pufa's: 3 vs 6

[rafonly]

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-disease.html

posted on may 24, 2009

"Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are primarily omega-6 and omega-3. This is a chemical designation that refers to the position of a double bond along the fatty acid's carbon chain. Omega-6 fats are found abundantly in industrial vegetable oils (corn, soybean, sunflower, cottonseed, etc.) and certain nuts, and in lesser amounts in meats, dairy and grains. Omega-3 fats are found abundantly in seafood and a few seeds such as flax and walnuts, and in smaller amounts in meats, green vegetables and dairy.

"The body uses a multi-step process to convert omega-3 and omega-6 fats into eicosanoids, which are a diverse and potent class of signaling molecules. The first step is to convert PUFA into highly unsaturated fatty acids, or HUFA. These include arachidonic acid (AA), an omega-6 HUFA, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 HUFA, and several others in the 20- to 22-carbon length range.

"HUFA are stored in cell membranes and they are the direct precursors of eicosanoids. When the cell needs eicosanoids, it liberates HUFA from the membrane and converts it. The proportion of omega-6 to omega-3 HUFA in the membrane is proportional to the long-term proportion of omega-6 and omega-3 in the diet. Enzymes do not discriminate between omega-6 and omega-3 HUFA when they create eicosanoids. Therefore, the proportion of omega-6- to omega-3-derived eicosanoids is proportional to dietary intake.

"Omega-6 eicosanoids are potently inflammatory and thrombotic (promote blood clotting, such as thromboxane A2), while omega-3 eicosanoids are less inflammatory, less thrombotic and participate in long-term repair processes.
...

"In the next post, I'll be delving into this concept in more detail, and explaining why it's not just the ratio that matters, but also the total intake of omega-6. I'll also be providing more evidence to support the theory."

2 of the comments:
"the turnover of fats in the cell membrane takes about two years - heard that in an radio interview with Ray Peat."

"It takes about 600 days to change 50% of adipose tissue, and change will still be going on at year 5.
The relationship is inversely exponential.
The rate of change varies between fat depots.
Breast fat will see significant change in months."

[rafonly]

so stephan also agrees that to counteract, reverse, or undo the deleterious effects of omega-6 (mostly from dietary plants) time is a decisive factor: roughly 2 years it seems -- certainly more than the typical "detox" crisis or the short lived raf experiment

also interestingly, newer commentators on stephan's current blog are focusing on human evolution & the paleo foodstyle

2 relevant articles are the following:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html


http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html

[TylerDurden]

Well, I can only go by the experiences of Primal Dieters:- those who don't have food-intolerances to dairy/veggie-juice et al, take c.2-3 years to fully recover from cooked-/processed diets. Since primal Dieters usually  indulge in raw plant-oils, I rather doubt the above explanation as it obviously doesn't apply to raw-olive-oil long-term primal dieters etc.

[rafonly]

from:
http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life.blogspot.com/2007/10/selecting-fats-and-oils-for-health.html

Percentage of Classified Fats for Different Fats and Oils

Fat/oil      Omg-6   Omg-3   Poly (3+6)   Mono    Sat

Cod liver oil   1.0      20.5       24.5      50.9      24.6
Palm kernel oil   1.7      0.0      1.7      12.1      86.2
Macadamia oil   1.8      0.3       2.1      81.5      16.4
Coconut oil   1.9      0.0      1.9      6.2      91.9
Butter      2.9      0.4      4.0      27.9      68.1
Beef fat (tallow)   3.2      0.6      4.2      43.7      52.1
Sunflower (h o) oil 3.7   0.2      3.9      86.1      10.0
Mutton (tallow)   5.7      2.4      8.2      42.4      49.4
Palm oil      9.5      0.2      9.7      38.7      51.6
Olive oil      10.0      0.8      10.8      75.0      14.2
Goose fat      10.3      0.5      11.5      59.4      29.0
Pork fat (lard)   10.7      1.0      11.7      47.2      41.0
Duck fat      12.6      1.0      13.5      51.7      34.8
Avocado oil   13.1      1.0      14.1      73.8      12.1
Flax oil      13.3      55.8      69.0      21.1      9.8
Safflower (h o) oil 15.1   0.0      15.1      78.4      6.5
Almond oil      18.2      0.0      18.2      73.2      8.6
Canola oil      19.2      9.2      28.5      64.1      7.5
Chicken fat   20.4      1.0      21.9      46.9      31.2
Peanut oil      33.6      0.0      33.6      48.6      17.8
Rice bran oil   35.5      1.7      37.2      41.8      21.0
Sesame oil      43.2      0.3      43.6      41.5      14.9
Soybean oil   53      0 7      60.0      23.7      16.3
Cottonseed oil   53.9      0.2      54.3      18.6      27.1
Corn oil      56.2      1.2      57.4      29.0      13.6
Sunflower oil   68.8      0.0      68.8      20.4      10.8
Grapeseed oil   72.8      0.1      73.1      16.8      10.0
Safflower oil   78.4      0.0      78.4      15.1      6.5

