Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.

[monty1945]

This is a good article, overall, to be found at:

http://www.mercola.com/products/coconut_oil.htm

I just want to add that you can tell if a coconut oil is of
the highest quality by just smelling and tasting it. If it
smells and tastes like fresh coconut, it is good, period.

I would suggest you did not cook with it, however, I use it to
"grease up" the glass pans I use to make breads, but other
than that I make sauces at medium-low heat only, with a small
amount of butter. High heat cooking while the food is exposed
to air is a very bad idea. I use antioxidant-rich sauces, made
from tomato paste or pureed corn, along with herbs and spices
like oregano, rosemary, tumeric, curry powder, etc. You can
then put this over rice or pasta. I use ricotta cheese in the
sauce, but one could put pieces of boiled meat or shellfish in
there too.

[Mattlb]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> This is a good article, overall, to be found at:
>
> http://www.mercola.com/products/coconut_oil.htm

Really? But it mentions lipid membranes and HIV, neither of
which exist according to you. I can see that the numerous
suspect claims without supporting evicdence would resonate
with you though.

MattLB

[Mr. Natura]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:

> I would suggest you did not cook with it, however, I use it
> to "grease up" the glass pans I use to make breads,

NEWSFLASH: Monty bakes his own bread!

Now, do you eat it?

Of course, most breads contain grains if not whole grains.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor
of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages,
the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

[monty1945]

Ah, the wonderful MattLB is back, and apparently refreshed !
Ready to nitpick again as well. And this is a prime example of
how he/she/they operates, (he/she/they is likely an industry
shill of some kind, explicity or implicitly). He will find a
tangential point, one that is not related to the central one,
and he will attempt to make it appear like there is some
contradiction, when in reality there is no book that has ever
been written on a complex, multifaceted scientific issue that
has been perfect. When asked to put forth a scientific
hypothesis for his claims, he refuses to do so, even though
this is required by the scientific method, apparently hoping
that most people are not aware enough to think much of this
glaring deficiency. When it is pointed out that DIRECT, ON
POINT experiments have been done that absolutely refute a
claim he makes or agrees with, he simply ignores it, or brings
up another tangential issue. Nor does he usually supply
examples or references for his claims. In a recent post here,
for example, I provided the 1948 reference to a study that
directly refuted the "essential fatty acid" claim. Rats were
fed a totally fat-free diet, and were fine, unlike what
happened in 1930, when the rats were not given cerntain B
vitamins, and so the essential fatty acid claim is actually a
B vitamin issue.

Also, in a recent post, I recommended someone read Bruce
Fife's book, Saturated fat may save your life, which is very
good in a number of ways, but Fife is apparently not aware of
the 1948 experiments, and so believes the "essential fatty
acid" claim. Whenever I suggest this book, I point out that it
is good in general or overall - again, with a book like this,
that covers so much ground, the odds are that there will be a
few statements that at least are phrased poorly. If I had to
examine every sentence of every book or web site to make sure
there were no problematic claims, I would do nothing else but
this, and then what would be the result? I would be able to
recommend nothing, because nothing would meet the standards
MattLB has for other people, but as for himself, I have yet to
see him respond to criticisms of statements he has made in a
way that is consistent with the scientific method.

Of course, in the first line of the post, I said: "This is a
good article, overall..." obviously implying that it was not
perfect. MattLB appears to want to be a nutritional version of
a "Swiftboat Veteran." Good luck to you with that, MattLB,
because I think most people here now see right through what
you are attempting to do. However, if you wish to debate the
notion of a structural lipid bilayer membrane, I am confident
that I can find someone with the appropriate credentials to do
so. If you wish to debate the "essential fatty acid" claim, I
suggest you explain how the rats in 1948 could have lived
without any problems on a totally fat-free diet.

Since you've been playing this game for so long, I don't
expect anything but the same shill techniques from you, but
I'm willing to examine any evidence you present, assuming you
present any. I'd first ask that you state your position
clearly, since those making claims are required to put forth a
formal hypothesis. I, on the other hand, am just suggesting
that until the evidence meets the standards of the scientific
method, one should not do things that may do harm, as the
Hippocractic Oath requires of doctors. This includes taking
toxic "medicines" or toxic substances like fish oil.

