Tyw. Said Something That Makes Alot Of Sense!

[haidut]

This sentiment is true I would wish that there were clear solutions for health issues, but searching for 10 years only led me to find many answers without actual solutions.

Often we can find certainty in particular mechanics. eg: we can say for certain that arachidonic acid will activate PPAR gamma activity. Now, what does that mean in a particular person's real context? I dunno .....

If I could find mechanics that could generalise it, I would have. We are stuck with unpredictability because that is what reality forced upon us ... what to do ..... Each person has to be an authority over their own life. If my posts were to add anything, it would hopefully be a stimulus to take back authority in some areas of health where authority was ceded to some other force.

----

I do not want to discuss statements from @haidut like:



See, that is a particular context, one attribute being "5g of arachidonic acid".

This needs to be qualified. I think haidut is well aware that I have never called for more than 5g total PUFA a day. I have stated all my reasons for ingesting a low PUFA intake, and then letting the body endogenously regulate their end-product quantity and function.

.....

Sure, but then you kept saying "PUFA is not the problem". If there was a qualification in your statement like "I believe X grams per day should not be exceeded" then it would have been more productive discussion.
Anyways, I think we beat this topic to a dead horse. Back to experimentation for me

 

[Strongbad]

I think where drareg is coming from, and maybe I'm wrong here, is how a call for balance often puts a wet rag on conversation while making the person calling for it feel morally superior, untouchable.

For example, someone says "I think red light is actually harmful when done before bed, and here is why..." The person saying this is taking a stand and can be proven wrong.

If someone then responds "well it's all on context really, some people do better with more red light then others and depending on your nationality you may benefit from only red light, while others may need more blue."

The second person has seemingly shown the first they are incorrect, and looks superior. However the second person has not actually added anything useful, only stopped the conversation. No one is better off from the second person's contribution. Now, people might "feel" better because the second person does not challenge anyone's position. If the first person is right people will actually have to change.

So in this Haidut is giving a clear preferential state of being to strive for. It's hard and it might be wrong. Tyw is not, he is showing the mystery and unpredictable nature of things, which is true. But it doesn't actually add much, in fact it ends conversation just as Haidut said. There is no where to go. However you sure feel better about whatever you are doing don't you? His message is much easier to handle and go along with. It allows justification. It is the authoritarianism of relativism.

Fair enough, point taken. So it's more about "how you come across" than it is about the topic of the argument itself.

I do think tyw has provided enough citations and resources to back up his claims, though. So it's not all mystery and unpredictable. And tyw has this incredible way of putting all these things together with proper context, IRL scenario that makes sense especially if it rings true to many of your personal experience.

It's not as simplistic as announcing "Research Study A says that X causes Y, so the conclusion is to do/avoid X". For instance, I don't do well at all with caffeine yet there are many research studies claiming it's okay to take high dosage of coffee (provided you take enough sugar). Maybe it's due to genetics and/or body mechanism who knows. But's it's certainly not black-and-white answer.

If I were a dark-skinned Latino, laid back, surfer-lifestyle living in Guatemala with little to no stress then a research study is completely useless to me if the study was conducted in northern region of Russia during winter using all-white Russian army soldiers as test subjects (eating Russian diet everyday).

That's what I agree that context is everything.

 

[Drareg]

Coming from vegan, low-carb background and recent year of Peating, I'd agree with tyw. Eastern philosophy (balance) rings true especially after I experienced severe downfalls from adopting each of these diets. Because, essentially, they're very "unbalanced". Low-carb, egan, high carb, all meat, no fat, all fat, fruitarian etc. All these diets are all extreme. Only eat specific types of food while avoid the rest. Even regular American-diet is very extreme: too much (PUFA & some SFA) fat, way too much sugar (sodas, candies, sweets, snacks), too little vegetables, too much calories etc. We know how they all turned out...

Our bodies want balance. We see it all over the forum here: Vitamin E vs K, Calcium vs Magnesium, fat vs carb, zinc vs copper etc. If we overdose one vitamin/mineral, we deplete the others. And there are bad symptoms from iron deficiency / serotonin depleted (ie. user kineticz) / PUFA depleted state (flakey skin and bad skin).

