1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Take It Slow

Discussion in 'My Optimal Journal' started by yewwei.tan, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. yewwei.tan

    yewwei.tan Gold

    There is a major assumption that DHA is somehow "electrically unique". This is presumably based off QED, and delocalised pi-electron clouds.

    We all agree that there is something special about having 6-double bonds in a fatty acid. I have highlighted the observed effects of PUFAs, and especially DHA, to be able to actively separate from cholesterol in cell membranes. This allows such PUFAs to "push cholesterol to where it needs to be". This is an observation hat can be verified again and again.

    However, regarding significant energy transfer / electrical signalling properties of DHA, there is no evidence to support that this is true.

    Any significant energetic transfers to DHA occur in the context of photopigments, whereby light of specific frequencies excite DHA in a particular way. This is a plausible means of non-harmful energy transfer, and even Crawford notes in his DHA paper (assuming you believe in QED ;)) that:

    Common sense would dictate that the photoreceptor would face the incoming photons. Curiously, this is not the case. Instead their face is buried in the retinal reticulo-endothelium and the back end faces the incoming stream of photons

    Acting as a wave, the incoming photon has a far better chance of activating the very specific location of the retinal cis-double bond than as a discreet particle which could easily miss such a small target.
    ie: DHA needs very special conditions for safe energetic excitation to take place.

    Any other context of energy transfer to DHA only serves to oxidise it. This is behaviour observed again and again and again with DHA in a Phospholipid form, whether it be in vitro or in vivo. If anyone wants to assign an energetic transfer role to DHA, they must explain how it somehow avoids this fate that we see again and again and again, and prove that safe DHA excitation somehow manages to happen reliably and an significant enough amounts for signalling in the body.

    There is also no proof that DHA is the key compound for neuronal signalling. Again, with the reactivity of DHA, we cannot justify it as a site of energy transfer.

    The papers which I cite estimate 5g of total DHA in the brain. This is an estimate, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the brain's lipid is in the form of cholesterol, not fatty acids, and that the functional characteristics of the brain are not due to DHA.

    Where DHA is likely useful is in separating out cholesterol and "pushing it to where it needs to go".

    This is a whole topic onto itself of course, but the leading models of both memory and neuronal function work center around the activity of alpha and beta Tubulin in the microtubule structures of the brain, along with CaMKII as a significant signalling compound. I disagree with some of the the QED based conclusions made in Orch-OR, but I definitely agree that Tubulin is where the action happens (energy transfer).

    - Orch OR review -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
    - 'Here’s an Incredible Idea For How Memory Works' -- http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2182-heres-an-incredible-idea-for-how-memory-works

    ----

    Sidenote: 22:6 DHA is not the only 6 C=C bond fatty acid. There is also 24:6 (Nisinic acid), which is also present the significant amounts in the marine chain. Analysis on this compound is sparse, but what we do know that it acts like 22:6.

    One plausible reason that it isn't used that often is because more energy is required to synthesise it. This is a complete guess, and the 2D structure looks so similar to 22:6 that we really can't say much.

    - Chemical structure (3D structure unknown) -- https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/11792612#section=Top
    - Hints at 24:6 having the same effects as 22:6 on mouse Mast Cells -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9870906
    - 9.3% of fatty acids being 24:6 -- http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jko...-tetracosahexaenoic-acid-jellyfish-aurelia-sp
    - http://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84892886550&origin=inward&txGid=0

    ----

    Regarding: "Strategic waste breakdown pathways (maresins, protectins, etc)", I have addressed this many times already. See my article and commentary on why it is unrealistic to assume that most DHA breakdown products are this more useful protectins and resolvins.

    In reality, what you get are tons of harmful products like isoprostanes and neuroprostanes, which are formed via non-enzymatic, more energetically favourable pathways, (compared to something like resolvins, which require enzymes to be made)

    ----

    On rates of DHA turnover, the paper which I base my "at most 5.5 mg a day DHA turnover rate" on is free for anyone to critique 'Imaging incorporation of circulating docosahexaenoic acid into the human brain using positron emission tomography' (Umhau et. al., 2009) -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694326/#bib49

    It is not fair to give the QED-based analysis of DHA's electrical properties a free pass, and then say that "I don’t think the technology exists to even begin to measure that in a meaningful way".

    If you want to critique this method, do so at a level which directly refutes the methodology or results, eg: one can critique the tracing compound used (Carbon 11 DHA), and prove that this is not an accurate measure of DHA incorporation.

    ----

    Outside of that, you also need to explain all the observations which I list in my article. Why does DHA cause the immune problems that it does? Why does it cause the mitochondrial issues? (and prove that it somehow manages to not get incorporated into mitochondria, when all the research papers I cite show that it does so readily).

