Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I generally try to learn from my mistakes, and the last time I interacted with Derpamix, the lesson there was that it was a colossal waste of time. So in order to not repeat that, I've been biting my tongue, but I realize that silence can be interpreted in a number of ways.

    This whole "debate" was prompted by a broad sweeping, over-reaching claim typical of ChocoTaco:

    Originally posted by Typical ChocoTaco hyperbole
    There is no study ANYWHERE that has shown "essential fatty acids" to be actually essential. Do you understand this?
    The real question is, does ChocoTaco understand what an essential nutrient is? I'm not sure, so, we'll help him out with a definition:

    Originally posted by Wikipedia
    An essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal body functioning that either cannot be synthesized by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health (e.g. niacin, choline), and thus must be obtained from a dietary source."
    Derpamix then stepped in to muddy the waters with his characteristic frenectic style:

    Originally posted by Derpamix
    More experiments were done on rats fed butter and coconut oil which did not prove totally curative and then again with lard, corn oil, flax oil, liver and olive oil which all proved fully curative which all have either linoleic acid or arachidonic acid. it was shown that when LA or ARA are isolated in purified form, the requirement to cure "deficiency" is slightly above 0.7% of your calories.
    Ok, so Derpamix is conceding the point that EFAs exist? Not exactly, because Derpamix doesn't seemingly understand what an essential nutrient is either, because he seems to think that essentiality is defined by the need to eat a whole of raft of a given nutrient and clearly, "0.7% of your calories" doesn't make the grade. Effectively, then, Derpamix wipes the floor with essential micronutrients like vitamins and minerals, because the amounts required in the diet tend to be measured on the order of micrograms. At this point, you need to decide whether this is a reasonable thing to do ... do you accept the Derpamix Newspeak?

    But just to make sure he drives home the point that he is redefining what "essential nutrient" means, Derpamix repeats himself:

    Originally posted by Derpamix
    In case it's not clear enough:

    EFAD typically occurs when less than 1-2% of total calories are provided from EFAs. In the general population, EFAD is extremely rare.

    Because LA is abundant in the human diet, the amount of AA available almost always exceeds the level needed to maintain a triene-tetraene ratio below 0.2. It was only upon the introduction of parenteral nutrition (PN) that EFAD became more common. It was first reported in patients who received PN without dietary fat supplementation.

    lol!!! so essential
    Not realizing that he's conceded the point yet again, Derpamix then goes on to provide a whole barrage of data / talking points to support the view that PUFAs can be toxic. Well ... ok ... nobody was saying otherwise, or at least, I wasn't. I will gladly admit that there is an optimal range for any dietary element with the extremes being characterized by deficiency and toxicity, and most of our current problems stem from having crossed those thresholds from optimal / healthful into toxicity or deficiency.

    This tactic, by the way, is typical of Derpamix rhetoric and a perfect example of an accusation that he liberally levels against anyone who dares to disagree with him: the strawman argument. Derpamix pretends that an argument was presented that PUFA are not toxic in any measure, and then he proceeds to demolish that argument with his crushing deluge of data. Tilting windmills, yet again.

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

    Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
      I generally try to learn from my mistakes, and the last time I interacted with Derpamix, the lesson there was that it was a colossal waste of time. So in order to not repeat that, I've been biting my tongue, but I realize that silence can be interpreted in a number of ways.
      You come off as the type of person that doesn't enjoy interacting with anyone that challenges you or bests your point-of-view. From your own ridiculous quotation:

      Originally posted by pklopp View Post
      The real question is, does ChocoTaco understand what an essential nutrient is? I'm not sure, so, we'll help him out with a definition:

      Originally posted by Wikipedia
      An essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal body functioning that either cannot be synthesized by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health (e.g. niacin, choline), and thus must be obtained from a dietary source."
      As stated by Wikipedia, something essential "MUST BE OBTAINED FROM A DIETARY SOURCE." It isn't just the fact that the body cannot synthesize it - it MUST BE OBTAINED for "good health." Since there is no study showing that omega 3 and omega 6 MUST BE OBTAINED FOR GOOD HEALTH - only that we cannot synthesize it - you, ironically, have just proved that you don't know the definition of "essential."

      Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot? Are you on the Ironic Comedy Tour or something?
      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 10-11-2013, 10:16 AM.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        You come off as the type of person that doesn't enjoy interacting with anyone that challenges you or bests your point-of-view. From your own ridiculous quotation:



        As stated by Wikipedia, something essential "MUST BE OBTAINED FROM A DIETARY SOURCE." It isn't just the fact that the body cannot synthesize it - it MUST BE OBTAINED for "good health." Since there is no study showing that omega 3 and omega 6 MUST BE OBTAINED FOR GOOD HEALTH - only that we cannot synthesize it - you, ironically, have just proved that you don't know the definition of "essential."

        Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot? Are you on the Ironic Comedy Tour or something?
        Niiiiiicceee.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
          Here is more:

          Extremely limited synthesis of long ... [Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

          these studies all suffer from the same glaring flaws which is a failure to consider all other dietary variables that affect conversion. the use of limited amounts of ALA with a huge amounts of LA would further suppress conversion through competition for enzymatic d6d activity and by LA impairing d6d production

          Extremely limited synthesis of long ... [Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
          An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

          the requirements are so insignificant that it renders the word "essential" literally meaningless. unless, they're considering the fact we don't synthesize it as grounds for labeling it essential. on the flip side, that's probably exactly why they aren't essential. see: mead acid Age-related changes in the retinal capilla... [Invest Ophthalmol. 1972] - PubMed - NCBI
          I already responded to that anyway

          Another humorous tidbit is the fact what he quoted of mine was mostly from his own linked study.
          Last edited by Derpamix; 10-11-2013, 11:14 AM.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
            You come off as the type of person that doesn't enjoy interacting with anyone that challenges you or bests your point-of-view. From your own ridiculous quotation:



            As stated by Wikipedia, something essential "MUST BE OBTAINED FROM A DIETARY SOURCE." It isn't just the fact that the body cannot synthesize it - it MUST BE OBTAINED for "good health." Since there is no study showing that omega 3 and omega 6 MUST BE OBTAINED FOR GOOD HEALTH - only that we cannot synthesize it - you, ironically, have just proved that you don't know the definition of "essential."

            Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot? Are you on the Ironic Comedy Tour or something?
            I do apologize. When I read things like this:

            Originally posted by Derpamix
            In case it's not clear enough:

            EFAD typically occurs when less than 1-2% of total calories are provided from EFAs. In the general population, EFAD is extremely rare.
            I would like some impartial interpreter to come in and tell me that that is an inside joke between you and Derpamix, or that it is being supremely ironic. Otherwise, I take it at face value.

            Taking that quote at face value, then, it is saying that deficiency exists, but it is rare, because you can get your EFA requirements quite easily. Do you understand that, or do I need to resort to using all caps? Or perhaps if I repeat it often enough?

            Further, I specifically asked you to address one specific study several posts ago that you claim does not exist. Addressing it does not mean posting other studies that seemingly contradict it, or hoping Derpamix can bury me under a steaming heap of his effluvium. It actually means reading it, understanding it, finding methodological issues with it, or subsequent studies that failed to confirm the results and bringing that to the debate.

            You have not done so.

            You are either incapable or unwilling to do so.

            If incapable, then please be so kind as to cease and desist with your drivel. If unwilling, no matter, because you should still stop your unsubstantiated claim regarding the existence of studies.

            My quotation, by the way, is as uncontroversial as you are egotistical. It is merely a definition.

            And if you want to speak of irony, the ultimate irony is that you accuse me of the kind of hubris that you repeatedly demonstrate whenever anyone, not just me, dares to disagree with your demagoguery.

            -PK
            My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

            Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

            Comment


            • your own study shows EFA only was discovered after patients fed through a tube received no dietary fat all, then you proceed to cherry pick responses to bolster your argument. Yawn. EFA deficiency exists only in laboratory situations, and even then I would question if it weren't something else entirely.

              This paper appears to be of extreme importance, and the interesting thing is that there isn't anything "controversial" about it. Instead, the reason why having Mead acid (rather than AA) in your cells is not being championed by most if not all biomedical "experts" who provide advice to the public is that they haven't thought about the evidence in a non-biased way:

              QUOTE: The preferred substrates of COX contain at least
              three double bonds in well-defined positions. These are
              dihomogammalinolenic, arachidonic, and eicosapentaenoic
              (EPA) acids, which contain 3, 4, and 5 double
              bonds, respectively. Other fatty acids lacking the three
              double bonds in the required positions can be oxygenated
              by COX to hydroperoxy fatty acids, but not to
              PGs. Thus, Mead acid (C20:3n-9) is transformed to 13-
              hydroxy-5,8,11-eicosatrienoic acid by COX-1...

              COX-1, first purified in 1976, was cloned in 1988. At the
              time, PG generation was assumed to involve only the one
              COX enzyme, but in 1991 several groups independently
              reported a second gene with COX activity, an isoform
              denoted COX-2 (ref. 16; see also Smith and Langenbach,
              this Perspective series, ref. 17). The COX-2 isoform is
              expressed in many cell types in vitro and during inflammation
              in vivo, suggesting that, whereas COX-1 generates
              a constitutive pool of prostanoids that can maintain
              cellular homeostasis, the induction of COX-2 might
              explain the increased levels of prostanoids that accompany
              various pathologies. COX-1 and COX-2 are products
              of different genes, and although their amino acid
              identity is only about 61% overall (18), their three-dimensional
              x-ray crystal structures are virtually superimposable.
              Both enzymes catalyze the same reactions (Figure
              1), making selective inhibition of one isoform over the
              other a formidable challenge... UNQUOTE.

