• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Anti-Peat Peat Wrong On DHA

MSH

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
138
On another thread here on the forum magnesiumania said, “Peat is wrong about DHA and dont even know what metabolites DHA make. Only problem with retinol is circadian mismatches. When you live in blue lights vit A cant bind to its opsins and free retinol destroy photoreceptors.”

My question to those here more in the know; is the above statement correct?

Thanks
 
Last edited:

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Atlantis
My experience with ''essential fatty acids'' is that it's one thing to say Ray is wrong, another to disprove the hundreds of references he's used to arrive at his conclusion. It's not like he built his understanding on thin air. There is A LOT of evidence, see his website articles.

And whilst he doesn't know everything, I think it highly unlikely that he ''don't even know what metabolites DHA make''.
 

MSH

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
138
My experience with ''essential fatty acids'' is that it's one thing to say Ray is wrong, another to disprove the hundreds of references he's used to arrive at his conclusion. It's not like he built his understanding on thin air. There is A LOT of evidence, see his website articles.


And whilst he doesn't know everything, I think it highly unlikely that he ''don't even know what metabolites DHA make''.

I appreciate your reply MrChibbs and I’m inclined to agree with you. I think I remember reading the information that was quoted from Kruse a long while back. I don’t hold to much that Kruse says personally. But, wether this quote reflects him or not, I still would like to hear evidence to the contrary from a Peatarian view. Perhaps, there is new data on the subject that I am unaware of.


thanks.
 

magnesiumania

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
607
Thanks for questioning my posts :) I like Ray Peat and think he is very well intententioned and knowlegable. However i happen to respect Jack Kruse (alot more than Peat) because he bring to the table information that i regard more fundamental to our lives. Like the science of light. Where Kruse has choosen to dedicate his focus suggest to me that wisdom is also present. Kruse accuse Peat for referencing ecperiments done under blue light and its easy to overlook this facctor. Thats why i lean to Kruses way of approaching health. I challenge you as individuals to look up what metabolites DHA produce istead of relying on Peat, who is a human.able to make mistakes afterall.
 

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Atlantis
Thanks for questioning my posts :) I like Ray Peat and think he is very well intententioned and knowlegable. However i happen to respect Jack Kruse (alot more than Peat) because he bring to the table information that i regard more fundamental to our lives. Like the science of light. Where Kruse has choosen to dedicate his focus suggest to me that wisdom is also present. Kruse accuse Peat for referencing ecperiments done under blue light and its easy to overlook this facctor. Thats why i lean to Kruses way of approaching health. I challenge you as individuals to look up what metabolites DHA produce istead of relying on Peat, who is a human.able to make mistakes afterall.

Everything Ray (or anybody else for that matter) should be questioned and not taken at face value. Not questioning it would be a sheep mentality. If you think Jack Kruse brings more value to the table, it's perfectly fine. For instance I think there is more to the matter of essential fatty acids than Ray has covered, and I don't think he's totally right there. (which is fine and totally normal)

But one needs only to dig into Ray's references on the topic of polyunsaturated fats to know that his perspective is built on a mountain of scientific evidence, and time and time again I've seen people question Ray's ideas (which he never pushes on anybody), only to realize that he was right all along (happened to me about 100x times already).

I personally think Jack Kruse is not even in the same league as Ray. (that's my opinion) And from what I've read his criticism of Ray is misinformed, wrong and reductionist and overall his attitude is not one I admire nor respect. I've read some of his work, and he's clearly an intelligent man, but that's all for me.
 

stackz07

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
122
My experience with ''essential fatty acids'' is that it's one thing to say Ray is wrong, another to disprove the hundreds of references he's used to arrive at his conclusion. It's not like he built his understanding on thin air. There is A LOT of evidence, see his website articles.

And whilst he doesn't know everything, I think it highly unlikely that he ''don't even know what metabolites DHA make''.

what references are you referring to? ON the one page I read on his site everything was in vitro or not directly related to EFAs. Not challenging them, I'd like to know myself!
 

