What is really in those clogged arteries?

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

Quoted message said:

The "essential fatty acid" claim is "junk science" at it's worst.
Search the group for montygram and read my posts about it. I just ran
across this study that actually did the kind of experiment I have often
called for in these situations. For example, some "experts" claim that
there is "rapid DHA turnover" in the normal, healthy, human adult
brain, but that is physically impossible in many cases. I suggested
that the brains of people killed in accidents be studied for DHA
content; otherwise, where did this assertion come from? Basically, it
is just an assumption, apparently based upon terribly flawed
experiments on rats (such as Burr & Burr, 1930, which is still cited as
the seminal experiment in much of the professional nutritional
literature).

Here's an on point experiment, one that is scientific:

Lancet. 1994 Oct 29;344(8931):1195-6.
Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and composition of human aortic
plaques.

Felton CV, Crook D, Davies MJ, Oliver MF.

Wynn Institute for Metabolic Research, London, UK.

How long-term dietary intake of essential fatty acids affects the
fatty-acid content of aortic plaques is not clear. We compared the
fatty-acid composition of aortic plaques with that of post-mortem serum
and adipose tissue, in which essential fatty-acid content reflects
dietary intake. Positive associations were found between serum and
plaque omega 6 (r = 0.75) and omega 3 (r = 0.93) polyunsaturated fatty
acids, and monounsaturates (r = 0.70), and also between adipose tissue
and plaque omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (r = 0.89). No
associations were found with saturated fatty acids. These findings
imply a direct influence of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids on
aortic plaque formation and suggest that current trends favouring
increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids should be reconsidered.

This experiment is
- 11 years old, there have been myriads of studies that have exactly the
opposite conclusion since [1].
- not backed up by actual mortality data.

This study just compared composition of plaques with composition of adipose
tissue. What does this tell us in terms of risk? Not much.

[1]
J Nutr. 2004 Nov;134(11):2991-7.
Dietary alpha-linolenic acid reduces inflammatory and lipid cardiovascular
risk factors in hypercholesterolemic men and women.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Jul;76(1):85-92.
Cardiovascular disease risk factors and n-3 fatty acid status in the adult
population of James Bay Cree

"[...] n-3 Fatty acids may favorably influence some CVD risk factors. The
Cree population must be encouraged to maintain their traditional fish-based
diet, which may be one of the factors protecting them against mortality from
CVD."

J Nutr. 2005 Jun;135(6):1393-9.
Daily supplementation with (n-3) PUFAs, oleic acid, folic acid, and vitamins
B-6 and E increases pain-free walking distance and improves risk factors in
men with peripheral vascular disease.

Harefuah. 2004 Aug;143(8):585-91, 622, 621.
[Omega-3 fatty acids, fish, fish oil and cardiovascular disease--a review
with implications to Israeli nutritional guidelines]

"Evidence from epidemiological and randomized controlled trials shows
beneficial effects of omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids from fish and plant sources
on cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially in patients with preexisting
CVD. The optimal dose of n-3 is not yet determined, but prospective
secondary prevention studies suggest that the addition of 0.5-1.8 grams/day
of marine-derived eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, or plant
derived alpha-linolenic acid at a dose of 1.5-3 grams/day significantly
reduce subsequent cardiac events and mortality[...]"

Quoted message said:

The literature says things like, "If humans don't consume enough
essential fatty acids, one's skin will become flaky and itchy, and
diarrhea and other symptoms such as infections often are seen." Page
120 of the fourth edition of "Perspectives in Nutrition." On a diet
that included both omega 3s and 6s, I experienced all of these
symptoms, yet after avoiding the "essential fatty acids" for a few
years now, I don't have any of those problems at this point.

You claimed last time you experienced NONE of these effects.
Now you slowly give in and admit that you DO experience these effects-
interesting.

However: your diet is not free at all of omega3 and omega6 fatty acids (you
posted a few items now and again)- no wonder you don't experience the full
impact of deficiency- and no wonder symptoms come and go.

Quoted message said:

There may
be a germ of truth to what they say, in that there is a transition
period; your body is removing the long chain omega 6s and/or omega 3s,
and so there is a temporary disruption that may cause minor "symptoms,"
but I didn't experience anything worthy of note. One will have more
energy, blood pressure will be lowered slightly, and you may need to
drink a little bit more. Oh, and you won't have to worry about cancer,
heart disease, inflammatory diseases, auto-immune diseases,
neurodegenerative diseases, etc., unless you engage in some kind of
high risk activity.

You did not take the 60 minutes it takes to make a blood test for essential
fatty acid deficiency so all your claims about effects of your diet are
nothing but pure speculation.

