Montygram: Why are essential fatty acids NOT essential?

Nobody doubts that humans don't synthesize omega 3s and 6s. Plants do
because they are such biochemically active molecules that they can
allow for very quick growth, which many plants need, due to predation
or short growing seasons.

Humans do synthesize omega 9 PUFAs (the Mead acid) if omega 3 and 6
consumption is kept low. The Mead acid is metabolized into LTA3, which
is much more stable biochemically. The metabolites of omega 3s and 6s
are like medication for humans, though for plants and some animals in
very cold climates, they are necessary.

My post about the underlying hypothesis is the key. If you want to
claim that adult humans (non-pregnant) have any need for omega 3s and
6s, outside of emergency medicine (and other synthetic drugs are used
there anyway), then you need to formulate a specific hypothesis, which
would include:

How much of each class is needed and in what form (linoleic and AA are
both omega 6s, for example)?

What will happen if one does not consume this amount, and how long will
it take for the symptoms to appear?

The answers need to be based upon on point experiments. The
experimenst that have been used to justify some vague, non-scientific
claim that omega 3s and 6s are essential actually demonstrate that they
are not essential, unless one wants to define essential in a way that
makes no sense, in which case human communication in general would
break down completely.

Since nobody wants to be specific, I will give you choices:

1. Adult humans need at least 2 grams of omega 6s and at half a gram
of omega 3s each day.

2. Adults humans only need trace amounts of omega 3s and 6s.

3. Adult humans need massive amounts of omega 3s and 6s due to
supposed things like, "rapid DHA turnover in the brain," which some
"experts" claim is true in "normal physiology."

4. Omega 6s are needed, but omega 3s control "inflammation."

If you can't choose one of the above, then you are clearly not serious
about this claim, because you are unable to say anything about it that
would aid a person in making decisions about what to do if it is
correct.

You can cite all the textbooks you want. In some textbooks, a large
percentage of the claims are either wrong or have not been demonstrated
by on point experiments. In some cases, it does not matter much, as
with vitamins that don't build up to toxic levels, so one can take a
bit more than might be necessary and nothing negative will occur.
Omega 6 PUFA metabolites, however, are the direct cause of many cancers
(see Jay Whelan's work on colon cancer, for example), and thus one
needs to know exactly what the "essential fatty acid" hypothesis is.
I'm sure you, being such a forthright person, will at least do the
readers a favor and select one of the "essential fatty acid" options I
have articulted, and we can proceed for there.

I am waiting...

montygram said:

Nobody doubts that humans don't synthesize omega 3s and 6s.

Well, I hate to inform you but you have been claiming that for the last
3 years. Why do you think that everybody thinks that you are so crazy?

Quoted message said:

My post about the underlying hypothesis is the key. If you want to
claim that adult humans (non-pregnant) have any need for omega 3s and
6s, outside of emergency medicine (and other synthetic drugs are used
there anyway), then you need to formulate a specific hypothesis, which
would include:

Need?

This is the first time that you have mention "need." Sorry, but I do
NOT have ESP. Your [censored]-poor articulation of your position seems to be
your problem.

Quoted message said:

How much of each class is needed and in what form (linoleic and AA are
both omega 6s, for example)?

What will happen if one does not consume this amount, and how long will
it take for the symptoms to appear?

The answers need to be based upon on point experiments. The
experimenst that have been used to justify some vague, non-scientific
claim that omega 3s and 6s are essential actually demonstrate that they
are not essential, unless one wants to define essential in a way that
makes no sense, in which case human communication in general would
break down completely.

Since nobody wants to be specific, I will give you choices:

1. Adult humans need at least 2 grams of omega 6s and at half a gram
of omega 3s each day.

2. Adults humans only need trace amounts of omega 3s and 6s.

3. Adult humans need massive amounts of omega 3s and 6s due to
supposed things like, "rapid DHA turnover in the brain," which some
"experts" claim is true in "normal physiology."

4. Omega 6s are needed, but omega 3s control "inflammation."

If you can't choose one of the above, then you are clearly not serious
about this claim, because you are unable to say anything about it that
would aid a person in making decisions about what to do if it is
correct.

Quoted message said:

You can cite all the textbooks you want.