    We cannot rely on theoretical ideas of what DHA should do, when they don't face up to the observations of reality.

    You say:

    But as the most evolved mammal, humans are unique and clearly more efficient in the way they handle DHA​

    Which has no basis in reality. I have cited many sources of information which suggest that humans are unique in the way that they handle DHA, and therefore require more complex machinery to handle said DHA.

    A complex system has more exposed fragility. This is a basic principle of increasing complexity -- the Reptilian brain doesn't suffer some of the problems that more complex the mammalian brain does, just like bacteria never need to worry about cancer. Now create a supremely complex bi-pedal ape and pray that things go well o_O.

    When that machinery is broken, DHA regulation breaks. There is nothing "efficient" about the way that all the regulatory mechanisms I've described works. They are there for precise control, not efficiency.

    Then:

    The only evolutionary correct answer to that for a human would be to try to replace the lost DHA by ingesting it in its environmental package while correcting the faulty optical environment thereby regaining containment and restoring complexity​

    If that's the case, prove to me that all the DHA regulatory mechanisms (intestinal absorption, mobilisation, LysoPC packaging, MFSD2A signalling, etc ...) which I describe in my article suddenly start working again when DHA is delivered in its "environmental package".

    This proof must explain also why we see empirical cases of people on this forum getting worse and worse while eating DHA, and then suddenly seeing a positive change when they back off on the DHA. I won't single these people out, but I've gotten so many Personal Messages about this topic, and seen so many cases of people being unable to process DHA when under a stressful environment.

    Finally you say:

    But even so, a strategy of avoiding all PUFA’s including DHA seems extremely counter-evolutionary to me.

    I've explained the rationale behind PUFA reduction many times already. Just look back 2-3 pages in this journal for all the mechanics involved.

    This is not a recommendation. All I am saying is that PUFAs are directly harmful to metabolism.

    ....
     
    jwhb77, seanb4, bionaut and 1 other person like this.
  2. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    From last year's discussion,
    https://forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/essential-fatty-acids-tests.13422/#post-159289
     
  3. Brother John

    Brother John Silver

    Neil, do you suppose Dosage might be a factor? It seems that all substances including water can be overdosed... so any ideas about How to know if a person is high or low on DHA??
    Thanks,
    Brother John
     
  4. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    I don't know the ideal dose brother, or how to determine it in an individual. I think Yew brings up some good points, but I don't see how complete avoidance of dietary DHA could be a long-term solution based on what I have seen and what I know about it. It could be that a temporary inability to incorporate DHA could lead to certain symptoms related to excess circulating and degenerating DHA, but it would seem to me that the goal should be to find a way to create conditions to reincorporate the DHA into neural membranes, not to abandon its use. But that is my speculation. Personally, my experience with increased DHA from seafood has been excellent.
     
    jwhb77, Linz, bionaut and 2 others like this.
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Nice to see some sanity return Neil. You should visit more often.
     
  6. lohd2015

    lohd2015 New Member

    I have been trying to understand the complex scientific citings in this thread, and my limited background is severely hampering my ability to fully comprehend everything being presented. However, is the following true or false?

    "DHA is present in every eukaryote cell membrane"

    You would think that if it is there, it's there for a reason, and if you don't have it, then something's going to be wrong?

    I can get the part about how much to eat and how some people can't utilize it. That is part of healing naturally, since everyone's situation and needs are different.

    But I would really like to know if DHA is fundamentally important, like oxygen or water. Sorry to be so blunt. Thank you for helping me understand.
     
  7. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    DHA has the ability to do many things. That is what makes it so versatile. The fact that it showed up before the cambrian explosion and the fact it has never been replaced in the complex tree of eukaryotes is something that cannot be resolved by anyone in this thread. Nor can it be explained by anyone in science. It just is a fact. In that sense it is a lot like QED. We may not what the theory says but the theory always agrees with the experiment when tested.

    The experiment for DHA is nature. When it is tested it too never fails and life always uses it in some way. The use is always tied to the environment the eukaryote is in and it is a lipid that is a chameleon across eukaryotes as Neil described. The burden of proof is on those who say its bad. Not those who say it is not. The key is understanding "why". And "why" can only be addressed well when you know How and What of DHA. And no one in this thread does.

     
    Brent Patrick and lohd2015 like this.
  8. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Doris Loh DHA is not only fundamental; it is critical...........they key is knowing more about light to know where you fit in on the scale of its use. In the modern world crafted with nnEMF and blue the answers are higher than they would have been about 150 years ago.
     
    jwhb77, jenaf and lohd2015 like this.
  9. lohd2015

    lohd2015 New Member

    Thank you Dr. Kruse. I love the video.
     
