Masterjohn Essential Fatty Acids are Essential

[jerry.j]

7:20
He speaks about total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and how having zero fat caused skin issues. I saw this discussed elsewhere on this forum and the consensus seems to be that it was a lack of any fat issue rather than a lack of EFA issue. But then he talks about how fat was later added to address this issue and still a woman on long-term TPN eventually developed neurological issues with a solution of safflower that went away after changing to soybean oil (containing enough EFA).

What is the peatian rebuttal to this case-study?

24:00
Matt Blackburn enters the chat and climes in that "They're not essential though" to which Masterjohn replies that he knows about Ray Peat (but clearly isn't moved in his position) and refers him to his article precious yet perilous.

I will read this article shortly but wanted to hear the evidence against this as it's tenents have surely been discussed here before.

 

[Sefton10]

Whether they are or not, it’s almost impossible not to get the small amount deemed “essential” if you’re eating things like eggs, milk, meat, shellfish etc.

 

[Mito]

“Omega−6 fatty acids are not essential and never were, and of course should be strictly avoided. However, humans do have a requirement for trace amounts of either DHA (22∶6ω−3) or its precursor α-linolenic acid (18∶3ω−3). Failing to discriminate between individual fatty acids is not helpful, and making sweeping statements about all polyunsaturated fatty acids is dubious in every instance. Even when speaking about peroxidation, things such as conjugation and bis-allyl hydrogens need to be considered. The differences between the hormonal and chemoattractant properties of each fatty acid subtype is even more extreme. We can make polyunsaturated ω−9 fatty acids de novo—i.e. Mead acid (20∶3ω−9)—and we desaturate stearic acid all the time. I would never recommend fish oil, but without DHA we would all most certainly be dead. These are facts.”

Is Omega-3 Fish Oil Bad?

Nice rhyme, I should use that as my signature ;) Haha. Nice.

raypeatforum.com

“Mead acid is synthesized upon ω−6 'deficiency,' yet it is impossible to avoid all ω−3 fatty acids. Without small amounts of DHA (22∶6ω−3), or its ubiquitous precursor α-linolenic acid (18∶3ω−3), we would surely die. That is not to say that we should be eating large amounts of these, only that they are the truly the only 'essentially fatty acids.' All ω−9 fatty acids—such as oleic (18∶1ω−9) and Mead acids (20∶3ω−9)—can be synthesized via stearate, and there is no good reason to ever consume ω−6 fatty acids.”

Omega-3 Deficiency In Psychiatric Disease, Fish Oil Opinions?

Bump!

raypeatforum.com

 

[Mito]

“OK, I will just summarize what I have seen/read and combine with what I have gotten from Peat.

1. The argument for PUFA being essential is not only wrong, it is obsolete. New evidence has accumulated since the 1930s when the single study "proving" PUFA being essential was conducted. I am not even mentioning the fact that basing public health/nutrition policy on a SINGLE study almost 100 years old is highly irresponsible, even if that study was legit. Many other studies have come out since then that invalidate much of the original claims of PUFA being "essential". While Peat does cite an old study, I have posted several threads on this forum showing that as recently as 1990s there were studies saying that PUFA is at best semi-essential and its daily dietary "requirements" come down to no more than 0.5% of calories. So, at the very least we have an upper bound on how essential PUFA is - i.e. if you are eating more than 1g-2g of PUFA daily at best you are not getting any benefit and at worse you are increasing the risk of cancer.

2. PUFA and its derivative eicosanoids and leukotrienes, are the major pathway to inflammation. Peat has written that his view is quite contrary to the medical dogma in the sense that he does not think there is a "healthy" level of inflammation. As far as I can see from his articles, and he is pretty explicit on this one, he thinks the lower the inflammation the healthier the organism. As such, restricting PUFA (and depleting iron, tryptophan, etc) is perhaps THE definitive approach to controlling inflammation rather than rely on later factors in the cascade such as taking aspirin to combat inflammation. The eicosanoids/leukotrienes are the major trigger of histamine/serotonin/estrogen synthesis and release and without them, histamine/serotonin/estrogen become a much smaller burden on the organism.

3. PUFA directly inhibit cytochrome C oxidase, unlike SFA and MUFA. In addition, PUFA are directly estrogenic by activating aromatase, again, unlike MUFA and SFA.