Gone Peating

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
1,006
what references are you referring to? ON the one page I read on his site everything was in vitro or not directly related to EFAs. Not challenging them, I'd like to know myself!

Go eat 50g pufa a day and let us know how you feel
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,059
Location
HI
my Comment below
 
Last edited:

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,059
Location
HI
Yeah that's all jack krusism style "science." First you need to understand the (what I believe) accurate state of the cell, no membranes, pumps (Ling, Pollack) and all that pseudoscience to really see where Ray is coming from. Plus just look at Jack... the dude is still overweight and has lipofuscin all over him from too much PUFA + UV light. What jack doesn't seem to want to get is that you can mitigate and become more resilient to much of this light and EMF induced damage by having proper metabolism. Should you avoid the the nnEMF (including light) of course. But it's not a death sentence as Jack seems to portray, and that ultimately shows the weakness in his hypothesis. At the end of the day It's all stress to the organism. Knowing by what mechanism stress lowers the mitochondrial efficiency of the organism is knowing how to mitigate it. Ray and all the people he quotes and references teach you how to do just that. Plus Ray was talking about red light, nnEMF, radiation etc... way before the neurosurgeon.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,718
IMO Peat is usually wrong whereby he applies micro knowledge to macro systems.

No doubt he is right about DHA at a molecular/cellular level...but there are probably situations where the systemic inflammation lowering action of EPA/DHA trumps those micro concerns

or you can just use aspirin, boswellia, turmeric, or one of the other hundreds of anti inflammatories that are not as bad for you
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,146
I personally think Jack Kruse is not even in the same league as Ray. (that's my opinion) And from what I've read his criticism of Ray is misinformed, wrong and reductionist and overall his attitude is not one I admire nor respect. I've read some of his work, and he's clearly an intelligent man, but that's all for me.
+1 I heard him interviewed years ago by this nice and kind woman and he went off on her and her audience for questioning his ice baths. I have never heard Ray be anything but kind and respectful. That says a lot about the person.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,146
or you can just use aspirin, boswellia, turmeric, or one of the other hundreds of anti inflammatories that are not as bad for you
This. Why would a person even bother with something so controversial for the anti-inflammatory benefits? Sooo many alternatives.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
545
I will say with regards to PUFA that I only think Ray is wrong on DHA. I'm certain beyond a doubt that DHA is necessary for the development of the brain.

And I'm not even sure if Ray has ever specifically stated that DHA is completely unnecessary, I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but regardless of what he thinks there is definitely some people on this forum who think DHA is unnecessary for humans.

I generally agree with his assessment of PUFA. It seems likey that none of them are necessary, not even the other omega-3's like EPA or DPA. The only one humans really need is DHA, and that's solely for the brain and nervous system. And the reason for it is because unsaturated fatty acids in general repel saturated fats and steroids. And DHA, being the most unsaturated fatty acid commonly found in nature, plus the fact that it bends in a specific way unlike any other fatty acids (besides possibly Mead's acid), means that it's the one chosen to do a very specific and very important job: building the brain.

The mainstream is right that DHA is used to build the brain, but they're wrong to think of it as a building block. As far as I know, it's not a building block at all, instead it'd be more accurate to think of it as an orchestrate, or as a guide, for the building blocks. The real building blocks of the brain, especially the white matter, is long chain saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (like nervonic acid), and the steroids, mainly cholesterol, progesterone, and pregnenolone, with small amounts of others, both of these groups either plain on their own or integrated into phospholipids. Without DHA, these saturated fatty acids and steroids wouldn't be able to be organized in the complex way that a thinking/computing structure such as the human brain demands.

Some people can't get past the unhealthy effects on the body of systemic PUFA and simply deny that the organism would in some cases need to use certain molecules that are generally harmful for specific specialized purposes.