Compiled from USDA Nutrient Database

[rafonly]

the following is from:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/113/2

egg yolk >
Total Omega-3 fatty acids   554 mg
Total Omega-6 fatty acids   8597 mg
                                                       o-3:o-6=1:15.5

butter >
Total Omega-3 fatty acids   715 mg
Total Omega-6 fatty acids   6193 mg
                                                       o-3:o-6=1:8.6


egg yolk raw fresh (1 cup - 243 g)

Calorie Information

Calories      770   (3224 kJ)
   From Carb      35.7   (149 kJ) 
   From Fat      580   (2428 kJ) 
   From Protein   154   (645 kJ)

Carbohydrates
Total Carbohydrate   8.7 g
Dietary Fiber      0.0 g
Starch         ~ 
Sugars         1.4 g 
   Sucrose   170 mg 
   Glucose   437 mg 
   Fructose   170 mg 
   Lactose   170 mg 
   Maltose   170 mg
   Galactose   170 mg

Fats & Fatty Acids
Total Fat   64.5 g
Saturated Fat   23.2 g
   4:00      0.0 mg 
   6:00      0.0 mg 
   8:00      21.9 mg 
   10:00   21.9 mg
   12:00   21.9 mg
   13:00   ~
   14:00   253 mg
   15:00   31.6 mg
   16:00   16668 mg
   17:00   124 mg
   18:00   5873 mg
   19:00   ~
   20:00   77.8 mg
   22:00   92.3 mg
   24:00:00   21.9 mg
Monounsaturated Fat   28.5 g
   14:01   58.3 mg
   15:01   ~
   16:1 undiff   2230 mg
   16:1 c   ~
   16:1 t   ~
   17:01   ~
   18:1 undiff   26007 mg
   18:1 c   ~
   18:1 t   ~
   20:01   209 mg
   22:1 undiff   21.9 mg
   22:1 c   ~
   22:1 t   ~
   24:1 c   ~
Polyunsaturated Fat   10.2 g
   16:2 undiff   ~
   18:2 undiff   8597 mg
   18:2 n-6 c,c~
   18:2 c,t   ~
   18:2 t,c   ~
   18:2 t,t   ~
   18:2 i   ~
   18:2 t not defined~
   18:03   250 mg
   18:3 n-3, c,c,c~
   18:3 n-6, c,c,c~
   18:4 undiff   0.0 mg
   20:2 n-6 c,c~
   20:3 undiff   ~
   20:3 n-3   ~
   20:3 n-6   ~
   20:4 undiff   1064 mg
   20:4 n-3   ~
   20:4 n-6   ~
   20:5 n-3   26.7 mg
   22:02   ~
   22:5 n-3   0.0 mg
   22:6 n-3   277 mg
Total trans fatty acids   ~
Total trans-monoenoic   ~
Total trans-polyenoic   ~
Total Omega-3 fatty acids   554 mg
Total Omega-6 fatty acids   8597 mg

from:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/133/2

butter no salt (1 cup - 227 g)

Calorie Information
Calories   1628 (6816 kJ)
   From Carb      0.9 (3.8 kJ)
   From Fat      1618 (6774 kJ)
   From Protein   8.2 (34.3 kJ)

Carbohydrates
Total Carbohydrate   0.1 g
Dietary Fiber   0.0 g
Starch      0.0 g
Sugars      0.1 g

