Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Peat

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Enig's response to Peat was poor and obnoxious.

EFA advocates: PUFAs are essential because when animal or humans were deprived they died or had skin issues.
Ray Peat: That's because lack of PUFA increases metabolism and the need for nutrients. In another experiment giving the PUFA-free rats B6 solved the problem.

EFA advocates: Vitamin B6 is promotes synthesis of AA and DHA from LA and LNA, thus it attenuates an EFAD. This an MIT study from 40's that elucidates the issue.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/ ... br4e1c.txt

The dermatitis which developed after two
to four weeks on a fat-free pyridoxine-free diet was partially cured
by feeding pyridoxine, and completely cured when both pyridoxine and
linoleic acid were added. The percentage of arachidonic acid in the
carcass fatty acids was lowest when olive oil and pyridoxine were
present in the diet of the rats. The total amount of arachidonic acid
was greatest in those rats fed pyridoxine in the diet. It is obvious
that pyridoxine and arachidonic acid are interrelated in metabolism.

RP: Although the 1929 Burr paper is still often cited as proof of the essentiality of PUFA, Burr's younger colleague (at the University of Minnesota Hormel Institute), Ralph Holman, has cited an infant (1970), and a 78 year old woman (in 1969), who developed dermatitis while receiving fat-free intravenous feedings.

EFA advocates: There were also studies with healthy young men showing the emergence of efad on tpn http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC436563/

RP: Dermatitis, with dandruff, similar to Burr's disease, has been produced by various nutritional deficiencies besides vitamin B6, including a trace mineral deficiency and a biotin deficiency, so there is no valid reason to associate dermatitis with a fat deficiency.

EFA advocates: This is only a half-truth. With true TPN deficiencies, like zinc, there are a lot more problems that start to develop (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/413809).

EFA advocates: PUFAs are required to form the cell membrame.
Ray Peat: Human cells can grow and divide in artificial culture solutions which contain none of the polyunsaturated fats, and no one has claimed that they are growing “without membranes.”

EFA advocates: Where is his source for this claim? Cells cultured with no efa fill up with mead acid and die [url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/1147]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/1147

 

[j.]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Cells cultured with no efa fill up with mead acid and die http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/1147

So PUFAs are essential for human cells and not essential for rat cells?

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Frustrated, I agree that Peat may not have the EFA thing locked down. Otoh, the Burr study sheds some possible light (increased metabolism and the need for more nutrients is even slightly over my head), and it does seem that there is a conspiracy (why is omega-3 being added to virtually everything?). Corporate greed has risen since the 80s, and the death of the middle class has led to to a culture in which people have to feel there is something they can believe in. I have a friend, a real liberal, who started taking fish oil in the early 2000s. He called it his "thing". A book-a-week type smarty pants, he was visibly upset when I told him omega 3 is a bunch of crap.

And as for weak evidence, I made point after point (albeit with weak delivery) against omega 3, citing pictures of fish oil promoting doctors and celebs. I said it caused Sheryl Crow's brain cancer (they argued it was due to cell phones). I provided links of people who said fish oil caused their insomnia. When they brought up Japan ("they live on fish"), I pointed out the Japanese have a high suicide rate. Fish oil is linked to weight gain, just google it (even gummybear says this). I posted picture after picture of wrinkled celebrity, and also a picture of someone who has eaten tons of coconut oil (the model Miranda Kerr, who could pass for 20). This is an evidential based approach. The bros and dummies are unable to agree with real world evidence because they've been brainwashed, are slavish, and enjoy the perks of being part of something. It's called the hive mentality.

The problem is you say EFA are not essential while saying fish oil is bad. These are two different claims, which people are going to conflate when you present them at the same time -- making it to hard to defend (in a lay persons mind EFA is too easily refutable). You'd have better luck convincing people that fish oil, in the context of how people are consuming today, is simply unnecessary (provide a better alternative) and the long term consequences are not known (they merely have rx drug like effects on specific problems in the short run).

Just citing random celebrities wont help you because I can cite you tons of pufa consumers who "look good".

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I've had some limited success with getting friends and family to stop eating PUFA.