Real world scenarios: you work too much, you feel like wanting days off. You work too little/not working at all, you feel the need to be productive and purpose. You are stuck in one city too long, you long to travel. You travel too much, you long for a place to settle down.

That's why I no longer take supplements. Unless you are completely deficient from a mineral/vitamin there's no need to take supplements. Supplement only overdoses one thing while depleting the others. Of course, then most of us here want to "balance" it by **supplementing** those deficient elements! Then on and on and on... So it's a deep, dark spiral of supplementation over and over again. We try to play Gods with our bodies but have no clue what we're really doing until problems arise because of symptoms from "imbalances".

It's all about common sense, really. Don't eat too much, don't eat too little. Don't consume harmful stuff. Don't eat too much of one thing while neglecting the others. Supplement only when it's absolutely necessary.



To "define" the right balance is not only impossible because of the context but also because it's very rigid and simplistic. There's no such thing as **absolutism** in health.

IMO, genetics, race, environment, geographical location play huge parts. Put a black man from Nigeria in Alaska (extreme cold with weird sunrise/sunset schedules) and a white guy from Norway living in Thailand (all year tropical and consistent sunrise-sunset time) and give them the exact same food / diet. I bet they'll have a very different metabolic response.



That has nothing to do with health and diet. That's about politics, social hierarchy and power. Completely irrelevant.



Obviously, use common sense, avoid stuff that makes you sick. Poisons and feces are to be avoided. Even middle school kids know this stuff.



How? And compared to the call for "absolute" answer/solutions to health? Considering balance and context is simply common sense.

And authoritarian means the use of *force* to impose someone's will toward the other. From google: "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." From Meriam-Webster: "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people"

As long as you don't use *force* to impose your will, that's not authoritarian.

In your opinion it's completely irrelevant,you add nothing further. Keep in mind my comments are in jest to tarmander.
Health and diet are influenced by politics,most of Peat articles talks reiterate these points, they are together and very much intertwined.
To acquire power and social hierarchy you need to control energy,farms are a keystone to what "civilisations"are built on in most cases.
Famines are mainly caused by governments for a reason.

Obviously you avoid things that make you sick because the culture has built up patterns and systems throughout history,it was a brave man who ate the first oyster as they say.
We are still building up patterns in an ever evolving reality,it's a given that we will have to come to the realisation of what we are doing in a dietary sense is still making us sick,the difference now is we have the knowledge of poisonous mushrooms because people died while consuming them,we now have slow poisons and an ongoing mass experiment for the last 100 years that future generations will observe and learn new patterns.
Middle school kids are still learning and its highly unlikely to know all poisons,even most adults, we still have deaths from poisonous mushrooms yearly.

What is common is not always balanced,common is more likely to unbalanced,the senses are effected by diet,common sense is different depending on culture and culture influences diet.
The call for common sense in modern times is sometimes a call to authority based on culture.
The very basic aspect of common sense would not include knowing mushrooms are poisonous,essentially what some humans have in common is 5 senses, this way of looking at it is different.
We then have to ask what was common sense for Helen Keller at this level.
How common sense is used and stated is under the guise of "appeal to tradition"in most cases.

Many people claim balance in power when they maintain an unbalanced state and reject those who want to push back. This is present at the individual level and inter personal relations,it's a cop out based on hubris,add verbosity and vagueness and you get a psychopath,the balance claim in these cases is the vagueness.
Media control this illusion in big politics,big pharam,big banking, information overload.

A call for the absolute,if your that way inclined is a call to what this reality flows from and what pattern it follows, balanced is the centre opposing forces in this reality which is the absolute but not necessarily looking for the underlying pattern,I'm guessing.
Essentially death is balanced. Life is everything in between possibly,changing.

Do you subscribe to the genetic inheritance theory of intelligence?

