Another crucial thing that's not even on their radars is how much the fats have been oxidized (especially the linoleic acid). Heat-treated or rancid sources of PUFA may be extra-peroxidized. We now have reasons to suspect that might make a huge difference to its toxicity.
I think your blog post isn't complete without a reference to Chris Masterjohn's infamous 2011 discovery: "I got an email today from Dr. Matthew Ricci, the Vice-President and Research Director of Research Diets, the company that produces the infamous 60% fat, lard-based rodent diet D12492. I've written about this diet before. The company had previously been using the USDA database to determine the diet's fatty acid profile, but recently had it directly analyzed, knowing that the fatty acid profile of lard can vary according to what the pigs are fed.
"It turns out that the diet obtains 32% of its fat from PUFA instead of the previously reported 17%. The ratio of omega-6 linoleic acid to omega-3 linolenic acid had been previously reported as 7.8 but is actually 14."
Hilarious. I've had the same experience, where scientists just wouldn't know what's in their own papers, or didn't realize that sunflower oil contains PUFAs..
Amazing work Nick. As a formerly employed scientist I "co-feel" the frustration! The list continues: fluorescent light with no infrared for mitochondria, no seasons to mimic hormonal changes, no life meaning (I do believe mice have it) due to cages and eating "dead" food (like our pets, dry food made from extracts and added micronutrients instead of fresh). All of my postgraduate education never thought about "energy" - in food and in mind/body, influencing how the animal (and us) deals with what it ate. That's why I love Rudolf Steiner's ideas.
Another crucial thing that's not even on their radars is how much the fats have been oxidized (especially the linoleic acid). Heat-treated or rancid sources of PUFA may be extra-peroxidized. We now have reasons to suspect that might make a huge difference to its toxicity.
I think your blog post isn't complete without a reference to Chris Masterjohn's infamous 2011 discovery: "I got an email today from Dr. Matthew Ricci, the Vice-President and Research Director of Research Diets, the company that produces the infamous 60% fat, lard-based rodent diet D12492. I've written about this diet before. The company had previously been using the USDA database to determine the diet's fatty acid profile, but recently had it directly analyzed, knowing that the fatty acid profile of lard can vary according to what the pigs are fed.
"It turns out that the diet obtains 32% of its fat from PUFA instead of the previously reported 17%. The ratio of omega-6 linoleic acid to omega-3 linolenic acid had been previously reported as 7.8 but is actually 14."
https://chrismasterjohnphd.substack.com/p/this-just-in-the-infamous-lard-based
How any scientist discovers anything about reality under these conditions is a mystery.
Interesting - thanks for sharing
Superb. Thanks Nick.
Thank you!
Hilarious. I've had the same experience, where scientists just wouldn't know what's in their own papers, or didn't realize that sunflower oil contains PUFAs..
Amazing work Nick. As a formerly employed scientist I "co-feel" the frustration! The list continues: fluorescent light with no infrared for mitochondria, no seasons to mimic hormonal changes, no life meaning (I do believe mice have it) due to cages and eating "dead" food (like our pets, dry food made from extracts and added micronutrients instead of fresh). All of my postgraduate education never thought about "energy" - in food and in mind/body, influencing how the animal (and us) deals with what it ate. That's why I love Rudolf Steiner's ideas.
🤯
Thank you