RE: Omega 3 supplementation was: Cannell on CLO

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Counter-intuitive, also. Given that a regular supply of EPA and DHA has

>been part of our dietary for all of our existence and the fact that it is

>almost completely absent from available food today it seems to me that

>lifetime supplementation with at least some quantity of long chain omega

>three is crucial.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I don't mean that we don't need

the omega 3 fatty acids that can be found in fish oil. I mean that

fish oil is a terrible dietary vehicle for those fatty acids because

refined fish oil is missing the antioxidants which are required to

prevent those fatty acids from increasing our peroxidation

burden. It's also quite prone to rancidity, so even if you're going

to take fish oil and A and D (and E complex) separately for some

reason, you have to be extra careful about the fish oil you use.

In the short term, of course, fish oil supplementation can correct an

omega 3 deficiency and thus show tremendously positive results. In

the long term, the consequences of greatly heightened peroxidation

will begin to manifest. That's why high-vitamin CLO is generally

such a good bet.

>As for the omega-3, Price did not study this, but 10 grams is too high. You

>only want about 1.5% of calories as omega-3. For a 3000 calorie diet, this

>would be about 45 kcal or 5 grams. This would be for the 18-carbon omega-3.

>There are also the dlongated versions (DHA and EPA) and I would imagine that

>2-3 grams of these would be optimal. Sally]]]

This seems basically reasonable. PUFA should probably amount to

something on the order of 4% of calories, and ideally should be in

the form of the elongated animal omega 3s and 6s, properly balanced of course.

I'd like to know a lot more about the longevity and aging of groups

which got a lot more PUFA in their traditional diets, but I'll wager

that any healthy ones were getting loads and loads of A and D.

-

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>This seems basically reasonable. PUFA should probably amount to

>something on the order of 4% of calories,

,

I re-read this part of the write up on the common characteristics of

traditional diets on the WAPF website, and it appears they are saying that

PUFA should account for 4% of FAT calories, not OVERALL calories. It's

worded in such a way that it's confusing though.

" Total fat content of traditional diets varies from 30% to 80% but only

about 4% of calories come from polyunsaturated oils naturally occurring in

grains, pulses, nuts, fish, animal fats and vegetables. The balance of fat

calories is in the form of saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. "

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html

The first sentence seem to be saying 4% of *overall* calories, but the last

sentence specifies that it's FAT calories that they are talking about.

Either that or it's just poorly worded and they did in fact mean 4% of TOTAL

calories.

>

>I'd like to know a lot more about the longevity and aging of groups

>which got a lot more PUFA in their traditional diets, but I'll wager

>that any healthy ones were getting loads and loads of A and D.

I have been wondering the same thing that Ron mentioned about the seafood

eating groups. Remeber that the tribe which Price described as the

*healthiest* among the African tribes - the Dinka - ate a diet mostly of

fish and grains. Talk about PUFAs! BUT, they probably ate low-fat fish

because I think the fattier varieties are in colder northern waters. So

total fat could've been relative lowish. And perhaps they ate some other fat

source that was mostly saturated so that the PUFA intake was indeed 4% of

FAT calories.

However, I don't see how the Inuit consumed only 4% PUFA from the whole

diet, or even just as a percent of fat calories. UNLESS they selectively ate

a lot of the fat surrounding organs which tends to be more saturated.

(Although I don't know if that's true for marine mammals.) Anyone have a fat

profile of seal oil? They ate that with every meal apparently. But I think

the 4% was an average amongst the groups? So the Inuit could've been on the

high end of PUFA consumption, which would be natural for northern dwellers I

think since PUFA-rich foods are in greater abundance in cold climates. I

know you and I had this conversation before and you said the Inuit aren't

outdoors all the time so don't necessarily require a lot of PUFA in their

limbs (as apparently reindeer do) in order for cell membrane fluidity to be

maintained at low temps. They seem to be nomadic though, so I think they

*are* exposed to very cold temps for long periods. I'm just not sure how

long and if it would cause them to require more PUFA than someone living

close to the equator.

IIRC, Stefansson recorded the ages of many elder Inuit who were in their

70's, 80's and 90's. At least that's what they told him. But maybe you are

right that they got a lot of vits A and D which protected them from PUFA

peroxidation. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to believe their longevity

didn't compare favorably to the other groups.

