On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:18:40 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>The Nelson studies involved very large amounts of AA -- the
>equivalent of over 20 eggs -- over a period of several months.
>There was no problem.  And of course the NEJM article about the
>88 year-old man said that he had eaten all those eggs for years,
>again with no deleterious results.  So where is the evidence that
>it is harmful?

There must be some adjustment regulatives in the body that govern
how much fatty acids are processed to longer and higher unsaturates.
Probably the prostaglandin production too.

I read that "DHA level is kept within tight limits".
I consider this as the explanation why varying dietary inputs (of many
items) are handled properly.

But why then do we keep so much attention on the w-3/w-6 ratio and
dietary influences from EPA and others?

A possible answer is, that problems occur only if there's a lack of raw
material (LA and LNA) or if toxic substances are involved.
Without LNA no omega-3 substances can be generated, regardless of
regulatives, because LNA is essential. That's clear.

As somewhat toxic in this context (disturbing the regulatives) could be
counted
- d6d inhibitors (alcohol, trans fatty acids,  many more..)
- competiting fatty acids for the processing enzymes
  (most fatty acids if EFA percentage in the diet is very low)

From a paleo nutrition viewpoint it would make sense that high AA input
would be tolerated (if constant). But fatty acid compositions never found in
nature cause trouble (like in domestic animal fat).
Also in the prostaglandin terrain.

Regards, Amadeus