Yes, and you also wrote: "He may have a thing because he claims experiments with people supplementing with his recommended ratio, plaques in heart disease have been reversed and he claims his recent test shows he has zero score." I don't mean this in a critical way, I'm just trying to understand why you would cite Peskin on this and what your point was with this statement. Which supplement of his were referring to here? Is it not the one he recommends that contains omega 6 from flaxseed and safflower oil?
I believe the ratio range he stated matches that recommended by Dr. Cordain, so it's probably a reasonable one, I just don't see the sense of supplementing with omega 6 whether one is on a SAD diet that is already too high in omega 6 or a raw Paleo diet that includes pastured meats that contain plenty of the only essential omega 6 FA--arachidonic acid--do you? Because of this, I treat with some skepticism his claims that his experiments showed that people supplementing with his recommended plant oil product did well because of the product, rather than other aspects of their diet. Kurt Harris and Mary Enig have pointed out this same fallacy of Peskin promoting omega 6 plant oils as necessary. Besides, as was mentioned earlier, as long as one is eating raw Paleo diet with pasture-fed and wild animals/fish I don't think one needs to worry much about one's omega 6/3 ratio--unless you have a deficiency that hasn't resolved.
Peskin's recommended diet is similar to mine in several ways and actually has more differences with yours, such as his limiting of fruits and eating of large amounts of saturated animal fat. I'm interested in why you have made lecture-like statements to me about that, with good intentions I'm sue, but haven't taken issue with him on the very same thing.
It's his promotion of omega 6 plant oils, which Kurt Harris warns are one of the worst aspects of the SAD that I personally find puzzling. If anyone here has reason to tout his claims it's VLCers who eat lots of fat, like me, since he eats a VLC, high-fat diet. Yet inspite of that I acknowledge that some of his claims are questionable, such as promoting omega 6 and warning against fish oil intake (I agree that one can consume too much omega 3s, but he goes overboard on it) and consumption of fresh whole wild fish yet advertising canned fish, because I am wary of relying on the veracity of any claim just because some guru said it, particularly when they have a spotty record. These aspects of his program trigger my skeptometer. Don't they raise any questions at all for you?
You didn't answer my questions. Why have people here only mentioned Peskin re: fish oils and omega 6/3 ratio and ignored all other aspects of his recommendations?
Tyler already moved one of the Peskin threads to hot topics, because his recommendations are sufficiently non-raw and non-Paleo, so I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be more skepticism regarding him. He doesn't seem to back up his claims as well as Stephan Guyenet or Kurt Harris.