[Msamson119]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:

> Hippocractic Oath requires of doctors. This includes taking
> toxic "medicines" or toxic substances like fish oil.

Hey Monty, you never answered my post on another thread so I
thought I would ask you here. I read your forum but can't find
any recommendations on your diet. Could you please point me to
it. I am intrigued by your stance on fish oil and
peroxidation. I'm guessing this would include Cod Liver Oil? I
guess you don't read or agree with Sally Fallon or Mary Enig
and the Weston Price Foundation? What about Mercola's stance
since you are directing us to his sale of coconut oi.

You really think cod liver oil is toxic if taken in small
quantities? Wouldn't the vitamin A, E, and D provide
sufficient antioxidants?

[Msamson119]

Oh shit, nevermind Monty, I see you did reply. My bad!

[monty1945]

This is not my stance on fish oil and lipid peroxidation. Not
only are there a huge number of studies (search pubmed.com,
for example), but it is simply basic biochemistry, and in fact
the basis of oil painting, which you could not do with coconut
oil, because it goes rancid so slowly.

One claim for the fish oil is that it is "essential," but that
was directly refuted in 1948, though if a pregnant woman wants
ice cream and herring, I would say let her have it.

The other claim is that it is "anti-inflammatory." I examine
the evidence on my web site and show that it is in fact more
"inflammatory" than omega 6s, but because it is not made into
molecules like PGE2, which generates the symptoms doctors
associate with "inflammation," such as "puffiness," it is said
to be beneficial. In fact, it will damage your body far
quicker, which explains the horrendous mortality figures of
the native Greenlandes on a high omega 3 diet. And of course
you can just get a group of mice and load one group up with
fish oil and the other with coconut oil and see which group
lives longer. You can do canola oil and fish oil, if you
believe in the "balance" nonsense, and you will get more or
less the same results.

A tiny amount of fish oil is okay, but why bother? It has two
effects that are very bad: direct damage from lipid
peroxidation and having it store up in your cells, to be
released upon cellular stress and made into molecules that are
even more dangerous. Just read the essays on my site and if
you have questions, post them there, so that you will be
assured of getting a response. Look for studies that you think
contradict what I am saying, and I will examine them and write
up a commentary. I decided to avoid all major sources of
polyunsaturated fatty acids in March of 2001, and I still have
trouble believing the great results, but they, and the
evidence, speak for themselves. I was a believer in omega 3
supplements, but when I almost died, trying to do everything
the "experts" were advocating, I knew it was time to examine
the evidence and decide for myself. Fortunately, I was trained
in evidence analysis, and so it was easier for me than it
would be for most people, which is why I created my site.

[Mr. Natura]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> This is a good article, overall, to be found at:
>
> http://www.mercola.com/products/coconut_oil.htm

This is what Mercola has stated in this specific article.

"Why Coconut Oil Deserves Your Respect (and Your Body Deserves
Coconut Oil)" And, Why Mercola Deserves Your Coconut Oil
Orders? Need, I say more?

"Why You Must Be Choosy About Your Brand of Coconut Oil"?

The facts are that Mercola does NOT support the used of
coconut oil in general. Mercola supports only the use of
specific brands of coconut oil. Specific brands which Mercola
either sells directly, or obviously gets some type of
financial payment for promoting. Need, I say more?

"If you could peek inside my pantry, you would find two oils
that I use in food preparation.

The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a healthy
monounsaturated fat. It works great as a salad dressing.
... There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist
heat-induced damage, while it also helps you prevent
heart disease, lower cholesterol and even lose weight --
coconut oil.

So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil
instead of butter, olive oil, vegetable oil or any other type
of oil called for in recipes."

I ask this question? What person concerned about their health
still fries food in a frying pan? Or, deep fries their food?
Nobody, that is who.

Tell me this. What scientific research paper on the health
benefits of eating fish and / or using Olive oil in the
Mediterrean Diet did NOT studied people who cooked their fish
or cooked their food with olive oil? The facts are that eating
cooked fish and baking food with olive oil is perfectly
healthy for you.

What is not healthy for you? Frying food in a frying pan with
oil, because it generates vapors or smoke which is toxic to
your health. Also, the food tends to be soaked in excessive
amounts of oil. Also, frying food with reused oil as is the
norm with deep frying methods is toxic to your health because
oil rots just like any food and heat damaged oil steadily
builds up to toxic levels.