OK, I'm responding out of sequence. I'll try and back up now and respond to

Chris.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>But I think

> the 4% was an average amongst the groups? So the Inuit could've been on the

> high end of PUFA consumption, which would be natural for northern dwellers I

> think since PUFA-rich foods are in greater abundance in cold climates. I

> know you and I had this conversation before and you said the Inuit aren't

> outdoors all the time so don't necessarily require a lot of PUFA in their

> limbs (as apparently reindeer do) in order for cell membrane fluidity to be

> maintained at low temps. They seem to be nomadic though, so I think they

> *are* exposed to very cold temps for long periods. I'm just not sure how

> long and if it would cause them to require more PUFA than someone living

> close to the equator.

Why would having a higher PUFA need be protective? I'd think exactly

the opposite. A higher need for PUFA to protect cell membrane

fluidity (note that the primary obstacle to this hypothesis is NOT

indoor living, but warm-bloodedness!) would mean more PUFA in the

membrane and a higher peroxidizability index of the membrane, and thus

more oxidative damage if not met by sufficient antioxidant capacity.

By contrast, if they *don't* need the PUFAs in the membrane, they can

burn them for energy or store them as fat. I would think a PUFA bound

in a triglcyeride and stuffed inside an adipocyte would be pretty safe

from oxidation. Ray Peat has said burning PUFA for energy is toxic,

and I don't know one way or the other about it, but in either case it

would be an issue of initiating lipid peroxide chain reactions in the

membrane, so just with respect to the membrane, it's safest with a

lower need for PUFA, I would think.

> IIRC, Stefansson recorded the ages of many elder Inuit who were in their

> 70's, 80's and 90's. At least that's what they told him. But maybe you are

> right that they got a lot of vits A and D which protected them from PUFA

> peroxidation. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to believe their longevity

> didn't compare favorably to the other groups.

My recollection, based on a post someone made to this list about 2

years ago, is that he used church records. On the plus side, with

respect to the reliability with this memory, is that I remember where

I was and which way I was facing and whatnot rather photographically

when I read it; on the minus side, I'm probably unconsciously

fabricating half the memory and it was, after all, two years ago. An

onibasu search might be in order.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> (note that the primary obstacle to this hypothesis is NOT

> indoor living, but warm-bloodedness!)

Oh I guess you were speaking primarily about the outer extremeties

which probably get a little colder. I wouldn't think they'd get that

much colder though, just because humans tend to bundle up and move

around, or make a fire, but I don't know. Interesting question.

Anyone seen an assay of Eskimo meat? Eh. Bad joke.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I mean that fish oil is a terrible dietary vehicle for

> those fatty acids because refined fish oil is missing the

> antioxidants which are required to prevent those fatty acids

> from increasing our peroxidation burden. It's also quite

> prone to rancidity, so even if you're going to take fish oil

> and A and D (and E complex) separately for some reason, you

> have to be extra careful about the fish oil you use.

Okay, got it. So brand/source is crucial. That fits into my model. And

I've seen much of the discussion here about the various brands so I thank

all of you who contributed to that. I'm a Blue Ice guy (unflavored) myself.

> In the long term, the consequences of

> greatly heightened peroxidation will begin to manifest.

So help me understand what that would like. If I were to OD on partially

rancid omega-3's over a lifetime and my body was exposed to the peroxidised

products of the metabolism of such how would that show up? What kind of

disease would I get?

>

> I'd like to know a lot more about the longevity and aging of

> groups which got a lot more PUFA in their traditional diets,

> but I'll wager that any healthy ones were getting loads and

> loads of A and D.

Yes, interesting questions. Part of my email to Sally involved a discussion

of A and D content but I snipped that out. You guys have all convinced me

that it's crucial and that it must be naturally occuring A and D.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Boy, my Metabolic Typing alarms are going off reading this discussion.

Perhaps everyone is right? If you are a Protein/Fat type Eskimo you

properly metabolize all the Omega 3 fats you can consume but if you are a

Carb type the same food becomes toxic a la Ray Peat? Because if he's

correct there would be no Eskimos around at all, I think.

Ron

> Why would having a higher PUFA need be protective? I'd think

> exactly the opposite. A higher need for PUFA to protect cell

> membrane fluidity (note that the primary obstacle to this

> hypothesis is NOT indoor living, but warm-bloodedness!)