 

[tyw]

Sure, but then you kept saying "PUFA is not the problem". If there was a qualification in your statement like "I believe X grams per day should not be exceeded" then it would have been more productive discussion.
Anyways, I think we beat this topic to a dead horse. Back to experimentation for me :)

Some PUFA is clearly necessary, and PUFA distribution and use by endogenous processes is key. PUFA is not the primary cause of disease. It is obviously needed in tissues like the retina and brain, but then, if you expose your retina to lots of bright light, suddenly the DHA in your retina that helped you see better is now the prime source of toxins in the retina, and thus must now be cleared away. Can we blame the PUFA? No, I blame the stressor.

Same with DHA in the brain. The body obviously puts some level in the brain whether we like it or not. There is no way to build a functioning human brain without PUFAs like DHA and ARA. What to do then? Protect them from damage as much as possible, and use them for their intended purpose. This has nothing to do with the PUFAs at hand, and everything to do with the drivers of the endogenous processes.

I have of course, never "PUFA is not the problem". What I have been known to say many times is, something more like:

I stand by my comments in my post above, and will say that in Humans, some level of PUFA is necessary, and that it should be endogenously regulated as much as possible.

IMO, this applies to all PUFAs, and the more unsaturated the PUFA, the more you want endogenous regulation (which was the entire point I tried to make in my DHA article).

Practically speaking, this still means that one should try to avoid any significant sources of dietary PUFA, since these fatty acids are very readily available in almost any whole food. But neither would I worry about being militant about reducing PUFA to zero.​

which is a direct quote from the following linked, which talks about the essentiality of PUFA using cardiolipin diseases in the heart -- Haidut's Summary Of PUFA


.....

 

[Wagner83]

Ok but who doesn't get somewhere between 1-5 grams of PUFAs from diet?

 

[Drareg]

I think where drareg is coming from, and maybe I'm wrong here, is how a call for balance often puts a wet rag on conversation while making the person calling for it feel morally superior, untouchable.

For example, someone says "I think red light is actually harmful when done before bed, and here is why..." The person saying this is taking a stand and can be proven wrong.

If someone then responds "well it's all on context really, some people do better with more red light then others and depending on your nationality you may benefit from only red light, while others may need more blue."

The second person has seemingly shown the first they are incorrect, and looks superior. However the second person has not actually added anything useful, only stopped the conversation. No one is better off from the second person's contribution. Now, people might "feel" better because the second person does not challenge anyone's position. If the first person is right people will actually have to change.

So in this Haidut is giving a clear preferential state of being to strive for. It's hard and it might be wrong. Tyw is not, he is showing the mystery and unpredictable nature of things, which is true. But it doesn't actually add much, in fact it ends conversation just as Haidut said. There is no where to go. However you sure feel better about whatever you are doing don't you? His message is much easier to handle and go along with. It allows justification. It is the authoritarianism of relativism.

"It is the authoritarianism of relativism" ,sensational,where did you get that?

Nothing is balanced in the true sense possibly,everything would look the same,change is evident.

The written word of lord/guru Peat is literary art,it's done in a way somebody with little comprehension can understand,as understanding developes you can get more from the acrticles,it's like a rabbit hole.
If he unloads the complexity which at times he has people have no clue what is beings said,it's like a riddle,if we email him our concerns on this fascinating topic of saturated fat and insulin relative to PUFA I'm sure he will have an answer.

 

[haidut]

Some PUFA is clearly necessary, and PUFA distribution and use by endogenous processes is key. PUFA is not the primary cause of disease. It is obviously needed in tissues like the retina and brain, but then, if you expose your retina to lots of bright light, suddenly the DHA in your retina that helped you see better is now the prime source of toxins in the retina, and thus must now be cleared away. Can we blame the PUFA? No, I blame the stressor.

Same with DHA in the brain. The body obviously puts some level in the brain whether we like it or not. There is no way to build a functioning human brain without PUFAs like DHA and ARA. What to do then? Protect them from damage as much as possible, and use them for their intended purpose. This has nothing to do with the PUFAs at hand, and everything to do with the drivers of the endogenous processes.

I have of course, never "PUFA is not the problem". What I have been known to say many times is, something more like:

I stand by my comments in my post above, and will say that in Humans, some level of PUFA is necessary, and that it should be endogenously regulated as much as possible.