In reality, the concern about oxidative damage done by cooking
these oils, by Kooks, is NOT supported by the research.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor
of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages,
the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

[Msamson119]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> This is not my stance on fish oil and lipid peroxidation.
> Not only are there a huge number of studies (search
> pubmed.com, for example), but it is simply basic
> biochemistry, and in fact the basis of oil painting, which
> you could not do with coconut oil, because it goes rancid
> so slowly.
>
> One claim for the fish oil is that it is "essential," but
> that was directly refuted in 1948, though if a pregnant
> woman wants ice cream and herring, I would say let her
> have it.
>
> The other claim is that it is "anti-inflammatory." I examine
> the evidence on my web site and show that it is in fact more
> "inflammatory" than omega 6s, but because it is not made
> into molecules like PGE2, which generates the symptoms
> doctors associate with "inflammation," such as "puffiness,"
> it is said to be beneficial. In fact, it will damage your
> body far quicker, which explains the horrendous mortality
> figures of the native Greenlandes on a high omega 3 diet.
> And of course you can just get a group of mice and load one
> group up with fish oil and the other with coconut oil and
> see which group lives longer. You can do canola oil and fish
> oil, if you believe in the "balance" nonsense, and you will
> get more or less the same results.
>
> A tiny amount of fish oil is okay, but why bother? It has
> two effects that are very bad: direct damage from lipid
> peroxidation and having it store up in your cells, to be
> released upon cellular stress and made into molecules that
> are even more dangerous. Just read the essays on my site and
> if you have questions, post them there, so that you will be
> assured of getting a response. Look for studies that you
> think contradict what I am saying, and I will examine them
> and write up a commentary. I decided to avoid all major
> sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids in March of 2001, and
> I still have trouble believing the great results, but they,
> and the evidence, speak for themselves. I was a believer in
> omega 3 supplements, but when I almost died, trying to do
> everything the "experts" were advocating, I knew it was time
> to examine the evidence and decide for myself. Fortunately,
> I was trained in evidence analysis, and so it was easier for
> me than it would be for most people, which is why I created
> my site.

Monty, I will see you in your forum. However, your comparisons
of fish vs coconut oil are very redundant and it surprises me
quite frankly that you would continue to use these rat
experiments to prove your point. SURELY high amounts of
polyunsat's are harmful, so you can't just take a garbage oil
like canola and add 1/2 fish oil and compare to
coconut........you're comparing 2 things that are completely
different -- poly vs saturate. My diet consists of 30%
saturated fat, but if I ate 30% poly i'd probably keel over.
My diet consists of a small amount of poly, probably less than
5%. So you must understand that as we have requirements for
small amounts of vitamins, nutrients, etc it doesn't mean to
go overboard.

I think much of the fish oil is all hype, but am starting to
think that the lower amounts of DHA/EPA in cod liver oil are
beneficial as it is also a good source of vit A and vit D.
Furthermore, if cooked properly I don't see how cooking fatty
fish can be harmful. Both cod liver oil and eating fish have
soooooo many studies proving their health value that you would
be using your entire lifetime to refute them. Also, in regard
to cod liver oil:

Cod liver oil, on the other hand, has been shown to inhibit
lipid peroxidation. One study found that cod liver oil
depressed drug-induced lipid peroxidation in mice under the
same conditions by which soybean oil increased lipid
peroxidation.1 Another study found that feeding cod liver
oil entirely abolished the increased level of lipid
peroxidation found in diabetic rats.4 In both studies, the
depression of lipid peroxidation was related to a sparing
effect on glutathione peroxidase activity (an important
antioxidant enzyme), which has been shown to be attributable
to vitamin A.5

1. Ohtake, et al., "Effects of dietary lipids on
daunomycin-induced nephropathy in mice: comparison between
cod liver oil and soybean oil," Lipids, Vol. 37 No. 4
(2002) 359-366.

2. Diniz, et al., "Diets rich in saturated and polyunsaturated
fatty acids: metabolic shifting and cardiac health,"
Nutrition, 200 (2004) 230-234.