> would mean more PUFA in the membrane and a higher

> peroxidizability index of the membrane, and thus more

> oxidative damage if not met by sufficient antioxidant capacity.

> By contrast, if they *don't* need the PUFAs in the membrane,

> they can burn them for energy or store them as fat. I would

> think a PUFA bound in a triglcyeride and stuffed inside an

> adipocyte would be pretty safe from oxidation. Ray Peat has

> said burning PUFA for energy is toxic, and I don't know one

> way or the other about it, but in either case it would be an

> issue of initiating lipid peroxide chain reactions in the

> membrane, so just with respect to the membrane, it's safest

> with a lower need for PUFA, I would think.

>

> > IIRC, Stefansson recorded the ages of many elder Inuit who were in

> > their 70's, 80's and 90's. At least that's what they told him. But

> > maybe you are right that they got a lot of vits A and D which

> > protected them from PUFA peroxidation. Otherwise, I don't see any

> > reason to believe their longevity didn't compare favorably

> to the other groups.

>

> My recollection, based on a post someone made to this list

> about 2 years ago, is that he used church records. On the

> plus side, with respect to the reliability with this memory,

> is that I remember where I was and which way I was facing and

> whatnot rather photographically when I read it; on the minus

> side, I'm probably unconsciously fabricating half the memory

> and it was, after all, two years ago. An onibasu search

> might be in order.

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>So help me understand what that would like. If I were to OD on partially

>rancid omega-3's over a lifetime and my body was exposed to the peroxidised

>products of the metabolism of such how would that show up? What kind of

>disease would I get?

Before I get to possible symptoms, I just want to clarify that it's

not just a danger of consuming partially rancid fish oil, but of

fresh fish oil going bad in your body because it's not accompanied by

sufficient A and maybe D. As to symptoms, lipid peroxidation

contributes to all the overt signs of aging as well as most or all of

the modern diseases. In addition it contributes to brain shrinkage

and mental decline, something which isn't widely considered a modern disease.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/5/06, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> Boy, my Metabolic Typing alarms are going off reading this discussion.

> Perhaps everyone is right? If you are a Protein/Fat type Eskimo you

> properly metabolize all the Omega 3 fats you can consume but if you are a

> Carb type the same food becomes toxic a la Ray Peat? Because if he's

> correct there would be no Eskimos around at all, I think.

Well first of all taking what Ray Peat says about PUFA at face value

is like asking a Klan member about the racial distribution of crime

rates in his county and taking his response at face value.

I think it is a matter of protecting the membrane, first. Anything

else comes second. We don't know how much variance there is in

membrane PUFA. There appears to be some -- so that if you eat more

PUFA more goes in your membrane. But it is probably a threshold. The

membrane is very specific about what it needs and regulates what's in

it. It may not regulate it with perfect specificity, but it does it

with general specificity. So there might be a threshold after which

additional PUFA isn't included.

Or, it could be that those PUFA are all jumbled up into lipoproteins,

perhaps broken down and repackaged as cholesterol, or sent into the

phospholipids in the membranes of the lipoproteins, or kept inside as

fatty acid esters, and then that lipoprotein in the blood could raise

your risk of disease if it's not protected, or if their antioxidant

intake was high enough, could get well-protected and contribute to

better health. Who knows.

Or it could get broken down and used for energy. Ray Peat says this

is toxic. I haven't followed him up on the mechanism, so I dont'

know. Maybe it's toxic under certain condtiions and not others.

There are too many possibilities that we don't know -- and most of

them are probably ones that I couldn't think up of -- to really know

why it might be ok for them. Also, it could have negative results

that aren't manifested in dental caries (Price) or in length of life

(Steffanson).

And it could be that PUFAs are always " toxic " to the mitochonria, like

Peat says, but that in the " metabolic typing " view, there are other

things that can be done with the PUFA that metabolic typing affects.

Like they might be more efficient at disposing of them in some other

way.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> It's also quite prone to rancidity, so even if you're going

>to take fish oil and A and D (and E complex) separately for some

>reason, you have to be extra careful about the fish oil you use.

