Peat Wrong On DHA

[rei]

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.

DHA is necessary for the body in the same way prostaglandins, leukotrines etc. As stress adaptation/signalling. DHA can be endogenously desaturated or synthesized in any quantity needed. Supplementing it just drives your body towards stress adaptation metabolism. You want to consume same chain length saturated fats, and let the body desaturate on demand. The long chain saturated fats (18=<) have some amazing properties and can probably replace any and all "positive" effects from DHA.

 

[Tarmander]

Does he avoid Wheat? Seems to be associated with Type 1,

Yeah I think he's gluten and dairy free

 

[Potato]

Here's some harmful effects of fish oil that Ray wants to protect you from.
Omega-3 fatty acids extend your life span (No! increased life span is bad, right?) Omega-3 fatty acids extend your life span

Old, frail and ill? EPA may keep you alive (Again, not good, we don't want you to live that long.) Old, frail and ill? EPA may keep you alive

Fish oil with high EPA stimulates muscle building (This is so bad, it's optimal to be weak amateur painter, not some muscle head.) Fish oil with high EPA stimulates muscle building

Fish oil boosts muscle growth in elderly (Again, strength bad, weak body good) Fish oil boosts muscle growth in elderly

Into sunbathing? Fish oil protects your skin (Sun is bad so this does not count, right Ray?) Into sunbathing? Fish oil protects your skin

Fish oil capsules may protect against breast cancer (Huh, isn't this the opposite that Peaters tell you?) Fish oil capsules may protect against breast cancer

I could go on and on for ever, but you get the idea, unless you're severely DHA deficient and can't process what you read.

 

[Tarmander]

Here's some harmful effects of fish oil that Ray wants to protect you from.
Omega-3 fatty acids extend your life span (No! increased life span is bad, right?) Omega-3 fatty acids extend your life span

Old, frail and ill? EPA may keep you alive (Again, not good, we don't want you to live that long.) Old, frail and ill? EPA may keep you alive

Fish oil with high EPA stimulates muscle building (This is so bad, it's optimal to be weak amateur painter, not some muscle head.) Fish oil with high EPA stimulates muscle building

Fish oil boosts muscle growth in elderly (Again, strength bad, weak body good) Fish oil boosts muscle growth in elderly

Into sunbathing? Fish oil protects your skin (Sun is bad so this does not count, right Ray?) Into sunbathing? Fish oil protects your skin

Fish oil capsules may protect against breast cancer (Huh, isn't this the opposite that Peaters tell you?) Fish oil capsules may protect against breast cancer

I could go on and on for ever, but you get the idea, unless you're severely DHA deficient and can't process what you read.

"Fish fatty acid supplementation boosted the activity of the anabolic signalling molecules mTOR"

Where can I sign up??

In all seriousness, eating some fish once a week can probably get these benefits without the risk of fish oil supplements

 

[Lollipop2]

In all seriousness, eating some fish once a week can probably get these benefits without the risk of fish oil supplements

+1 and other seafood.

 

[Tarmander]

+1 and other seafood.

Yeah. I had some canned salmon the other day and it was actually really good. I don't understand how anyone can do canned oysters ugh

 

[Lollipop2]

Yeah. I had some canned salmon the other day and it was actually really good. I don't understand how anyone can do canned oysters ugh

I tried, but don’t like as well - near me is the BEST family owned seafood resto with fantastic fresh oysters. Yummmy...

 

[Tarmander]

I tried, but don’t like as well - near me is the BEST family owned seafood resto with fantastic fresh oysters. Yummmy...

Fresh is good. There was a restaurant around me that used to do 1$ oysters and I probably ate 50 a week for maybe 4 months. Then they went bankrupt. Those four months were wonderful

 

[Tristan Loscha]

All accused PUFA are essential, AND they are dangerous, and we have to deal with it.

 

[Lollipop2]

Fresh is good. There was a restaurant around me that used to do 1$ oysters and I probably ate 50 a week for maybe 4 months. Then they went bankrupt. Those four months were wonderful

Nice. Sooo cheap.