I will cite my own web page.
http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/dgtable.html
For the Omega-3's 2.5% of total calories. Figuring on one week of 3
meals of fish will give 17.5% for the week or 350 calories (2,000
calories a day) or 38.889 grams divided by 3 meals gives 12.96 grams of
Omega-3 fat per fish meal. Or, that works out to 5.556 grams a day.
Of course, these are maximum figures.

Per my web page, the minimum amount (ie, 2 meals a week) would be 3/5's
the maximum amount or approximately 3.333 grams a day.

Plant sources of omega-3's are are optional. But, you need to consume
10 times as much to replace eating fish.

Balance will come from Omega-6's (ie, 2.5%). If you consume process
food, you are going to get PUFAs in your diet. That is how I figured
it. There is no requirement to add Omega-6's. Just try to minimize
total PUFA consumption to 5% of total calories, with Omega-3's
providing approximately 50% of that total.

Citations are on my web page.

Now, when will I receive the $10,000?

15 Oct 2005 15:11:11 -0700 in article
<[email hidden]> "montygram"

Quoted message said:

The Mead acid is metabolized into LTA3, which
is much more stable biochemically.

Stable? Please elaborate. Series 3 (from Mead acid) and series 5
leukotrienes (from EPA) are less inflammatory than series 4 leukotrienes
(from AA), that's what counts, not your vague "stableness",

Quoted message said:

The metabolites of omega 3s and 6s
are like medication for humans, though for plants and some animals in
very cold climates, they are necessary.

Really? DHA is required by the brain and retina, DHA, EPA and AA as
structural elements of cell membranes, AA is needed for the synthesis of
eicosanoids such as prostaglandins (some of which are antiinflammatory, for
example prostacyclin (PGI2)), thromboxanes A2 (and B2;
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thromboxane>😉 and leukotrienes (yes, they are
necessary although too much is harmful), and DGLA (omega-6 fatty acid
derived from omega 6 linoleic acid, sometimes called also DHGLA) is needed
for the synthesis of antiinflammatory prostaglandin E1 and thromboxane A1
(<http://www.uspharmacist.com/oldformat.asp?url=newlook/files/Alte/ACF301B.cfm&pub_id=8&article_id=147>😉.

To summarize: Humans cannot synthetize neither omega 3s nor omega 6s, which
are necessary for humans, in other words omega 3s and omega 6s fulfill the
definition of essentiality. Because humans can derive all longer chain omega
3s from alpha-linolenic acid and all longer chain omega 6s from linoleic
acid, only alpha-linolenic and linoleic acid are called essential.

[rest of the [censored] removed]

--
Matti Narkia

For those who are unfamiliar with the technical language:

Chemists and biochemists talk in terms of activity. In whole foods
that have been processed into "supplements," for example, it's
important to know what the active ingredient is. There is nothing
vague about this. Mead acid and arachidonic acid do many of the same
things, but arachidonic acid is much more powerful, more biochemically
active. In this context, Mead acid is much more stable. Below is a
study in which the authors make the point that erucic acid (found in
large amounts in rapeseed oil and much smaller amounts in canola oil)
is a very potent inhibitor of neutrophil elastase. Thus, in this
context, eruic acid is very biochemically active. In another context,
it might be regarded as very stable. Note that the authors say "The
highly active erucic acid with an IC(50) value of 450 nM (elastase) is
remarkable." "Remarkable" is not a scientific term, but in this
context, it clearly means that they did not expect erucic acid to be
this biochemically active in this experiment. There are over 92,000
hits on google when one searches for the phrase "biochemical activity."
There is nothing unusual about it; in fact, it is a term of art.

Now you should be asking yourself, "why is this so important?"
Biochemical activity comes at a price. It is not "all good," though it
can have beneficial effects in particular contexts, such as when
someone is very ill or injured and just needs to survive the night.
Long term damage could be done, but ER doctors may think that it's
worth the risk. This is not unusual. If you watch the TV show "ER,"
you'll see them face this situation very often. Excess biochemical
activity means vital biomolecules can get damaged and become
dysfunctional, and also pathways can be shut down or turned on, when
they should be turned off or enhanced. This is what happens with
arachidonic acid in the context of many common cancers, as Jay Whelan
has demonstrated over the last decade or so.

One web site had a simple way of describing it, in terms of "exercise:"

"1. Exercise acts as a stimulus for biochemical activity among body
cells and fluids.

2. The biochemical activity is destructive to the chemical make-up of
body cells and fluids.

3. The exercise is followed by proper nutritional intake and rest.

4. The result from the combination of exercise stimulus, nutrition and
rest is that there is an "overcompensating restoration" of the cells
and biochemical fluids in the body.""

Source:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n3_v15/ai_19408658

This is their hypothesis about the "benefits" of exercise. I don't
agree with it, but number 1 and 2 are accurate, in general, while 3
depends upon what one considers "proper nutritional intake." Number 4
is the most interesting. It's important for damaged and dysfunctional
biomolecules, especially proteins, to be "recylced," so to speak.
However, if the "exercise" is too intense, more damage will be done
than good. If you don't expose your body to the exess biochemical
activity in the first place (for instance, by taking several fish oil
pills each day in an attempt to counteract your high omega 6 PUFA
diet), then you probably don't need to do much "exercise." If you do
exercise, studies have found that raisins, due to their antioxidant
makeup, are helpful for athletes, in terms of limiting free radical
damage done during the stressful activity (whatever it is). Thus, my
question is, "then why do the exercise in the first place?"

Nothing seems to glycate proteins in a damaging way than arachidonic
acid, as studies have found, so as I've said many times here, it's a
matter of seeking to correct the epiphenomeon, rather than the root
cause. Just stay away from foods that are highly biochemically
unstable and you will "addition by subtraction." Note that I do not
advocate eating foods high in Mead acid either. It is a PUFA and is
less stable than saturated fatty acids. I am saying to let your body
make its owns PUFAs as is needed. Since it's unlikely you will find
any food high in Mead acid (due to the stuff they feed livestock these
days), you probably shouldn't worry about this possibility at all, but
it's a useful point to make in the context of this issue.

Here's the study I quoted above, for those who are interested:

Planta Med. 2002 Sep;68(9):767-9.
"Free fatty acids inhibit the activity of Clostridium histolyticum
collagenase and human neutrophil elastase."

Rennert B, Melzig MF.

Institut fur Pharmazie, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Goethestr. 54,
D-13086 Berlin, Germany.

We investigated the ability of free fatty acids to inhibit the activity
of Clostridium histolyticum collagenase (EC 3.4.24.3) and human
neutrophil elastase (EC 3.4.21.37). We determined the activity of
collagenase by degradation of resorufin-labeled casein
fluorimetrically. The determination of the elastase activity was
performed by a spectrophotometric method using a 4-nitroanilide peptide
substrate. We found that most of the tested fatty acids inhibited
collagenase at concentrations between 50 microM and 500 microM. For
elastase we found an inhibition of the activity at concentrations
between 500 nM and 50 microM. The most potent inhibitory fatty acids of
both enzymes differed. Thus, as a result for collagenase we can assume
that the saturated fatty acids with C(16)-C(19) were the most potent
ones. For elastase the inhibition rate of unsaturated acids was much
higher than the rate of the saturated ones. The highly active erucic
acid with an IC(50) value of 450 nM (elastase) is remarkable.

Where is the evidence for all your claims, Matti. Yes, I understand
that some "expert" made a claim or that a textbook says that "we think
X is true, but we're not sure," but science requires that the
scientific method be followed, and you are demonstrating very clearly
that this is not the case for the "essential fatty acid" claim, because
you never cite any on point scientific paper in this context that is
supportive. Do you even realize that, or are you so deluded with a
kind of religious fervor that you can't even think straight at this
point?

The body makes perfectly fine metabolites from Mead acid, as I have
personally discovered over the last several years. AA metabolites are
very dangerous, as hundreds of studies now demonstrate. Just do a
pubmed.com search for arachidonic LTB4 cancer or arachidonic PGE2
cancer and you (or anyone else) will see what I mean.

I feel for your lack of scientific understanding, but the health of
others should not be jeopardized by your irresponsible claims.