IMO, this applies to all PUFAs, and the more unsaturated the PUFA, the more you want endogenous regulation (which was the entire point I tried to make in my DHA article).

Practically speaking, this still means that one should try to avoid any significant sources of dietary PUFA, since these fatty acids are very readily available in almost any whole food. But neither would I worry about being militant about reducing PUFA to zero.​

which is a direct quote from the following linked, which talks about the essentiality of PUFA using cardiolipin diseases in the heart -- Haidut's Summary Of PUFA


.....

Can you please point me to the evidence showing PUFA is clearly essential? Or the evidence that a brain cannot function well without some amount of DHA or ARA?
We have people in the hospital that are EFA deficient confirmed both by blood tests (Mead acid) and adipose tissue biopsy. They are not dropping like flies, on the contrary are the perkiest on the floor. Their mental function is excellent and much better than the one of doctors that treat them. MRIs have been done for other reasons and no structurel abnormality has been found, even though they do not seem to have any EFA or DHA/EPA.
Btw, they got EFA due to IV feeding for a few weeks using fat-free formula.

 

[paymanz]

First, PUFA doesn't automatically turn into peroxides.

eg: for linoleic acid, you need a hydrogen donor plus free radical, attacking the molecule from a specific locus
- An update on products and mechanisms of lipid peroxidation
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009308498000917

How likely it is that a particular PUFA is to be oxidised in dependent on so many factors. I also addressed this in my DHA blog post -- it being the most peroxidisable in the body, it is important to study how the body protects this fatty acid. There are many mechanics, and to what exact they succeed in a particular person is unknown. That is why is say things are not simple, and I never made any claims otherwise.

Note that beta-oxidation of any PUFA leads to none of these breakdown products.

----

Next, context matters, but I cannot comment on all the clinical contexts that I've seen. I provide examples of such thinking, but cannot come up with the exact case that each person needs to experiment with.

One can easily start using a "default template" (if there is one for Peat), and then start experimenting with which one of the items should be replaced (if at all).

Some person may have insomnia because of too much coffee during the day. Maybe try to cut down intake.

Another may have insomnia because of to much blue light before bed.

Another may have insomnia because of eating too much before bed. Another may have insomnia because of not eating enough before bed.

Another may have a VDR-taq SNP that prevents them from making enough melatonin. Controlled melatonin supplementation may be needed.

Another may have a kidney infection, and has effective insomnia due to constantly waking up in the middle of the night to pee.

Any combination of these and many more can be present to lead to insomnia.

What is this particular person's problem? That is something that requires enough knowledge of the person's environment to answer. It this going to take a long time to experiment? Yes, and people will have to choose to be responsible for their health.

....

Exactly, so it can't be said to a person to sleep at a perfect time and think that problem solved, there also may be shortage of magnesium,taurine....

___________

And don't forget a lot of rays advice's are basic requirements of body, which a big percent of people don't get enough, vitamin A,calcium, salt,glycine,vitamin k,etc.

 

[Hitoshi]

Your taking Peat out of context here as a has tyw on multiple occasions. Why the subtle strawmans is beyond me,subtle as in they are hidden in information overload with selective/cherry picked context ironically! Stepping back and then claiming complexity and balance adds to the confusion.

Peat speaks about context on multiple occasions, threads like these end up going down obvious paths which is here are a load of studies for my view and for yours with little understanding of the techniques used in research,I think Chris masterjohn who works in a laboratory understands the complexity and nuances and seems to be speaking more about said topics.
Peat mentioned some interesting points recently about the studies that make it onto pubmed not being everything we have uncovered,there is also the clear issue with funding for the other view.

The measurement and behaviour of PUFA at the cell membrane where Peat believes it is damaging the membrane hence the speeding up is what a lot of this is based on.
He may have recently mentioned insulins level of importance to @DaveFoster I believe?

Peats theories evolve and are not static,no doors are closed here as more research is needed.
To add to that I have seen nothing in any of these posts or previous that can outright refute what Peat puts forward.
We get there are other views on what's going on in the body,at some point you must experiment,the body was functioning before we knew a lot about it and most great leaps forward were through tinkering and experiment.
Peat calls for more experiment yet it's stifled when it doesn't fit the establishments view.