The key is to match their level of science; not overly sciency or they'll just dismiss you. I'm never accusatory or negative about PUFA (because they have a lot of time invested in eating it, and saying how horrible it is will be misconstrue as calling them horrible for making that choice).

I just simply point out the science in a simple way (ie: the only long term studies ever conducted on fish oil supplements showed increased rates of CVD, CHD, and cancer), point out better alternatives (coconut oil and butter are SOOO good for you) and then let them ruminate. As long as you're not overly negative, they'll usually come around.

Yup, exactly.

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

You are jesting of course right?

Nope. Conspiracy theories are a dime dozen, and most of them are lame as f**k.

Is that a personal attack? Where did I mention any conspiracy theories in this thread?
And although it's off topic to this thread, which conspiracy theories that are "lame as f**k" have I said to be true?

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Hope this isn't serious.

PUFA avoidance is never going to take off because almost all the evidence against them are from animal models. Why do you think Alan Aragon was laughing so hard at the idea? Most of the human trials comparing sat fat to pufa certainly aren't damning of the stuff either. To test what Ray is saying, you'd need people, e.g., diabetics, to go on near efa deficient diet for at least two years and see what happens -- that's expensive and does not have the political backing to happen.

People here are sure pufa avoidance improved their health, but that's really not known. Almost everyone here jumped on a high milk/fruit/gelatin diet at the same time they started avoiding pufa, so it could just be the former that offer the improvements.

Who cares if it doesn't take off, you?
The statement in bold, and you know this how? You are psychic?

Charlie, I think I just found a need for an ignore button on your forum.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

LOL @ asking if that was a personal attack after saying this:

I think you are wasting your efforts on a lost cause. Save it for someone with ears and eyes.

It is, however, pretty hilarious watching enlightened people preach to the crowd about how pufas are non-essential and intrinsically toxic, provide weak evidence while dismissing anything contradictory as a conspiracy (or a b6 deficiency), and then become shocked at to why people don't immediately accept the idea.

The comment was an inference, from what you quoted, that you disagreed with the above. And why is attacking an idea a personal insult?

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Who cares if it doesn't take off, you?
The statement in bold, and you know this how? You are psychic?

Charlie, I think I just found a need for an ignore button on your forum.

If you don't care then why did it bother you so much to comment?

And no I'm not psychic. The benefits of pufa restriction should take a significant amount of time to manifest, particularly if you are not lean. Where did most people here hear about avoiding pufa? Ray Peat. Do you think that's not the majority?

In the time it "should" take to get benefits from pufa avoidance (1-2years), do those people implement nothing else Ray says? One person here said he didn't. Is that the majority? How does my original statement not have some validity?

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Who cares if it doesn't take off, you?
The statement in bold, and you know this how? You are psychic?

Charlie, I think I just found a need for an ignore button on your forum.

If you don't care then why did it bother you so much to comment?

And no I'm not psychic. The benefits of pufa restriction should take a significant amount of time to manifest, particularly if you are not lean. Where did most people here hear about avoiding pufa? Ray Peat. Do you think that's not the majority?

In the time it "should" take to get benefits from pufa avoidance (1-2years), do those people implement nothing else Ray says? One person here said he didn't. Is that the majority? How does my original statement not have some validity?

But my comment was not because I cared wether PUFA restriction will take off or not. I could care less if sheeple want to continue to poison themselves with PUFa, statins etc. It is actually very sad and funny at the same time.

The benefits of PUFA restriction can be very quick especially if you are already in an obviously poisoned state and when you are adding 'supplements' such as coconut oil or niacinamide that protect us from these poisons. I have seen incredible things happen to people within a week of replacing vegetable oils with coconut oil.

 

[charlie]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

For nwo or anyone else who wanted to know. There actually is an "ignore" feature in your "user control panel" which is under "Friend and Foes".

ucp.php?i=zebra&mode=foes

 

[j.]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I started noticing benefits from PUFA avoidance in 3 months, not one or two years. For about two years I was only able to consume very moderate amounts of sugar. For example, half a quart of natural OJ without added sugar would be enough to give me a distaste for sugar, and that lack of appetite for sugar would last for 7 or 8 hours. If I ate something sweet anyway, I would get discomfort accompanied with accelerated heart rate for some time, maybe half an hour.

