This is a simplified summary of the last two posts.
Polyunsaturated fats in the diet are mostly omega-6 or omega-3. These get converted into a diverse and influential class of signaling molecules in the body called eicosanoids. On their way to becoming eicosanoids, they get elongated. These elongated versions can be measured in tissue, and the higher the proportion of elongated omega-6 in the total pool, the higher the risk of a heart attack.
Eicosanoids are either omega-6 or omega-3-derived. Omega-6 eicosanoids, in general, are very potent and participate in inflammatory processes and blood clotting. Omega-3 eicosanoids are less potent, less inflammatory, less clot-forming, and participate in long-term repair processes. This is a simplification, as there are exceptions, but in a broad sense seems to be true.
In the modern U.S. and most other affluent nations, we eat so much omega-6 (mostly in the form of liquid industrial vegetable oils), and so little omega-3, that we create a very inflammatory and pro-clotting environment, probably contributing to a number of chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease.
There are two ways to stay in balance: reduce omega-6, and increase omega-3. In my opinion, the former is more important than the latter, but only if you can reduce omega-6 to below 4% of calories. If you're above 4%, the only way to reduce your risk is to outcompete the omega-6 with additional omega-3. Keeping omega-6 below 4% and ensuring a modest but regular intake of omega-3, such as from wild-caught fish, will probably substantially reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses.
Bottom line: ditch industrial vegetable oils such as corn, soybean, safflower and sunflower oil, and everything that contains them. This includes most processed foods, especially mayonnaise, grocery store salad dressings, and fried foods. We aren't meant to eat those foods and they derail our metabolism on a fundamental level. I also believe it's a good idea to have a regular source of omega-3, whether it comes from seafood, small doses of cod liver oil, or small doses of flax.
58 comments:
Good summary!
seafood, small doses of cod liver oil, or small doses of flax.Dr Davis believes, that our best source of Omega 3 is fish oil. Veggie ones don't seem to work well. Cod oil involves too much vitamin A.
Bill,
Vitamin A isn't really a concern if you're getting enough vitamin D (and possibly K2, as well).
Is there any evidence that high omega-6 intake or a high o6:o3 ratio causes high triglyceride levels?
Erik, I get three grams of Omega 3 daily from fish oil. My D-3 serum level is 80+, kept there with 4000IU of D-3 daily. I also take a K supplement. All for CAD.
I run into people taking large doses of Cod Liver Oil for D. Bad idea, IMO. It gives them too much A.
As usual, Stephan, your logic, your documentation, and your analytical rigor are beyond reproach. Nonetheless, I'm finding it hard to accept research that suggests we are likely to suffer serious health consequences beyond 4% omega-6 intake. Wild game meat from land mammals seems to average about 7-10% polyunsaturated fats, of which about 2/3's tends to be omega 6. With the assumption that non-tropical paleolithic folk took about 2/3 of their calories from wild animals, this would put their average consumption of omega 6 around 3%-4.5% of calories. It seems unlikely that a tolerable upper limit for omega 6 would occur so close to the range we are presumably genetically adapted to. Its certainly possible that we are designed to thrive under conditions different from those under which we evolved, and that the less omega 6 we consume the better off we are, but this doesn't seem likely. It seems more probable we would have adapted a cushion of flexibility with regard to polyunsaturated intake (as with refined sugar, which, although totally foreign to the natural human diet, appears to be tolerated at low levels).
Also, is percentage of calories consumed in omega 6 really the most important statistic? How about total number of calories consumed as omega 6. Would 4% omega-6 affect a person with a 3,000 calorie-per-day the same way as a person with a 1,700 calorie per day diet? assuming our paleolithic ancestors required higher energy needs to fuel their active lifestyles, it seems safe to assume that net consumption of omega 6 in the paleolithic would have exceeded the equivalent of 4% of an average modern (2,000 calorie) diet.
Chris
"I'm finding it hard to accept research that suggests we are likely to suffer serious health consequences beyond 4% omega-6 intake."
Stephan caveats that by saying you can balance more Omega 6 with Omega 3 to a certain extent. Natural food sources will on average always provide Omega 3 along with 6, which is not necessarily the case in the modern diet.
"Wild game meat from land mammals seems to average about 7-10% polyunsaturated fats, of which about 2/3's tends to be omega 6."
Do you have any good refs for this.
The edible carcass fat Caribou graph Fig 6 gives much lower polyunsaturates maybe between 3 and 4%, with falling fat levels in the winter.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/81/2/341
New Zealand lamb, which is grass grazed, in Omega 3 6 terms is not far off balanced in this sample.
Total Omega-3 fatty acids
1270 mg
Total Omega-6 fatty acids
1560 mg
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4539/2
Green material has a very low fat content.
Kitavans have an Omega 6 intake of under 1% maybe 1/2%.
Author Omega Six The Devils Fat
www.Omega Six The Devils Fat
Stephan,
Are you a member of the Weston A Price Foundation? They give you a copy of their magazine, Nourishing Traditions. The last issue, Spring 2009, cast a lot of doubt on the warnings about getting too much vitamin A from cod liver oil. The lead article is by Chris Masterjohn.