A Peat dogma doesn't really exist imo,the term dogma gets thrown around too easily,we could start an argument about the "views " you currently support being dogma by you or others with "viewpoints".
Using the term Peat dogma is a subtle attempt to discredit and redundant when apply the same reasoning to you and others we get dogma based on your definitions.

I dont seek to discredit anything. Peats views have changed the way i practice medicine. What i am interested in is personalised contextual intervention.
Where pufa is damaged and causes oxidative stress, this stress may indeed cause some level of raised cortisol and so forth, but at the membrane level pufa seems to increase the likelihood of collision, and at the mitochhondrial level it permits insulins action rather than blunting it.
This post is a call to explore, not to argue.

 

[Drareg]

I dont seek to discredit anything. Peats views have changed the way i practice medicine. What i am interested in is personalised contextual intervention.
Where pufa is damaged and causes oxidative stress, this stress may indeed cause some level of raised cortisol and so forth, but at the membrane level pufa seems to increase the likelihood of collision, and at the mitochhondrial level it permits insulins action rather than blunting it.
This post is a call to explore, not to argue.

I think in this context its important to explain why the PUFA is breaking down the cell membrane and increasing the speed,the researchers construe this as good and don't acknowledge the damage,from my understanding Peat questions this. At this point a lot is happening and they can cherry pick what comes out of the cell.

 

[paymanz]

if we email him our concerns on this fascinating topic of saturated fat and insulin relative to PUFA I'm sure he will have an answer

Hopefully, I also like to know his opinion about humans ability to de novo synthesis of EFAs that is shown in some studie.

 

[haidut]

Hopefully, I also like to know his opinion about humans ability to de novo synthesis of EFAs that is shown in some studie.

I am not aware of any evidence of human de-novo synthesis of EFA? Only Mead acid and saturated fat are synthesized in the absence of PUFA (AFAIK). Can you please point to some links discussing this?

 

[Hitoshi]

I am not aware of any evidence of human de-novo synthesis of EFA? Only Mead acid and saturated fat are synthesized in the absence of PUFA (AFAIK). Can you please point to some links discussing this?

From @tyw article

"
Apparent adipocytes can make all the fatty acids that the body needs via DNL. 'De novo lipogenesis in the differentiating human adipocyte can provide all fatty acids necessary for maturation'(Collins et. al., 2011) -- De novo lipogenesis in the differentiating human adipocyte can provide all fatty acids necessary for maturation

This was basically a carbohydrate fueled metabolism:

In separate experiments, the following substrates were used: 1 mM [1-13C]acetate, D-[U-13C]glucose, 0.5 mM [U-13C]pyruvate, and 2 mM [U-13C]glutamine.

You basically got all the fatty acids you needed, including EPA. See figure 2 (De novo lipogenesis in the differentiating human adipocyte can provide all fatty acids necessary for maturation)

DHA was not shown in the graph, but since it can be then used to make DHA, it is possible for full endogenous synthesis of DHA from the DNL process. The efficiency is not known, though it must be somewhat significant to explain the relatively good levels of DHA in populations which do not consume any DHA.

As an aside, this could be a good explanation for why very low fat diets don't lead to health issues, as this article by Denise Minger discusses -- http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/"

 

[haidut]

From @tyw article

"
Apparent adipocytes can make all the fatty acids that the body needs via DNL. 'De novo lipogenesis in the differentiating human adipocyte can provide all fatty acids necessary for maturation'(Collins et. al., 2011) -- De novo lipogenesis in the differentiating human adipocyte can provide all fatty acids necessary for maturation

This was basically a carbohydrate fueled metabolism:

In separate experiments, the following substrates were used: 1 mM [1-13C]acetate, D-[U-13C]glucose, 0.5 mM [U-13C]pyruvate, and 2 mM [U-13C]glutamine.

You basically got all the fatty acids you needed, including EPA. See figure 2 (De novo lipogenesis in the differentiating human adipocyte can provide all fatty acids necessary for maturation)

DHA was not shown in the graph, but since it can be then used to make DHA, it is possible for full endogenous synthesis of DHA from the DNL process. The efficiency is not known, though it must be somewhat significant to explain the relatively good levels of DHA in populations which do not consume any DHA.