I tried things such as getting more sun exposure and vitamin D and other things, but nothing fixed it completely. Then I read on some webpage that thyroid function is essential for the body to manage sugar well, and that thyroid function works better if one doesn't consume polyunsaturated fats. So I tried that and started using butter instead of other oils and eating more beef and less chicken. 3 months later, I could eat about 4 times more sugar without discomfort than when I started. This is when I thought that RP may be right on other things as well and started increasing dairy consumption and other things, which produced further improvements.

 

[sctb]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I started noticing benefits from PUFA avoidance in 3 months, not one or two years. For about two years I was only able to consume very moderate amounts of sugar. For example, half a quart of natural OJ without added sugar would be enough to give me a distaste for sugar, and that lack of appetite for sugar would last for 7 or 8 hours. If I ate something sweet anyway, I would get discomfort accompanied with accelerated heart rate for some time, maybe half an hour.

I tried things such as getting more sun exposure and vitamin D and other things, but nothing fixed it completely. Then I read on some webpage that thyroid function is essential for the body to manage sugar well, and that thyroid function works better if one doesn't consume polyunsaturated fats. So I tried that and started using butter instead of other oils and eating more beef and less chicken. 3 months later, I could eat about 4 times more sugar without discomfort than when I started. This is when I thought that RP may be right on other things as well and started increasing dairy consumption and other things, which produced further improvements.

Thanks for the anecdote, j. Are you fairly lean? Isn't there also a displacement
or countering effect from consuming saturated fats, i.e., swapping in coconut oil
or butter for vegetable oils?

- Scott

 

[j.]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Thanks for the anecdote, j. Are you fairly lean? Isn't there also a displacement
or countering effect from consuming saturated fats, i.e., swapping in coconut oil
or butter for vegetable oils?

- Scott

According to this calculator: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/ob ... -weigh.php

my weight is on the high end of normal. I agree with this. I think I have a little more weight than I should have, but not too much. When I started avoiding PUFAs, I had about 10 more pounds.

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Thanks for the anecdote, j. Are you fairly lean? Isn't there also a displacement
or countering effect from consuming saturated fats, i.e., swapping in coconut oil
or butter for vegetable oils?

- Scott

According to this calculator: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/ob ... -weigh.php

my weight is on the high end of normal. I agree with this. I think I have a little more weight than I should have, but not too much. When I started avoiding PUFAs, I had about 10 more pounds.

Lol, Im obese according to that calculator. Pretty funny for someone with approx 10% body fat. lol.

 

[gretchen]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Frustrated, I agree that Peat may not have the EFA thing locked down. Otoh, the Burr study sheds some possible light (increased metabolism and the need for more nutrients is even slightly over my head), and it does seem that there is a conspiracy (why is omega-3 being added to virtually everything?). Corporate greed has risen since the 80s, and the death of the middle class has led to to a culture in which people have to feel there is something they can believe in. I have a friend, a real liberal, who started taking fish oil in the early 2000s. He called it his "thing". A book-a-week type smarty pants, he was visibly upset when I told him omega 3 is a bunch of crap.

And as for weak evidence, I made point after point (albeit with weak delivery) against omega 3, citing pictures of fish oil promoting doctors and celebs. I said it caused Sheryl Crow's brain cancer (they argued it was due to cell phones). I provided links of people who said fish oil caused their insomnia. When they brought up Japan ("they live on fish"), I pointed out the Japanese have a high suicide rate. Fish oil is linked to weight gain, just google it (even gummybear says this). I posted picture after picture of wrinkled celebrity, and also a picture of someone who has eaten tons of coconut oil (the model Miranda Kerr, who could pass for 20). This is an evidential based approach. The bros and dummies are unable to agree with real world evidence because they've been brainwashed, are slavish, and enjoy the perks of being part of something. It's called the hive mentality.