Fats & Fatty Acids
Total Fat   184 g
Saturated Fat   117 g
   4:00      7324 mg
   6:00      4555 mg
   8:00      2701 mg
   10:00   5741 mg
   12:00   5873 mg
   13:00   ~
   14:00   16878 mg
   15:00   ~
   16:00   49253 mg
   17:00   1271 mg
   18:00   22695 mg
   19:00   ~
   20:00   313 mg
   22:00   ~
   24:00:00   ~
Monounsaturated Fat   47.7 g
   14:01   ~
   15:01   ~
   16:1 undiff   2182 mg
   16:1 c   2182 mg
   16:1 t   ~
   17:01   ~
   18:1 undiff   45307 mg
   18:1 c   38535 mg
   18:1 t   6769 mg
   20:01   227 mg
   22:1 undiff   0.0 mg
   22:1 c   ~
   22:1 t   ~
   24:1 c   ~
Polyunsaturated Fat   6.9 g
   16:2 undiff   ~
   18:2 undiff   6193 mg
   18:2 n-6 c,c4917 mg
   18:2 c,t   ~
   18:2 t,c   ~
   18:2 t,t   ~
   18:2 i   672 mg
   18:2 t not defined~
   18:03   715 mg
   18:3 n-3, c,c,c715 mg
   18:3 n-6, c,c,c   ~
   18:4 undiff   0.0 mg
   20:2 n-6 c,c   ~
   20:3 undiff   ~
   20:3 n-3   ~
   20:3 n-6   ~
   20:4 undiff   0.0 mg
   20:4 n-3   ~
   20:4 n-6   ~
   20:5 n-3   0.0 mg
   22:02   ~
   22:5 n-3   0.0 mg
   22:6 n-3   0.0 mg
Total trans fatty acids   ~
Total trans-monoenoic fatty acids   ~
Total trans-polyenoic fatty acids   ~
Total Omega-3 fatty acids   715 mg
Total Omega-6 fatty acids   6193 mg

[rafonly]

here's part 2:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html

posted on may 27, 2009

"... The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 matters, but so does the total amount of each.
...

"These lines are based on values predicted by a formula developed by Dr. Lands that determines the proportion of omega-6 in tissue HUFA (highly unsaturated fatty acids; includes 20- to 22-carbon omega-6 and omega-3 fats), based on dietary intake of omega-6 and omega-3 fats. This formula seems to be quite accurate, and has been validated both in rodents and humans. As a tissue's arachidonic acid {long o-6 in mammals} content increases, its EPA and DHA {long o-3 in seafood} content decreases proportionally.

"... As omega-3 intake increases, the proportion of omega-6 HUFA decreases at all levels of dietary omega-6 because it has to compete with omega-3 HUFA for space in the membrane.

"In the U.S., we get a small proportion of our calories from omega-3. The horizontal line marks our average tissue HUFA composition, which is about 75% omega-6. We get more than 7% of our calories from omega-6. This means our tissue contains nearly the maximum proportion of omega-6 HUFA, creating a potently inflammatory and thrombotic environment! This is a very significant fact, because it explains three major observations:
...

"If omega-3 intake is low, whether omega-6 intake is 5% or 10% doesn't matter much for heart disease. At that point, the only way to reduce tissue HUFA without cutting back on omega-6 consumption is to outcompete it with additional omega-3.
...

"In sum, this suggests that the single best way to avoid a heart attack is to reduce omega-6 consumption and ensure an adequate source of omega-3. The lower the omega-6, the less the omega-3 matters. This is a nice theory, but where's the direct evidence? In the next post, I'll discuss the controlled trial that proved this concept once and for all: the Lyon diet-heart trial."

[rafonly]

2 comments from:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html

[1]
With regard to ratios in grain fed vs. grass fed beef, the following information comes from Regina's Weight of the Evidence blog:

100 g / 3.5 oz

Beef, grass-fed
0.139 g (n-6)
0.052 g (n-3)

Beef, grain-fed, conventional
0.275 g (n-6)
0.016 g (n-3)

Beef, grass-fed
Ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3
                                            o-6:o-3=2.7:1

Beef, grain-fed, conventional
Ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3
                                           o-6:o-3=17.2:1

[2]
"I think the ratio of o-6/o-3 in beef depends greatly on the particular cut.
"I've seen these often self-serving comparisons of grass- vs. grain-fed beef and finally went to the USDA Nutrient Database to find out.

100 g of USDA Choice grade rib-eye (grain fed) has (.510+.020)/.24 = 2.2:1 ratio -- not bad at all.

A New York Strip has a similar profile.

