Paul Saladino· MD
but in those of us eating an anal-based diet it's probably just fine because you are not overloading your body with omega-6s
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
but in those of us eating an anal-based diet it's probably just fine because you are not overloading your body with omega-6s
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
but if you're say of northern European um ancestry like I am my ancestors were eating fish um and so they probably never developed the ability to turn ala into EPA and DHA or at least very um inefficiently so from somebody like me it's probably better to get it from Seafood
and yeah it probably it depends on genetics to a certain extent there's you know it I'm not a big fan of nutrigonomics I think most of it's complete nonsense um but there are some data to suggest that your most recent ancestry and where um where your most recent ancestors say the last Thousand Years got the majority of their polyunsaturated fats from May determine whether you'll be better off with a shorter chain or the longer chain version