4. PUFA are a major inhibitor of the protective steroid pathways, especially 5-AR, but at the same time are activators of 11b-hydroxylase and aldosterone synthase. So, PUFA tend to shift the steroid pathway towards the end products cortisol, estrogen and aldosterone.

5. PUFA activate TPH, which synthesizes serotonin from tryptophan. As such, PUFA are a major metabolic inhibitor. Combined with the fact that they also promote estrogen and cortisol I am not sure there is another substance that can rival PUFA in terms of metabolism inhibition with the possible exception of ionizing radiation, which mimics PUFA effects on the body remarkably well. So, maybe the next time somebody wants to make an argument in favor of PUFA, try to think of a way to frame radiation in a positive light. If you can give me an argument for radiation, then I will listen to the argument in favor of PUFA.

6. Animals depleted in PUFA have uncoupled respiration and their metabolism and their oxygen consumption is about 70% higher than "normal" animals. The same effect was observed with people who got accidentally depleted in PUFA. You may argue for PUFA all you want, but even mainstream medicine wisened up to the fact that uncouplers are a viable treatment of several (maybe all) degenerative diseases. Go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for "uncoupler" or "uncoupling" and you will see for yourself. So, if having super fast metabolism is viable treatment for many diseases of old age and maybe aging itself then why on Earth would anybody want to consume a well-known metabolic inhibitor.

7. PUFA are immunosuppressive. This is such common knowledge that there are even several established products on the medical market based on a combination of linoleic and linolenic acid that is given IV to organ transplant patients. As far as I know the daily dose is 20g, and even though it is given IV the effects from oral intake are very similar. This should not come as a surprise given how much PUFA boosts cortisol production. Anything that suppresses your immune system chronically is likely to result in cancer in the long run.

8. PUFA is one of the main inhibitors of endogenous cholesterol synthesis. In fact, to this day this is one of their main selling point, especially the EPA/DHA kind. Anything that suppresses your cholesterol synthesis increases the risk of cancer. Statins are major carcinogen, not to mention their link to diseases like ALS and other muscular distrophies. If statins and PUFA work similarly on cholesterol and muscle then I am not sure what person in their right mind would want to load up on PUFA given the several class action lawsuits against statins and their connection to ALS, dementia, liver failure, etc.

9. PUFA is insanely hepatotoxic. I must have posted at least 10 studies on this one. Saturated fat is so far the only known substance shown to reverse chirrosis in both humans and animals. High dose vitamin K2 (MK-4) and caffeine have similar effects but probably can't fully match effects of saturated fat on fibrotic tissue. Not even acetaminophen comes close to the toxicity of PUFA to things like cytochrome P450 and glutathione reserves.

Finally, if you have read enough studies, and especially if you have worked with some sick people to see what got them better and what got them worse, then you should have enough information to decide if you want to deplete PUFA or not. Experiment is the ultimate arbiter and no amount of bickering and arguments and studies will make a difference. So, for anybody who wants to finally clear up any doubts on whether Peat is right about his stuff or not - in as little as 3-4 weeks of low fat diet, you can find out for yourself and then no amount of arguments from me or anybody else would matter.”

Need Help With Lowering Estrogen Even More

This is because, unlike Peat, I think it's the oxidation of PUFA that is the problem, not the fresh PUFA. ] I like hearing these arguments For fresh pufa too, E. And I like hearing pboy's pro fresh pufa views. I still avoid them like the plague. Here's the thing on the fresh-is-okay argument...

raypeatforum.com

 

[OccamzRazer]

Given he's a youngish guy who's presumably been following his own nutritional advice for some time now...

Masterjohn doesn't look that healthy IMO.

The importance of a health/nutrition expert's external appearance may not matter to everyone, but it sure means something to me.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Masterjohn doesn't look that healthy IMO.

Surely you're not serious.

 

[Jbird10]

Mito, thanks for the summary!

 

[OccamzRazer]

Surely you're not serious.

It is indeed my opinion, though not an opinion I take especially seriously.

 

[OccamzRazer]

Surely you're not serious.

It could be the toxic mold he says he was exposed to, though, as opposed to any dietary flaws.