"Ruminants -- particularly cattle -- don't react as poorly to a high grain diet as do pigs and chickens. I believe Peter at Hyperlipid discussed this a while back."

[TylerDurden]

"Ruminants -- particularly cattle -- don't react as poorly to a high grain diet as do pigs and chickens. I believe Peter at Hyperlipid discussed this a while back."

[/color]

Now that comment I can easily NOT believe in. After all, in teh Uk and many other countries, pigs are happily fed on grains, and being omnivores, are less susceptible to problems from grains than cattle - and cattle are meant to be fed on grasses, not grains.

[rafonly]

this is a really interesting point

i used to think along those lines -- that hogs are better off because of their being omnivores -- not any longer!
based on my own experience -- eating pork vs eating beef -- as well as on the cro-magnon cave paintings i've changed my mind & my body

it's well known that the paleo homo (cro-magnon, neanderthal, & possibly others) ate away to the point of extinction all large mammals they came across

in his book on cave art, levi-gurhan claims to have found, among others, the following numbers:

510 bisons
205 mammoths
137 oxen

& only

2 boars
6 birds

myself, i tend to think that these cave figures are telling us, among other things, that cro-magnons preferred to eat large mammals

now, coming to the present i see a similar benefit derived from the eating of the largest mammals available: buffalo/bison & beef (i don't know whether any1 eats elephant of water buffalo these days); they seem to have more power to deal w/ whatever they get a chance to eat

to confirm this point, here's the summary i culled from a table found in this article on the benefits of dietary long chain omega-3:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/83/6/S1483

meat type            o-6         o-3                  ratio

poultry meats      1541         121                  12.7:1
chicken w/ skin         2960         190               15.6:1
turkey w/ skin         1810         150               12.1:1
pig meats             899          65                   13.8:1
pork w/ fat          1390         90                       15.4:1
bovine meats         301         122                  2.5:1
beef w/ fat            440         190                  2.3:1
goat & mutton         524         223               2.3:1

you can see that the o-6:o-3 ratio is better in turkey than chicken; much better in beef than all poultry & pigs
the "goat & mutton" category in general is about the same as beef in terms of ratio, but if you look at the original table you'll see that goat fares better than lamb (goat may have more power than lamb; its meat is certainly more intense whereas lamb is more bland)

[TylerDurden]

I'm always suspicious of such statistics especially when they directly oppose the numerous anecdotal reports made by RAFers that grainfed meat is always bad.

As regards those cave-paintings they are not fully representational. For one thing, palaeoanthropologists have already found evidence that all kinds of different animals were hunted, with palaeo tribespeople preferring a wider variety of foods(ie not just large mammals but smaller animals the size of foxes). There was 1 study that claimed, a while back, that the neanderthals ate mostly meats from large mammals, but they have since had to change their minds given new evidence that has come to light.

[wodgina]

How do you know they preferred variety? What's so important about variety and why would paleo people even want variety?

They ate smaller animals because they had already wiped out the mega fauna or mega fauna had become scarce. The cave paintings DO depict larger animals not small ones.

I think because you like variety you have found evidence to support this?

[TylerDurden]

How do you know they preferred variety? What's so important about variety and why would paleo people even want variety?

They ate smaller animals because they had already wiped out the mega fauna or mega fauna had become scarce. The cave paintings DO depict larger animals not small ones.

I think because you like variety you have found evidence to support this?

Not at all, I was simply describing the current view of palaeoanthropologists. Indeed, it was the other way round. At the time, I'd given up on the Primal Diet and started looking around for any scientific evidence from palaeo times, and palaeoanthroplogists were all in agreement that paleo cavemen ate diets very rich in variety, so that's what I decided to do - after all, I'd found out, by then, that every single palaeo practice I'd adopted, such as giving up dairy, going raw(hearkening back to palaeo times pre-250,000 years ago) etc. were all solving my past health-problems.Given that I don't seem to do well for various reasons on monotonous diets for various reasons(found via experimentation etc.), I reckon that, for me at least, variety is necessary.

 Re studies:- There was that 1 study which claimed that the reason why the Neanderthals became extinct was because they depended mostly on meats from large mammals like mammoths, and that the Neanderthals died out when the mammoths etc. died out due to famine( I showed it on rawpaleodiet yahoo group ages ago),  but recent evidence from palaeo times shows that their diet was far more varied than thought. As regards cave-paintings, people tend to forget that they are only from the period of c.20,000 to 30,000 BC, just before the end of the Palaeolithic era, and  some 10,000 years after most of the larger mammals like mammoths were largely wiped out(which happened more like 40,000 years BC). So they may not be representational(at least are mammoths depicted? I'd thought only aurochs and horses wre really depicted?).

