Omega 3 Replaces Omega 6 And Lowers Prostaglandin Synthesis

[ecstatichamster]

The body preferentially burns PUFA, especially during exercise. So athletes aren’t likely to store much, if any, of the harmful fatty acids. Usain Bolt is famous for consuming 100s of grams of omega6 fatty acids via McDonald’s chicken nuggets the day of he broke the world record.

Dr. Peat has asserted the opposite. That the body preferentially burns sat fat and stores PUFA. I have never seen the cites for this but I tend to believe Dr. Peat.

 

[Kartoffel]

@Beefcake

If i’m not mistaken travis did not reccomend fish, he recommended getting enough alpha linoleic acid to convert to DHA because DHA itself was too unstable. His point of view if I remember correctly was to get the alpha linoleic acid from leafy greens and grass fed animals.

Travis' only argument for the essentiality of DHA was that it supposedly improves the health of people with Zellweger's syndrome. The only study he cited to support that argument was the most ridiculous piece of junk science that was ever published in a scientific journal. There is zero evidence that DHA is essential. I hope he reads this, gets angry, and returns.

 

[haidut]

Effects of dietary fish oil on thyroid hormone signaling in the liver. - PubMed - NCBI isn't this saying fish oil improved thyroid function or am I reading it wrong?

It is quite a mixed bag, and you can tell the authors want to show fish oil (FO) is beneficial, so in the Discussion section they keep stressing that FO lowered cholesterol and trigs and that's why it mush be beneficial, you know. /s We already discussed here how FO lowers cholesterol and trigs - by depositing it in blood vessels and liver. No change in thyroid hormone levels. The only thing this study has going for itself is the increase in TR-beta expression in the liver. That would increase liver sensitivity to T3, but it can also be a sign of FO acting as a thyroid receptor antagonist. Remember, receptor antagonists typically increase receptor expression. I can't say which one is the case based on the results of this study, but to the author's credit they state that other similar studies did not find increased TR-beta expression.

"...n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) present in fish oil (FO) potently decrease serum lipids, which is also an effect of thyroid hormones. Both PUFAs and thyroid hormones affect hepatic lipid metabolism, and here we hypothesized that a long-term diet rich in n-3 PUFAs would enhance thyroid hormone action in the liver. Female rats received isocaloric and normolipid diets containing either soybean oil (SO) or FO during lactation. Male offspring received the same diet as their dams since weaning until sacrifice when they were 11 weeks old. FO group, as compared to SO group, exhibited lower body weight since 5 weeks of age until sacrifice, with no alterations in food ingestion, lower retroperitoneal white fat mass and elevated inguinal fat mass relative to body weight, with unchanged water and lipid but reduced protein percentage in their carcasses. FO diet resulted in lower serum triglycerides and cholesterol. Serum total triiodothyronine, total thyroxine and thyrotropin were similar between groups. However, liver thyroid hormone receptor (TR) β1 protein expression was higher in the FO group and correlated negatively with serum lipids. Liver 5'-deiodinase activity, which converts thyroxine into triiodothyronine, was similar between groups. However, the activity of hepatic mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase, the enzyme involved in thermogenesis and a well-characterized target stimulated by T3 via TRβ1, was higher in the FO group, suggesting enhancement of thyroid hormone action. These findings suggest that the increase in thyroid hormone signaling pathways in the liver may be one of the mechanisms by which n-3 PUFAs exert part of their effects on lipid metabolism."

"...In contrast to our finding, others [55] did not find a significant increase in TRβ expression in the liver of animals that received a high-carbohydrate diet with FO for 3 h/day for 5 days. The differences in experimental conditions may explain the different findings."

 

[olive]

Dr. Peat has asserted the opposite. That the body preferentially burns sat fat and stores PUFA. I have never seen the cites for this but I tend to believe Dr. Peat.

Selective mobilization of adipose tissue fatty acids during energy depletion in the rat. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[haidut]

Dr. Peat has asserted the opposite. That the body preferentially burns sat fat and stores PUFA. I have never seen the cites for this but I tend to believe Dr. Peat.

