Author Topic: The Great Fish Oil Experiment  (Read 2246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chucky

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
The Great Fish Oil Experiment
« on: September 07, 2010, 12:19:54 am »
Sometimes when you believe something and then read something that is totally opposite of that and looks legitimate then it really freaks my brain cells. I couldn't find him talking about cooked or raw omega 3-s though..


The Great Fish Oil Experiment
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml

Offline MrBBQ

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Fish Oil Experiment
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2010, 12:57:40 am »
Eating more than 100g salmon/tuna gives me a dodgy "free radical burn" nowadays so I stay away from concentrated PUFA sources, whether n-3 or n-6. Actually, n-3 is more prone to lipid peroxidation...I feel best on lipids originating in my own ecosystem rather than cold waters.

This is one of the reasons why I choose to get my retinol from land liver and cholecalciferol from sunlight/supplement, rather than F-CLO, although I'm not sure if it's a valid synergy like F-CLO...

I've still not actually fathomed Peat's stance on dietary arachidonic acid (AA) because he advocates liver and eggs to some extent.

There's a question of what's best - minimise PUFAs to the limit or increase complementary antioxidants like vitamin E (tocopherols/tocotrienols, which PUFAs deplete through endogenous lipid peroxidation). Peat states that the excess PUFAs are anti-thyroid and therefore anti-metabolic, which the populations relying on fish countered by eating fish heads (particularly including the thyroid glandulars). In that case, eating the whole animal was essential, although maybe still not optimal.

With minimal n-6s, the need for n-3s diminishes - Peat even states that the n-9 mead acid is biologically active enough and more stable (stress-resistant) to replace these PUFAs.
When hungry eat, when tired sleep - this is the essence of Zen...

Offline chucky

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Fish Oil Experiment
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 01:13:01 am »
Eating more than 100g salmon/tuna gives me a dodgy "free radical burn" nowadays so I stay away from concentrated PUFA sources, whether n-3 or n-6. Actually, n-3 is more prone to lipid peroxidation...I feel best on lipids originating in my own ecosystem rather than cold waters.

This is one of the reasons why I choose to get my retinol from land liver and cholecalciferol from sunlight/supplement, rather than F-CLO, although I'm not sure if it's a valid synergy like F-CLO...

I've still not actually fathomed Peat's stance on dietary arachidonic acid (AA) because he advocates liver and eggs to some extent.

There's a question of what's best - minimise PUFAs to the limit or increase complementary antioxidants like vitamin E (tocopherols/tocotrienols, which PUFAs deplete through endogenous lipid peroxidation). Peat states that the excess PUFAs are anti-thyroid and therefore anti-metabolic, which the populations relying on fish countered by eating fish heads (particularly including the thyroid glandulars). In that case, eating the whole animal was essential, although maybe still not optimal.

With minimal n-6s, the need for n-3s diminishes - Peat even states that the n-9 mead acid is biologically active enough and more stable (stress-resistant) to replace these PUFAs.


Thanks for the reply.

But many of us don't have access to grass fed meat or make our diet mostly of grass feed meat and fat.. So I think supplementing omega 3 becomes necessary..

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk