4 ms·

Ray Peat has an interesting essay questioning if they are really essential. https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml https://raypeat.com/art

• feet 4y ago
  I question his expertise https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/ https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthPro...
  • dilap 4y ago
    I don't know if he's right or not, but he's talking about specific, concrete studies -- real data. The page you link to say says: > A deficiency of essential fatty acids—either omega-3s or omega-6s—can cause rough, scaly skin and dermatitis [5]. Then when we go look at [5] we get: > Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids (macronutrients). Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2005. That's not actual data. Presumably the reference intakes are based on some sort of data (would take some digging to find out, since it's incoveniently not hyperlinked) -- I might speculate it's based on exactly the 1929 Burr study that Peat is arguing was mistaken. Hard to know though, without some digging. Do you think PUFA is essential because it's what the NIH tells you, or because of specific experiments that have been done which demonstrate it?
    • feet 4y ago
      Signaling molecules such as endocannabinoids are constructed from specific essential PUFAs, that combined with our cells swapping out different fatty acids to alter membrane fluidity tell me that we do need them in our diet because we literally lack the enzymes to construct them. If you had read the entire page that I linked you would have seen that Do you think biochemical research into these pathways just stopped in the 1930s?
      • dilap 4y ago
        If you're trying to support a claim, it's more useful if you specifically point out which facts you believe support the claim, rather than linking to a many-page summary, with some 183 footnotes. Usually if someone does this, I take it as an indication of arguing in bad faith, and give up on the conversation, but in this case I assumed good faith and scanned your link for the section that seemed relevent to your claim. Anyway: > Signaling molecules such as endocannabinoids are constructed from specific essential PUFAs, that combined with our cells swapping out different fatty acids to alter membrane fluidity No dispute there... > we literally lack the enzymes to construct them ...or there. > tell me that we do need them But you can't conclude that! You're still missing a demonstration that not being able use PUFA in these ways would lead to pathology. And if it does, then what is the minimum level of PUFA consumption needed to to avoid it? As far as I know, those questions have not been answered. That said, I do think you're probably right, on an intuitive level. Any traditional diet (or indeed any diet that incorporates whole foods) will contain some PUFA, so it would make sense we were evolved to function best with some PUFA in our diet. But, at least per Ray Peat's claim, all experiments with diets claiming to show the essential nature of PUFA were manifestly defficient in other ways. So it seems the claim has yet to be demonstrated, and remains somehwat uncertain.