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. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