Most of your self healing approaches are highly dubious as, from what you
post, you seem to be the most unhealthy person I have ever met: Quotes from
you in the last 3 months:

05.01.2006: "I had a case of tendonosis for more than 2
years [...]"
13.11.2005: "I was quickly losing weight and in terrible
shape [...]"
12.11.2005: "I used to get a lot of finger infections that lasted a week or
so [...]"
12.11.2005: "I used to get chalazions[...]"
12.11.2005: "The keloid I had for 20 years is nearly gone now. "
01.11.2005: "The chronic problems I had (rosacea, a keloid, catching at
least 2 cold a year, etc.) are gone now"
14.10.2005: "[...] I had severe osteoporosis and it cleared up within a few
months once I figured out what to do."
08.10.2005: "[...] I lost the ability to digest and absorb food (probably
protein mostly)"
and so on.. (there were a lot more).

montygram said:

For example, some "experts" claim that
there is "rapid DHA turnover" in the normal, healthy, human adult
brain, but that is physically impossible in many cases

Why is it physically impossible? As for turnover, I've quoted this
before and yes it's monkeys not humans, but their brains aren't that
different:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2139096&query_hl=1

They found that the brain DHA had a half-life of 17- 21 days depending
on the type of phospholipid.

Quoted message said:

I suggested
that the brains of people killed in accidents be studied for DHA
content; otherwise, where did this assertion come from?

What would DHA content on death tell you about turnover exactly?

Quoted message said:

Basically, it
is just an assumption, apparently
based upon terribly flawed
experiments on rats

You're the one making assumptions - and based on ignorance, too.

MattLB

I've addressed MMu's stuff before. He must have severe reading
comprehension problems, because I have said over and over again that it
is the AA release upon stressors and metabolization into LTB4, etc.
that is the problem, and that some omega 3's will appear to be a
temporary benefit, due to "competitive inhibition." I have proposed to
do an experiment to see which group of animals lives longest, those fed
fish and canola oil, or those fed fresh coconut oil, but he has not
interest it it.

As to the monkey study cited by MattLB, this is not relevant. In
science, you have to control the variables. Here, that means one group
is fed fresh coconut oil and the other gets fish oil or whatever is
considered "best," and then you see which lives longer. Obviously, if
you have fed animals a diet with a substantial omega 6 PUFA content,
then give one group a lot of fish oil, you will see "turnover."

There are facts, and there is evidence. One fact I know is that my
relatives, who lived into or beyond their 90s (with no "chronic
disease"😉 would not eat oily fish, hardly ever ate any fish, and did
not use canola or flax or pumpkin seeds or evening primrose oil or
anything like that. They ate very little chicken/beef as well. They
ate plenty of simple carbs and whole milk dairy, and always had some
fruit each day. This is a fact I know for sure, because we lived next
door to them, and they never ate at a restaurant. They cooked their
own meals, even at advanced ages.

Now without any source of omega 3s (except for the tiniest of trace
amounts, for all practical purposes, none), there is no way they could
have had "rapid DHA turnover" in their brains. And I would take their
health and longevity over anyone else's, because I saw it with my own
eyes. This notion is physically impossible in such a case, and I am
willing to subject myself to any experiment that would have me refrain
from all omega 3s (which is what I'm doing now anyway).

So where are the DHA molecules going to come from to have "rapid
turnover?" The claim of "essential fatty acids" is that "the body
can't make them," which is good, because they are so dangerous, just
like the body can't make uranium 238, which is also good. You can't
have it both ways, as you often seem to want it, MattLB. If the body
needs to have them, but a person won't eat them, their can't be "rapid
DHA turnover." Again, it is physically impossible.

Now, why don't you take me up on one of my experimental offers and
let's settle this. No more of these indirect marker and association
studies.

Once again, I am waiting...

montygram said:

The "essential fatty acid" claim ...

The Noise has been deleted by moi. 🙂

Quoted message said:

high risk activity.

Well, could it be a bunch of [censored]?

How about sticky yucky sludge?

Maybe one too many pork ribs?

Ooooh! I know. 🙂

It must be some of that rotten coconut oil?

You have my condolences, Monty, yet again. 🙁

Ahhh. That is the answer to your parents longevity. You
are a complete liar.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've addressed MMu's stuff before. He must have

severe reading

Quoted message said:

comprehension problems, because I have said over and

over again that it

Quoted message said:

is the AA release upon stressors and metabolization

into LTB4, etc.

Quoted message said:

that is the problem, and that some omega 3's will

appear to be a

Quoted message said:

temporary benefit, due to "competitive inhibition."