  10. yewwei.tan

    yewwei.tan Gold

    Just in case I wasn't clear despite saying it so many times ;) on both my Article and recently in this thread (like here, 2 pages back -- https://forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/take-it-slow.9428/page-58#post-186685) .....

    I stress again: DHA is fucking important, BUT excess is bad

    I've listed all my concerns, which directly refute the arguments for high DHA consumption, and have received no response :zzz:

    I even stress that if there is true deficiency, then it must be replaced, and that in pregnant mothers and growing infants, you better damn well get your DHA.

    I even gave a number -- 150-200mg a day for pregnant mothers. Most conventional people don't get that amount, and are thus in deficiency o_O.

    For adults, I gave a likely safe number of 50-100mg a day. I state in my article why even this amount can be higher than needed, but I also see little harm at this dose.

    But when I see recommendations for "as much DHA as possible", and when I reflect on what I used to do (1,000mg of DHA a day), I will state that this amount is definitely excessive, and that there are clear cases of people who have suffered negative health consequences because of this.

    I have presented as unbiased a set of information and observations which I can personally amass. People on this forum for awhile also know that I was and still am heavily embedded into the research surrounding DHA and all the mechanics observed. You can find old postings of mine touting so called "electric signalling" benefits of DHA, which I subsequently figured out to be wrong, and admitted to all those mistakes by changing my own opinions and experimenting with new interventions (successfully)

    And once again, I am not making any recommendations, or telling people what to do :ninja::rofl:. All I did is write an article on my personal site, and talk about some experiences on this forum. Some people decided to respond to my commentary, and so I responded back.

    One thing for sure, I have no interest in actively promoting any set of philosophies or dogmas, nor actively speaking out against what is opposed to my viewpoints. If people want my opinion, they are free to ask, and I am free to share :mmpft:.

    I will however, clarify against potential mis-interpretations of my opinion.

    ....
     
    Torrid, jwhb77, Brother John and 5 others like this.
  11. this is a site dedicated to a n=1 philosophy of healthcare, which includes finding new ways of approaching multi-faceted problems under the assumption (reality) that we are all very different organisms with very different germ lines, as well as epigenetics.

    I find it incredibly ironic given the above, that when someone presents (in a very detailed summary) their own experience with one of the core tenets of Epi-Paleo (Overdose,) and backs the experience with scientific rigor, he comes under fire as a heretic...

    We all know there are far too many variables to blame one thing, be it EMF, light, PUFA excess, stress etc, and we should by now all agree that living systems read and react to many environmental inputs in various ways dependent on current energy status, epigenomic factors, etc. We've been members long enough not to dispute there is a real truth in all of this.

    So why is it such a stretch that @yewwei.tan had trouble with too much DHA? Or that he was able to improve drastically with liver stimulation/detoxification/supplementation, or that in certain individuals, DHA may actually cause more problems than it fixes?

    We all agree light is a modern problem, so is EMF, and yes all the rest of the quantum shit that all the fanguys and girls like to spruik all over their facebook pages with pics of oysters and UV lights and all the rest.

    I used to enjoy coming on here for real discussions that were born from a true fascination of how the world works and the intricacies of cell function, and conversations that could explore observations without criticism for having some level of curiosity about the observed world.
     
    Brother John, melrito, seanb4 and 2 others like this.
  12. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Yew,

    I have long conjectured that a moderate steady supply of quality DHA would likely be superior to an extremely high dose. I never ate the amounts that you did in a single day, so I can't comment much there.

    It makes sense that there would be a limit as to how much an individual could incorporate per unit time, of course. But it also could vary greatly depending on the molecular genetic state, neural capacity, health, and environment of said individual. But as a clinican who uses PET scans routinely, I have a hard time accepting that study you quote as the final-word on DHA metabolism for a number of technical reasons. But nonetheless, there has to be some limit per unit time. Agreed.

    Some others here were using your journal and experiences as an opportunity to again question any role of seafood and DHA in humans in favor of the Peatatarian position, which is why I made the observations I did.

    There is evidence of DHA facilitating the speed of neural firing in the biology literature from people who have never heard of and likely can't spell "QED," for what its worth. The value of DHA in basic neuroscience has substantial support.

    This is a complex issue, of course. Everyone here appreciates your observations, theories, and the sharing of your personal results.

     
    lohd2015, Linz, JanSz and 1 other person like this.
  13. JanSz

    JanSz Gold

    ;
    The way I understand, indeed
    DHA is fundamentally important, like oxygen or water.

