Thursday, January 01, 2009

DHA in rats

I had a slog through this paper and this paper, trying to tease out a little more on DHA and free radical damage.

DHA enriched brains are substantially protected against the free radical damage which occurs in response to reperfusion after exposure to an hypoxic state. This is unexpected in view of the host of oxidisable double bonds in the DHA molecule. Oxidative damage is what happens if you throw DHA on to cell cultures and challenge them with free radicals. It also happens in your bloodstream when you drink 30ml of fish oil unless you dose up on vitamin E at the same time. So we can say that the DHA per se, in triglycerides and in cells, generates and propagates free radicals. This is probably Bad.

But if you supply DHA (as the ethyl ester injected in to the amniotic fluid) to an intact rat foetus it concentrates it in the brain and you get neuroprotection... How come?

Hydroxyl radicals are one of the nastier oxygen derived free radicals and there is a 70% reduction of their generation in DHA enriched brain tissue from these rat pups.

Supplying oleate enrichment does nothing for hydroxyl reduction and EPA enrichment is not as good as using DHA, despite the conversion of EPA in to DHA... That is, it's not the DHA per se that matters, because the amount of DHA was increased equally by EPA as by DHA but the DHA supplemented rats were better protected than those given EPA.

The explanation is in the phospholipids.

A triglyceride is, quite obviously, a glycerol molecule with three fatty acids attached. DHA here is unstable without vitamin E. A phospholipid is what cell membranes are made up of and consist of that same glycerol molecule with two fatty acids attached but with a very interesting and highly water soluble moiety in the place of the third fatty acid. This is a phosphate group plus a small organic molecule of various types. They make up the lipid bilayer, the phosphate grouping lying either inside or outside the cell in the aqueous phase and the lipids snuggled up in the hydrophobic structure of the cell membrane itself. With beloved cholesterol to regulate fluidity and perform about a million other functions.

The small organic molecules matter. We are interested in ethanolamine and serine, two amino groupings attached to the phosphate to give phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) and phopshatidylserine (PS).

Both PE and PS are the preferred phospholipids to which DHA is attached, and DHA pre treatement (but neither oleate nor EPA) increases the percentage of these phospholipids in the brain cell membranes.

Summary: DHA pretreatment increases DHA, PE and PS and they all live together quite happily.

PS is an iron chelator. Iron is superb for free radical propagation. It can't do this when it's been grabbed by PS.

PE containing phospholipid is an effective antioxidant, it grabs free radicals and there the free radical propagation ends. PE also commonly contains a strange lipid called a vinyl alcohol, making it a substance called plasmalogen. The extra double bond in the vinyl group makes it an effective antioxidant. Not all double bonds are bad.

What conclusions can you draw from this type of experiment, very artificial though it is? The impression I get is that DHA is useful to brain tissue, yet it is clearly unstable on an oxidative damage basis. The obvious answer is that the brain looks after DHA by sticking a set of peroxidation protectors on to the molecule. It can then use DHA for whatever it needs to, without worrying about all of those lipid peroxides which we might see were we to drink 30ml of unprotected fish oil...



Stephan Guyenet said...


Feeding pigs alpha-linolenic acid strongly protects against lipid peroxidation in pig hearts as well (presumably through conversion into long-chain fats). I think the idea that "polyunsaturated fats promote oxidative stress" is simplistic. It's also notable that feeding the pigs 11% linoleic acid overwhelms the antioxidant effect of alpha-linolenic acid and makes them even more oxidation prone than when ALA is kept very low.

Unknown said...


I came to your blog tonight on the verge of ordering a pint bottle of Carlson's Finest Fish Oil, of which I was about to start drinking a tablespoon of each day.

Your Vitamin E remark definitely gives me pause.

Could you give your opinion on how much E should be taken with fish oil? Is it possible that taking fish oil might be dangerous?

Sorry for the simple-minded questions. I love your blog, even though it's more than a little over my head.

Also, I would love to hear your thoughts on Vitamin K2 Mk4 if the muse strikes.

In particular, this study caught my eye:
Vitamin K(2) inhibits adipogenesis, osteoclastogenesis....

...which seems to imply to me that K2 Mk-4 inhibits fat formation and bone demineralization.

In any event, thanks for a great blog.

Unknown said...

Dear Peter and the others who responded - thanks for the comments - yes, once you have settled into the New Year - any advice would be welcome.