Depends on condition/situation. At rest, SFA is preferentially oxidized by muscle. During exercise/stress/trauma/disease, PUFA is preferentially liberated and the elevated FFA are predominantly composed of PUFA, which can lead to well-known kidney damage, pancreatic damage, brain atrophy, and a host of other issues seen in acute and chronic stressed states. I think @Such_Saturation asked Dr. Peat this very question and Peat provided the clarification on when SFA vs. PUFA is stored/oxidized.

Just think about it - 80%+ of marathon runners have some form of acute kidney failure at the finish line! We are told it is temporary, but how many people have had follow up tests months or years later to see if they had increased rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD)? Isn't the fact that 80%+ of such runners gets kidney failure (even if temporary) enough evidence to give mentally sound people serious pause about running and elevated FFA in general? And I am not even mentioning the brain atrophy. Maybe the only people to whom this is not sufficient evidence for the harm of chronic stress (i.e. fat oxidation) have ran too many marathons

Marathon Running May Cause (temporary) Kidney Failure In 80%+ Of Runners
Running Marathons Shrinks The Brain

 

[olive]

Depends on condition/situation. At rest, SFA is preferentially oxidized by muscle. During exercise/stress/trauma/disease, PUFA is preferentially liberated and the elevated FFA are predominantly composed of PUFA, which can lead to well-known kidney damage, pancreatic damage, brain atrophy, and a host of other issues seen in acute and chronic stressed states. I think @Such_Saturation asked Dr. Peat this very question and Peat provided the clarification on when SFA vs. PUFA is stored/oxidized.

Just think about it - 80%+ of marathon runners have some form of acute kidney failure at the finish line! We are told it is temporary, but how many people have had follow up tests months or years later to see if they had increased rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD)? Isn't the fact that 80%+ of such runners gets kidney failure (even if temporary) enough evidence to give mentally sound people serious pause about running and elevated FFA in general? And I am not even mentioning the brain atrophy. Maybe the only people to whom this is not sufficient evidence for the harm of chronic stress (i.e. fat oxidation) have ran too many marathons

Marathon Running May Cause (temporary) Kidney Failure In 80%+ Of Runners
Running Marathons Shrinks The Brain

Now you’re just scaremongering. No one here is competing in marathons.

Imagine this; you eat 200g of wild caught salmon. Now you have a bunch of FFA in your blood stream. The body will preferentially burn off PUFA fats first, which is good because as we all know after reading Ray they are harmful. So from 200g of salmon, you have 6.5g of PUFA according to cronometer. 9kcal per g of fat / 9kcal x 6.5g = 58.5kcal. Easily burned off with a 7 minute jog at a slow pace or a 15 minute walk.

These examples highlight what an absurd overreaction it was to invoke the dangers of competing in a marathon.

 

[lampofred]

Found on "random quote" feature of this forum: "The long chain fats found in fish and some algae don't interfere with animal enzymes as strongly as the seed oils do, and so by comparison, they aren't so harmful. They are also so unstable that relatively little of them is stored in the tissues."

 

[haidut]

Now you’re just scaremongering. No one here is competing in marathons.

Imagine this; you eat 200g of wild caught salmon. Now you have a bunch of FFA in your blood stream. The body will preferentially burn off PUFA fats first, which is good because as we all know after reading Ray they are harmful. So from 200g of salmon, you have 6.5g of PUFA according to cronometer. 9kcal per g of fat / 9kcal x 6.5g = 65kcal. Easily burned off with an 8 minute jog at a slow pace or a 15 minute walk.

These examples highlight what an absurd overreaction it was to invoke the dangers of competing in a marathon.

