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. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