3. Saito and Kubo, "Relationship between tissue lipid
peroxidation and peroxidizability index after a-linolenic,
eicosapentaenoic, or docosahexaenoic acid intake in rats,"
British Journal of Nutrition, 89
(4) 19-28.

5. Hunkar, et al., "Effects of cod liver oil on tissue
antioxidant pathways in normal and streptozotocin- diabetic
rats," Cell Biochem Funct. Vol. 20 No. 4 (2002) 297-302.

6. Stohs, et al., "Effects of BHA, d-alpha-tocopherol and
retinol acetate on TCDD-mediated changes in lipid
peroxidation, glutathione peroxidase activity and
survival," Xenobiotica Vol. 14 No. 7 (1984) 533-7.

So fish oil may induce lipid peroxidation, but not cod liver
oil? And with eating fatty fish there are other vitamins and
even saturated fat that may prevent the oxidation from
occuring itself.

I find your points interesting, and it's great to look at the
other side. I am a proponent of a primitive ancestral diet
based on animal foods and plant foods. I find your diet to
contain grains which even Mercola states are poison. Add to
that that you eat corn, etc. and no meat and it makes me
wonder just how healthy your diet really is.

Your "quotes on fish oil" are pretty weak IMO. Do you have ANY
other sources, websites, etc. that support your views that you
could share? Even links to pubmed studies would be great,
because as of now, we're going on your word, and a few weak
reports by Ray Peak.

[Msamson119]

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> > This is a good article, overall, to be found at:
> >
> > http://www.mercola.com/products/coconut_oil.htm
>
> This is what Mercola has stated in this specific article.
>
> "Why Coconut Oil Deserves Your Respect (and Your Body
> Deserves Coconut Oil)" And, Why Mercola Deserves Your
> Coconut Oil Orders? Need, I say more?
>
> "Why You Must Be Choosy About Your Brand of Coconut Oil"?
>
> The facts are that Mercola does NOT support the used of
> coconut oil in general. Mercola supports only the use of
> specific brands of coconut oil. Specific brands which
> Mercola either sells directly, or obviously gets some type
> of financial payment for promoting. Need, I say more?
>
> "If you could peek inside my pantry, you would find two oils
> that I use in food preparation.
>
> The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a healthy
> monounsaturated fat. It works great as a salad dressing.
> ... There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist
> heat-induced damage, while it also helps you prevent
> heart disease, lower cholesterol and even lose weight --
> coconut oil.
>
> So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil
> instead of butter, olive oil, vegetable oil or any other
> type of oil called for in recipes."
>
> I ask this question? What person concerned about their
> health still fries food in a frying pan? Or, deep fries
> their food? Nobody, that is who.
>
> Tell me this. What scientific research paper on the health
> benefits of eating fish and / or using Olive oil in the
> Mediterrean Diet did NOT studied people who cooked their
> fish or cooked their food with olive oil? The facts are that
> eating cooked fish and baking food with olive oil is
> perfectly healthy for you.
>
> What is not healthy for you? Frying food in a frying pan
> with oil, because it generates vapors or smoke which is
> toxic to your health. Also, the food tends to be soaked in
> excessive amounts of oil. Also, frying food with reused oil
> as is the norm with deep frying methods is toxic to your
> health because oil rots just like any food and heat damaged
> oil steadily builds up to toxic levels.
>
> In reality, the concern about oxidative damage done by
> cooking these oils, by Kooks, is NOT supported by the
> research.
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a
> Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological
> factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18
> web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more
> documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

I have been an avid reader of Mercola for years and have lost
all total respect for him. His website has become an
advertisement for these numerous products. Hilarious how he
states that "unfortunately" ALL the world's oceans have become
polluted to the point that it's all inedible, BUT you can
purchase his krill oil and reap the same benefits! Yeah right.
What a joke he is.

I think i'll stick with my coconut oil from
coconutoil-online.com

[Mattlb]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> Ah, the wonderful MattLB is back, and apparently refreshed !

I never went anywhere. Look away from your own personal forum
once in a while.

> Ready to nitpick again as well.

If you call pointing out contradictions in your assertions
nitpicking it explains a lot. You recommended an article that
agrees with one thing you claim: "coconut oil is great" and
disagrees with two things you claim: HIV doesn't exist, cells
don't have lipid membranes. It also warns against trans fatty
acids, which again you seem to think aren't a problem.