I am not scaremongering at all. It is just an illustration of what happens when there is sufficient elevation of FFA. While extreme as an example, it is actually a VERY good example of what elevated FFA does to your organs, because during a marathon you will be burning predominantly fat. So, less extreme stress such as say running 5-6 miles may be less damaging but how much evidence do we actually have on safety of such shorter runs? Long story short - there is strong evidence that even brief elevation of FFA damages organs. How much damage occurs is largely determined by length of exposure to elevated FFA. If you don't like it, so be it. But evidence is evidence.
https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/increased-fat-oxidation-is-the-cause-of-kidney-damage.27087/

Glycogen-bound running is probably OK. As soon as FFA start to rise, you are already in danger zone. Weight lifting and sprinting are two of the few safe intense sports.

 

[Beefcake]

LOL, all of these "threads" are actually posts about studies. Almost nothing in those posts is written by me. The vast majority is actually extracts/quotes from the actual studies, with underlined parts clearly stating how detrimental omega-3 is. And here is the best part - in the study authors own words. Show me even one sentence in those threads that does not represent what the study (or studies) in those threads actually claimed. The last 3 are not even links from this forum.
But even assuming you are actually posting in good faith - if you believe so much in the benefits of omega-3 - what are you doing on this forum?
And yes, I am waiting on you to come back and pick apart the links I sent you.

The omega3/omega6 ratio study you says causes irreverisble brain damage. Nowhere in the study do they cite the word ”brain damage” and the title of the study is completely different from yours. When you post and copy a study from pubmed then you might aswell use the same title as the study instead you change the study title so people will be interested to read and so that the study seems to agree with peat. You know everyone looks up to you here so your word is ultimate. They never mentioned brain damage they said fatty acid changes happened in the brain when you ate omega 3. Well obviously it does. Sounds kinda reasonable. Same with the androgen receptor degradation. That just refers to fish oil being preventative of resistant prostate cancer by destroying ar receptors. They dont detail the mechanism or if this even happens in other cells. Many cancer preventative substances only affects cancer and not normal cells. All the other studies similair theme. You read and highlight the stuff that fits your narrative and then you make a post and change the title to something dramatic like brain damage. But if you go in and read the study usually the author is investigating something else like prevention of prostate cancer.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I’m pretty sure that the FFAs of PUFAs is responsible for diabetes. Many of us have very poor liver function and as a result, we are constantly in a state of FFA release. This FFA release, if mostly PUFAs will damage beta cells, Leydig cells etc.

So the runners may be “extreme” but many of us are in that extreme as a normal everyday occurrence.

This is why diabetes is so high now, corresponding with the PUFA fad.

 

[Kartoffel]

Well obviously it does. Sounds kinda reasonable. Same with the androgen receptor degradation. That just refers to fish oil being preventative of resistant prostate cancer by destroying ar receptors.

oh, boy...

 

[haidut]

The omega3/omega6 ratio study you says causes irreverisble brain damage. Nowhere in the study do they cite the word ”brain damage” and the title of the study is completely different from yours. When you post and copy a study from pubmed then you might aswell use the same title as the study instead you change the study title so people will be interested to read and so that the study seems to agree with peat. You know everyone looks up to you here so your word is ultimate. They never mentioned brain damage they said fatty acid changes happened in the brain when you ate omega 3. Well obviously it does. Sounds kinda reasonable. Same with the androgen receptor degradation. That just refers to fish oil being preventative of resistant prostate cancer by destroying ar receptors. They dont detail the mechanism or if this even happens in other cells. Many cancer preventative substances only affects cancer and not normal cells. All the other studies similair theme. You read and highlight the stuff that fits your narrative and then you make a post and change the title to something dramatic like brain damage. But if you go in and read the study usually the author is investigating something else like prevention of prostate cancer.

So, my thread title is "Higher Omega-3/omega-6 Ratio May Damage The Brain Irreversibly" and here is the actual abstract copied verbatim from the thread.
"...When the corn-oil diet was supplemented with 14.5% cod liver oil or 12.5% salmon oil, the fatty acid composition of brain PUFA was significantly altered, even if alpha-tocopherol was added to the salmon-oil diet. Comparing salmon-oil- and cod-liver-oil-fed animals with corn-oil-fed animals, arachidonic acid 22:4(n-6) and 22:5(n-6) were reduced, and 20:5(n-3), 22:5(n-3) and 22:6(n-3) were increased. Liver fatty acids were also significantly altered. Thus, the brain is not protected against a large excess of very-long-chain n-3 PUFA, which increase n-3/n-6 ratio and could lead to abnormal function, and which might be difficult to reverse."