It's not like it doesn't negatively effect the brain too. The brain is one of the most oxidatively sensitive organs, possibly the most, because of it's PUFA requirement (which is why neurons never directly burn fatty acids, as it generates too many free radicals). The brain suffers some side effects, it seems, from it's retention of the most unsaturated PUFA's, unless certain vitamins and antioxidants are taken, and certain metals avoided.

I mean, I am interested in if Mead's acid could fully replace DHA in the brain, but the issue is that the only way to test that is by doing it to your own child, or on someone elses, and that's not a risk I'm really ever willing to take, which is why when I have children, they will be getting more than enough DHA, both in the womb and for the first 4 years or so of life.

With all this being said, I'm definitely not recommending you should eat fish oil or lots of DHA/PUFA. Daily DHA needs for the brain of an adult is only around 5mg a day. Considering digestion and distribution, let's say 25mg eaten a day. The average diet supplies more than enough for that. Eating a couple filets of salmon once or twice a year is probably more than enough to fulfill any needs. And that's not even considering linolenic acid, which is plentiful in everyone's diet. The human body can convert that to DHA, so at 1g a day of that, which is very small, you already have more than enough to fulfill DHA needs.

So don't necessarily eat lots of PUFA. Whether Ray or people on this forum are right or wrong about the necessity of DHA is completely irrelevant and doesn't matter, it's a purely theoretical debate. Even if you eat a "Ray Peat diet", whatever variation you choose, you will be getting enough DHA. Eat a starch heavy diet? Vegetarian diet? You have enough linolenic acid for DHA needs. Even Peat's actual diet, what he himself, contains more than a couple grams of PUFA a day, from the milk, egg yolks, and meat he eats. That already fulfills your needs. Unless you're eating a fat free, skim milk and orange juice diet, you should be getting enough DHA. And even then, that diet itself contains like .3g of PUFA, so even that might be enough for your brain.

So I'm confident DHA is necessary for the brain, but it doesn't matter as virtually everyone eating enough calories a day will be getting enough. What I'm not fully sure about it whether PUFA is truly "essential" for the skin. Ray says it was merely the absence of B vitamins, which is a compelling argument, but I've seen others mention more modern studies using B-fortified chow get the same skin condition, as well as some PUFA-free people also getting some skin problems. So I'm not sure. But if you're eating normally, that's not a problem either.

What does piss me off is that even if certain PUFA's are "essential" as the mainstream says, that is no justification for their heavy handed approach of recommending large amounts of PUFA, as well as making it unavoidable for the average person. I mean, according to the mainstream itself, just because something is essential, doesn't mean it should be dosed at high levels: that's why the government and institutions recommend people don't use vitamin C supplements, or B vitamin supplements. That's why food fortification is so abysmal. Even though those things are actually, in general, healthy.

It's like with choline, where we can synthesize it, but it's still good to get it in the diet. The government doesn't want you eating any of that.

If the government and institutions were sensible, they would simply recommend that you get 1-5g of PUFA a day, to prevent their so-called "EFA deficiency". But instead of that sensible advice, they instead tell you to douse yourself with it. Make your entire diet PUFA based. The only eats you should est should be vegetable oils. And if you don't listen to us, we'll force you to eat it anyways. Like french fries? Well **** you, tallow is too good for you, say hello to soybean oil and Dawn dish soap. Like milk and beef? Like cows eating what they've evolved to eat for 25 million years? Well **** you, they're eating corn now ********, something invented 10k years ago, say hello to corn PUFA in your milk and meat. Same with pigs, and same with chickens.

Oh, I see you're trying to use olive oil instead of *healthy* and *delicious* cottonseed oil, something previously used only for machine lubrication and varnish. Go for it: half the olive oil in that jug is actually soybean oil, thanks to the Mafia, and we let that fly instead of banning it because we think you might get an EFA deficiency otherwise.

