[natural219]

Thanks for sharing. This is an intriguing article and I'm very impressed with the depth of research, site design, and logical debate quality of the several paragraphs I've read (so far). I've been looking for great takedowns of the anti-PUFA advice (I love fatty fish and omega 3s!) so looking forward to reading the rest.

It's worth noting that this site appears to be the same type of "extreme diet camp" that the author pokes fun at. He appears to be a vegan (https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore) and advocate for pro-vegan views. Overall he seems to have the same epistemology MO as, eg., Ray Peat -- a cranky obsessive lay-person who primarily blogs at length for topics that interest him. I picked another article off his site at random and his own biases become quite apparent (https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-systematic-appraisal-of...).

The above preamble has no bearing on the PUFA question! I personally love cranky obsessive bloggers and genuinely look forward to reading more from this site. Open and honest debate, ftw.

[hombre_fatal]

I don’t understand. The blog author’s epistemological standard is set at the balance of evidence that we have available to us. I don’t think you can do better than that, else you’re left with sophistry, convenient falsehoods, and zealotry.

Who cares which “camp” you reason yourself into if you actually reasoned yourself into it using real arguments and scrutinized syllogisms?

Most people don’t do anything like that. We usually just defend our creature comforts or we, for example, decide what we want to eat and then work backwards to cling on to anything that seems like it might validate us.

Meanwhile, Have you read Ray Peat? He’s the opposite of someone reasoning about the balance of evidence which is why he spends most of his time talking about the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence; anecdotes and rat studies.