>

>

>

<coming in late> Since this is exactly what we're doing, define " be

extra careful, " please. Does that mean " buy high quality fish oil, "

" limit how much you use.....? "

>In the short term, of course, fish oil supplementation can correct an

>omega 3 deficiency and thus show tremendously positive results. In

>the long term, the consequences of greatly heightened peroxidation

>will begin to manifest. That's why high-vitamin CLO is generally

>such a good bet.

>

>

>

What kind of consequences? I think I slept late the last time this

thread came up.

--s

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

><coming in late> Since this is exactly what we're doing, define " be

>extra careful, " please. Does that mean " buy high quality fish oil, "

> " limit how much you use.....? "

Well, both, really. You don't need or want much PUFA to begin with,

so don't go crazy with it, and make super extra double darn sure that

any PUFA supplements you take aren't rancid. And of course don't

take any without adequate vitamin A from some source or other.

>What kind of consequences? I think I slept late the last time this

>thread came up.

Accelerated aging, heart disease, hormonal disfunction, etc.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>Suzanne-

>

>

>

>><coming in late> Since this is exactly what we're doing, define " be

>>extra careful, " please. Does that mean " buy high quality fish oil, "

>> " limit how much you use.....? "

>>

>>

>

>Well, both, really. You don't need or want much PUFA to begin with,

>so don't go crazy with it, and make super extra double darn sure that

>any PUFA supplements you take aren't rancid. And of course don't

>take any without adequate vitamin A from some source or other.

>

>

<nodding> This issue came up for discussion....I'm blanking on when and

where.....and the participants discussing the PUFA aspect of FO weren't

sure whether or not separately taking A & D mitigated the oxidation

situation.

Care to speculate on the synergistic differences of CLO vs. FO +

separate A & D?

Thanks!

--s

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

><nodding> This issue came up for discussion....I'm blanking on when and

>where.....and the participants discussing the PUFA aspect of FO weren't

>sure whether or not separately taking A & D mitigated the oxidation

>situation.

As long as the FO isn't already rancid by the time you consume it,

taking A separately should be adequate -- provided you don't overdo

the FO and get enough dietary A. can probably give you a much

better idea of the amounts needed than I can.

That said, I'm not sure why most people would prefer FO plus separate

vitamins to high-vitamin CLO. I suppose you could boost the

vitamin:EFA ratio even further than the highest-vitamin CLO does, but

I don't know that that's necessary or even desirable for most people.

I have a seemingly unique problem in that CLO makes me semi-comatose

whereas supplemental EPA without supplemental DHA doesn't, so I take

an EPA supplement instead of CLO, but I've yet to hear from anyone

else with the same difficulty.

>Care to speculate on the synergistic differences of CLO vs. FO +

>separate A & D?

I could be wrong, but I don't expect there's any real difference

between the two provided the ratios and amounts are similar or

identical. I'm guessing it's best for the vitamins to accompany the

FO down the gut, though, because I can't think of a mechanism by

which high blood/system vitamin levels would necessarily protect the

FO in the gut.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>Suzanne-

>

>

>

>><nodding> This issue came up for discussion....I'm blanking on when and

>>where.....and the participants discussing the PUFA aspect of FO weren't

>>sure whether or not separately taking A & D mitigated the oxidation

>>situation.

>>

>>

>

>As long as the FO isn't already rancid by the time you consume it,

>

>

It's pretty pricey and I've not noticed any rancid quality about it.

>taking A separately should be adequate -- provided you don't overdo

>the FO and get enough dietary A.

>

Just one cap a day of FO (400 EPA/200 DHA) and 25-50,000 IU of A a week.

>can probably give you a much

>better idea of the amounts needed than I can.

>

>That said, I'm not sure why most people would prefer FO plus separate

>vitamins to high-vitamin CLO.

>

Intolerance issues here. Can't speak for anyone else.

>I suppose you could boost the

>vitamin:EFA ratio even further than the highest-vitamin CLO does, but

>I don't know that that's necessary or even desirable for most people.

>

>

>

I'm not about mega-dosing on EFA, just want a healthy, steady intake of

it. Some folk I know have reported dramatic improvements in taking lots

of FO, but I didn't see it, so we're taking label dosing.