> He will find a tangential point, one that is not related to
> the central one, and he will attempt to make it appear like
> there is some contradiction, when in reality there is no
> book that has ever been written on a complex, multifaceted
> scientific issue that has been perfect.

That's a tangential point if there ever was one. What has the
existence or non-existence of a perfect book on "scientific
issues" got to do with you recommending an article that
contradicts some of your personal theories?

> When asked to put forth a scientific hypothesis for his
> claims, he refuses to do so,

I'm making no claims, merely challenging your claims which fly
in the face of accepted biochemistry. You are the one required
to provide explanations for why the body has specific enzymes
for EFA metabolism if you claim they aren't actually required.

> even though this is required by the scientific method,

You don't have a hypothesis for a claim, you have a hypothesis
for an experiment - the results of which either support or
reject the hypothesis.

> When it is pointed out that DIRECT, ON POINT experiments
> have been done that absolutely refute a claim he makes or
> agrees with

Which has yet to happen.

>, he simply ignores it, or brings up another tangential
>issue. Nor does he usually supply examples or references for
>his claims.

All of the above describe your M.O.

> In a recent post here, for example, I provided the 1948
> reference to a study that directly refuted the "essential
> fatty acid" claim. Rats were fed a totally fat-free diet,
> and were fine, unlike what happened in 1930, when the rats
> were not given cerntain B vitamins, and so the essential
> fatty acid claim is actually a B vitamin issue.

Not in the references I've given many times before (seven was
it?) that you always ignore. Let me dig them out again and you
can either refute them or stay silent and let it be clear you
have no case.

Here's the eighth:

"Thirty years later, Hansen et al. [140] were the first to
describe EFAD in humans. They observed unsatisfactory growth
rates and dryness of the skin in many infants on low LA
intakes. EFAD has been most extensively described in
subjects on fat-free total parenteral nutrition
(TPN)[141-147]. For example, O'Neill et al. [142] reported
on 28 patients,ranging from newborns to 66 years old, who
received fat-free TPN. LA levels fell rapidly, followed by
AA. In most of the patients the
20:3n9/20:4n6 ratio (a biochemical marker for EFAD) had
increased after a few weeks above the 0.4 criterion
[148], followed approximately one week later by
clinical signs of a scaly and thin skin, and hair
loss. In addition to these classical EFAD symptoms,
many other biological and behavioural changes have
been documented [149-151]"

Two of the refs:

Wene JD, Connor WE, DenBesten L. The development of essential
fatty acid deficiency in healthy men fed fat-free diets
intravenously and orally. J Clin Invest 1975;56:127-34

O'Neill JA, Caldwell MD, Meng HC. Essential fatty acid
deficiency in surgical patients. Ann Surg 1977;185:535-41"

> MattLB has for other people, but as for himself, I have yet
> to see him respond to criticisms of statements he has made
> in a way that is consistent with the scientific method.

I can only assume that's due to some sort of hysterical
blindness that manifests whenever you see counter-evidence.
I, and indeed everyone else who objects to your positioning
of opinion as fact, nearly always explain why you're wrong or
give references that show it. That you choose not to see them
is your failing.

> Of course, in the first line of the post, I said: "This is a
> good article, overall..." obviously implying that it was not
> perfect.

So why not point out which bits were "wrong", or why not
quote an article that had no bits you didn't agree with (if
such exists).

> MattLB appears to want to be a nutritional version of a
> "Swiftboat Veteran." Good luck to you with that, MattLB,
> because I think most people here now see right through what
> you are attempting to do.

Prevent you spreading misinformed diet advice based on the
theories of singular scientists?

> However, if you wish to debate the notion of a structural
> lipid bilayer membrane, I am confident that I can find
> someone with the appropriate credentials to do so.

You admit then, that you're not up to the job?

> If you wish to debate the "essential fatty acid" claim, I
> suggest you explain how the rats in 1948 could have lived
> without any problems on a totally fat-free diet.

Supply a copy of the text so I and everyone else can have a
look at it first. It's a crushingly obscure reference, that
isn't in the biomedical library I have access to and since
it's on rats hardlt trumps the human studies I quoted above.

> Since you've been playing this game for so long, I don't
> expect anything but the same shill techniques from you,

Nor I from you.

