier to understand and more basic, at least in certain ways.

After reading the first two abstracts, my thought was what the third study found.  That is, the long-lived animals are more resistant to omega 3 and/or 6 PUFA tissue incorporation.  As I said, if you look at the leading killers of humans in "advanced" nations, it's cancer and heart disease.  Heart disease is caused by oxidized LDL, which gets oxidized because it's got too much omega 6 PUFAs in it.   Most cancers are caused by an irritation, leading to AA metabolites being generated.  Free radical damage is probably overemphasized by some scientists; they are not considering the "inflammatory" nature of the "disearses" that kill most people.  I was saying to someone the other day that if you look at people who probably did a lot of drugs when they werre younger, that their skin looks different from most peoples.  My guess is that at least some of their tissues have sustained tremendous free radical damage, yet they are still alive, while someone live my grandfather (on the other side of the family) died in his early 60s of "heart disease" during the great "epidemic" (early 1960s).  He did not drink to excess or do anything else really unhealthy, except for his diet (he ate too much - a great deal of meat, and lived a sedentary life). 

 

As to starting a new thread, I would prefer to keep it here, since I don't know that there's much more to say.  I'd like to see more Mead acid studies, but that requires feeding animals or people a different diet for quite a while (or raising the animals on a diet that is not considered "normal").  Otherwise, my reading of the evidence as a whole is that much of the ill health in "advanced" nations is the result of AA in peoples' cells, rather than the natural Mead acid.

Think about it at the molecular level.  If the AA metabolite is very reactive, that's very bad.  LTB4 has been described as an incredibly powerful chemoattractant, for example.  My guess is that the "good" metabolites are either just not as bad as ones like LTB4, or else they are like Mead acid metabolites, and they are less powerful because there is better antioxidant protection (for whatever reason) and/or less oxidative stress.  All this is contextual; in other words, if you had a gaping wound and bleeding profusely, you might want LTB4.  However, I've found that my nosebleeds now clot much quicker than before, or else it may be that the clot is rubbery, and so does not break up easily.  In order to know for sure, all kinds of experiments would need to be done, controlling for all these molecules, and that's not likely to be done any time soon.  In the meantime, one must look at the evidence and try to make sense of it as a whole.

There's no reason why insulin should not be sufficiently "sensitive" in the first place.  My guess is that they are assuming (without even knowing it) that the people who come to their offices with diabetic issues are having problems with AA metabolites, and their sense of that is something along the lines of "the body is just breaking down with age," even when the patients are young.  Since the fish oil inhibits AA metabolization, it will look "beneficial" in short-term studies.  The idea that insulin loses its "sensitivity" for no reason is just ridiculous, especially for people who are middle-aged or younger.  I tell people to eat only three meals a day, spaced out at least 3 hours apart, and to eat nothing with calories in between meals.  In that way, the insulin will remain "senstive," so long as the diet is low in unsaturated fatty acids and sufficient in high-quality protein.  There is no need for a "supplement" to prevent insulin from losing its "sensitivity," so long as you know what and how to eat, from my reading of the evidence.