 

[OccamzRazer]

6. Animals depleted in PUFA have uncoupled respiration and their metabolism and their oxygen consumption is about 70% higher than "normal" animals. The same effect was observed with people who got accidentally depleted in PUFA. You may argue for PUFA all you want, but even mainstream medicine wisened up to the fact that uncouplers are a viable treatment of several (maybe all) degenerative diseases. Go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for "uncoupler" or "uncoupling" and you will see for yourself. So, if having super fast metabolism is viable treatment for many diseases of old age and maybe aging itself then why on Earth would anybody want to consume a well-known metabolic inhibitor.

Thanks for the resource. This 70% figure seems huge! Anyone here actually successfully done this? The implications of having to eat that much more could be...interesting.

 

[Perry Staltic]

It could be the toxic mold he says he was exposed to, though, as opposed to any dietary flaws.

I'm pretty sure it was the crappy lighting and camera, and the stupid wokester glasses he was wearing. He looks more buff without that cheesy beard, too.

 

[Ben.]

Given he's a youngish guy who's presumably been following his own nutritional advice for some time now...

Masterjohn doesn't look that healthy IMO.

The importance of a health/nutrition expert's external appearance may not matter to everyone, but it sure means something to me.

He doesn't look healthy to me either. And it means something to me too, alot actually.

I personally don't care if we agree on beauty standards but a healthy person is something that you can see: in their eyes, hair, skin, teeth etc. and the "glow" they give off in my opinion.

I've come to realize tho that a person can have the best of knowledge but the body still does not work or look ideal simply because we haven't figured "all" out yet that is destroying a person.

I'm pretty sure it was the crappy lighting and camera, and the stupid wokester glasses he was wearing. He looks more buff without the beard, too.

Buff? as in muscular? That imo does not necessarily mean "health". But i guess people differ in their definition/picture of what health is.

Edit: sorry didnt mean to distract from wha thte op was asking. I wont derail any further.

 

[grithin]

. The argument for PUFA being essential is not only wrong, it is obsolete. New evidence has accumulated since the 1930s when the single study "proving" PUFA being essential was conducted. I am not even mentioning the fact that basing public health/nutrition policy on a SINGLE study almost 100 years old is highly irresponsible, even if that study was legit. Many other studies have come out since then that invalidate much of the original claims of PUFA being "essential". While Peat does cite an old study, I have posted several threads on this forum showing that as recently as 1990s there were studies saying that PUFA is at best semi-essential and its daily dietary "requirements" come down to no more than 0.5% of calories. So, at the very least we have an upper bound on how essential PUFA is - i.e. if you are eating more than 1g-2g of PUFA daily at best you are not getting any benefit and at worse you are increasing the risk of cancer.

“Omega−6 fatty acids are not essential and never were, and of course should be strictly avoided

daily dietary "requirements" come down to no more than 0.5% of calories

You are contradicting yourself. To label something as not essential, and then to present that there is some daily requirement for it.

I've not seen anything that indicates zero omega 6 is sustainable long term. Do you have any such study or anecdote (zero, not 1g)

Just for the lols:

Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease : A Science Advisory From the
American Heart Association Nutrition Subcommittee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical
Activity, and Metabolism; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and Council on
Epidemiology and Prevention

On the other hand,
evidence from trials in nonhuman primates has demon-
strated cardiovascular benefits and no evidence of harm
with LA intakes of 25% of energy for up to 5 years,70,71
and randomized trials in humans have shown reduced CHD
risk with omega-6 PUFA intakes of 11% to 21% of energy
for up to 11 years with no evidence of harm.

 

[Dr. B]

“OK, I will just summarize what I have seen/read and combine with what I have gotten from Peat.

1. The argument for PUFA being essential is not only wrong, it is obsolete. New evidence has accumulated since the 1930s when the single study "proving" PUFA being essential was conducted. I am not even mentioning the fact that basing public health/nutrition policy on a SINGLE study almost 100 years old is highly irresponsible, even if that study was legit. Many other studies have come out since then that invalidate much of the original claims of PUFA being "essential". While Peat does cite an old study, I have posted several threads on this forum showing that as recently as 1990s there were studies saying that PUFA is at best semi-essential and its daily dietary "requirements" come down to no more than 0.5% of calories. So, at the very least we have an upper bound on how essential PUFA is - i.e. if you are eating more than 1g-2g of PUFA daily at best you are not getting any benefit and at worse you are increasing the risk of cancer.