The problem is you say EFA are not essential while saying fish oil is bad. These are two different claims, which people are going to conflate when you present them at the same time -- making it to hard to defend (in a lay persons mind EFA is too easily refutable). You'd have better luck convincing people that fish oil, in the context of how people are consuming today, is simply unnecessary (provide a better alternative) and the long term consequences are not known (they merely have rx drug like effects on specific problems in the short run).

Just citing random celebrities wont help you because I can cite you tons of pufa consumers who "look good".

Yes, thanks for pointing this out frustrated. I know I'm in over my head (intuitively) on most threads but am gung ho to try to at least stir up some discussion. How can you convince people fish oil is unnecessary if they think it is, for the EFAs? People don't seem especially interested in the long-term consequences. Many say they have taken fish oil for years and can't live without it.

But back to the EFA argument, if people understood what a metabolism is, they would know what happened in the Burr study. The idea of needing more nutrients is just too far out for most to understand, thanks to CR dogma. You shouldn't eat more, for any reason, and how could anyone know if they had a high metabolism in the first place? So it's difficult to take EFAs down using Ray's argument. The best I've been able to come up with is asking if anyone remembers what life was like before fish, i.e., that most of us were raised on low omega 3 diets (fish free) and were OK. The oldsters argue that they've been taking cod liver oil since they were children.

I haven't cited random celebrities, but those who have specifically admitted to taking fish oil or to following a popular salmon-based anti-aging diet called The Perricone Prescription. Many of the celebrities who follow Perricone look OK, but not great. I posted a pic of Kim Cattrall to specifically show the effect of a heavy omega-3 intake on someone who is menopausal. And there is Perricone himself, who looks terrible.

 

[Dean]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I started noticing benefits from PUFA avoidance in 3 months, not one or two years. For about two years I was only able to consume very moderate amounts of sugar. For example, half a quart of natural OJ without added sugar would be enough to give me a distaste for sugar, and that lack of appetite for sugar would last for 7 or 8 hours. If I ate something sweet anyway, I would get discomfort accompanied with accelerated heart rate for some time, maybe half an hour.

I tried things such as getting more sun exposure and vitamin D and other things, but nothing fixed it completely. Then I read on some webpage that thyroid function is essential for the body to manage sugar well, and that thyroid function works better if one doesn't consume polyunsaturated fats. So I tried that and started using butter instead of other oils and eating more beef and less chicken. 3 months later, I could eat about 4 times more sugar without discomfort than when I started. This is when I thought that RP may be right on other things as well and started increasing dairy consumption and other things, which produced further improvements.

What is the mechanism behind PUFA intake and sugar "aversion" or is this just something you've observed in yourself? It's an interesting dynamic to consider.

In my own case, I have usually had the tendency to get "sugared out." I get a sweet tooth but if I overdo it, I'd have to balance it back out with something savory or brush my teeth, etc. In general, I would say I've been more of a savory over sweet eater. Peating for the last week, however, I have been free pouring sugar and just realized that in the last few days I've consumed one pound of white sugar a day. This is on top of the lactose from 1/3 gallon of whole milk, 1/2 can of frozen oj concentrate, and quite a lot of store bought gummy bears each day. (I think I may need to cut back a bit.)

I could have never done anything close to this in the past, however. I'd be wanting to get the sweet taste out of my mouth, whereas right now I am consuming everything sweet all day without discomfort and only have to remind myself to rinse/clean my mouth for my teeth's sake a few times a day.

Other than two conventionally produced hard boiled eggs in the last week, my only fat intake has been from the whole milk and a tablespoon of coconut oil a day or so.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Frustrated, I agree that Peat may not have the EFA thing locked down. Otoh, the Burr study sheds some possible light (increased metabolism and the need for more nutrients is even slightly over my head), and it does seem that there is a conspiracy (why is omega-3 being added to virtually everything?). Corporate greed has risen since the 80s, and the death of the middle class has led to to a culture in which people have to feel there is something they can believe in. I have a friend, a real liberal, who started taking fish oil in the early 2000s. He called it his "thing". A book-a-week type smarty pants, he was visibly upset when I told him omega 3 is a bunch of crap.