As an aside, this could be a good explanation for why very low fat diets don't lead to health issues, as this article by Denise Minger discusses -- http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/"

Thanks.
What are those populations that do not consume any DHA? Why does Mead acid rise and stay elevated in people who are EFA deficient? Surely, if the body wanted EFA it could have synthesized what it wanted using these pathways mentioned in tyw's article. But it does not happen. How relevant are those pathways in living humans? Mead acid is very sensitive to EFA repletion. Even a single tablespoon of something like canola oil will immediately drop Mead acid levels to whithin the "normal" range even though the person is still EFA deficient. Which suggests that as long as Mead acid is elevated there is not much EFA anywhere in the organism.

 

[Tarmander]

"It is the authoritarianism of relativism" ,sensational,where did you get that?

HA, my childhood.

That is the whole point of science - capability of being proven wrong. Everything else, including talk about some kind of nebulous balance is about as scientific as turtles supporting the earth. Forum member @gbolduev was also talking about a similar kind of balance and eventually admitted that such a thing is unattainable because it is never concrete enough to be studied or implemented. Look at his discussions on Eck and how eventually he lost his mind and kept talking about "purifying" women because they were "filthy" and chelating the hell out of every cell in his body to the point of mutilation.

I am curious where you found this if you can dig it up. I used to follow Eck and Wilson pretty closely and was the worse for it. I know Eck died relatively young compared to his promised results, I would love to read more about his end.

This sentiment is true I would wish that there were clear solutions for health issues, but searching for 10 years only led me to find many answers without actual solutions.

Often we can find certainty in particular mechanics. eg: we can say for certain that arachidonic acid will activate PPAR gamma activity. Now, what does that mean in a particular person's real context? I dunno .....

If I could find mechanics that could generalise it, I would have. We are stuck with unpredictability because that is what reality forced upon us ... what to do ..... Each person has to be an authority over their own life. If my posts were to add anything, it would hopefully be a stimulus to take back authority in some areas of health where authority was ceded to some other force.

I actually really like your posts man, they are intelligent and they do expand the mind to look at other possibilities. I have also been at this for awhile, maybe not 10 years, but almost. At some point it is very difficult not to fall into context overload. You can get on these tracts where you are looking at someone and their life, and you see a stress caused by XYZ, which comes from something in their history, which caused a compensation that is unhealthy for them, but is actually holding this other factor together which is very positive, and if they lost the positive it would actually make the original stress worse off, and so if you remove XYZ without addressing this positive thing you end up making their life worse, and on and on.

The point is, decision paralysis is real the more you know. You say things like this: "This needs to be qualified," "what does that mean in a particular person's real context?," "but I cannot comment on all the clinical contexts that I've seen," or "What is this particular person's problem? That is something that requires enough knowledge of the person's environment to answer."

I mean I get it. These are safe, and no one will ever challenge you really when you stand on such shaky ground. These thoughts are in some ways true even! Who is going to challenge "find what works best for you," that is like the motto of the forums.

But these thoughts really harm you man. I am being totally honest, these thoughts really mess up your life. They come from a place of nihilism. They try to address universals instead of individuals. They stay safe from criticism at the expense of being too broad to matter. I have lived for years with these thoughts, and your life will go no where satisfying. You will let slip by chances to really help people. Someone will come up and say hey I have this problem, what should I do, and they will walk away with more questions.

Haidut has been wrong about a lot. I followed him down a rabbit hole of super high doses of Caffeine, Aspirin, and Niacinamide. No one talks about that metabolism boosting experiment because it was a pretty big failure long term. But Haidut has helped me tremendously just by being willing to take the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That is my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

 

[Regina]

Most of my admiration for Peat and his work comes from the fact that that is how children operate by default. I think intuitive and empirical knowledge comes first and is the only true knowledge. The theory we concoct much later usually to make ourselves feel better about something. With age, I've grown very suspicious of all verbalizations. It seems language is mostly a tool for either manipulation or concealing the truth. Another quote and a link to a hypothesis on language as manipulation tool.