2. PUFA and its derivative eicosanoids and leukotrienes, are the major pathway to inflammation. Peat has written that his view is quite contrary to the medical dogma in the sense that he does not think there is a "healthy" level of inflammation. As far as I can see from his articles, and he is pretty explicit on this one, he thinks the lower the inflammation the healthier the organism. As such, restricting PUFA (and depleting iron, tryptophan, etc) is perhaps THE definitive approach to controlling inflammation rather than rely on later factors in the cascade such as taking aspirin to combat inflammation. The eicosanoids/leukotrienes are the major trigger of histamine/serotonin/estrogen synthesis and release and without them, histamine/serotonin/estrogen become a much smaller burden on the organism.

3. PUFA directly inhibit cytochrome C oxidase, unlike SFA and MUFA. In addition, PUFA are directly estrogenic by activating aromatase, again, unlike MUFA and SFA.

4. PUFA are a major inhibitor of the protective steroid pathways, especially 5-AR, but at the same time are activators of 11b-hydroxylase and aldosterone synthase. So, PUFA tend to shift the steroid pathway towards the end products cortisol, estrogen and aldosterone.

5. PUFA activate TPH, which synthesizes serotonin from tryptophan. As such, PUFA are a major metabolic inhibitor. Combined with the fact that they also promote estrogen and cortisol I am not sure there is another substance that can rival PUFA in terms of metabolism inhibition with the possible exception of ionizing radiation, which mimics PUFA effects on the body remarkably well. So, maybe the next time somebody wants to make an argument in favor of PUFA, try to think of a way to frame radiation in a positive light. If you can give me an argument for radiation, then I will listen to the argument in favor of PUFA.

6. Animals depleted in PUFA have uncoupled respiration and their metabolism and their oxygen consumption is about 70% higher than "normal" animals. The same effect was observed with people who got accidentally depleted in PUFA. You may argue for PUFA all you want, but even mainstream medicine wisened up to the fact that uncouplers are a viable treatment of several (maybe all) degenerative diseases. Go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for "uncoupler" or "uncoupling" and you will see for yourself. So, if having super fast metabolism is viable treatment for many diseases of old age and maybe aging itself then why on Earth would anybody want to consume a well-known metabolic inhibitor.

7. PUFA are immunosuppressive. This is such common knowledge that there are even several established products on the medical market based on a combination of linoleic and linolenic acid that is given IV to organ transplant patients. As far as I know the daily dose is 20g, and even though it is given IV the effects from oral intake are very similar. This should not come as a surprise given how much PUFA boosts cortisol production. Anything that suppresses your immune system chronically is likely to result in cancer in the long run.

8. PUFA is one of the main inhibitors of endogenous cholesterol synthesis. In fact, to this day this is one of their main selling point, especially the EPA/DHA kind. Anything that suppresses your cholesterol synthesis increases the risk of cancer. Statins are major carcinogen, not to mention their link to diseases like ALS and other muscular distrophies. If statins and PUFA work similarly on cholesterol and muscle then I am not sure what person in their right mind would want to load up on PUFA given the several class action lawsuits against statins and their connection to ALS, dementia, liver failure, etc.

9. PUFA is insanely hepatotoxic. I must have posted at least 10 studies on this one. Saturated fat is so far the only known substance shown to reverse chirrosis in both humans and animals. High dose vitamin K2 (MK-4) and caffeine have similar effects but probably can't fully match effects of saturated fat on fibrotic tissue. Not even acetaminophen comes close to the toxicity of PUFA to things like cytochrome P450 and glutathione reserves.

Finally, if you have read enough studies, and especially if you have worked with some sick people to see what got them better and what got them worse, then you should have enough information to decide if you want to deplete PUFA or not. Experiment is the ultimate arbiter and no amount of bickering and arguments and studies will make a difference. So, for anybody who wants to finally clear up any doubts on whether Peat is right about his stuff or not - in as little as 3-4 weeks of low fat diet, you can find out for yourself and then no amount of arguments from me or anybody else would matter.”