    That is newer questioned.
    Questions are about:
    dose size and
    what else we are taking with DHA, oxygen or water.

    Look at the news, in Michigan people are drinking water with led.
    In Beijing to breathe people must inhale smog.
    When we eat seafood we are not only eating DHA (sometimes too much),
    but we are eating EPA in amounts so high that some people can't deal with it,
    but others are able to tolerate.
    I think that I am in the group that does not tolerate excess.
    Not because it hurts me in any way that I could describe,
    but I do blood tests and the blood tests are not pretty.
    Then NealBB tells me that those tests are inconclusive.
    I would like to trust NealBB but have a hard time because the same tests are used to treat real sick people and they are helpful for them.
    In the mean time NealBB feels good and I feel good. We are just talking.

    There are people (in Greenland) who eat DHA every day in their life and mostly nothing else, they should be example of longevity and good health, but they are not.

    Body as a whole carry relatively large amount of DHA that can be thought of as a storage for future use.
    Brain and the rest of nervous system contains minute amounts of DHA, but it must be refreshed so often.
    There is a claim that half of that minute amount of DHA is refreshed every two years,
    but Jack claims that it happens 4x faster, anyhow it is about minute amounts and the storage is huge.
    ------
    It would be easier if the discussion was about more than one item, say two items.
    Some people say that we need not only DHA but also its counter part AA.
    Now it is easy or at least easier.
    We need x of DHA and y of AA.
    AA carry the flame, inflammation
    DHA control both flame and indirectly inflammation (so it would not got out of hand).
    But
    if one have too much DHA that tends to shut off the flame.
    Life=flame

    /
    If anything, all this discussion convinces me that proper light is much more important that food.

    .
     
    lohd2015, Linz and seanb4 like this.
  14. Shijin13

    Shijin13 Guest


    Well said Josh. http://giphy.com/gifs/southpark-south-park-comedy-central-19x01-l41lRGQr0r9mMoAlq

    I will continue to pursue my N=1 even if that means I "Go off the rails".
     
    nicld and seanb4 like this.
  15. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    DHA context is tied to UV light........of to an altered spectrum in some way via surfaces or a combo. Josh I see no heretic here. I see lack of dot connection. When I see it I say it. You know I want people to bio hack as Yew is doing. But when newbies are on here getting confused as shit and I get emails about it.........I am gonna clean up the shit spilled.

    Simple.
     
    jwhb77, lohd2015, melrito and 2 others like this.
  16. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Jansz, said, "If anything, all this discussion convinces me that proper light is much more important that food."

    Totally agree.

    This is why this discussion is important but yew needs no direction on his context........People like Doris do.

    I have to be mindful of that.

    The war against food and for light is the key to changing medicine.

    Food enslaves us to bad ideas.
     
    jwhb77, lohd2015, seanb4 and 2 others like this.
  17. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Here is the bottom line:

    [​IMG]
     
    lohd2015 and thisbirdhaswings like this.
  18. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    That is the ultimate goal.
     
    lohd2015 and thisbirdhaswings like this.
  19. Shijin13

    Shijin13 Guest

    So the more I dig into my N=1 and I look at what might be driving some of my challenges, I have to wonder if my issues with Keto aren't actually "processing issues of DHA" in a fucked up metabolism that can't handle the quantities I've been consuming? I also am frustrated at how strict I am with light managment and wearing my glasses - only to continue to see my eyes degrade from 20/15 to 20/75. I spend more time out side now that whn I was working in the pentagon. I've been eating more DHA. So why can I heal a retinal tear but still loose vision? or is that vision loss just part and parcle of the pact I made with the devil when I Had Lasik almost 16 years ago - when my redox sucked, and I lived in a shitty house with stachybotryus mold, I had fibromyalgia, active mood swings from being bipolar. And its not like I didn't eat seafood then. Lunch almost always consisted of smoked oysters and I weekly had seafood 2-3x/week.

    So I'm digging in and digging hard. b/c this fall/ early winter (Oct-Dec) I had zero desire for seafood. you couldn't force it down me. I wanted pork, lamb and beef - grassfed of course and Turkey - OMG the TURKEY couldn't get enough, and I'm usually meh about turkey. Now all I want is veggies, broths, and starchy fall veggies and corn chips (strictly as a salt delivery system)
     
    Mystic Rose60 and seanb4 like this.
  20. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    One last thing............I care deeply about some of the people in this thread........and I don't think this idea about heretic bullshit is cool at all.
     
    jwhb77, Jeanne, Mystic Rose60 and 6 others like this.

Share This Page