On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:00:02 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>There is some research that suggests that it is the absolute
>amounts of EPA/DHA that matters, rather than the ratio.

Now i understand why you supplement EPA.
But what would all the percent of mankind do, who never ate brain or marrow
or cold water fish? So far i attribute the influence of EPA to
it's effect of suppressing PG-2 making from AA.
And non EPA eaters would indeed depend on LNA for EPA formation.

>I don't think it has been shown that domestic animal fat causes
>any health problem.  Instead, I think we have a tendency to
>assume that this is happening, but that assumption is entirely
>theory-driven.  But that is another matter.

There are a couple of studies floating around which correlate intake of red
meat with diseases. SDA study and colon cancer study.
Actually it may be the fat the industry red meat comes bundled with.
People try to reason hazards with it's high saturated fats and cholesterol
content (which i think is wrong).
http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths_beef.htm  fiercely defends beef
by attacking the SFA/cholesterol reasoning.

But the low EFA problem of *domestic* (industry agriculture) cattle
which Erasmus incriminates (p.225) isn't touched by their argumentation.
westonaprice argues-- if Zebu-cattle meat is healthy "beef" is healthy.

As Erasmus mentiones, free range non-indistry cattle (like Massai/Zebu
cattle) as well as game and low-agriculture animals *don't* show this
problem.

As studies are involved, the assumption is not entirely theory-driven.
It's more the data reinterpretation (like from the above site) that depends
on defending/attacking theories.

>The main thing is
>that Sears' cautions about dietary AA are misplaced.

This looks probable, if you read the study you cited.
I think it's possible that Sears' cautions are misplaced - I'd attribute
that to the regulative i mentioned - like counterreactions Sears mentioned.

I see that the studys you cited were done only after a 50 day AA-intake
test. No tests between, not longer tests:
>A 50 day controlled trial with a high AA diet.  After consuming
>the high-AA diet, the total red blood cell fatty acid composition
>was significantly enriched in AA which mainly replaced linoleic
>acid.

After that the 7 liters of blood are a quite big organ, i think the blood
cells could absorb AA for quite a while. *this* is a regulative.
What would happen after 356 days AA elevation?

Paleolithically we are not safe. Increased flight-or-fight functions may be
exactely the right what a ice age mammouth hunter could need.

Amadeus S.