When you realize that everything the government and institutions do is to hurt us, all of their actions suddenly make sense. Where before it all seems contradictory and confusing, afterwards their intent becomes clear and straightforward: make us all as unhealthy, sick, and stupid as possible, either through the diet, through the environment, through the media, through the education system, and through the culture. It's a giant machine: the people at the top known what's going on and have the intent, then through propaganda brainwashing and salaries they convince the normal people who work in these institutions that what they're doing is right and for the good of all, aka manufacturing consent. And then those people, just by following orders, doing their jobs, or parroting the brainwashing, end up hurting the rest of us.
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,059
Location
HI
I will say with regards to PUFA that I only think Ray is wrong on DHA. I'm certain beyond a doubt that DHA is necessary for the development of the brain.

And I'm not even sure if Ray has ever specifically stated that DHA is completely unnecessary, I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but regardless of what he thinks there is definitely some people on this forum who think DHA is unnecessary for humans.

I generally agree with his assessment of PUFA. It seems likey that none of them are necessary, not even the other omega-3's like EPA or DPA. The only one humans really need is DHA, and that's solely for the brain and nervous system. And the reason for it is because unsaturated fatty acids in general repel saturated fats and steroids. And DHA, being the most unsaturated fatty acid commonly found in nature, plus the fact that it bends in a specific way unlike any other fatty acids (besides possibly Mead's acid), means that it's the one chosen to do a very specific and very important job: building the brain.

The mainstream is right that DHA is used to build the brain, but they're wrong to think of it as a building block. As far as I know, it's not a building block at all, instead it'd be more accurate to think of it as an orchestrate, or as a guide, for the building blocks. The real building blocks of the brain, especially the white matter, is long chain saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (like nervonic acid), and the steroids, mainly cholesterol, progesterone, and pregnenolone, with small amounts of others, both of these groups either plain on their own or integrated into phospholipids. Without DHA, these saturated fatty acids and steroids wouldn't be able to be organized in the complex way that a thinking/computing structure such as the human brain demands.

Some people can't get past the unhealthy effects on the body of systemic PUFA and simply deny that the organism would in some cases need to use certain molecules that are generally harmful for specific specialized purposes.

It's not like it doesn't negatively effect the brain too. The brain is one of the most oxidatively sensitive organs, possibly the most, because of it's PUFA requirement (which is why neurons never directly burn fatty acids, as it generates too many free radicals). The brain suffers some side effects, it seems, from it's retention of the most unsaturated PUFA's, unless certain vitamins and antioxidants are taken, and certain metals avoided.

I mean, I am interested in if Mead's acid could fully replace DHA in the brain, but the issue is that the only way to test that is by doing it to your own child, or on someone elses, and that's not a risk I'm really ever willing to take, which is why when I have children, they will be getting more than enough DHA, both in the womb and for the first 4 years or so of life.

With all this being said, I'm definitely not recommending you should eat fish oil or lots of DHA/PUFA. Daily DHA needs for the brain of an adult is only around 5mg a day. Considering digestion and distribution, let's say 25mg eaten a day. The average diet supplies more than enough for that. Eating a couple filets of salmon once or twice a year is probably more than enough to fulfill any needs. And that's not even considering linolenic acid, which is plentiful in everyone's diet. The human body can convert that to DHA, so at 1g a day of that, which is very small, you already have more than enough to fulfill DHA needs.

So don't necessarily eat lots of PUFA. Whether Ray or people on this forum are right or wrong about the necessity of DHA is completely irrelevant and doesn't matter, it's a purely theoretical debate. Even if you eat a "Ray Peat diet", whatever variation you choose, you will be getting enough DHA. Eat a starch heavy diet? Vegetarian diet? You have enough linolenic acid for DHA needs. Even Peat's actual diet, what he himself, contains more than a couple grams of PUFA a day, from the milk, egg yolks, and meat he eats. That already fulfills your needs. Unless you're eating a fat free, skim milk and orange juice diet, you should be getting enough DHA. And even then, that diet itself contains like .3g of PUFA, so even that might be enough for your brain.