Connie- I am logged onto the Protein forum - just not used the actual discussion bit as yet -

Mainly - just querying the ketosis issue and how best to stay out of it, the rest I can manage fine, but... those damn carbs - they make me feel so unwell! I cannot get enough in in the day without the horrendous hypo/hyper effects of the insulin and the glucose. Any advice from papers you have read on this would be very welcome. Also, why is the weight so slow to go on despite the huge fat intake. I only weigh 40kg and eat 120 gram fat a day - shoudl be shifting a bit. Can't manage the is all oils and animals foods.

Thank you - Geneva is masses of snow and skiing right now - a touch chilly!

Peter said...

Hi Associated,

I think most commercial fish oils get vit E added, you need about 1.5 IU per gram. But very high doses (of fish oil) probably inhibit VLDL secretion from your liver. Fine if you LC but bad if you do fructose or alcohol. Non secreted VLDL means fatty liver under these circumstances.

The vit K stuff is definitely interesting. I mostly follow Stephan's comments on this subject. At the monet I don't do supplements except D3 because it's cold here and fish oil (5g/d) as I can't afford grass fed meat. I'll rethink vit K if my next EBCT scan is worse rather than better than my last one...


Bit more info here.

Charles R. said...


So you take fish oil, but not Vitamin E? I'm confused (not an unfamiliar state, I admit).

I've been taking a tablespoon of Carlson's fish oil every day for a while. If I take it my beat up knees and shoulders (from badly-played athletics) don't hurt. If I don't take it, they do hurt. I like not-hurting better than hurting.

But I was concerned when I saw your concerns about fish oil in quantity.

So your position is that if you do LC, fish oil is fine in reasonable quantities?

And I also tend to listen to Stephan about these things. His posts have been amazing over the past couple of months, really pulling things together and connecting the dots, much like yours.

Peter said...


If you're low PUFA generally the dose of fish oil you need is probably pretty low. If you check the bottle you should find that the manufacturers have added vit E as a preservative.

Real CLO has a huge dose of both vit A and D and the A is an effective antioxidant.

Personally I'd be looking for the lowest dose which gives happy joints. I tend to drift down towards 2-3 caps (1000mg per cap of DHA/EOA enriched fish oil) and I agree happy joints are nice. I have to say that the dose I need seems to be dropping. You just try it and see...


Unknown said...

Hi Peter - At the risk of seeming rather stupid- I cannot work out how to use your blog site effectively!. Please tell me where best to post a coment if it is to an earlier comment such as, casein intolerance back in 2007. How do I find the index to the posts -are these what are called the "Labels" section. How can I search all posts on casein problems for example? - under labels you have a couple of heading for casein and thats it - you oftern refer to other posts but I don't know how to find these - is all rather tricky. If I post a comment to a comment made 6 months ago- I am assuming that you would never even see it these days and therefore would not respond?

Please advise - sorry to appear silly - this is the first blog I have ever responded to and comented on.

Thanks alot

Peter said...


The blog is not really organised in any way. You are right that the labels sections is the closest I can get to an index. But a blog is not really like an educational web site. When something comes by that gets my attention I'll post on it. Sequential related posts all start with the same word or words. But it's not a textbook. Some threads, like the AGE RAGE and ALE groupings have many more posts to be made but I have so little time since I went back to essentially full time work that they will get done eventually, but not today. Better just browse. There are many gaps in the information here... Some bits may be useful.


Taka said...

Peter, you mention both iron and free radicals but don't you forget to consider the key culprit and "catalyst" of the oxidative stress - the arachidonic acid (AA)? Speaking in double bonds it is far less oxidizable than DHA but its metabolites (eicosanoids) are strong promoters of oxidative stress via specific and powerful signaling pathways which are all inhibited by DHA ... IMO you need only so much DHA to match your AA levels (guided by e.g. the mentioned aching joints). But like the transport of fructose through the portal vein is a dangerous operation the transport of DHA/Omega-3 to the brain is a dangerous thing too. Moreover, DHA on its way would stick also to other tissues, while the fructose would end its journey in the liver given that the liver is glycogen depleted. How about lowering the AA levels instead of counteracting its metabolization with DHA/EPA? Wouldn't that be a safer solution, at least for a non-pregnant adult?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
marco said...

Hi Peter.

Somewhere in this and other blogs I’ve come across comments recommending in some cases the SCD DIET.