 

[RealNeat]

Here's some harmful effects of fish oil that Ray wants to protect you from.
Omega-3 fatty acids extend your life span (No! increased life span is bad, right?) Omega-3 fatty acids extend your life span

Old, frail and ill? EPA may keep you alive (Again, not good, we don't want you to live that long.) Old, frail and ill? EPA may keep you alive

Fish oil with high EPA stimulates muscle building (This is so bad, it's optimal to be weak amateur painter, not some muscle head.) Fish oil with high EPA stimulates muscle building

Fish oil boosts muscle growth in elderly (Again, strength bad, weak body good) Fish oil boosts muscle growth in elderly

Into sunbathing? Fish oil protects your skin (Sun is bad so this does not count, right Ray?) Into sunbathing? Fish oil protects your skin

Fish oil capsules may protect against breast cancer (Huh, isn't this the opposite that Peaters tell you?) Fish oil capsules may protect against breast cancer

I could go on and on for ever, but you get the idea, unless you're severely DHA deficient and can't process what you read.

my goodness its almost like there is a highly influential profitable business surrounding fish oil and omega 3s. too bad nobody is taking advantage of it even though we have all these studies done just for the betterment of mankind.

 

[Potato]

You know what's funny? Dr John McDougall says that you could eat just potatoes for the rest of your live and be perfectly healthy and you would get all the fats you ever need from them. Dr McDougall has followed super low PUFA diet for decades. Ray Peat is like Jack Kruse's twin brother compared to McDougall.

 

[GelatinGoblin]

Lipofuscin is imo the biggest thing. It might just be the root cause of aging.

Just think: how is it possible that a woman can be 35 years old and her cells can be far less healthy then they were when she was a child, yet she can get pregnant and end up creating a youthful and healthy human?

It's because the ova cells that males fertilize are kept clean and clear of lipofuscin and other toxins.

Scientists probably want you to think that it's simply gradual DNA damage, but that doesn't explain it fully. If that were so, then the youthful wouldn't be more healthy, humans obviously get their DNA from both Mom and Dad, and I'm not sure the process of fertilization fixes any gradual errors. And so that shouldn't be a main reason.

I used to take fish, and then krill oil, around 2014/2015 or so. I don't really remember feeling much. I think I finished off a 30 day bottle.

In retrospect it makes no sense why it would be beneficial at all, for anything besides the brain, even if you subscribe to mainstream narratives.



Here's what I don't understand about Ray Peat: he's absolutely convinced, justifiably so, that PUFA is completely unnecessary in the diet. And he seems to think that it's the root cause of all aging and pretty much everything bad. And yet, he doesn't eat a PUFA free diet.

You would think he would be the going extreme about it, only consuming hydrogenated fats, but he drinks fatty milk, uses butter, and eats egg yolks.

And sure, those things are good, the best PUFA ratios among the natural goods. But here's the thing, if you want to actually be PUFA-free, if you actually want to deplete your body of PUFA and experience the benefits of their absence, then you have to be extreme. To actually deplete yourself of PUFA, you need to eat less than 1g of it a day, and even that wouldn't be true depletion, but good enough.

This makes fully hydrogenated fats + fat free foods a necessity.

Personally I'm not scared at about hydrogenation. If you are, melt the fat and filter it through small filters before consumption.

Eating 5g-10g PUFA a day with butter, eggs, milk and meat is far better than a typical diet, but that is definitely not true PUFA depletion. And with a high fat Peat, you can reach those levels of PUFA.

Because Ray is already "PUFA depleted".

 

[GelatinGoblin]

All accused PUFA are essential, AND they are dangerous, and we have to deal with it.

I think this is it. They are essential in some way maybe early on in life or whatever but their nature is harmful, perhaps something protects us when we are at the phase where we need PUFA.
And the beneficial studies posted in this thread... Some can be discredited entirely, if they are valid then the result and positive effects are short term and the positive effects can be provided by other means. Mercury too and has some perhaps useful properties

 

[CLASH]

I think we might be better off asking another question here that @BigYellowLemon already brought up.

A few baseline points:

1) Eating a "whole foods" diet we cant avoid PUFA. To entirely avoid PUFA requires lab made purified dietary ingredients. I think the highly purified diets have quite a few issues even if they are PUFA free, that make whole food diets much superior.

2) We aren't 100% sure of the essential nature of PUFA, Peat's stuff is arguably theoretical as far as non-essentiality goes, and the mainstream stuff is as well as far as the essential nature.