As regards variety, that's simple logic and backed by scientific reports(the cro-magnon have been shown to have eaten a wide variety of fish, fowl and land-mammals, large or small - of course, humans in different regions, according to reports, ate widely different animals, some small, some large, depending on availability(the cave-paintings referred to, only apply to western europe, given their locality). And, as regards the logic, humans did not have the luxury of having direct access to grassfed meat farms like we do, so would have been forced to take whatever they could get from the environment.

[rafonly]

i agree that the depictions in the paleo caves are not an exclusive or final argument vis-a-vis what cro-magnon, neanderthal & perhaps other paleo homo ate regularly or seasonally & in what proportions
yet they are a solid piece of evidence right in front of our eyes

further, the neanderthals have also been claimed to have become extinct due to cannibalism
see
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978059/posts
http://www.anansi.ca/pop_excerpt.cfm?book=237

again, it's practically impossible to say the last word on these issues

re. the paleo horse:
the most abundant herbivore mammal in the cro-magnon cave paintings is the horse
levi-gurhan found 610 horses in all the caves he examined

& it so happens that current horse meat is said to contain an even better o-3 profile than beef
see
http://www.throwthembows.com/Alistair-Overeem-eats-Horse-Meat

re. the impact of pufa's on homo health & evolution/devolution esp. on brain, eyes, nervous system 2 plausible scenarios come to mind at the moment:
~ the long chain pufa profile in paleo meats of any herbivore mammal might, most likely, have been different from today's
~ the cro-magnon (&/or other sophisticatedly evolved paleo humans) might have eaten a fair amount of water vertebrates (more than the modest # of fish in the caves suggests)

[rafonly]

"I'm always suspicious of such statistics especially when they directly oppose the numerous anecdotal reports made by RAFers"

of course, this is just another statistic, only this time in disguise
the key words being "such" & "anecdotal" -- the former, such, seems to convey here a negative connotation whereas the latter, anecdotal, seems to carry a positive feeling

also
how, precisely, do "such statistics" work to "directly oppose" the claimed "numerous reports"?
where are those numerous reports kept & how can they be accessed?

[TylerDurden]

"I'm always suspicious of such statistics especially when they directly oppose the numerous anecdotal reports made by RAFers"

of course, this is just another statistic, only this time in disguise
the key words being "such" & "anecdotal" -- the former, such, seems to convey here a negative connotation whereas the latter, anecdotal, seems to carry a positive feeling

also
how, precisely, do "such statistics" work to "directly oppose" the claimed "numerous reports"?
where are those numerous reports kept & how can they be accessed?

The trouble with the RVAF world is that most of the info is in the form of stories and personal experiences spread out among the livefood, rawpaleodiet and other RAf-forums. There being no scientific studies on that subject, all we can do is rely on reports and cite those claims which have been made by a large enough number of RVAFers. I don't expect you to treat it as gospel, I'm just stating that that there are extremely few accounts made by RVAFers who claim that graifned meat is OK, whereas multiple RVAFers claim that grassfed meat is far superior etc.

[TylerDurden]

i agree that the depictions in the paleo caves are not an exclusive or final argument vis-a-vis what cro-magnon, neanderthal & perhaps other paleo homo ate regularly or seasonally & in what proportions
yet they are a solid piece of evidence right in front of our eyes

further, the neanderthals have also been claimed to have become extinct due to cannibalism
see
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978059/posts
http://www.anansi.ca/pop_excerpt.cfm?book=237

again, it's practically impossible to say the last word on these issues

Granted. Evidence from palaeo times is pretty sparse. What I was trying to say was that while the palaeo caves in western europe depict most likely what animals were being hunted there, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the same animals were being hunted in Africa or Asia etc. Indeed, I once asked a palaeoanthroplogist online about types of animals hunted, and he pointed to studies which show a very wide range of large and small animals as having been hunted.