So I'm confident DHA is necessary for the brain, but it doesn't matter as virtually everyone eating enough calories a day will be getting enough. What I'm not fully sure about it whether PUFA is truly "essential" for the skin. Ray says it was merely the absence of B vitamins, which is a compelling argument, but I've seen others mention more modern studies using B-fortified chow get the same skin condition, as well as some PUFA-free people also getting some skin problems. So I'm not sure. But if you're eating normally, that's not a problem either.

What does piss me off is that even if certain PUFA's are "essential" as the mainstream says, that is no justification for their heavy handed approach of recommending large amounts of PUFA, as well as making it unavoidable for the average person. I mean, according to the mainstream itself, just because something is essential, doesn't mean it should be dosed at high levels: that's why the government and institutions recommend people don't use vitamin C supplements, or B vitamin supplements. That's why food fortification is so abysmal. Even though those things are actually, in general, healthy.

It's like with choline, where we can synthesize it, but it's still good to get it in the diet. The government doesn't want you eating any of that.

If the government and institutions were sensible, they would simply recommend that you get 1-5g of PUFA a day, to prevent their so-called "EFA deficiency". But instead of that sensible advice, they instead tell you to douse yourself with it. Make your entire diet PUFA based. The only eats you should est should be vegetable oils. And if you don't listen to us, we'll force you to eat it anyways. Like french fries? Well **** you, tallow is too good for you, say hello to soybean oil and Dawn dish soap. Like milk and beef? Like cows eating what they've evolved to eat for 25 million years? Well **** you, they're eating corn now ********, something invented 10k years ago, say hello to corn PUFA in your milk and meat. Same with pigs, and same with chickens.

Oh, I see you're trying to use olive oil instead of *healthy* and *delicious* cottonseed oil, something previously used only for machine lubrication and varnish. Go for it: half the olive oil in that jug is actually soybean oil, thanks to the Mafia, and we let that fly instead of banning it because we think you might get an EFA deficiency otherwise.

When you realize that everything the government and institutions do is to hurt us, all of their actions suddenly make sense. Where before it all seems contradictory and confusing, afterwards their intent becomes clear and straightforward: make us all as unhealthy, sick, and stupid as possible, either through the diet, through the environment, through the media, through the education system, and through the culture. It's a giant machine: the people at the top known what's going on and have the intent, then through propaganda brainwashing and salaries they convince the normal people who work in these institutions that what they're doing is right and for the good of all, aka manufacturing consent. And then those people, just by following orders, doing their jobs, or parroting the brainwashing, end up hurting the rest of us.
I like what you wrote for the most part, well said. I would however like your most compelling argument or study for "I am certain without a doubt that DHA is necessary for the development of the brain."
 

lvysaur

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
2,134
With all this being said, I'm definitely not recommending you should eat fish oil or lots of DHA/PUFA. Daily DHA needs for the brain of an adult is only around 5mg a day.
This is my view as well. PUFAs may or may not be truly essential, but it is undebatable that everybody ate a whole lot less of them in our evolutionary past (barring some very cold climate peoples like the Inuit)

Most omega 3 supplements have hundreds of mg of PUFA. I was taking them in 2013. I happened upon Ray's article about the "Great Fish Oil Experiment", where he mentioned that omega 3s promote the formation of lipofuscin, which are basically liver spots. Coincidentally, I had developed dark spots on my scalp that looked exactly like liver spots. After cutting out the krill oil, they faded eventually.

Because of this (among many other things), it's my view that Peat is at least partially right on most of the things he mentions.
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
@BigYellowLemon Very thoughtful post, I agree with you though I've never made up my mind about DHA. I saw a Canadian study from the early 1900s that said a newborn human infant had a fat content of about 2% PUFAs, which is similar to cow's milk and CO and (I think) mother's milk. This was before PUFAs were in everything.