3) With the above said, we do know that even if PUFA is essential, its requirements are so low that inducing a deficiency is quite difficult on a diet using whole foods.

4) We also know that a balance of Omega 3: omega 6 somewhere between 1:3 and 1:1, has been shown to be superior for health.

5) We have some ideas on the importance of DHA, although this is still debated. Even so, we know its needed amounts are still quite low across the lifespan with supposed increases in need specifically during infancy. With this said, I think its fair to say that relying on the breast milk of a mother who is eating well, should more than cover for the infants DHA needs (as it has for the majority of our existence, except during the last few decades due to false advertising and marketing leading to formula feeding [which has blatantly harmed many children])

6) We know that seafood has quite a few benefits, despite its omega 3 content. Arguable enough benefits to warrant eating some type of seafood on a regular basis.

7) We know that linoleic acid is problematic in the diet and keeping it as low as possible is ideal; this is especially in the context of the modern environment where it is exceedingly prevalent

8) We know that many plant foods such as whole fruits, fruit juice, dried fruit, certain vegetables, herbs etc. have potent anti-inflammatory (anti-COX/ LOX), anti-lipid peroxidation, anti-oxidant etc. properties, that directly counteract alot of the harmful effects of PUFA.

With this all said, my interpretation of the matter is that a whole foods diet that incorporates seafood and low linoleic acid foods, with high amounts of the protective plant compounds seems to be the most ideal strategy. This is in conjunction with making sure both the mother and father are well fed and healthy prior to conception and throughout pregnancy/breast feeding to make sure the babies' body gets what it needs (even if that is some amount of DHA [I'm not saying it is, I dont have a final answer on the situation]).

So, overall, the question isn't really "are PUFA essential or not". The question is what strategies do we use to keep them as low as possible, in balance with eachother, and mitigate the possible damage that having low amounts may cause over the long run? This is all in the context of creating a diet that focus on the most nutrient dense, digestible foods (nutrient density includes both macro- and micro- nutrients); with the least amount of toxins and digestive inhibitors possible.

 

[baccheion]

I think we might be better off asking another question here that @BigYellowLemon already brought up.

A few baseline points:

1) Eating a "whole foods" diet we cant avoid PUFA. To entirely avoid PUFA requires lab made purified dietary ingredients. I think the highly purified diets have quite a few issues even if they are PUFA free, that make whole food diets much superior.

2) We aren't 100% sure of the essential nature of PUFA, Peat's stuff is arguably theoretical as far as non-essentiality goes, and the mainstream stuff is as well as far as the essential nature.

3) With the above said, we do know that even if PUFA is essential, its requirements are so low that inducing a deficiency is quite difficult on a diet using whole foods.

4) We also know that a balance of Omega 3: omega 6 somewhere between 1:3 and 1:1, has been shown to be superior for health.

5) We have some ideas on the importance of DHA, although this is still debated. Even so, we know its needed amounts are still quite low across the lifespan with supposed increases in need specifically during infancy. With this said, I think its fair to say that relying on the breast milk of a mother who is eating well, should more than cover for the infants DHA needs (as it has for the majority of our existence, except during the last few decades due to false advertising and marketing leading to formula feeding [which has blatantly harmed many children])

6) We know that seafood has quite a few benefits, despite its omega 3 content. Arguable enough benefits to warrant eating some type of seafood on a regular basis.

7) We know that linoleic acid is problematic in the diet and keeping it as low as possible is ideal; this is especially in the context of the modern environment where it is exceedingly prevalent

8) We know that many plant foods such as whole fruits, fruit juice, dried fruit, certain vegetables, herbs etc. have potent anti-inflammatory (anti-COX/ LOX), anti-lipid peroxidation, anti-oxidant etc. properties, that directly counteract alot of the harmful effects of PUFA.

With this all said, my interpretation of the matter is that a whole foods diet that incorporates seafood and low linoleic acid foods, with high amounts of the protective plant compounds seems to be the most ideal strategy. This is in conjunction with making sure both the mother and father are well fed and healthy prior to conception and throughout pregnancy/breast feeding to make sure the babies' body gets what it needs (even if that is some amount of DHA [I'm not saying it is, I dont have a final answer on the situation]).