>I have a seemingly unique problem in that CLO makes me semi-comatose

>whereas supplemental EPA without supplemental DHA doesn't, so I take

>an EPA supplement instead of CLO, but I've yet to hear from anyone

>else with the same difficulty.

>

>

>

I see reactions with CLO, but it isn't semi-comatose reactions. Quite

the opposite, in fact.

>>Care to speculate on the synergistic differences of CLO vs. FO +

>>separate A & D?

>>

>>

>

>I could be wrong, but I don't expect there's any real difference

>between the two provided the ratios and amounts are similar or

>identical.

>

That's reassuring.

>I'm guessing it's best for the vitamins to accompany the

>FO down the gut, though, because I can't think of a mechanism by

>which high blood/system vitamin levels would necessarily protect the

>FO in the gut.

>

>

>

>

That makes sense. Most of the vitamins are all downed at the same time,

so that's not a problem, but it is a good point to make.

Thanks!

--s

[Guest guest]

Suzanne,

> Just one cap a day of FO (400 EPA/200 DHA) and 25-50,000 IU of A a week.

You should make sure to get at least 2500-5000 IU of D per week, and

probably more if you're above 35 latitude.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Masterjohn wrote:

>Suzanne,

>

>

>

>>Just one cap a day of FO (400 EPA/200 DHA) and 25-50,000 IU of A a week.

>>

>>

>

>You should make sure to get at least 2500-5000 IU of D per week, and

>probably more if you're above 35 latitude.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

Thanks, Chris! We're dosing at a rate of 1600 per day....we're up in

New England....traditional CLO territory. When last we tested for

Vitamin D levels, everyone was very close to the middle of " optimum. "

--s

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>You should make sure to get at least 2500-5000 IU of D per week, and

>probably more if you're above 35 latitude.

Why only 5k IU per week? Cannell recommends 4k IU per day, and

actually I think I remember him suggesting 5k IU at one point.

-

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

>When last we tested for

>Vitamin D levels, everyone was very close to the middle of " optimum. "

Optimum according to whom?

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>Suzanne-

>

>

>

>>When last we tested for

>>Vitamin D levels, everyone was very close to the middle of " optimum. "

>>

>>

>

>Optimum according to whom?

>

>

>

>

The 25-hydroxyvitamin D test.

--s

[Guest guest]

On 1/20/06, Idol <paul_idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >You should make sure to get at least 2500-5000 IU of D per week, and

> >probably more if you're above 35 latitude.

>

> Why only 5k IU per week? Cannell recommends 4k IU per day, and

> actually I think I remember him suggesting 5k IU at one point.

I said at least, and I meant it to match the ratio found in

high-vitamin cod liver oil. I agree more is better in the absence of

sunlight. Cannel is saying *he* takes 5,000 IU but not to do so

without testing, and that if you don't want to test take 2,000 IU to

be on the safe side, which supplies the level needed to avoid an

increase in PTH, but that 4,000 is needed in the abence of sunlight to

achieve optimum levels.

Krispin Sullivan is saying anything over 800 IU is dangerous, but I

couldn't find a single one of her references available online, or at

UMass in hard copy. She has some old studies showing moderate

elevations in 25 (OH) D to contribute to calcification of arteries,

but I haven't been able to see if there's any merit or not.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

OK, and what were your levels? Mercola's optimum levels are 45-50

ng/ml or 115-128 nmol/l.

> >>Vitamin D levels, everyone was very close to the middle of " optimum. "

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Optimum according to whom?

> >

> >

> >

> >

>The 25-hydroxyvitamin D test.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>Suzanne-

>

>OK, and what were your levels? Mercola's optimum levels are 45-50

>ng/ml or 115-128 nmol/l.

>

>

>

>

I don't have the papers to hand and don't remember the numbers off the

top of my head, but I remember comparing them with Mercola's numbers and

being satisfied with the results that they were in the optimum range.

--s

[Guest guest]

On 1/22/06, Idol <paul_idol@...> wrote:

> Suzanne-

>

> OK, and what were your levels? Mercola's optimum levels are 45-50

> ng/ml or 115-128 nmol/l.

Cannel's are 45-55, but he's said that it appears that 50-55 might be

even better than the 45-50 range.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Cannel's are 45-55, but he's said that it appears that 50-55 might be

>even better than the 45-50 range.

Thanks! Good to know for sure.

-