Here is a part of the study's introduction.
"...As the ingestion of large amounts of n - 3 PUFA in experimental animals gives rise to adverse effects (i.e., vitamin E deficiency symptoms), it is possible that a diet abundant in fish oil may be harmful in man. Not much is known about human susceptibility to n - 3 PUFA with respect to disturbances in vitamin E metabolism."

And here is a part further down from the same study.
"...We have previously shown that the nervous system recovers slowly, if at all, after n - 3 PUFA deficiency in both young and adult animals, and that the duration of impaired function is the same, whatever the cell and the organelle [28,29], in contrast to other organs [30]. Thus, it is possible that the effects of increased n - 3 PUFA and decreased n - 6 PUFA will be difficult for the brain to reverse after the fish-oil diet has been changed to a normal one. Moreover, at least for brain cell cultures, the essential PUFA are 20 : 4 and 22: 6 (and not 18: 2 and 18: 3), which can either be produced by the liver or are supplied directly by the diet [31]. If excess fish oil alters hepatic function, brain recovery will be even more difficult."

So, if I am reading this correctly, the study starts with the premise that ingestion of large amounts of omega-3 may be deleterious. The study then says that nervous system function recovery is slow or missing altogether, in the presence of cellular lipid composition disturbances, even after the diet with increased omega-3/omega-6 is stopped and normal diet is resumed.

So, please tell me, how is my thread title "Higher Omega-3/omega-6 Ratio May Damage The Brain Irreversibly" misleading or exaggerated, given what the study says? I underlined and bolded the word may on purpose. I included it in the title precisely because the authors did not say higher omega-3/omega-6 diet will damage the brain irreversibly. I did not say such a thing either. Yes, I may sometimes put titles that sound a bit more sensationalist than people would like but so far I am pretty sure the titles have been based on what the studies actually said.

And I would fully agree if you say that the study is not really that good and is more of a warning hypothesis than an actual experiment. I think all they did was show that brain is very slow (if at all) to recover from disturbances in lipid composition. A much better study would have been to test these mice for cognitive function and repeat those tests say 6 months or 12 months later. So, yes, not the best of "studies". But it is one piece of the puzzle and I posted it at the time thinking it is such a piece of the puzzle. The other ones I pointed out are better as they are actual experiments.
At the end, we may be splitting hairs here. If your claim is that omega-3 is LESS dangerous than omega-6, then we are in full agreement. But if you claim that omega-3 has some special, protective/beneficial role then I disagree and I would like to hear/see the evidence. Keep in mind that we are not the only ones interested in omega-3. Big Pharma spend decades studying this and a ton of money. Pretty much all of the large, pharma-sponsored intervention trials with omega-3 failed spectacularly and the only drug that came out of those multi-billion trials was Lovaza.
Omega-3 acid ethyl esters - Wikipedia

And even in the case of Lovaza, sellers are prohibited from making health claims about that drug. The trials with it did NOT show reduced risk of CVD even though the pharma companies were dying to get that result. All the trials showed was lower triglyceride levels and that is what Lovaza is marketed for. Nothing more, no protective claim.

 

[Beefcake]

I’m pretty sure that the FFAs of PUFAs is responsible for diabetes. Many of us have very poor liver function and as a result, we are constantly in a state of FFA release. This FFA release, if mostly PUFAs will damage beta cells, Leydig cells etc.

So the runners may be “extreme” but many of us are in that extreme as a normal everyday occurrence.

This is why diabetes is so high now, corresponding with the PUFA fad.