So, overall, the question isn't really "are PUFA essential or not". The question is what strategies do we use to keep them as low as possible, in balance with eachother, and mitigate the possible damage that having low amounts may cause over the long run? This is all in the context of creating a diet that focus on the most nutrient dense, digestible foods (nutrient density includes both macro- and micro- nutrients); with the least amount of toxins and digestive inhibitors possible.

To avoid PUFAs to the extreme would involve orange juice (just enough to get 2:1 carb:protein ratio), skim milk, and maybe some chard. Heh. And a mess of supplements: salt, magnesium, vitamin C, Thorne Detox Nutrients, niacinamide or nicotinamide riboside, pregnenolone/progesterone/DHEA, vitamin K2 (+ D3), etc. Fats don't matter as much, as there are the topical products. Supplements would reduce over time. I believe someone on this forum has done something similar.

It'd initially be 1 liter of liquid for every 25 pounds, maybe increasing with time.

 

[CLASH]

To avoid PUFAs to the extreme would involve orange juice (just enough to get 2:1 carb:protein ratio), skim milk, and maybe some chard. Heh. And a mess of supplements: salt, magnesium, vitamin C, Thorne Detox Nutrients, niacinamide or nicotinamide riboside, pregnenolone/progesterone/DHEA, vitamin K2 (+ D3), etc. Fats don't matter as much, as there are the topical products. Supplements would reduce over time. I believe someone on this forum has done something similar.

It'd initially be 1 liter of liquid for every 25 pounds, maybe increasing with time.

I dont think this extreme is required, I also havent found this method to work for most people nor for myself. Whole fruit, fruit juice, dried fruit, pastured eggs within reason, seafood, ruminant meat, cooked vegetables, butter, coconut oil, beef tallow, chocolate, macadmia nut oil, specific starches if tolerated; all seem to be solid foods that many people can incorporate, remain consistent on and enjoy while keeping PUFA low enough and in proper ratios, while eating enough variety, eating enough nutrients (macro and micro), avoiding digestive distress, and avoiding having to rely on a litany of supplements to drastically improve thier health.

On the contrary I think fats are important in the diet, as are carbs, and protein. Quite a few people on this forum have failed a super low fat diet, including myself. There are variations in tolerance to macro intake tho, i.e. some may do better lower fat, atleast in my experience.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I think we might be better off asking another question here that @BigYellowLemon already brought up.

A few baseline points:

1) Eating a "whole foods" diet we cant avoid PUFA. To entirely avoid PUFA requires lab made purified dietary ingredients. I think the highly purified diets have quite a few issues even if they are PUFA free, that make whole food diets much superior.

2) We aren't 100% sure of the essential nature of PUFA, Peat's stuff is arguably theoretical as far as non-essentiality goes, and the mainstream stuff is as well as far as the essential nature.

3) With the above said, we do know that even if PUFA is essential, its requirements are so low that inducing a deficiency is quite difficult on a diet using whole foods.

4) We also know that a balance of Omega 3: omega 6 somewhere between 1:3 and 1:1, has been shown to be superior for health.

5) We have some ideas on the importance of DHA, although this is still debated. Even so, we know its needed amounts are still quite low across the lifespan with supposed increases in need specifically during infancy. With this said, I think its fair to say that relying on the breast milk of a mother who is eating well, should more than cover for the infants DHA needs (as it has for the majority of our existence, except during the last few decades due to false advertising and marketing leading to formula feeding [which has blatantly harmed many children])

6) We know that seafood has quite a few benefits, despite its omega 3 content. Arguable enough benefits to warrant eating some type of seafood on a regular basis.

7) We know that linoleic acid is problematic in the diet and keeping it as low as possible is ideal; this is especially in the context of the modern environment where it is exceedingly prevalent

8) We know that many plant foods such as whole fruits, fruit juice, dried fruit, certain vegetables, herbs etc. have potent anti-inflammatory (anti-COX/ LOX), anti-lipid peroxidation, anti-oxidant etc. properties, that directly counteract alot of the harmful effects of PUFA.

With this all said, my interpretation of the matter is that a whole foods diet that incorporates seafood and low linoleic acid foods, with high amounts of the protective plant compounds seems to be the most ideal strategy. This is in conjunction with making sure both the mother and father are well fed and healthy prior to conception and throughout pregnancy/breast feeding to make sure the babies' body gets what it needs (even if that is some amount of DHA [I'm not saying it is, I dont have a final answer on the situation]).

