dec wrote:
> You don't understand the meaning of *unstable*
> where it relates to a carbon-carbon bond in a
> polyunsatuated fatty acid.

Actually, I do.

> You don't understand
> all that the cis-configuration implies, or even some
> of it. You irrationally insist that they are indestructable.

That is not my claim.

> You are incorrect,

I am not.

> and there is no shame in that,

You should know.

<...>
>>Ipse dixit. Your sources, as I will kindly show you, do not support this statement.
>
> Full articles do,

No, they don't.

> not necessarily abstracts.

The abstracts indicate something entirely incongruent with what you claim the
studies showed.

>>You're misstating the claims of the studies you erroneously cited. Frying isn't
>>"destructive,"
>
> No, I am not.

Yes, you are.

> I did not claim that the full explanation
> was in any abstract.

The abstracts are entirely incongruent with your claims.

> Exposure to heat, light, temperature, pressure, etc.
> are all destructive. Longer exposures to higher
> extremes are most destructive. The destruction of
> long-chain omega3s in fish, or any other substance
> containing omega3s, for that matter, begins at the
> surface of the object that is cooking and works its
> way inward towards the center with increasing time,
> temperature, and/or pressure.

Note your snips next time. RESTO

You're misstating the claims of the studies you erroneously cited. Frying isn't
"destructive," it is counterproductive: it contributes *other* lipids to those
found in the fish. It's especially self-defeating if one fries one's salmon in
shortening or another transfat as Dr Kris-Etherton notes in another study of
fish oils and cardiac health: "Commercially prepared fried fish (eg, from
restaurants and fast food establishments, as well as many frozen,
convenience-type fried fish products) should be avoided because they are low in
omega-3 and high in trans-fatty acids."
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/cont...ll/106/21/2747

Dr Kris-Etherton, et al, concluded:
Collectively, these data are supportive of the recommendation made by
the AHA Dietary Guidelines to include at least two servings of fish per
week (particularly fatty fish). In addition, the data support inclusion
of vegetable oils (eg, soybean, canola, walnut, flaxseed) and food
sources (eg, walnuts, flaxseeds) high in -linolenic acid in a healthy
diet for the general population (Table 5). The fish recommendation must
be balanced with concerns about environmental pollutants, in particular
PCB and methylmercury, described in state and federal advisories.
Consumption of a variety of fish is recommended to minimize any
potentially adverse effects due to environmental pollutants and, at the
same time, achieve desired CVD health outcomes.
Op. cit.

> Most destruction occurs around the skin.


BS.

> refs:
>
> Davis BC, Kris-Etherton PM. Achieving optimal essential fatty acid status
> in vegetarians: current knowledge and practical implications. Am J Clin Nutr
> 2003; 78 (Suppl): 640S-646S


The abstract of the above cited study says:
Although vegetarian diets are generally lower in total fat, saturated
fat, and cholesterol than are nonvegetarian diets, they provide
comparable levels of essential fatty acids. Vegetarian, especially
vegan, diets are relatively low in alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) compared
with linoleic acid (LA) and provide little, if any, eicosapentaenoic
acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Clinical studies suggest that
tissue levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids are depressed in
vegetarians, particularly in vegans. n-3 Fatty acids have numerous
physiologic benefits, including potent cardioprotective effects. These
effects have been demonstrated for ALA as well as EPA and DHA, although
the response is generally less for ALA than for EPA and DHA. Conversion
of ALA by the body to the more active longer-chain metabolites is
inefficient: < 5-10% for EPA and 2-5% for DHA. Thus, total n-3
requirements may be higher for vegetarians than for nonvegetarians, as
vegetarians must rely on conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA. Because of
the beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, it is recommended that
vegetarians make dietary changes to optimize n-3 fatty acid status.
http://snipurl.com/722a

It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about conversion of essential fatty acids into
transfats through cooking.

> Mozaffarian D, Lemaitre RN, Kuller LH, Burke GL, Tracy RP, Siscovick DS;
> Cardiovascular Health Study. Cardiac benefits of fish consumption may
> depend on the type of fish meal consumed: the Cardiovascular Health
> Study. Circulation 2003; 107: 1372-1377


Again, you're missing or just plain ****ing up the issue at hand. A summary of
that study says:
It may seem like common sense, but the species of fish you eat and the
way it is prepared makes a difference to its health-protecting
properties. It is widely accepted that the benefits associated with fish
consumption relate largely to their long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated
fatty acids (n-3 LC-PUFAs), which are found in few other foods. Few
studies, however, have described or analyzed their findings according
the type of fish consumed. In particular, U.S. studies, where the
consumption of fish is low, seldom have the ability to make this type of
distinction. But Mozaffarian and coworkers have shown that fish is not
simply "fish."

They compared the effects on cardiac mortality of eating tuna, fried
fish or fish sandwiches, and other broiled or baked fish species in
adults aged 65 or older, who were free of CVD at baseline. Subjects were
monitored for 9.3 years. Because they were related, the consumption of
tuna and "other fish" was combined. Eating tuna or other broiled/baked
fish reduced the risk of cardiac death, particularly those from cardiac
arrhythmia, by nearly half compared with the fried fish eaters. Those
who ate tuna or other fish three times/week or more had a 49% lower
chance of fatal heart disease and a 58% reduced likelihood of fatal
cardiac arrhythmia compared with those eating tuna or other fish less
than once/month. Eating fried fish or fish sandwiches not only failed to
guard against cardiac fatality, it tended to make it more likely.

Several differences between the two types of fish consumption can be
suggested. Fried fish and commercially prepared fish sandwiches are
*HIGH IN FAT BECAUE OF THE FAT ADDED DURING PREPARATION AND COOKING*.
Fish sandwiches are usually made with lean white fish, the kind with the
*LEAST N-3 LC-PUFAs*. In addition, the KIND OF FAT ADDED is likely to
contain SATURATED and partially hydrogenated fat with TRANS FATty acids.
Neither of these help the heart. So, choose fatty fish species for the
most n-3 LC-PUFAs and prepare them with as little additional fat of any
kind.
http://www.fatsoflife.com/article.asp?i=a&id=64

My emphasis in the above. There is not *one word* of warning about conversion
into trans fat, but rather that trans fats used to cook lean white fish which is
already low in beneficial oils doesn't contribute to heart health (quite the
opposite. Just as the summary starts, it's COMMON SENSE. Too bad you have none
of that and instead misinform others either intentionally or through your own
incompetence.

END RESTORE

The studies you cited had nothing whatsoever to do with your claims. QED.