Need Help With Lowering Estrogen Even More

This is because, unlike Peat, I think it's the oxidation of PUFA that is the problem, not the fresh PUFA. ] I like hearing these arguments For fresh pufa too, E. And I like hearing pboy's pro fresh pufa views. I still avoid them like the plague. Here's the thing on the fresh-is-okay argument...

raypeatforum.com

but to what extent do you think PUFA is bad, thats also an area where weston price foundation disagrees with peat they say theyre essential in very small minimal amounts. what about nigella sativa oil which has omega 6 but supposedly has thymoquinone and other things in it? if your diet is something like 70g fats from milk and dairy, would there be a significant negative effect from adding in like a gram of fish oil and gram of black seed oil? also where did you see pufa increase cortisol, is that the mechanism they use to decrease inflammation?
what about K2 MK7, and doesnt supplementing standalone K2 and even caffeine have risks since in nature those are not found in huge doses and have other balancing factors

 

[OccamzRazer]

I'm pretty sure it was the crappy lighting and camera, and the stupid wokester glasses he was wearing. He looks more buff without that cheesy beard, too.

Good point.

Please note that I didn't mean to say he looks outright unhealthy. He looks way better than the average person you see walking around lol.

I meant he doesn't look healthy for a "health expert" who's been following his own advice for so long since such a youngish age.

People who preach on any topic should be held to that topic's highest standards.

 

[OccamzRazer]

Back to omega 3/6's . . . this is from Masterjohn's WAPF article:

"Later experiments showed that butter, which contains small amounts of both fatty acids, could fully cure the [EFA deficiency] disease if provided in large enough amounts."

It seems like understanding the essentiality of EFA's has limited practical value - unless one is considering a hydrogenated coconut oil-only diet or something.

 

[jerry.j]

Okay but doesn't Peat suggest no amount of PUFA is essential. This is kind of a hypothetical situation because it is impossible to get zero PUFA unless in a lab feeding situation.

Regarding Masterjohn's appearance I think yall should cut him some slack as he seems to be working non-stop on his book at the moment probably losing some focus on his health routine.

 

[OccamzRazer]

He doesn't look healthy to me either. And it means something to me too, alot actually.

I personally don't care if we agree on beauty standards but a healthy person is something that you can see: in their eyes, hair, skin, teeth etc. and the "glow" they give off in my opinion.

I've come to realize tho that a person can have the best of knowledge but the body still does not work or look ideal simply because we haven't figured "all" out yet that is destroying a person.

?

 

[Sefton10]

I meant he doesn't look healthy for a "health expert" who's been following his own advice for so long since such a youngish age.

There was a thread on him a while ago Chris Masterjohn Seems To Be Falling Apart

 

[tankasnowgod]

7:20
He speaks about total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and how having zero fat caused skin issues. I saw this discussed elsewhere on this forum and the consensus seems to be that it was a lack of any fat issue rather than a lack of EFA issue. But then he talks about how fat was later added to address this issue and still a woman on long-term TPN eventually developed neurological issues with a solution of safflower that went away after changing to soybean oil (containing enough EFA).

What is the peatian rebuttal to this case-study?

So eczema happens with zero fat TPN? I mean, the rebuttal would come right from Peat's articles....... their metabolism was probably boosted, and they needed more B vitamins and Zinc than what was likely fed in the TPN formula. So, nothing new in the slightest there.

An example, right at the top of this one-

Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

As far as the case study of the woman who had a abdominal gunshot wound, well, it doesn't sound like she was ever on a "no fat" TPN. She was just on formulas that contain Soybean Oil and Sunflower Oil. According to Masterjohn, the Sunflower Oil is more inflammatory (having a greater Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio). Peat thinks there are problems with both types of fat, but acknowledges that Omega 3 does have some anti-inflammatory effects, at least in the short term. So, the only conclusion to be drawn is that, when given the choice between two TPN formulas containing PUFA, the woman with an abdominal gunshot wound did better with the one that was less inflammatory.

Earth shattering, I know.

It doesn't suggest that she wouldn't have done better on a zero fat TPN, or one with mostly saturated fats. I suspect she would have done better and recovered quicker with a zero fat TPN, along with additional supplemental vitamins.

And based on the side effects that she got on the sunflower oil formula, I'm guessing that she would have preferred dealing with eczema, any way. I'd much rather deal with a skin issue than severe neurological problems, blindness, and not being able to walk for periods of time. Does Masterjohn have any sense of the relative severity of the problems he's talking about here?

I don't see how either of these points prove that the so called "EFAs" are in any way "essential."