The problem seems to be that there is one producer of cod liver oil, Green Pastures, where the original vitamins are kept in and synthetic vitamins are left out. The retail cod liver oils may not be healthy.
Does anyone know how much PUFA gets into your food when it is cooked using vegetable oil? Vegetable oil is unavoidable in a restaurant.
I always thought the term "vegetable" oil was a misnomer. It calls to mind Carrot oil, Spinach oil, Broccoli oil, etc. which really don't exist as far as I can tell. The categories should be animal oils versus vegetal oils with "vegetal" meaning originating from vegetation. The problem oils with the out-of-proportion Omega6/Omega3 ratios that are the topic of discussion are really all seed oils, in particular from cereals. 'Vegetal' oils from fruits (olive, avocado) and nuts (coconut, palm, almond, etc.) appear to be quite healthy. I suspect the term "vegetable oil" was invented or at least perpetuated by the manufactures trying to push these oils on the American population for profit.
Is the "industrial" part important? I use small amounts of cold-pressed sunflower oil and I am wondering if it's got the same levels of O-6 that industrial sunflower oil has - is there some part of the manufacturing process that makes the oil worse, or is it just that these are the oils typically used in industrial-style production?
I cook with olive oil only. Use some Canola if I make some mayo. A lot of the problem seems to be the way the oils oxidize when heated. The "Omega 6/Omega 3" discussion is far from over. We still don't know everything.
Bill,
I'd be careful about cooking exclusively with olive oil, especially if you use high heat. Coconut oil, ghee, lard, and tallow are the best fats for cooking because their higher saturated component (especially coconut oil) makes them much more stable when heated.
Arron, I cook at medium heat for a short time. No "deep fry." My amount of cooking that way is minuscule.
This "cooking with oil" is just a very small part of healthy eating. The big part is "get off wheat!" A cutting edge concept. The whole "low fat, low cholesterol" diet push from the 50's on has resulted in an huge increase in Type II diabetes and obesity. Dr Davis has really pioneered in this field.
thanks stephen. Good info
Bill, I agree. I've cut wheat substantially from my diet. I do indulge in the occasional sprouted sourdough wheat bread slathered in lots of butter from grass-feed cows, but no more pasta, pizza, crackers, etc. I agree that getting off wheat and breakfast cereals has been one of the best things I ever did. Since doing so (and observing other wise observations from this and related forums) I've gone down a belt size and have a much more quiescent GI system. At 5'11" and 145lbs (before making my dietary changes) I was never concerned with losing weight, but going down a belt size and observing more definition in my upper body is testimony to the problem with wheat and industrial oils and the benefits of getting rid of them.
Aaron, I changed my habits when I got an unexpected 322 calcium score at age 72. Decided I wanted to "live long and prosper," so I followed Dr Davis's advice and quit wheat, corn, sugar, potatoes and rice. That alone dropped me from a 32 BMI to a 28 one in eight months. Now on my way down to a 25 BMI. Added 3 grams of Omega 3 from fish oil, gm of Niacin and 6000IU of Vitamin D-3 which resulted in my lipids going into the recommended 60/60/60 range with a raise to 46 on HDL, drop to 48 on Triglycerides, and drop to 52 on LDL with a change to A/B from B on my small dense LDL. Regressed my 322 calcium score by 32% to 219 in one year.
Your typical Cardio will tell you this can't be done.
spughy,
Nice to see another knitter here ;-).
"Cold-pressed" could very well still mean "industrial"; it is a marketing term, not a legal label, meant to reassure consumers that it isn't extracted with solvents and heat like common Wesson oil.
Cold-pressed doesn't mean the oil never gets hot during pressing; it just means no additional heat was added externally in the extraction process. The huge industrial screw-type expellers can generate a LOT of heat from friction and intense pressure during the pressing, which still damages delicate PUFAs and Vit E. Exposure to oxygen damages the oils, too, though some get around this with oxygen-free pressing environments (nitrogen atmosphere).
The majority of the cooking and salad seed oils on the shelves in Western supermarket (& probably health food stores, too) weren't in common usage until the 20th century, not until technology was developed that made extracting the oil feasible. Anything that is sold nationally or in large volume is is likely to be produced on an industrial scale.
I found some photos of machinery for medium-scale pressing on this site. http://www.ayimpex.com/Oil-Pressing.htm
But these machines wouldn't be adequate for high volume oil producers such as Hain and Spectrum brands; these are for more like small scale artisan producers, like small olive grove owners. I suspect the majority of cold pressed oil comes from equipment much bigger.
The small amounts of seed oils that were pressed prior to the industrial revolution were pressed with simple technology in small amounts and probably used very quickly due to rapid rancidity. Modern oils, even "cold-pressed", are cleaned and deodorized (refined) to hide the damage done during pressing.
Here are some more photos of small to medium scale oil presses. They say 80 degrees when they mention temperature in the description of cold-pressing, but don't indicate which temperature scale. In other areas of the website they specify Celsius temps. So if that 80 °is indeed 80°C, then that's about 176°F, not exactly "cold".
http://www.ascof.com/oil_press.htm
Traditional olive oil pressing:
http://italianfood.about.com/od/aboutingredients/ss/aa120208_5.htm
There is a link there for modern OO pressing, too.