I have proposed to

Quoted message said:

do an experiment to see which group of animals lives

longest, those fed

Quoted message said:

fish and canola oil, or those fed fresh coconut oil,

but he has not

Quoted message said:

interest it it.

As to the monkey study cited by MattLB, this is not

relevant. In

Quoted message said:

science, you have to control the variables. Here,

that means one group

Quoted message said:

is fed fresh coconut oil and the other gets fish oil

or whatever is

Quoted message said:

considered "best," and then you see which lives

longer. Obviously, if

Quoted message said:

you have fed animals a diet with a substantial omega

6 PUFA content,

Quoted message said:

then give one group a lot of fish oil, you will see

"turnover."

Quoted message said:

There are facts, and there is evidence. One fact I

know is that my

Quoted message said:

relatives, who lived into or beyond their 90s (with

no "chronic

Quoted message said:

disease"😉 would not eat oily fish, hardly ever ate

any fish, and did

Quoted message said:

not use canola or flax or pumpkin seeds or evening

primrose oil or

Quoted message said:

anything like that. They ate very little

chicken/beef as well. They

Quoted message said:

ate plenty of simple carbs and whole milk dairy, and

always had some

Quoted message said:

fruit each day. This is a fact I know for sure,

because we lived next

Quoted message said:

door to them, and they never ate at a restaurant.

They cooked their

Quoted message said:

own meals, even at advanced ages.

Now without any source of omega 3s (except for the

tiniest of trace

Quoted message said:

amounts, for all practical purposes, none), there is

no way they could

Quoted message said:

have had "rapid DHA turnover" in their brains. And I

would take their

Quoted message said:

health and longevity over anyone else's, because I

saw it with my own

Quoted message said:

eyes. This notion is physically impossible in such a

case, and I am

Quoted message said:

willing to subject myself to any experiment that

would have me refrain

Quoted message said:

from all omega 3s (which is what I'm doing now

anyway).

Quoted message said:

So where are the DHA molecules going to come from to

have "rapid

Quoted message said:

turnover?" The claim of "essential fatty acids" is

that "the body

Quoted message said:

can't make them," which is good, because they are so

dangerous, just

Quoted message said:

like the body can't make uranium 238, which is also

good. You can't

Quoted message said:

have it both ways, as you often seem to want it,

MattLB. If the body

Quoted message said:

needs to have them, but a person won't eat them,

their can't be "rapid

Quoted message said:

DHA turnover." Again, it is physically impossible.

Now, why don't you take me up on one of my

experimental offers and

Quoted message said:

let's settle this. No more of these indirect marker

and association

Quoted message said:

studies.

Once again, I am waiting...

montygram said:

As to the monkey study cited by MattLB, this is not relevant.

A study determining the turnover of DHA in monkey brains isn't relevant
to your claim about there being no DHA turnover in brain? I wonder
what paper ever could be.

Quoted message said:

In
science, you have to control the variables. Here, that means one group
is fed fresh coconut oil and the other gets fish oil or whatever is
considered "best," and then you see which lives longer.

Now *that* really is irrelevant to your point about DHA turnover.

Quoted message said:

There are facts, and there is evidence. One fact I know is that my
relatives, who lived into or beyond their 90s (with no "chronic
disease"😉 would not eat oily fish, hardly ever ate any fish, and did
not use canola or flax or pumpkin seeds or evening primrose oil or
anything like that.

You have no evidence that their diet caused their longevity. Where's
your control group Mr scientific method?

Quoted message said:

They ate very little chicken/beef as well. They
ate plenty of simple carbs and whole milk dairy,

Which contains PUFAs.

Quoted message said:

So where are the DHA molecules going to come from to have "rapid
turnover?"

Since DHA was shown to displace arachidonate, turnover needn't be a
like-for-like swap, which you seem to be suggesting, Or do you think
your brain arachidonate is the same as it was before your started your
diet? i.e. there hasn't been any turnover.

Quoted message said:

The claim of "essential fatty acids" is that "the body
can't make them," which is good, because they are so dangerous,

In your eyes.

Quoted message said:

If the body
needs to have them, but a person won't eat them, their can't be "rapid
DHA turnover." Again, it is physically impossible.

According to that theory if you aren't eating protein containing
essential amino acids there can't be turnover of proteins containing
essential amino acids in the body.

Quoted message said:

Now, why don't you take me up on one of my experimental offers and
let's settle this. No more of these indirect marker and association
studies.

There's nothing indirect about biopsies of brain, serum and
erythrocytes being examined for their fatty acid composition.

MattLB