"By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth". --George Carlin

The argumentative theory of reasoning - i.e. we argue to win arguments, not find truth.
The Argumentative Theory | Edge.org
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN

 

[haidut]

Haidut has been wrong about a lot. I followed him down a rabbit hole of super high doses of Caffeine, Aspirin, and Niacinamide. No one talks about that metabolism boosting experiment because it was a pretty big failure long term

Sorry if it led you down a bad path. Those massive doses actually did help me in terms of recovering liver health. It was just a part of the picture for me and when I stopped seeing benefit I stopped doing it. But yeah, I am wrong about many things, no doubt about it. That's why I don't like to argue, and just try to find what works. Here is one link where gbolduev talks about Wilson and his craziness. I was wrong, it was Wilson and not Eck apparently.
Bicarbonate Vs. PaCO2 Blood Tests
"...Check out Wilsons article where he tells people to have sex in kitty litter box for modesty)) or how you need to clean your woman 5 times a day , since women are dirty entities))) HE lOST it totally, may be he interprets his tests not correctly."
From what I have seen, Eck is not much better. I have not done much digging on Eck/Wilson, beyond a few quick readings. Interesting stuff but I did not think it addresses may of the prime causes of disease.

 

[Regina]

That is the whole point of science - capability of being proven wrong. Everything else, including talk about some kind of nebulous balance is about as scientific as turtles supporting the earth. Forum member @gbolduev was also talking about a similar kind of balance and eventually admitted that such a thing is unattainable because it is never concrete enough to be studied or implemented. Look at his discussions on Eck and how eventually he lost his mind and kept talking about "purifying" women because they were "filthy" and chelating the hell out of every cell in his body to the point of mutilation.

Rinzai Zen thought is against "purifying." On meditation, it is taught to "imagine pouring muddy water in a cup. At first it might be muddy and black, but if you leave it to settle for a while, it will gradually clear. Eventually it will become transparent and you will be able to see through to the other side. But do not try to throw out the mud. Everyone has some mud in their life.”

 

[Tarmander]

Sorry if it led you down a bad path. Those massive doses actually did help me in terms of recovering liver health. It was just a part of the picture for me and when I stopped seeing benefit I stopped doing it. But yeah, I am wrong about many things, no doubt about it. That's why I don't like to argue, and just try to find what works. Here is one link where gbolduev talks about Wilson and his craziness. I was wrong, it was Wilson and not Eck apparently.
Bicarbonate Vs. PaCO2 Blood Tests
"...Check out Wilsons article where he tells people to have sex in kitty litter box for modesty)) or how you need to clean your woman 5 times a day , since women are dirty entities))) HE lOST it totally, may be he interprets his tests not correctly."
From what I have seen, Eck is not much better. I have not done much digging on Eck/Wilson, beyond a few quick readings. Interesting stuff but I did not think it addresses may of the prime causes of disease.

You are not leading anywhere, and have no need to apologize. You are not an authority on all things health, and my experiments were my own.

Thanks for the Eck stuff, I will see what I can dig up. I know Wilson is crazy, he has basically taken metabolism boosting supplements and coffee enemas while only eating veggies and meat. He is bald and insane and doesn't show pictures of himself for probably good reason.

 

[paymanz]

Thanks.
What are those populations that do not consume any DHA? Why does Mead acid rise and stay elevated in people who are EFA deficient? Surely, if the body wanted EFA it could have synthesized what it wanted using these pathways mentioned in tyw's article. But it does not happen. How relevant are those pathways in living humans? Mead acid is very sensitive to EFA repletion. Even a single tablespoon of something like canola oil will immediately drop Mead acid levels to whithin the "normal" range even though the person is still EFA deficient. Which suggests that as long as Mead acid is elevated there is not much EFA anywhere in the organism.

Yeah I got to know about this through tyw's post.

Apparently the capacity to paoduce EFA is low, not enough to suppress mead acid synthesis.

Few of EFAD studies I have read ,their blood level of EFAs are not zero so its possible to have mead acid elevated while you have some EFAs in your body.