I think it is very unlikely that such a level of PUFAs is really unhealthy and RP's use of fully hydrogenated CO may be a little extreme. But maybe it matters more for older people who used high amounts of PUFAs earlier in life; yet another question with no answer.
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,059
Location
HI
Has anyone asked Ray about previous forum member Travis' views on Linolenic acid? His points were of course detailed and thorough but persisted with the "essential fatty acid cell membrane" theory, like others on this thread. How did a person like Travis not see the faulty mechanisms/ portrayal of a cel membrane and all the issues it presents?
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,059
Location
HI
@BigYellowLemon Very thoughtful post, I agree with you though I've never made up my mind about DHA. I saw a Canadian study from the early 1900s that said a newborn human infant had a fat content of about 2% PUFAs, which is similar to cow's milk and CO and (I think) mother's milk. This was before PUFAs were in everything.

I think it is very unlikely that such a level of PUFAs is really unhealthy and RP's use of fully hydrogenated CO may be a little extreme. But maybe it matters more for older people who used high amounts of PUFAs earlier in life; yet another question with no answer.
I think the masses use of vegetable oil and fish oil is extreme. If anything hydrogenated coconut oil is the antidote (if it wasn't for the heavy metals as a result of the catalyst).
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
I respectfully disagree, @RealNeat I think regular CO is a sufficient antidote to stored PUFAs when limiting intake of new PUFAs, meaning that I agree that massive (or almost any) use of vegetable and fish oil is unhealthy.
 

Gone Peating

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
1,006
IMO Peat is usually wrong whereby he applies micro knowledge to macro systems.

No doubt he is right about DHA at a molecular/cellular level...but there are probably situations where the systemic inflammation lowering action of EPA/DHA trumps those micro concerns

or you can just use aspirin, boswellia, turmeric, or one of the other hundreds of anti inflammatories that are not as bad for you

I will say with regards to PUFA that I only think Ray is wrong on DHA. I'm certain beyond a doubt that DHA is necessary for the development of the brain.

And I'm not even sure if Ray has ever specifically stated that DHA is completely unnecessary, I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but regardless of what he thinks there is definitely some people on this forum who think DHA is unnecessary for humans.

I generally agree with his assessment of PUFA. It seems likey that none of them are necessary, not even the other omega-3's like EPA or DPA. The only one humans really need is DHA, and that's solely for the brain and nervous system. And the reason for it is because unsaturated fatty acids in general repel saturated fats and steroids. And DHA, being the most unsaturated fatty acid commonly found in nature, plus the fact that it bends in a specific way unlike any other fatty acids (besides possibly Mead's acid), means that it's the one chosen to do a very specific and very important job: building the brain.

The mainstream is right that DHA is used to build the brain, but they're wrong to think of it as a building block. As far as I know, it's not a building block at all, instead it'd be more accurate to think of it as an orchestrate, or as a guide, for the building blocks. The real building blocks of the brain, especially the white matter, is long chain saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (like nervonic acid), and the steroids, mainly cholesterol, progesterone, and pregnenolone, with small amounts of others, both of these groups either plain on their own or integrated into phospholipids. Without DHA, these saturated fatty acids and steroids wouldn't be able to be organized in the complex way that a thinking/computing structure such as the human brain demands.

Some people can't get past the unhealthy effects on the body of systemic PUFA and simply deny that the organism would in some cases need to use certain molecules that are generally harmful for specific specialized purposes.

It's not like it doesn't negatively effect the brain too. The brain is one of the most oxidatively sensitive organs, possibly the most, because of it's PUFA requirement (which is why neurons never directly burn fatty acids, as it generates too many free radicals). The brain suffers some side effects, it seems, from it's retention of the most unsaturated PUFA's, unless certain vitamins and antioxidants are taken, and certain metals avoided.

I mean, I am interested in if Mead's acid could fully replace DHA in the brain, but the issue is that the only way to test that is by doing it to your own child, or on someone elses, and that's not a risk I'm really ever willing to take, which is why when I have children, they will be getting more than enough DHA, both in the womb and for the first 4 years or so of life.