The cannibalism theory re the Neanderthals isn't taken too seriously, by the way. This is partly because our cavemen ancestors have also been shown to have practised cannibalism

re. the paleo horse:
the most abundant herbivore mammal in the cro-magnon cave paintings is the horse
levi-gurhan found 610 horses in all the caves he examined

& it so happens that current horse meat is said to contain an even better o-3 profile than beef
see
http://www.throwthembows.com/Alistair-Overeem-eats-Horse-Meat

Interesting tidbit re horses being more predominant in those paintings. i'd have thought the aurochs was more favoured.

You may even be right re horsemeat. I have noticed that grassfed horsemeat has a better taste than the organic grassfed beef I buy, and I'm pretty sure it has a better nutrient-profile.

re. the impact of pufa's on homo health & evolution/devolution esp. on brain, eyes, nervous system 2 plausible scenarios come to mind at the moment:
~ the long chain pufa profile in paleo meats of any herbivore mammal might, most likely, have been different from today's
~ the cro-magnon (&/or other sophisticatedly evolved paleo humans) might have eaten a fair amount of water vertebrates (more than the modest # of fish in the caves suggests)

Possible re the water-vertebrates, except that the aquatic ape theory has a number of flaws in it.

Can't imagine how pufa profiles would be different between wild species in palaeo times and wild species of today.

[/color]
[/quote]

[rafonly]

"those claims which have been made by a large enough number of RVAFers. I don't expect you to treat it as gospel, I'm just stating that that there are extremely few accounts made by RVAFers who claim that graifned meat is OK, whereas multiple RVAFers claim that grassfed meat is far superior etc."

well, for 1 thing in the previous post of yours that i quoted & responded to earlier you claimed to represent "numerous reports" made by "RAFers".... low & behold! now you have switched to claiming to represent "a large enough number of RVAFers"
it so happens that the 1 letter you added this time (V) does make a difference since my own produced "such statistics" that you disliked so much may well be far more different from RVAF than from RAF -- iow, RVAF eating might include larger amounts of o-6 -- from plants, eggs, honey... even raw butter, god forbid! (not to mention all the fructose, tyramine, fungi, etc. which work to compound troubles)

as you can easily see in a previous post in this thread, my "such statistics" are meant to show differences in o-6 vs o-3 + their ratios in chicken, turkey, beef, goat-lamb thus lending some evidence to my basic point: that animal size seems to involve a difference in their metabolic power > hence in the nutritional impact of their meat as eaten by paleo or current humans

the rest of your statement i'm quoting here above sounds a bit skewed to me
are you trying to instill in the forum readers the mythology that i am opposed to grassfed beef while lobbying for grainfed beef?
i wonder what your agenda is
can you provide at least 1 single post authored by me in which i lobby for grainfed beef while condemning grassfed?

myself, on the other hand, remember clearly posting in a thread about fat in beef not too long ago that i only buy (& eat) grassfed beef & goat (i don't have the url at the moment, but will find it soon)

just found it!
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/suet-vs-hide-fat/msg12226/#msg12226
the thread is on suet & hide fat

[rafonly]

"Possible re the water-vertebrates, except that the aquatic ape theory has a number of flaws in it."

was i lobbying for the aquatic ape theory by any chance?
is any1 who ever puts a piece of seafood in the mouth an advocate of the aquatic ape movement?

"Can't imagine how pufa profiles would be different between wild species in palaeo times and wild species of today.

sorry!
what you or any1 else is capable of imagining is not necessarily a 1:1 representation of wild {animal} species in any time on this planet
why should homo physiology, the planet's biosphere, animal physiology & metabolism be exactly the same today as 30,000 years ago?

[Satya]

I think Tyler's agenda might be to become a raw food guru.  Between his attempts at reason and GS's ego, I don't bother posting here much any more.  Most laughable is this tone in many posts by Tyler that his view is that of the archeologists or whathaveyou.  Like popularity of view makes it somehow the correct one.

[rafonly]

"Interesting tidbit re horses being more predominant in those paintings. i'd have thought the aurochs was more favoured."

i had thought so too

here's the thing though:
i was always surprised that levi-gurhan does not mention auroch; so now i went back to his list of cave findings & found out that he mentions 510 bisons + 137 oxen > 647 {possibly} aurochs

& only 610 horses

considering that levi-gurhan lists over 1900 animals he found in the caves, is 647:610 considered a statistical difference?