I welcome an experimental challenge to my claims, and have proposed
several possibilities, but you can't even cite one piece of on point
evidence your claims. Where are the loads of evidence you mention?
I've seen that evidence, and it demonstrates that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs
are definitely not esssential. If they were, no animals would have
been born healthy. If you think I am wrong, take me up on my
exeperiment offer. Loser must pay for all expenses and admit in a
written statement, notarized and sent by certified mail to the winner,
that he or she is wrong.

If not, then at least articulate a clear and detailed hypothesis, then
we can proceed from there. You are just "blowing smoke around" at this
point. You propose no experiment, you can't articulate a specific
hypothesis, and your evidenve contradicts the most basic of your
claims. Do you realize that there is no doubt that the Mead acid is
metabolized into molecules that clot blood, etc., which is the purpose
of a stressor-induced, long chain PUFA in human cells, and you don't
provide any evidence that the Mead acid can't get that job done. Fatty
acid "expert" Mary Enig called the Mead acid a "filler," but again,
where is the evidence that it is not a healthy "filler?" She said the
experimental animals don't live as long on the Mead acid, but I have
seen no evidence of this. I'm sure you, Matti, would love to take this
opportunity to find such a study and cite it here. Can you at least do
that?

If you can't, or if you won't explain what the "essential fatty acid"
hypothesis is, I will start a new thread, and no longer post to this
one, as I said before. I'm trying to be fair here and address your
points, but so far, there's nothing scientific in your post to address.

And if you are proposing a new experimental offer about the Mead acid
levels in my body, I will gladly take you up on that offer, so go ahead
and make it clear. Loser must pay for all expenses and admit he is
wrong. But try to think a bit here, Matti. If someone like myself,
who consciously has avoided omega 3s and 6s for about 4 years (except
in unavoidable trace amounts) and in light of the dangers posed by AA
and EPA/DHA excess, why should an "expert" tell anyone to make sure
that they are consuming enough of them? If I am getting enough, then
surely the only one who isn't is a person who is on some oddball and
totally fat free diet. Do you realize this? I have seen, however,
clear evidence that the Mead acid has taken over: 1. my keloid, which
I've had since I was a teenager, is nearly gone, and this is consistent
with the evidence connecting AA with keloids. 2. Cuts form rubbery
scabs quickly, then the wound heals much slower, but with no scarring.
3. No or hardly any symptoms when I get a cold that's going around,
which has been very rare over the last few years, though I used to get
at least 2 colds a year while on the old diet high in omega 3s and 6s.
4. I feel burns the same way, but there is no blistering. I just put
a little ice on it for 20 minutes or so and there's no problem.

I don't have to demonstrate anything. I am saying to allow your body
to do what it wants to do naturally, until there is evidence that
demonstrates that this is not the best thing to do. This is the most
responsible way of dealing with such situations. If a snake oil
salesman comes to your door and tells you that you need the snake oil
because it is "essential," do you say, "oh, thanks for telling me, I'll
take a dozen bottles to start?" I don't know about you, Matti, but
most people would say "no" in a resounding fashion.

Once again, I am waiting for an intelligent, appropriate response...

One other thing worth considering:

If I am not "EFAD" at this point, then the literature you cite as
your "evidence" is totally wrong on one of, if not the most
important point here. They claim that a diet such as mine should lead
to "EFAD" in about 2 weeks. Even if they are badly wrong, and it
takes 2 months, I still should have been "EFAD" more than 2 years
ago! If you think they are correct about their claims, then you are
caught in a logical contradiction. This is why I am asking for the
hypothesis, that is, because no matter how you phrase it, it is a
logical contradiction when one looks at the evidence. This is why
people like yourself fear stating exactly what the hypothesis is. You
know that you will be trapped like the proverbial rat.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I agree (though "less inflammatory" is also "vague," in your way of
thinking), so does this mean that you want the Mead acid in your body,
as I have now?

proove that. post a lab results of a test.
I doubt you have even elevated mead levels from the diet you posted.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Where is the evidence for all your claims, Matti.

[...]

Quoted message said:

I don't have to demonstrate anything.

[...]

... a typical discussion with montygram.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

They claim that a diet such as mine should lead
to "EFAD" in about 2 weeks.

No.
They claim a diet free of w3's and w6's should, yours isn't.