Now, and after tons of discussions about PUFA (n-6), Sugar and Vit. D and their relationship with cancer, I am inclined (more than years ago) to think that it's due more to environmental factors, basically diet plus maybe sun exposure and exercise, than to genetics.

Knowing that Elaine Gottschall, the researcher who created the SCD Diet died from cancer in 2005 sounds to me a bit like a “false note”, and makes me wonder whether I’m on the right track or should rethink my opinion about cancer.

Certainly with one case you cannot make a rule, but in any case her diet didn't prevent cancer in her life, unless she didn't follow her own diet.

What do you think about that?

Unknown said...


1. To find information on the site, it is best to open a google window and then click the "advance search" feature just to the right of "Search" button. This will open up a screen. Copy and paste the website address at the botton of the advance search screen where it says "Search within a site or domain". At the top of the screen enter any search terms you want. I entered "casein" and got 114 hits on Peter's site. You can of course refine the search. A search will be on everything in the site including comments.

2. The labels on Peter's site are a simple Table of Contents like in a book and nothing more.

3. If you make a comment on an old entry, no one will ever see it. The best way to do it is just as you did this one. This is a limitation of blogs.

Unknown said...


Elaine Gotschall's SCD (Specific Carbohydrate Diet) was basically about limitation on any carbs beyond monosaccharides (no disaccharides or starches). It was designed to help people with gut problems not anything else like cancer or heart disease. It works miracles for some people, e.g. her daughter who was scheduled to have her colon removed as a young girl. But if your problem is caused by something else such as lack of Vitamin D, then of course restricting sucrose will not take care of that though it is still a good thing to do. The SCD can still be high carb and therefore high in glucose, insulin and fructose. If you want to avoid cancer you had better keep your insulin levels down. Searching for health can be like the Indian tale about the elephant and the blind men. All of the blind men were partly right about the nature of elephant but none had the whole answer. Gotschall was fairly right about restricting some carbs but that is not everything. I would also not discount her contribution to health seekers because she died of cancer. Everyone dies of something.

Peter said...

Just to add to Porter's comments, the SCD is aimed at a cure, ie after one to two years a fair number of responders can go back to standard industrial diet with all that that implies in terms of cancer risk. Elaine Gottschall was treating her daughter, who went in to remission and was able to eat a normal diet after "another few years" beyond the two years for full resolution. I think it unlikely that Elaine G ever ate to the SCD herself.


Oh, re comments on older posts Elizabeth, I do see them due to the blog software telling me. Few other people will. I might take a while to reply if there is a lot going on...

Peter said...

Hi Stephan,

Belated thanks for the link, it was your discussion of this study that had me digging out the papers for this post on rats and DHA...



Peter said...

Hi Taka,

Yes, I would agree that limiting omega 6s, actually LA more than AA, would be an excellent idea. I just don't have the phobia about the omega 3s that Ray Peat seems to have. I don't really have any specific idea re ratios, what I'm doing at the moment seems to suit me quite well...


Taka said...

Hi Peter,

Have you seen this interesting paper PMID:18046594 ? The LC people have higher levels of AA. This may be in part contributed to the fact that you consume the industrial meat/fat which comes from animals fed grains like corn and their fat is therefore enriched in Omega-6. The inflammation is pretty low in the absence of carbohydrates but I am just thinking what would happen if you went back to the normal carbohydrate diet (e.g. being hospitalized, intravenously fed etc.)? Wouldn't that be a "disaster" given the high AA levels compared to the normal population having less AA possibly due to their lower grain fed animal fat consumption? Wouldn't a semi-vegetarian avoiding Omega-6 rich vegetable oils better equipped for such a situation? There is an old paper describing a meat only diet - - one of the subjects was challenged with glucose during the test and got immediately sick (a profound AA-fueled immune response to me).


marco said...

I haven't found the word "krill" on your whole Blog. Don't you think to Krill Oil as a possible (better) alernative to Fish Oil?

Would phospholipids be implicated in the choice?

Peter said...

Hi Taka,

The LC paper developed the hypothesis that the level of AA went up as a result of decreased utilisation. I think there is a lot in this idea. The paper has been on the list of things to blog about but there's a lot in the queue ahead of it. The Stefansson paper is a classic but I feel that Andersen's pneumonia could easily be explained by the immuno suppressive effect of the hyperglycaemia secondary to 100g of glucose in a fat adapted individual. If you are hyperglycaemic enough your body will churn out CRP, TNFalpha and pro inflammatory interleukins by the bucket-load and find enough arachidonic acid to make the eicosanoids it wants, however little you eat of it...