With all this being said, I'm definitely not recommending you should eat fish oil or lots of DHA/PUFA. Daily DHA needs for the brain of an adult is only around 5mg a day. Considering digestion and distribution, let's say 25mg eaten a day. The average diet supplies more than enough for that. Eating a couple filets of salmon once or twice a year is probably more than enough to fulfill any needs. And that's not even considering linolenic acid, which is plentiful in everyone's diet. The human body can convert that to DHA, so at 1g a day of that, which is very small, you already have more than enough to fulfill DHA needs.

So don't necessarily eat lots of PUFA. Whether Ray or people on this forum are right or wrong about the necessity of DHA is completely irrelevant and doesn't matter, it's a purely theoretical debate. Even if you eat a "Ray Peat diet", whatever variation you choose, you will be getting enough DHA. Eat a starch heavy diet? Vegetarian diet? You have enough linolenic acid for DHA needs. Even Peat's actual diet, what he himself, contains more than a couple grams of PUFA a day, from the milk, egg yolks, and meat he eats. That already fulfills your needs. Unless you're eating a fat free, skim milk and orange juice diet, you should be getting enough DHA. And even then, that diet itself contains like .3g of PUFA, so even that might be enough for your brain.

So I'm confident DHA is necessary for the brain, but it doesn't matter as virtually everyone eating enough calories a day will be getting enough. What I'm not fully sure about it whether PUFA is truly "essential" for the skin. Ray says it was merely the absence of B vitamins, which is a compelling argument, but I've seen others mention more modern studies using B-fortified chow get the same skin condition, as well as some PUFA-free people also getting some skin problems. So I'm not sure. But if you're eating normally, that's not a problem either.

What does piss me off is that even if certain PUFA's are "essential" as the mainstream says, that is no justification for their heavy handed approach of recommending large amounts of PUFA, as well as making it unavoidable for the average person. I mean, according to the mainstream itself, just because something is essential, doesn't mean it should be dosed at high levels: that's why the government and institutions recommend people don't use vitamin C supplements, or B vitamin supplements. That's why food fortification is so abysmal. Even though those things are actually, in general, healthy.

It's like with choline, where we can synthesize it, but it's still good to get it in the diet. The government doesn't want you eating any of that.

If the government and institutions were sensible, they would simply recommend that you get 1-5g of PUFA a day, to prevent their so-called "EFA deficiency". But instead of that sensible advice, they instead tell you to douse yourself with it. Make your entire diet PUFA based. The only eats you should est should be vegetable oils. And if you don't listen to us, we'll force you to eat it anyways. Like french fries? Well **** you, tallow is too good for you, say hello to soybean oil and Dawn dish soap. Like milk and beef? Like cows eating what they've evolved to eat for 25 million years? Well **** you, they're eating corn now ********, something invented 10k years ago, say hello to corn PUFA in your milk and meat. Same with pigs, and same with chickens.

Oh, I see you're trying to use olive oil instead of *healthy* and *delicious* cottonseed oil, something previously used only for machine lubrication and varnish. Go for it: half the olive oil in that jug is actually soybean oil, thanks to the Mafia, and we let that fly instead of banning it because we think you might get an EFA deficiency otherwise.

When you realize that everything the government and institutions do is to hurt us, all of their actions suddenly make sense. Where before it all seems contradictory and confusing, afterwards their intent becomes clear and straightforward: make us all as unhealthy, sick, and stupid as possible, either through the diet, through the environment, through the media, through the education system, and through the culture. It's a giant machine: the people at the top known what's going on and have the intent, then through propaganda brainwashing and salaries they convince the normal people who work in these institutions that what they're doing is right and for the good of all, aka manufacturing consent. And then those people, just by following orders, doing their jobs, or parroting the brainwashing, end up hurting the rest of us.

I think you answered your own question in this post. Getting enough DHA is not something anyone should worry about. We can get enough without even trying. This is Peat’s point, making any supplements like fish oil worthless
 

Similar threads

Top