              My interpretation of this (in light of all the other evidence I've examined) is that it supports the notion that Mead acid is "natural" in your cells (if it is in the sn-2 position, that is, to be used to make these kinds of "inflammatory" molecules) and that having AA there instead "primes" your body for the various "chronic inflammatory diseases" that they allude to above. Instead of mentioning this possibility, however, they apparently defer to the "essential fatty acid experts." Thus, they move on to the notion that fish oil supplements may be "beneficial" in this context (and do not mention the evidence that it is potentially very harmful):

              QUOTE: Fish oil has been proposed to act by one or more of
              several mechanisms. First, it may prevent conversion of
              arachidonic acid to proinflammatory eicosanoids, such
              as PGs and LTs. Second, it may provide an alternative
              substrate for the 5-LO, promoting the production of
              the less potent 5-series LTs, rather than the potent 4-
              series or arachidonic acid–derived LTs... UNQUOTE.

              Any responses to the other things you ignored, or are you just going to keep whining about imaginary strawmen while utilizing your own to enforce dogma?
              Last edited by Derpamix; 10-11-2013, 03:15 PM.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • Star Trek called. They want their techno-babble back.
                Crohn's, doing SCD

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
                  Star Trek called. They want their techno-babble back.
                  personal incredulity
                  Make America Great Again

                  Comment


                  • What I love are all the stories online connecting fish oil to weight gain along with recent studies saying it doesn't even do what people think it does (help brain health, etc). Just utterly amazing. There's no such thing as "essential fats", silliest idea ever...... ......... along with no sugar/"low carbs" and the new popularity of kale.

                    You realize the longer you track the health and wellness story (or whatever you want to call it) that the public has no intention whatsoever of ever learning the truth.

                    Low PUFA+ sugar/fruit+ metabolic enhancing supps (aspirin, progesterone, calcium, coconut oil)= SUCCESS, for me personally anyway.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      There is no data to support the Paleo Tale, yet this site full of people believe that ancient man never ate grains and legumes.
                      A thing called archaeology exists.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                        A thing called archaeology exists.
                        Sorry, this doesn't support it either. Botanical remains testify to the opposite.
                        Make America Great Again

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                          Taking that quote at face value, then, it is saying that deficiency exists, but it is rare, because you can get your EFA requirements quite easily. Do you understand that, or do I need to resort to using all caps? Or perhaps if I repeat it often enough?
                          In the case of "EFA deficiency," the body produces something called "mead acid." What Derp is calling "EFA deficiency" is his way of saying "mead acid production." As long as there is a tiny amount of EFA consumed, the body does not produce mead acid.

                          So, as you can see, there is a such thing as "EFA deficiency," but that does not make EFA essential because you can be "EFA deficient" and be healthy.

                          Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                          Further, I specifically asked you to address one specific study several posts ago that you claim does not exist.
                          There is no study that shows EFA's are actually essential. Your brilliant retort is to ask me to prove something doesn't exist. How exactly can you prove something doesn't exist? It is fundamentally impossible - I can tell you that there is a civilization of giant super-intelligent flamingos that live on Pluto and you cannot prove it doesn't exist. Does that make me correct? The fallacies do not stop with you.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                            A thing called archaeology exists.
                            And archaeology states that ancient man never had a grain or legume, but they ate copious amounts of bacon, butter, brownies made out of nut meal and kale chips?
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by fiercehunter View Post
                              What I love are all the stories online connecting fish oil to weight gain along with recent studies saying it doesn't even do what people think it does (help brain health, etc). Just utterly amazing. There's no such thing as "essential fats", silliest idea ever...... ......... along with no sugar/"low carbs" and the new popularity of kale.

                              You realize the longer you track the health and wellness story (or whatever you want to call it) that the public has no intention whatsoever of ever learning the truth.

                              Low PUFA+ sugar/fruit+ metabolic enhancing supps (aspirin, progesterone, calcium, coconut oil)= SUCCESS, for me personally anyway.
                              This reminds me of a blog post by Andrew Kim.

                              Andrew Kim Blog: Brain food.

                              His argument is that people think DHA is healthy for the brain because it tends to be concentrated there, so therefore, fish is considered "brain food." That's kind of like saying because lipoproteins can clog up your arteries, it's healthy to eat a diet low in fat and cholesterol for arterial health. Where did we hear that one before?
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • ALTERATION OF THE FATTY ACID COMPOSITION OF BRAI... [J Neurochem. 1963] - PubMed - NCBI

                                In experimentally induced DHA deficiency, the body synthesizes a DHA replacement, docosapentaenoic acid from ARA. Even in the absence of ARA, the body would convert oleate from carbohydrate into an ARA replacement(mead acid). Though, as said, these are all laboratory situations. Not only can mead acid perform all functions, but it is remarkably anti-inflammatory.

                                Oh, and lowering n-3 intake to a level as low as 0.05% of calories does not affect DHA levels.
                                Last edited by Derpamix; 10-11-2013, 08:03 PM.
                                Make America Great Again

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X