The beef in the early 1900s would be quite different from modern USA beef. It might even have been largely grass fed. I don't know. But even the muscle fatty acid ratios of modern grain fed beef are not nearly as bad as those of pork or chicken due to rumenal saturation of PUFA. Andersen ate beef mostly.

As regards the vegetarian approach, an interesting idea, but the results I've seen from LC, adequate animal protein and high fat take some beating. Why fix something which isn't broken? You are also looking to take a step in the dark as there are virtually no vegetarian cultures in HG terms on the planet. We can adapt to most macronutrient ratios, but humans are (in my opinion) top of the food chain carnivores with occasional forays in to starches as a source of bulk calories...


Peter said...


It's a bit like arthritis drugs in clinical work. A new one comes out and I eagerly wait 1-2 years before prescribing it, if I ever do. Let someone else find out if there are going to be problems!

Veterinary Vioxx (Previcox) actually seems quite safe as arthritis drugs go in dogs and I now prescribe it very occasionally.

So I'll wait re krill oil because fish oil works just fine for me!


BTW the one that worries me rather more is using the ethanol ester of DHA/EPA in high omega three sources in the USA. This is a straight drug. Where is the natural source of DHA-ethanol ester? I'd rather squeeze a fish than take a drug, even if the modern extraction process scares the pants off of me!

Charles R. said...

Just an FYI, I've had some excellent results with Krill oil, both myself and others. One of the benefits for some is that the pills are smaller, but they seem to pack quite a wallop, benefit-wise. A friend's cholesterol dropped about 30% after I got him on Krill oil. Another friend had a similar experience. So I now recommend it highly to people. Anecdotal, I know, but I place quite a stock in anecdotal evidence that's also supported in the lit.

At the same time, I'm taking a big glug of Carlson's lemon-flavored fish oil, and am quite happy with that.

Peter said...


How do you view that statement on EPA and DHA? Obviously avoiding omega 6s is going to minimise inflammatory eicosanoid production, though I would have thought these (omega 6s) were tightly controlled in brain tissue. I'm guessing TNFa, CRP and Il6 etc are more important... But do you read the EPA being immunosuppressive as good, when the problem is overactivation of the immune system? Good or bad if you are looking to avoid the need for vaccination?

Some of the studies I've seen on schizophrenia and depression have claimed efficacy primarily from EPA. The sorts of doses used seem like pharmacology to me and this would fit with a "drug-like" suppression of a chronic inflammatory condition...

Blaylock's ideas generally fit well with techniques for lowering CRP etc being beneficial. I do find his thoughts on carotenes a bit scary though, having read the WHEL study reports...


BTW Elizabeth, forgot to say re chocolate; it's mostly stearic acid as the fat content, an excellent energy source. There is minimal PUFA. The down side is the starch and fibre if you have GI issues.

pooti said...

Peter, how much fish oil do you take and what brand is it? Do you take any other anti-oxidants with it?

My problem with supplementation comes with the fear that unbalanced supps can cause more problems than good so how do you know where to stop with it?

For instance? If you are taking fish oil, there is some E along with the fish oil but is it enough to balance it? And if you take additional E, then what form should you take?

And If you take E, then should you also be trying to get A in? And if so, how much and in what form?

The same goes for supplementing D3. If you take D3 then should you be taking it along with it's opposing fat sols like A and K2? And again, where are the best sources and how much do you take of each.

LOL, see the delimma? I've been reading nutrition and biochem stuff for years now and it all still makes my head spin - I can only imagine how people who are just being enlightened about all of this...

Oh and let's not forget, CoQ10!

Peter said...

Hi Pooti,

I take 3-5g/d of fish oil giving a total daily dose of EPA/DHA of about a gram a day. It was a guestimate to try and get my omega 3s about a quarter to a half my omega sixes. Seems to be about correct for me.

I use Holland and Barrett's, it has about as much vitamin E as was used in the early fish oil studies to avoid spiking malondialdehyde.