So, overall, the question isn't really "are PUFA essential or not". The question is what strategies do we use to keep them as low as possible, in balance with eachother, and mitigate the possible damage that having low amounts may cause over the long run? This is all in the context of creating a diet that focus on the most nutrient dense, digestible foods (nutrient density includes both macro- and micro- nutrients); with the least amount of toxins and digestive inhibitors possible.

Personally, when I have children, they're all going to be supplemented with DHA (hopefully) during gestation, and then also during their first few years. This alongside with cholesterol, and a choline source. Probably 50mg-100mg DHA a day, 250mg cholesterol a day, and 250mg-500mg choline (about an egg, IIRC).

Alongside all of that, it would also be good to have a women who is pregnant take pregnenolone and progesterone during the second half of the pregnancy.

I can upload the proof later, but high dose progesterone during pregnancy has been shown to potentially increase IQ scores by 5-10 points. And that's just progesterone. Pregnant women already have sky high progesterone, so giving a pregnant women extra only serves to put them at the upper percentiles of progesterone, which je a good thing.

After my children become toddlers, DHA supplementation would be ceased, with cholesterol/choline staying.

I plan for all.of this to be gotten from the diet, not supplements (besides the progesterone and pregnenolone).

If you and your partner are already smart people, and your female partner takes these during pregnancy in conjunction with a high calorie micronutrient rich diet... Well, I believe this could mean an extra 15-20 IQ points for your child down the line.

The point of all of this is to say that I trust DHA is genuinely needed for the brain. If Mead's acid could serve to replace it, then it would have already, being less prone to oxidation. But it hasn't, and humans hyper-accumulate DHA when if left alone it would be burned much faster for energy.

Also, there's some theoretical stuff. Giving children (or people in general) a low PUFA, high DHA (50mg-100mg/day) could actually make them smarter. DHA competes with other PUFAs in the body, and none of the other PUFAs, even DPA, can replace what DHA does. So the higher the ratio of DHA to all other PUFAs, the more DHA rich your brain will be, and thus the more ordered and structured it will (potentially) be. A typical low PUFA Peat diet + supplement DHA would be the most sensible way to accomplish this.

That's fundamentally what DHA does in the brain, though: it structures it. Any talk of quantum mumbo jumbo or oxidation or energy is all wrong. The purpose of DHA is to help the brain structure itself due to it's repulsive action against sterols/steroids + saturated fat. The less DHA a brain has, the more homogenized it is, literally.

The more cholesterol/steroids/saturated fat and the more DHA a brain has, the more structure it has.

 

[baccheion]

I dont think this extreme is required, I also havent found this method to work for most people nor for myself. Whole fruit, fruit juice, dried fruit, pastured eggs within reason, seafood, ruminant meat, cooked vegetables, butter, coconut oil, beef tallow, chocolate, macadmia nut oil, specific starches if tolerated; all seem to be solid foods that many people can incorporate, remain consistent on and enjoy while keeping PUFA low enough and in proper ratios, while eating enough variety, eating enough nutrients (macro and micro), avoiding digestive distress, and avoiding having to rely on a litany of supplements to drastically improve thier health.

On the contrary I think fats are important in the diet, as are carbs, and protein. Quite a few people on this forum have failed a super low fat diet, including myself. There are variations in tolerance to macro intake tho, i.e. some may do better lower fat, atleast in my experience.

What I stated is the extreme restriction version. Likely temporary. The upper limit is said to be 4g/2000 calories, so more can be added.

I am still not sold on low PUFA, though this has all made me not worry about amounts and avoid vegetable oils.

Personally, when I have children, they're all going to be supplemented with DHA (hopefully) during gestation, and then also during their first few years. This alongside with cholesterol, and a choline source. Probably 50mg-100mg DHA a day, 250mg cholesterol a day, and 250mg-500mg choline (about an egg, IIRC).

Alongside all of that, it would also be good to have a women who is pregnant take pregnenolone and progesterone during the second half of the pregnancy.

