On Tue, 21 May 2002, Jo Webb wrote:

> As for Peat, he barely distinguishes between omega 3 and omega 6, whereas
> the rest of the literature is very clear that there is an important
> difference between them. He says that EFAs aren't essential at all, and
> cites a 1948 biochemistry textbook, which I don't find very convincing. As
> for his other references, I haven't read them but I see that many of them
> refer to 'dietary lipids' or 'dietary fat', and I wouldn't be surprised if
> many of them used standard vegetable oils in their experiments rather than
> the sort we take as supplements. Perhaps we could ask Cordain what he
> thinks about Peat's article?

I subscribed to Peat's newsletter for a year.  He has a habit of
listing a bunch of "sources" at the end of each article, but not
actually citing them in the text, so you have to guess which
source goes with which claim.  When my students do that, I give
them their papers back and make them re-write them.  It's very
annoying.  And I agree that when you do manage to look up an
actual reference, there is often quite a gap between what it says
and what Peat says it says.

I recall that in one article Peat claimed that cell membranes
don't really exist at all.  Although he does have some
interesting ideas, my opinion is that he's a crank, and I've
stopped paying any attention to him.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]