I'm not sure what your point was in that Greenland Eskimo post, so I'll state as clearly as possible
what mine is: do not think that you should eat huge amounts of omega 3 PUFAs in order to avoid a
heart attack. It could be the case that Eskimos do have specific genetic defects that are
significant when assessing stroke risk, but my point (and that of many scientists, including the
ones who wrote the study I quoted that said exactly the same thing) is that the evidence on Eskimos
is just not strong enough to really say much of anything when with regard to what an American, for
example, might decide to eat as dietary staple foods. The last study is interesting, in that it
found high levels of omega 3s and MUFAs in the adipose tissue. The big problem for most Americans is
the omega 6, arachidonic acid, in adipose (and other) tissue, so it may be that this does protect
them from certain "chronic diseases." However, if one eats loads of omega 3 PUFAs and little
fruit/vegetables (as Eskimos did on their "traditional" diets), he/she is asking for a whole lot of
free radical damage - and that is basic biochemistry. Actually, one scientists tried what he
surmised was a such a diet, that is, very high in omega 3s but with little or no antioxidant-rich
foods, and his blood test revealed very high levels of peroxidation products. See Sinclair, H.,
Prog. Lipid Res. 25: 667-72, "History of EFA & their prostanoids: some personal reminiscences." As
I've said before, if you avoid all but trace amounts of PUFAs, your body will produce the MUFA known
as the Mead acid, which will be used to create free radicals to use when needed. If you've got
arachidonic acid in place of the Mead acid, your body will be hypersensitive to all kinds of minor
stresses, and that can lead to atheroscelerotic plaques, autoimmune disease, cancer, inflammatory
disorders, etc. The evidence is there, and it's not getting out through the media outlets (which is
the reason I post here - for those with open minds), which instead are giving plenty of airtime to
the "saturated fat is bad" message, and that's actually funny, because none of the "experts" even
define what "saturated fat" is. Is it lard, which is 60% or more unsaturated? For the "experts," it
seems to be, from what they say, but then what isn't "saturated fat," if you have that
classification in mind?
My mind is open, unlike so many others posting here. It seems as though the Eskimos should indeed
derive some benefit from low arachidonic acid levels in their tissues. But the evidence just doesn't
cut it, at least not yet. The basic biochemistry is much stronger, as well as the experiments done
with arachidonic acid and Mead acid (as well as many others, of course). It is basic biochemistry
that the Eskimo diet is likely to be anti-inflammatory, and many "chronic diseases" involve the
inflammatory process. But if we follow the basic biochemistry line of thinking, there's no way the
kind of free radicals generated on such a diet can be "healthy," though of course that word never
gets defined either, and it seems as though one is not likely to live beyond the age of about 50 (if
you're lucky) on such a diet, though few Westerners are going to eat a diet with omega 3 PUFAs as
staples anyway. However, people taking several fish oil or flax oil pills each day are asking for
trouble - if you want to avoid inflammation, just cut back on the omega 6 PUFAs, but look up your
foods on the USDA database or some other source so that you have some idea of the fatty acids in the
foods you are eating. With the current "Atkins Diet" fad, many people "doing it" may be eating very
large amounts of PUFAs (and most probably don't even know it), as well as iron, oxidized
cholesterol, damaged proteins, etc. Almost all the studies say things like "this may be." so at this
point in time, you've got to put the pieces together for yourself to some degree. Bruce Fife did a
fairly good job in his book "Saturated fat may save your life," though I think he derived many of
his ideas from Ray Peat, as Lita Lee seems to as well. Then there's Mary Enig's work. They are
people who sometimes write for non-professionals, unlike Braganza, Spiteller, Parassasi, and so many
others. Just read some studies in Free Radical Biology & Medicine or Free Radical Research to start,
though the evidence against free radicals as the "upstream event" in "chronic illness" is
overwhelming, and supported by studies in just about every biological or medical journal. I am not
claiming to be the first or the best - I'm just trying to get the word out that the Mead acid allows
the body to make all the free radicals you need (that arachidonic acid do when too many omega 6s are
consumed) but are much more stable and much less dangerous, and you can only replace arachidonic
acid with Mead acid by eating trace amounts of PUFAs, as well as how to cook to avoid oxidized
cholesterol (and doe/Tom has made the dangers of excess iron very clear on this newsgroup, though it
seems that iron overload may be a downstream event, unless levels are outrageously high). Now if
you, Larry, want to insist that free radicals are great, that's fine with me, but I've read the
studies, and it's very clear that a whole lot of scientists have demonstrated how dangerous free
radical damage can be (note that there's a difference between free radical activity and free radical
damage, a distinction you don't seem to be able to make, for some reason).