But diabetes is not high in for example most fish consuming nations in the world like japan, china, vietnam and lots of places in africa has some of the lowest diabetes rates in the world and they still eat lots of fish. Sure diabetes the past 20 years is on the rise even in these countries but fish consumption has not exploded the past 20 years its the omega 6 oils that has. If fish would be so oxidative and worse than omega 6 then countries like japan and iceland would had high diabetes rates ages ago. They don’t. Animals has always eaten fish. Animals has never eaten seed oils. And with the seed oil popularity diabetes has risen same time and velocity basically. There’s many studies that show that omega 6 is inflammatory and increase prostaglandin PGE2 etc and that omega 3 actually displaces omega 6 and has shown to be less activating of PGE2 resulting in decreased inflammation.

 

[ecstatichamster]

But diabetes is not high in for example most fish consuming nations in the world like japan, china, vietnam and lots of places in africa has some of the lowest diabetes rates in the world and they still eat lots of fish. Sure diabetes the past 20 years is on the rise even in these countries but fish consumption has not exploded the past 20 years its the omega 6 oils that has. If fish would be so oxidative and worse than omega 6 then countries like japan and iceland would had high diabetes rates ages ago. They don’t. Animals has always eaten fish. Animals has never eaten seed oils. And with the seed oil popularity diabetes has risen same time and velocity basically. There’s many studies that show that omega 6 is inflammatory and increase prostaglandin PGE2 etc and that omega 3 actually displaces omega 6 and has shown to be less activating of PGE2 resulting in decreased inflammation.

remember that fish isn't necessarily loaded with PUFA. Much of the fish is warm water and doesn't have a lot of PUFA. Even cod is something I eat. Without fat, it doesn't have much PUFA.

I am sure it is mostly omega 6 seed oils causing diabetes epidemic. But fish oil isn't good either. Yes, of course omega 3 helps cancel out the immediate harm of omega 6 but in the longer run it causes cancer and its own set of problems.

My point is that people who eat fish aren't necessarily getting much fish oil.

Also, I doubt it is as harmful as rancid industrial fish oil. Dr. Peat has said it breaks down in the body very quickly anyway. This is why it is carcinogenic. But it may not make it into cell membranes or the brain.

 

[Kartoffel]

At the end, we may be splitting hairs here. If your claim is that omega-3 is LESS dangerous than omega-6, then we are in full agreement.

Why do you think they are less dangerous? In many experiments, the long-term effects of ω-3 fatty acids are much more harmful than those of the ω-6 fatty acids. I think they are just perceived as better because we don't get nearly as much of them as of the ω-6, and there are some fancy short-term benefits from immunosupression. If you feed animals ω-3 or ω-6 over a life-time, the former are likely to die sooner of cancer or multi organ failure.

 

[Beefcake]

So, my thread title is "Higher Omega-3/omega-6 Ratio May Damage The Brain Irreversibly" and here is the actual abstract copied verbatim from the thread.
"...When the corn-oil diet was supplemented with 14.5% cod liver oil or 12.5% salmon oil, the fatty acid composition of brain PUFA was significantly altered, even if alpha-tocopherol was added to the salmon-oil diet. Comparing salmon-oil- and cod-liver-oil-fed animals with corn-oil-fed animals, arachidonic acid 22:4(n-6) and 22:5(n-6) were reduced, and 20:5(n-3), 22:5(n-3) and 22:6(n-3) were increased. Liver fatty acids were also significantly altered. Thus, the brain is not protected against a large excess of very-long-chain n-3 PUFA, which increase n-3/n-6 ratio and could lead to abnormal function, and which might be difficult to reverse."

Here is a part of the study's introduction.
"...As the ingestion of large amounts of n - 3 PUFA in experimental animals gives rise to adverse effects (i.e., vitamin E deficiency symptoms), it is possible that a diet abundant in fish oil may be harmful in man. Not much is known about human susceptibility to n - 3 PUFA with respect to disturbances in vitamin E metabolism."