I don't regard this as a supplement, just an attempt to even up the omega 6s from industrial meat. Luckily UK meat gets as much grass as practical on a financial basis, so it's probably not in the league of the factory farmed meat in the USA. When I was a mixed practice vet in Norfolk I certainly wasn't ashamed of the farms I worked on. We also has a tendency to feed spuds to bullocks. Bad for bloat but excellent for generating stearic acid in their adipose tissue.

Apart from that I only supplement D3. Neither my garden layout nor my workload allow me to get the sort of tan I would like. D3 from sunlight is independent of any other vitamin so I don't think much about balancing it against A and K. My A is sourced from liver and eggs and my K is either from these sources or I'm missing it.

Q10 is an unknown. There has recently been discussion on the THINCS board as to which brands actually work. So there is good and bad Q10 around. I'm back in to reliable beef and lamb heart supplies so, as always, I try to get my nutrients by eating Food. The lamb hearts marinated in lemon juice then casseroled with apple and coriander were great flavour wise but aesthetically challenging. I'll trim more vascular tissue off of my next Q10 supplements.

My other guess is that poisoning your mitochondria with glucose may well have some significant influence on your Q10 needs from the diet. Just a guess.

So fish oil for DHA, D3 for sunshine and offal for the rest. Now I'll just have to see how I get on....


Mark said...

Some ideas, mindsets, and putting into perspective of omega 3 and 6 and EPA/DHA.

One thought I have is that you make the argument, in response to eating raw food, that humans have been cooking food for a long time and any alterations in food that come from that should be well-tolerated. In any case, you like your meat to come off the bone, readily.

Apply that logic to EPA/DHA, Omega3 vs. 6, should all be fine, too? Not quite.

I, too, experience benefits joint-wise from Omega 3 supplementation or eating salmon or sardines (high in CoQ10). Found that 4 years ago and have taken it in and out of my diet often enough to say so. I also find the same of turmeric. Mommy loves it, too. But it's powerful antiinflammatory, so I only take it here and there. Figure too much and you suppress necessary inflammatory processes too much.

Someone from thincs makes a reference to the temporality of the Omega 3 vs. Omega 6 bond as a termporal probability. Forget who. That's in the free discussions publicly available on the site. Maybe that's Malcolm Kendrick? And maybe it's in his essays?

Regarding immunosuppression of Omega 3, I imagine that what part of hte body the omega 3 is in, would impact the immune system differently. Kind of how liver has lots of vitamin A, and so does the retina, yet the heart less so. Where do the omega 3's end up? Membranes, brain. Organs? Does the body have different programs in place to deal with the amounts of omegas and the type depending on the amount and where it is? And does the amount affect where it goes?

Glutamate agonists, excitotoxins, are a funny thing. I found myself addicted to diet pepsi during exam period last term, I'm doing my master in education. I quit over the winter holiday, tried a little again, and find no appeal to it. Could be neurotransmitter related to affect?

I liked that study which looked at the 70% blockage of two or more major arteries. I am very concerned about CRP and TNF-a, I think they are signs of disease. Immune system churns them out to kill. I guess the EPA could be seen to do something for an an immune system producing too much IL-10, CRP, and TNF-a or the other kind. Same with smoking, I suppose, or too much exertion.

At the same time, if your immune system is producing these because of invaders, then it's not a good idea to stop them I suppose. But if it's not for a good reason, without the invaders, or in too much, or you have autoimmune crap going on, body is eating itself, then that sounds lovely. Stop the overactive immune system that is overactive in response to nothing. But if it's in response to something, don't stop it. I wonder if they body can differentiate.

I suppose if you did a trial of PUFA restriction, of Omega-6, what benefit would you find in people. And if you did another cohort of the same, but added DHA, and another of EPA, and another of both, would you find a drastic difference?

If chronic inflammation is your deal, and it's nor in respone to something, then I'd rather take the turmeric or some kind of immune suppresant that at least makes me taller or happier or relaxeder lol. :P

How do you know you have an overactive immune system? Aluminum, mercury from innoculation? Excitotoxicity? Immune condition? Even if you had a shot, you wouldn't know how strong an effect it had on you or how long, same as excitotoxicity, unless you have good biofeedback, you won't know that your glutamate receptors have been stiumulated. Even if you have good biofeedback, you dont' know that it's a mood change or excitotozxicity? And how many get accurately diagnosed for immune problems, or even mention problems to the doctor to talk about it to find out if you have one?

If the studies used pharmacological doses of EPA/DHA, that's far out.