> but I'm willing to examine any evidence you present,
> assuming you present any.

You have now an eighth opportunity to comment on the human
EFA-deficiency papers; I hope you do so.

> I, on the other hand, am just suggesting that until the
> evidence meets the standards of the scientific method, one
> should not do things that may do harm, as the Hippocractic
> Oath requires of doctors.

Advising people not to eat essential nutrients will
cause harm.

> This includes taking toxic "medicines" or toxic substances
> like fish oil.

Fish oil clearly isn't toxic to fish, or animals that subsist
on fish like seals and sea-birds. You have given no evidence
that fish oil is toxic either, though your definition of toxic
is probably as loosely interpreted as your definition of
essential.

Show this molecular level detail you always harp on about, or
instead show that you're all talk.

MattLB

[Msamson119]

MattLB wrote:

> Fish oil clearly isn't toxic to fish, or animals that
> subsist on fish like seals and sea-birds. You have given no
> evidence that fish oil is toxic either, though your
> definition of toxic is probably as loosely interpreted as
> your definition of essential.
>
> Show this molecular level detail you always harp on about,
> or instead show that you're all talk.
>
> MattLB

Good points Matt. Especially the last couple. Why doesn't the
omega 3's (DHA/EPA) oxidize in a bear when it eats salmon? You
are right that Monty doesn't provide any evidence that fish
oil is toxic..just a couple of weak quotes on his site. So
would you say that Monty is completely out to lunch? Does he
really think that cells don't contain lipid membranes?

[Mr. Natura]

msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:

> I have been an avid reader of Mercola for years and have
> lost all total respect for him. His website has become an
> advertisement for these numerous products. Hilarious how he
> states that "unfortunately" ALL the world's oceans have
> become polluted to the point that it's all inedible, BUT you
> can purchase his krill oil and reap the same benefits! Yeah
> right. What a joke he is.
>
> I think i'll stick with my coconut oil from
> coconutoil-online.com

Monty wrote this as the subject line of this thread: "Newest
coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com."

Yet, he is apparently too dense to see how foolish this has
made him look.

Hmn, I guess that means that Monty has earned the title of
twit?

[Msamson119]

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:

> Yet, he is apparently too dense to see how foolish this has
> made him look.

Good point, i'm wondering why he would have plugged it --
especially since mercola is a lunatic. I guess he is just
trying to point to how good coconut oil is, which I don't
disagree with.

[Mattlb]

msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
> MattLB wrote:
> > Fish oil clearly isn't toxic to fish, or animals that
> > subsist on fish like seals and sea-birds. You have given
> > no evidence that fish oil is toxic either, though your
> > definition of toxic is probably as loosely interpreted as
> > your definition of essential.
> >
> > Show this molecular level detail you always harp on about,
> > or instead show that you're all talk.

> Good points Matt. Especially the last couple. Why doesn't
> the omega 3's (DHA/EPA) oxidize in a bear when it eats
> salmon? You are right that Monty doesn't provide any
> evidence that fish oil is toxic..just a couple of weak
> quotes on his site. So would you say that Monty is
> completely out to lunch?

It's more that he's completely led by other people's
unsubstantiated theories - like those of Ray Peat and Gilbert
Ling. He doesn't have a scientific background and seems to be
convinced more by the person than the evidence. He's also
excessively hung up on ancient texts, despite there having
been many decades of discovery since.

> Does he really think that cells don't contain lipid
> membranes?

Oh yes. A few quotes:

" Ling's got the evidence, whereas the "lipid bilayer," as it
is explained in textbooks, is physically and biochemically
impossible. "

"No only can the “lipid bilayer” claim not account
for all the data, but those who write textbooks cannot account
for the data in a way that makes any sense even in a
simplified form. "

" the "lipid bilayer" was just an interesting idea, that
became a "model" in textbooks because it was easy to teach to
students, but the experimental evidence was never obtained."

"Once again, I’ll ask: where is the experimental data
demonstrating that a lipid bilayer could have structural
integrity (to withstand the shearing forces) in a human body?
I’ll leave aside this model’s absurd qualities for
the moment."

"When you decide to supply some evidence to support the "lipid
bilayer membrane," then I'll take a look at it. Until then,
you get filed in the "deluded fool" category. "

He's never managed to provide an alternate model, particularly
for red cell ghosts, despite being asked. It remains to be
seen if he remains characteristically silent on the
EFA-deficiency studies once again.