And here is a part further down from the same study.
"...We have previously shown that the nervous system recovers slowly, if at all, after n - 3 PUFA deficiency in both young and adult animals, and that the duration of impaired function is the same, whatever the cell and the organelle [28,29], in contrast to other organs [30]. Thus, it is possible that the effects of increased n - 3 PUFA and decreased n - 6 PUFA will be difficult for the brain to reverse after the fish-oil diet has been changed to a normal one. Moreover, at least for brain cell cultures, the essential PUFA are 20 : 4 and 22: 6 (and not 18: 2 and 18: 3), which can either be produced by the liver or are supplied directly by the diet [31]. If excess fish oil alters hepatic function, brain recovery will be even more difficult."

So, if I am reading this correctly, the study starts with the premise that ingestion of large amounts of omega-3 may be deleterious. The study then says that nervous system function recovery is slow or missing altogether, in the presence of cellular lipid composition disturbances, even after the diet with increased omega-3/omega-6 is stopped and normal diet is resumed.

So, please tell me, how is my thread title "Higher Omega-3/omega-6 Ratio May Damage The Brain Irreversibly" misleading or exaggerated, given what the study says? I underlined and bolded the word may on purpose. I included it in the title precisely because the authors did not say higher omega-3/omega-6 diet will damage the brain irreversibly. I did not say such a thing either. Yes, I may sometimes put titles that sound a bit more sensationalist than people would like but so far I am pretty sure the titles have been based on what the studies actually said.

Meh don’t agree fully. On top of that the original post on this thread never said anything about consuming high amounts of fish oil. I was curious about researching the role of omega 3 in health & disease. And I already know what the stance on the debate is on this forum. So just posting stuff that agrees with everyone would not spark a debate. I’m not here to prove anyone wrong and I do believe that the benefits if there are any to fish is from moderate consumption and that fish oil/cod liver oil or fish oil pills are meant to go in the bin. If you compare the ratio of SFA/MUFA/PUFA there’s sucha minescule amount of PUFA in the body of all land animals and I believe that is in relation to us being warm blooded animals. In my opinion it’s better to keep the ratios of the fats at a good level and avoid using the more unstable oils for high heat purposes. And I’m 100% on the train that the total increase in PUFA consumption the past century is the reason we are experiencing so many health problems. But looking at alot of evidence I can’t really see the same goes for fish and fish eating countries or some of the studies done on fish oil. For sure large amounts seem to be toxic and most studies showing toxic effects use several grams per day.

How do you explain this study for example:

Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Associations with Dopaminergic Indices in Major Depressive Disorder

Baseline prolactin was negatively correlated with omega-3 PUFAs and positively correlated with Arachidonic Acid.

N-3 (Omega-3) Fatty Acids: Effects on Brain Dopamine Systems and Potential Role in the Etiology and Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Disorders. - PubMed - NCBI

Evidence suggests that inadequate levels of n-3 (omega- 3) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in the brain may represent a risk factor for these disorders. These fatty acids, which are derived from the diet, are a major component of neuronal membranes and are of particular importance in brain development and function. Low levels of n-3 PUFAs in the brain affect the brain dopamine systems.


It’s just like iron. People rant about iron being detrimental and you should donate it all away. Then they get iron deficiency and that also causes low dopamine.
Well maybe these two oxidants are needed for processes in the body for proper dopamine function. Oxidants has it’s role in human biology. Sure smaller amounts and if they get out of control you get problems. Why does everything has to be so black and white?

 

[Beefcake]

remember that fish isn't necessarily loaded with PUFA. Much of the fish is warm water and doesn't have a lot of PUFA. Even cod is something I eat. Without fat, it doesn't have much PUFA.

I am sure it is mostly omega 6 seed oils causing diabetes epidemic. But fish oil isn't good either. Yes, of course omega 3 helps cancel out the immediate harm of omega 6 but in the longer run it causes cancer and its own set of problems.

My point is that people who eat fish aren't necessarily getting much fish oil.

Also, I doubt it is as harmful as rancid industrial fish oil. Dr. Peat has said it breaks down in the body very quickly anyway. This is why it is carcinogenic. But it may not make it into cell membranes or the brain.