[TylerDurden]

Hm, given all those references re "gurus" and "agendas", there does seem just a touch of unnecessary paranoia, here!(lol)

re archaeologists:- Palaeo evidence is so sparse that it makes more sense to look to those ideas that have more evidence backing them than others(eg:- the aquatic ape theory has rather more criticisms leveled at it re the evidence by numerous researchers than the meat-DHA theory, by comparison). Granted, anything is possible and the aquatic ape theory could even end up  being the right one, but the weight of evidence is currently against it. Science, indeed, operates by concensus and experimentation etc.



Re comment "why should homo physiology, the planet's biosphere, animal physiology & metabolism be exactly the same today as 30,000 years ago" .It is possible, I suppose, for animals to suddenly change their metabolism etc., but that generally takes a lot longer than 30,000 years. I'm just a bit sceptical re the pufas somehow changing in that time.

Re grassfed comments:- Ah, it seems I've been getting so many e-mails so that  I may have missed the point of the previous discussion. I think I assumed, at the time, that you were suggesting that some grainfed meats from some animals  were superior to some grassfed meats from other animals.Sorry, my error.

[Josh]

Now that comment I can easily NOT believe in. After all, in teh Uk and many other countries, pigs are happily fed on grains, and being omnivores, are less susceptible to problems from grains than cattle - and cattle are meant to be fed on grasses, not grains.

I suppose one way of looking at it would be that paleo cows would have eaten some grass seeds as part of their diet, so may be able to tolerate grains to some extent, whereas pigs wouldn't have had any at all.

By the same reasoning grass fed would still be better though.

[rafonly]

"Re comment "why should homo physiology, the planet's biosphere, animal physiology & metabolism be exactly the same today as 30,000 years ago" .It is possible, I suppose, for animals to suddenly change their metabolism etc., but that generally takes a lot longer than 30,000 years. I'm just a bit sceptical re the pufas somehow changing in that time."

ok
of the 3 factors i mentioned -- {1} homo physiology {2} the planet's biosphere {3} animal physiology & metabolism -- you just addressed 50% of the 3rd by stating your own opinion: you suppose, you're sceptical; that's that folks
> i'm curious as to how scientific this opinion of yours is when not backed by any appropriate reference or how much this opinion of yours reflects your life experiences (?)
so far you haven't referred to the source of your opinions in this thread & you seem to expect every reader to take your words at face value since you make yourself sound like you're meant to be the official expert around here or at least the ultimate mover 'n shaker
{you did, indeed, move this thread w/ no notice}

when it comes to the planet's biosphere, for ex...
~ some1 could find references that shed some light on biosphere changes over the last 30,00 years: what flora & fauna has disappeared, what new hybrids have proliferated, the mineral profile of soils & waters, etc.
~ some1 could reason that within the last 100 years -- i.e. much sooner than 30,00 years -- changes have already been observed in the pufa profile of cattle raised on pasture from start to finish vs cattle kept in feedlots for their last 3-6 months

re. the aquatic ape theory, i've not read about it in this thread at all other than in 2 of your posts
> you seem to be enjoying a dialogue w/ your self on this issue
what your agenda is may be classified info

now,
if you are overwhelmed w/ emails, could you perhaps consider the possibility of slowing down your posting speed thereby enhancing the quality of your posts & lowering your stress level?

just wondering...

[TylerDurden]

Well, actually, any claims re extinction of megafauna tend, more commonly , to be from c.40,000 years ago not 30,000 years ago. And like I said, I am merely describing the general standpoint among palaeoanthropologists, not necessarily my own, that differences in metabolism etc. take much longer to develop than a mere 30,000 years. if you have evidence re water-content etc. changing, by all means provide it. Just don't be at all surprised if people are somewhat sceptical.

As regards the aquatic ape theory, I would suggest that you actually check the various websites both in favour and against it, and you'll then  start seeing what I was talking about. This wasn't a thread on aquatic ape theory(I've done them before) so I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.

re moving:- I moved this thread solely because of the zero-carb-related material. It seems to me absurd that we have all these multiple forums yet that people try as much as possible to post their topics in the general discussions forum so as to be supposedly more viewable. Makes better sense to rejuvenate the various, different forums(zero-carb or otherwise).

[rafonly]

unlike genetic evolution, epigenetic does not call for long periods of time
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

"Whereas the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes.
"Epigenetic changes have also been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure -- for example, mice given some dietary supplements have epigenetic changes affecting expression of the agouti gene, which affects their fur color, weight, and propensity to develop cancer."