I can upload the proof later, but high dose progesterone during pregnancy has been shown to potentially increase IQ scores by 5-10 points. And that's just progesterone. Pregnant women already have sky high progesterone, so giving a pregnant women extra only serves to put them at the upper percentiles of progesterone, which je a good thing.

After my children become toddlers, DHA supplementation would be ceased, with cholesterol/choline staying.

I plan for all.of this to be gotten from the diet, not supplements (besides the progesterone and pregnenolone).

If you and your partner are already smart people, and your female partner takes these during pregnancy in conjunction with a high calorie micronutrient rich diet... Well, I believe this could mean an extra 15-20 IQ points for your child down the line.

The point of all of this is to say that I trust DHA is genuinely needed for the brain. If Mead's acid could serve to replace it, then it would have already, being less prone to oxidation. But it hasn't, and humans hyper-accumulate DHA when if left alone it would be burned much faster for energy.

Also, there's some theoretical stuff. Giving children (or people in general) a low PUFA, high DHA (50mg-100mg/day) could actually make them smarter. DHA competes with other PUFAs in the body, and none of the other PUFAs, even DPA, can replace what DHA does. So the higher the ratio of DHA to all other PUFAs, the more DHA rich your brain will be, and thus the more ordered and structured it will (potentially) be. A typical low PUFA Peat diet + supplement DHA would be the most sensible way to accomplish this.

That's fundamentally what DHA does in the brain, though: it structures it. Any talk of quantum mumbo jumbo or oxidation or energy is all wrong. The purpose of DHA is to help the brain structure itself due to it's repulsive action against sterols/steroids + saturated fat. The less DHA a brain has, the more homogenized it is, literally.

The more cholesterol/steroids/saturated fat and the more DHA a brain has, the more structure it has.

Are you referring to shellfish? 2-3 truly pastured organic eggs has that much DHA, IIRC.

I have a theory all/90% truly pastured organic raw egg yolks are the best way to go through pregnancy, with a switch to raw milk later when carb requirements go up.

Cool if the mother could determine what foods cause (excess?) inflammation and eliminate. I wonder if it's possible to infer the child's genes based on parents to better prepare.

 

[GelatinGoblin]

Personally, when I have children, they're all going to be supplemented with DHA (hopefully) during gestation, and then also during their first few years. This alongside with cholesterol, and a choline source. Probably 50mg-100mg DHA a day, 250mg cholesterol a day, and 250mg-500mg choline (about an egg, IIRC).

Alongside all of that, it would also be good to have a women who is pregnant take pregnenolone and progesterone during the second half of the pregnancy.

I can upload the proof later, but high dose progesterone during pregnancy has been shown to potentially increase IQ scores by 5-10 points. And that's just progesterone. Pregnant women already have sky high progesterone, so giving a pregnant women extra only serves to put them at the upper percentiles of progesterone, which je a good thing.

After my children become toddlers, DHA supplementation would be ceased, with cholesterol/choline staying.

I plan for all.of this to be gotten from the diet, not supplements (besides the progesterone and pregnenolone).

If you and your partner are already smart people, and your female partner takes these during pregnancy in conjunction with a high calorie micronutrient rich diet... Well, I believe this could mean an extra 15-20 IQ points for your child down the line.

The point of all of this is to say that I trust DHA is genuinely needed for the brain. If Mead's acid could serve to replace it, then it would have already, being less prone to oxidation. But it hasn't, and humans hyper-accumulate DHA when if left alone it would be burned much faster for energy.

Also, there's some theoretical stuff. Giving children (or people in general) a low PUFA, high DHA (50mg-100mg/day) could actually make them smarter. DHA competes with other PUFAs in the body, and none of the other PUFAs, even DPA, can replace what DHA does. So the higher the ratio of DHA to all other PUFAs, the more DHA rich your brain will be, and thus the more ordered and structured it will (potentially) be. A typical low PUFA Peat diet + supplement DHA would be the most sensible way to accomplish this.

That's fundamentally what DHA does in the brain, though: it structures it. Any talk of quantum mumbo jumbo or oxidation or energy is all wrong. The purpose of DHA is to help the brain structure itself due to it's repulsive action against sterols/steroids + saturated fat. The less DHA a brain has, the more homogenized it is, literally.

The more cholesterol/steroids/saturated fat and the more DHA a brain has, the more structure it has.

Why not DHA from breast milk?