I'm not chemistry oriented in background. I went to a good private school for highschool and took my chemistry and physics seriosuly into my final year there. I also took math in university, so I am comfortable with statistical manipulation in any studies. I have looked at maybe 20-30, maybe 40 studies in depth regarding heart disease/cholesterol and such, and read a lot of what you write, recently blaylock, WAP foundation, emma the aspie (not a nice label, but I read her so I don't mean any harm by it), Stan, some of Dr. Davis, and am glad to have at least looked at some studies in depth to have a strong opinion on cholesterol. It gives me some opinions in other areas.

I got a lot of ideas, and I think of these things as pieces of a puzzle to peice together. You do'nt know which peices go in the big picture, some of them you know like LDL and TC don't fit in but are red herrings. Others you get an idea of what peice connects with another, but you got many of those ideas. The more you learn, the more you can piece together.

Hope some of these ideas are helpful.

I have hte next two days off, in which I might look up some of these Omega-3 studies. I found one that used DHA/EPA against olive oil (which includes both, I think), that reported benefit in cognition to some autistics kids for EPA/DHA supplementation over placebo. Unfortunately, there was not improvement all over the board, ad the placebo group scored better in seceral areas. It's like that low carb Atkins diet vs. SAD, where the results were ambigous. In fact, telling the people who assess these kids that some of them are being treated, will change their opinion on who is improving as an autistic over who is not, so the study was bunk.


Mark said...

Found some stuff looking at Blaylock, EPA and DHA online.

Found some of his newsletters.

These are from 2004 and 2005.

And an article at LEF, from Jan 2008.

He makes a lot of references, in the LRF article, to the benefits of DHA, much less so to the detriments of EPA.

He recommends Fish oil, and makes no reference to only DHA containing products, although he does mention that some products will have more DHA than EPA, or a better ratio.

So I don't think he's very anti EPA. Or maybe nothing is out yet that is pure DHA, so he's stuck taking bad and good.


Taka said...

To see what the side effects are when you eliminate Omega-6 (and Omega-3 as well) from your diet look here:

(the only "documented" human case although not peer-reviewed)

Seems you can enjoy all the carbs and sweets/HFCS when your only source of fatty acids is the saturated fat. Something unbelievable to JK whose main idea is not to mix the fuels (i.e. carbs and fat) together ...

Dr. B G said...


You have wonderful thoughts on omega-3's!

I have a lot of articles posted at the blog animal pharm (at Dr. Davis' site).

Recently I found out about Blaylock -- he's fantastic. I don't think he's anti-EPA. More brain studies have looked at DHA (I don't know why) vs EPA.

In nature, food typically contains BOTH dha and epa... seems natural to me we consume them together -- much like Vit A and Vit D E K.

For heart disease, EPA and DHA have differential effects on the lipoproteins. DHA makes particles less dense. On the other hand EPA appears to lower particle counts (and apo B). (somehow they found higher glucoses and insulin -- but the below trial counter this show improved insulin resistance and sensitivity in rats but human trials do exist too; the other study explains why some fish oil studies are inconclusive -- subjects are too healthy!)
Purified eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids have differential effects on serum lipids and lipoproteins, LDL particle size, glucose, and insulin in mildly hyperlipidemic men.
Mori TA, Burke V, Puddey IB, Watts GF, O'Neal DN, Best JD, Beilin LJ.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 May;71(5):1085-94.
PMID: 10799369

Dietary eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are more effective than alpha-linolenic acid in improving insulin sensitivity in rats.
Andersen G, Harnack K, Erbersdobler HF, Somoza V.
Ann Nutr Metab. 2008;52(3):250-6. Epub 2008 Jun 19.
PMID: 18562792

Differential immunomodulation with long-chain n-3 PUFA in health and chronic disease.
Sijben JW, Calder PC.
Proc Nutr Soc. 2007 May;66(2):237-59. Review.
PMID: 17466105

Thank you for those links and observations!

Peter said...

Hi Taka,

Yes, an interesting page and, obviously, completely incompatible with JK's or my views. Perdsonally I see nothing convincing on the 4 or 5 sections I flicked through.

It's funny to think that the assorted people I've seen improve all sorts of conditions on LC have done it by accident and, if the guy you cite is correct, all they really did was reduced omega 6s without meaning to. Ditto Lutz and JK's patients... Could be true, but I'm not the person to go find out!