Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:29:01 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
> You misunderstand me. The point is that it is not necessary to
> *eat* DHA, because you can make it from ALA.
You're right, Todd, I did misunderstand. I took your statement out of
context of the earlier argument (in the academic sense, here) within the
very long thread on this topic. Now I understand the point you were trying
to make, and you're correct on this.
Not to stoke any fires or try to douse any with re: to either your position
or Andrew's (nor to spark a potential flame over the paleo-correctness of
supplementation), I'll make only brief mention here that the Eades' position
on p. 69 of the Lifeplan book is that the ALA>EPA/DHA conversion process
works fine IF the necessary enzymes are in top working order, which among
their patients they have found is seldom the case.
Theola
|
|
|