And as for weak evidence, I made point after point (albeit with weak delivery) against omega 3, citing pictures of fish oil promoting doctors and celebs. I said it caused Sheryl Crow's brain cancer (they argued it was due to cell phones). I provided links of people who said fish oil caused their insomnia. When they brought up Japan ("they live on fish"), I pointed out the Japanese have a high suicide rate. Fish oil is linked to weight gain, just google it (even gummybear says this). I posted picture after picture of wrinkled celebrity, and also a picture of someone who has eaten tons of coconut oil (the model Miranda Kerr, who could pass for 20). This is an evidential based approach. The bros and dummies are unable to agree with real world evidence because they've been brainwashed, are slavish, and enjoy the perks of being part of something. It's called the hive mentality.

The problem is you say EFA are not essential while saying fish oil is bad. These are two different claims, which people are going to conflate when you present them at the same time -- making it to hard to defend (in a lay persons mind EFA is too easily refutable). You'd have better luck convincing people that fish oil, in the context of how people are consuming today, is simply unnecessary (provide a better alternative) and the long term consequences are not known (they merely have rx drug like effects on specific problems in the short run).

Just citing random celebrities wont help you because I can cite you tons of pufa consumers who "look good".

Yes, thanks for pointing this out frustrated. I know I'm in over my head (intuitively) on most threads but am gung ho to try to at least stir up some discussion. How can you convince people fish oil is unnecessary if they think it is, for the EFAs? People don't seem especially interested in the long-term consequences. Many say they have taken fish oil for years and can't live without it.

But back to the EFA argument, if people understood what a metabolism is, they would know what happened in the Burr study. The idea of needing more nutrients is just too far out for most to understand, thanks to CR dogma. You shouldn't eat more, for any reason, and how could anyone know if they had a high metabolism in the first place? So it's difficult to take EFAs down using Ray's argument. The best I've been able to come up with is asking if anyone remembers what life was like before fish, i.e., that most of us were raised on low omega 3 diets (fish free) and were OK. The oldsters argue that they've been taking cod liver oil since they were children.

I haven't cited random celebrities, but those who have specifically admitted to taking fish oil or to following a popular salmon-based anti-aging diet called The Perricone Prescription. Many of the celebrities who follow Perricone look OK, but not great. I posted a pic of Kim Cattrall to specifically show the effect of a heavy omega-3 intake on someone who is menopausal. And there is Perricone himself, who looks terrible.

I would not bring up that EFA may or may not be essential. It is a non-issue; their essentially requirement is an extremely small amount (i.e., no one is becoming EFA deficient on a non-artificial diet). You can then point out the fallacy of thinking that because something is essential, more is better (e.g., do they drink 20 glasses of water per day?).

One reason the people arguing for cod liver oil don't have a leg to stand on is because they are not just consuming fish oil (i.e, they are also consuming vitamin d and a).

The saturation of your lipids is strongly influences photoaging and skin carcinogenesis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3556615). In comparison to n-6 rich diets, fish oil produces seemingly better results -- this is usually because the EPA in fish oil is strongly immunosuppressive. This comparison contributes to much of the fish oil hype (I don't think I've ever seen a well designed animal study where fish oil clearly out-performs coconut oil).

And because people like visual examples, point out the difference between an eskimo woman and a SE asia woman:
(Eskimo)
http://www.riemunoz.com/images/KingIsland/ng_146.jpg
(Philippines)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/ ... -small.jpg

If fish oil is so great for the skin, why are the benefits not seen in eskimo women? They eat plenty of fish oil but still have very poor skin. SE asia women traditionally use coconut oil while only eating low fat fish and have the best skin on earth. Keep in mind that SE asia women also get 4-fold more sun exposure than women in Alaska.

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I have to agree with you on that. I personally do not believe EFAs are essential but I have said the same myself previously, even if they are it would be in tiny amounts and we can not avoid tiny amounts from our milk, meat, coconut oil etc.

***t, did I just agree with you on something? :P

 

[charlie]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Frustrated, that was a great post thank you. I will now have a better line of approach when talking with someone about fish oil.

 

[gretchen]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Frustrated, I agree that Peat may not have the EFA thing locked down. Otoh, the Burr study sheds some possible light (increased metabolism and the need for more nutrients is even slightly over my head), and it does seem that there is a conspiracy (why is omega-3 being added to virtually everything?). Corporate greed has risen since the 80s, and the death of the middle class has led to to a culture in which people have to feel there is something they can believe in. I have a friend, a real liberal, who started taking fish oil in the early 2000s. He called it his "thing". A book-a-week type smarty pants, he was visibly upset when I told him omega 3 is a bunch of crap.

And as for weak evidence, I made point after point (albeit with weak delivery) against omega 3, citing pictures of fish oil promoting doctors and celebs. I said it caused Sheryl Crow's brain cancer (they argued it was due to cell phones). I provided links of people who said fish oil caused their insomnia. When they brought up Japan ("they live on fish"), I pointed out the Japanese have a high suicide rate. Fish oil is linked to weight gain, just google it (even gummybear says this). I posted picture after picture of wrinkled celebrity, and also a picture of someone who has eaten tons of coconut oil (the model Miranda Kerr, who could pass for 20). This is an evidential based approach. The bros and dummies are unable to agree with real world evidence because they've been brainwashed, are slavish, and enjoy the perks of being part of something. It's called the hive mentality.

The problem is you say EFA are not essential while saying fish oil is bad. These are two different claims, which people are going to conflate when you present them at the same time -- making it to hard to defend (in a lay persons mind EFA is too easily refutable). You'd have better luck convincing people that fish oil, in the context of how people are consuming today, is simply unnecessary (provide a better alternative) and the long term consequences are not known (they merely have rx drug like effects on specific problems in the short run).

Just citing random celebrities wont help you because I can cite you tons of pufa consumers who "look good".

Yes, thanks for pointing this out frustrated. I know I'm in over my head (intuitively) on most threads but am gung ho to try to at least stir up some discussion. How can you convince people fish oil is unnecessary if they think it is, for the EFAs? People don't seem especially interested in the long-term consequences. Many say they have taken fish oil for years and can't live without it.

But back to the EFA argument, if people understood what a metabolism is, they would know what happened in the Burr study. The idea of needing more nutrients is just too far out for most to understand, thanks to CR dogma. You shouldn't eat more, for any reason, and how could anyone know if they had a high metabolism in the first place? So it's difficult to take EFAs down using Ray's argument. The best I've been able to come up with is asking if anyone remembers what life was like before fish, i.e., that most of us were raised on low omega 3 diets (fish free) and were OK. The oldsters argue that they've been taking cod liver oil since they were children.

I haven't cited random celebrities, but those who have specifically admitted to taking fish oil or to following a popular salmon-based anti-aging diet called The Perricone Prescription. Many of the celebrities who follow Perricone look OK, but not great. I posted a pic of Kim Cattrall to specifically show the effect of a heavy omega-3 intake on someone who is menopausal. And there is Perricone himself, who looks terrible.

I would not bring up that EFA may or may not be essential. It is a non-issue; their essentially requirement is an extremely small amount (i.e., no one is becoming EFA deficient on a non-artificial diet). You can then point out the fallacy of thinking that because something is essential, more is better (e.g., do they drink 20 glasses of water per day?).

One reason the people arguing for cod liver oil don't have a leg to stand on is because they are not just consuming fish oil (i.e, they are also consuming vitamin d and a).

The saturation of your lipids is strongly influences photoaging and skin carcinogenesis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3556615). In comparison to n-6 rich diets, fish oil produces seemingly better results -- this is usually because the EPA in fish oil is strongly immunosuppressive. This comparison contributes to much of the fish oil hype (I don't think I've ever seen a well designed animal study where fish oil clearly out-performs coconut oil).

And because people like visual examples, point out the difference between an eskimo woman and a SE asia woman:
(Eskimo)
http://www.riemunoz.com/images/KingIsland/ng_146.jpg
(Philippines)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/ ... -small.jpg

If fish oil is so great for the skin, why are the benefits not seen in eskimo women? They eat plenty of fish oil but still have very poor skin. SE asia women traditionally use coconut oil while only eating low fat fish and have the best skin on earth. Keep in mind that SE asia women also get 4-fold more sun exposure than women in Alaska.

Very good, thank you frustrated.