@AlphaZance said:
@ZackVegas
You aren't "determining anything". What would you recommend if an individual has the following symptoms of EFA deficiency? These symptoms are very much prevalent in common people with "normal feeding":
• Dermatological: Dry, scaly, or flaky skin (xerotic or eczematous dermatitis), periorificial dermatitis, and loss of skin elasticity.
• Hair and Nails: Hair loss (alopecia), brittle or dull hair, and weakened nails.
• Healing and Immunity: Poor wound healing and an increased risk of frequent infections due to a weakened immune system.
• Developmental (in Infants and Children): Growth delays, failure to thrive, and potential intellectual impairment.
• Other Signs: Thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count), anemia, and fatigue or brain fog.
Well, if I were to recommend something in such cases, I would stick with beneficial strategies that have robust evidence behind them. Things like increased gelatin and collagen consumption, glycine supplementation, biotin supplementation, red light therapy. In skin conditions, maybe topical application of things like coconut oil, shea butter, and urea creams. I certainly wouldn't recommend Omega 6 and Omega 3 fatty acids, as I believe those substances to be toxic at the levels currently consumed, and likely causal in such problems.
In my own experience, when I trialed a very low fat diet, the rough skin on my elbows and heels became the smoothest it has ever been. I was pleasantly surprised at this. The diet lasted for 2+ months, did feature a large amount of glycine and gelatin, and was done to keep PUFA as low as possible. I aimed for 20 g of fat or less per day, hit as low as 7 some days, and tried to ensure that that fat was as saturated as possible. For me, this really backed up what Ray Peat had long been saying about PUFA.
Feel free to dismiss every single EFA studies like this or "extreme cases".
Will do, considering they are indeed extreme cases, and certainly don't prove that Omega 6 and Omega 3 are essential in any case.
Even if I did it's better than you telling people to deprive themselves of nutrients they might need based on the study that is literal one human.
I'll say it again.... outside of a purified diet or outright starvation,, Omega 6 and Omega 3 are UNAVOIDABLE. The idea that Omega 6 and Omega 3 are somehow "essential" come out of the same lab and are based on a handful of mice studies.
You cite a study of massively obese patients not needing fat in the diet for prolonged period, which probably to your logic isn't an "extreme case". There's also a medical study Angus Barbieri who didn't eat for a year, does that apply to everyone?
It would apply to the majority of the population. In 2021, 150 Million adults in the US were considered overweight or obese, similar to the patients in the Kempner study. Back in 1950, when Kempner was doing his studies, the total US population was about 120 million. Also, in 2012, the number of patients on TPN was just below 44,000. So, if you think TPN studies are somehow relevant, than the Kempner diet study would have to be about 3400 times as relevant. So yes, I do think this study is far more applicable than the TPN studies. Several thousand times more relevant.
Where do you get the information on TPN? TPN is used to feed sick and even near-death people, there's almost no missing nutrients in TPN.
I'm sure researchers take calories into account in TPN studies.
First of all, I took info on TPN direct from the studies you posted. But also, from some basic common sense. Since TPN is an IV infusion, we would know that the manufacturers aren't simply grinding up steak and potatoes and injecting it into peoples veins.
Second, there is always going to be plenty of missing nutrients, since all the nutrients of food aren't known. Even then, the levels of known nutrients are going to be a guess. TPN is absolutely lifesaving in situations where someone can't eat, but it's far from ideal.
As for calories, I posted the problem with calories in an earlier comment that came direct from a study you posted. The amount was very low for the patient, and it seemed like the researchers didn't take into account that the patient had a history of eating disorders and was recovering from surgery, both things which should have increased his caloric intake.