MattLB

[Msamson119]

MattLB wrote:msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > He's never managed to provide an alternate model,
> > particularly for red
> cell ghosts, despite being asked. It remains to be seen if
> he remains characteristically silent on the EFA-deficiency
> studies once again.
>
> MattLB

Matt, do you take a EPA/DHA supplement. I've decided to
eliminate the fish oil because I thought the EPA/DHA
concentrations were too high and also due to lack of vit A&D.
Cod Liver Oil on the other hand has a natural high amount of
anti-oxidant vit A & D and apparently prevent lipid
peroxidation:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Benefit-Of-Cod-Live-
r-Oil.html

[Mattlb]

msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
> MattLB wrote:msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > He's never managed to provide an alternate model,
> > > particularly for red
> > cell ghosts, despite being asked. It remains to be seen if
> > he remains characteristically silent on the EFA-deficiency
> > studies once again.

> Matt, do you take a EPA/DHA supplement. I've decided to
> eliminate the fish oil because I thought the EPA/DHA
> concentrations were too high and also due to lack of vit
> A&D. Cod Liver Oil on the other hand has a natural high
> amount of anti-oxidant vit A & D and apparently prevent
> lipid peroxidation:

I have taken fish oil capsules in the past (with vitamin E and
beta-carotene for antioxidant protection). I found after a
while they made my skin more oily, so I decided I had probably
reached reasonable omega3:omega6 balance and haven't continued
to take them.

I currently take cod liver oil caps occasionally, but that's
mostly for the vitamin D, with any EPA/DHA top-up a bonus. I
only ever take them with uncooked food, to avoid them being
peroxidised before they've even left the stomach.

MattLB

[Msamson119]

MattLB wrote:

> I currently take cod liver oil caps occasionally, but
> that's mostly for the vitamin D, with any EPA/DHA top-up a
> bonus. I only ever take them with uncooked food, to avoid
> them being peroxidised before they've even left the
> stomach.
>
> MattLB

Interesting, so you think that uncooked food would be much
better than taking with cooked food? Do you think that the
capsules would be much better than liquid since it may prevent
the oil from oxidation better?

I too will be taking them for vit A and D...the EPA/DHA is
less than 300mg's for both because I want to keep it
conservative.

I also just bought some vit A capsules that are apparently
from cod/halibut liver oil so at least it's not synthetic.

Any thoughts on high vitamin butter oil? Not sure if you're
familar with Weston Price but he said the butter oil and cod
liver oil had a synergistic affect and the cod liver alone
didn't seem to do much.

[Mattlb]

msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
> MattLB wrote:
>
> > I currently take cod liver oil caps occasionally, but
> > that's mostly for the vitamin D, with any EPA/DHA top-up
> > a bonus. I only ever take them with uncooked food, to
> > avoid them being peroxidised before they've even left the
> > stomach.

> Interesting, so you think that uncooked food would be much
> better than taking with cooked food?

Cooking is a sure fire way to generate free radicals, so if
you eat fish oil with a cooked meal the chances of it being
peroxidised while still in the stomach are greatly increased.
Once in your body, the chances of oxidation are much lower, so
if you can get the PUFAs into your body unoxidised then they
should be okay. This assumes your diet contains antioxidants,
of course.

> Do you think that the capsules would be much better than
> liquid since it may prevent the oil from oxidation better?

I couldn't say for sure, but I would expect capsules to
be better.

> Any thoughts on high vitamin butter oil? Not sure if you're
> familar with Weston Price but he said the butter oil and cod
> liver oil had a synergistic affect and the cod liver alone
> didn't seem to do much.

I don't know anything about butter oil, sorry.

MattLB

[Msamson119]

MattLB wrote:

> Cooking is a sure fire way to generate free radicals, so if
> you eat fish oil with a cooked meal the chances of it being
> peroxidised while still in the stomach are greatly
> increased. Once in your body, the chances of oxidation are
> much lower, so if you can get the PUFAs into your body
> unoxidised then they should be okay. This assumes your diet
> contains antioxidants, of course.
>

I never ever thought about it that way. Thanks for the heads
up.