Japan consumes loads of salmon. Its like the most fatty fish. Besides now you saying fish is ok to eat? Hello thats what I said from mu first post!!! Never did i say to consume large amounts or taking fish oil. My point is omega 3 has some biological function. Besides lots of fish has fat soulable antioxidants. Not the purified oil thats rancid that i also said. And i never touted eating fish everyday i said max once a week should be enough. Focus on the larger stores of fatty acids in the body like saturated fat. But once in awhile you might need a small dose of omega for some biological purpose

 

[haidut]

But diabetes is not high in for example most fish consuming nations in the world like japan, china, vietnam and lots of places in africa has some of the lowest diabetes rates in the world and they still eat lots of fish. Sure diabetes the past 20 years is on the rise even in these countries but fish consumption has not exploded the past 20 years its the omega 6 oils that has. If fish would be so oxidative and worse than omega 6 then countries like japan and iceland would had high diabetes rates ages ago. They don’t. Animals has always eaten fish. Animals has never eaten seed oils. And with the seed oil popularity diabetes has risen same time and velocity basically. There’s many studies that show that omega 6 is inflammatory and increase prostaglandin PGE2 etc and that omega 3 actually displaces omega 6 and has shown to be less activating of PGE2 resulting in decreased inflammation.

As one of the studies in my original list I sent you showed, the protein in seafood may be the protective factor, not the omega-3.
The Protein In Fish, Not Omega-3, May Be Protective Against Brain Disease
The Protein In Fish, Not Omega-3, May Be Protective Against Brain Disease

Seafood is also high in taurine, glycine, proline and some other anti-inflammatory amino acids. Selenium and zinc play huge roles too. Peat also spoke favorably of seafood, but one thing to keep in mind is that there is a BIG difference in fatty acid composition of fish depending on its region. The northern, cold-water fish are rich in omega-3 but the warm water fish contain mostly saturated fats. So, the regions like Vietnam you mention would be getting mostly good fats from fish and they also use a lot of coconut oil in their cooking.
Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health.
"...Many antioxidant nutrients act like a thyroid supplement did in the 1934 rabbit experiments, preventing atherosclerosis even when extra toxic cholesterol is given to the animals. People who eat seafood get much more selenium in their diet than people who eat nothing from the sea, and selenium is one of the extremely protective nutrients that prevent atherosclerosis in animal experiments with excess cholesterol."
Cholesterol And Saturated Fats - East West Healing
"...For example, if an animal contained 30% fat and it all hardened, it’s subcutaneous fat would become stiff, just the way a steak, when it's in the refrigerator, the fat is stiff; when it's in very warm conditions it becomes soft and flexible. So, in the tropics, even fish in the Amazon river for example, have fat as saturated as butter fat. "

So, yeah, in case there is a misunderstanding - I don't think anybody here is against seafood. Quite to the contrary. Shrimp, oysters, warm-water fish, squid, etc are all great and have been discussed/recommended multiple times. The Peatarian argument is simply focused on avoiding exposure to too much omega-3.

 

[Beefcake]

Why do you think they are less dangerous? In many experiments, the long-term effects of ω-3 fatty acids are much more harmful than those of the ω-6 fatty acids. I think they are just perceived as better because we don't get nearly as much of them as of the ω-6, and there are some fancy short-term benefits from immunosupression. If you feed animals ω-3 or ω-6 over a life-time, the former are likely to die sooner of cancer or multi organ failure.

Yes this might be true and might be the case. Same would go for iron. If you feed a rat with overdose of iron everyday it would end up with hemochromatosis and death. Does not mean low dose iron has its function. So whats your point?

 

[haidut]

Then they get iron deficiency and that also causes low dopamine.

No argument there. I do know people who got iron deficiency from eating mostly milk and OJ. To Peat's credit he also said to eat liver once a week, probably to balance the iron-chelating effects of milk. I have never heard him recommend to donate blood blindly. It has always been in the context of the person's specific iron saturation index and ferritin. But I have seen multiple people jumping on this diet without much context and say a month later they send me their blood work showing iron deficiency from eating nothing but milk and OJ, and skipping the liver because "it tastes nasty".