BTW, I'm not knocking modern equipment per se. It's probably more sanitary, efficient, and reduces oxidation and impurities might degrade the oil. But I do think modern processing of old and traditional oil is very different than modern processing of oils that were only recently added to the human diet in substantial quantities are something to avoid.
I have a couple of points.
1) Wouldn't it be more natural that the slow healing properties of Omega 3 is actually reducing the problems of high glucose. There by reducing the heart disease rate. So that low Omega 3 Ecosanoids are really responsible for the problem rather than the high omega 6 ecosanoids.
2) Since the Ecosanoid ratio reflects a long term diet ratio, wouldn't it be better to increase omega 3 to a higher level compared to Omega 6 for a short time say, a few months, to bring the level back to proper ratio.
I would think that for people with heart trouble, it might be better to binge on fish for a few months.
Sorry for the mistake.
I meant that Omega 3 ecosanoids are making our heart healthier rather than Omega 6 ecosanoids making our heart sick.
"New Zealand lamb, which is grass grazed, in Omega 3 6 terms is not far off balanced in this sample.
www.nutritiondata.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4539/2"
Hmmm..has an Inflammation Factor of -352, so must be bad for you. Remind me to stop eating those healthy grass-fed lamb chops :)
Stephan,
I appreciate the PUFA 101 approach :) (for dummies like me). I've switched from *yikes* canola oil to virgin coconut oil (Omega Nutrition is scentfree) for cooking exclusively and my HDLs chol now are BANGIN.
Unfortunately the HDLs still are not as HIGH as Stephan's... darn... *evil wink*
After vit D 25OHD 70s ng/ml, my HDLs increased from 70 to 89 ng/ml. Now the HDLs are 105 ng/ml.
Coconut oil may seem nutty... but the stuff is GREAT. Wonderful for skin and hair too :)
-G
Dr B.G.,
I joined TYP about a month ago and was quite distressed to see Dr. Davis recommend canola oil. I had read The Great Con-ola previously http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html
and became convinced canola oil shouldn't be part of my diet.
Has there been any effort on TYP to dissuade Dr. Davis from recommending canola oil? Are we alone in the wilderness on this issue there?
I see part of my URL got cut off.
The last part is knowyourfats/conola.html
I love to read any posts that your article is very interesting, thanks for the information. Nice Blog
Lynn, the anti-canola oil story is not true.
"Canola Oil is Harmful to Your Health"... an Urban Legend
by Michelle Jones
http://blessingsforlife.com/dietnutrition/canolaoil.htm-
I don't worry about whether canola oil is ok or not - it tastes awful and there are plenty of other good fats and oils I prefer that I know aren't GMO or highly processed, for example, my home-rendered lard, good bacon drippings, chicken fat, grass-fed butter and ghee, coconut oil, EVOO, avocado oil, and palm oil, just to name a few. With all those options, who needs canola oil?
Back when I bought canola oil I noticed it developed nasty rancid smell rather quickly after opening and became sticky like soft plastic around the cap if I didn't use it very quickly - major turnoff no matter what anyone says.
Hey Lynn!
Well I'm not alone -- I've got YOU! Personally I am very careful now about omega-6's because I've just got a HUGE preponderance of omega-6's stuck in my cellular membranes from topical use of lotions/oils (from daily-use and day spas) and years of oral consumption. I've taken a high dose of omega-3s in the last almost 24 mos to get rid and out-balance the omega-6s. As you know TRACKING is best but of course I haven't submitted to any blood testing yet, though of course should (fatty acid profile from a Canada is available).
Are we all evolving? :) And I'm really glad to have such great resources including Stephan, Peter, Anna, MTFlight, Erik, WAPF, Chris M., etc...and you...
-G
Stephan,
Thanks for creating a simplified version of your last posts. Though I am understanding more and more of the posts, it wasn't until now that it stuck me that you are talking about maximizing omega-6 at around 100 calories, which is covered by about 15 almonds, I think. In trying to understand many new terms, the obvious slipped right by me. I am worried about inflammation (too high hsCRP), so it seems like a natural to try to reduce omega-6 even further. I assumed that no grains and no 'bad oils' would be enough as long as I supplemented with CLO and omega-3 caps. I was eating many almonds to replace the 'feel' of grains on a daily basis.
Not being a cook, I find it hard to get much variety in my daily routine -- even the prepared foods at Whole Foods are full of soy additives and usually canola oil (though non-hydrogenated). The aminos at the salad bar are made from soy, as well. So, it is a lot of salads with olive oil and vinegar, grilled meats, veggies, dairy and pastured eggs.
I am curious if you think full fat dairy is a strong contributor to inflammation? Greek yogurt and cottage cheese have become my 'fast food'.
To Jeremy's comment, I find that my body now has a reaction to almost all foods prepared in restaurants.
Sorry I can't really contribute as many others do in the comments section, but if anyone is ever looking for recommendations on some great jazz albums or incredible speakers...
Nick, if you get a gram and a half or better of Omega 3 from fish oil caps you won't need to worry about your Omega 6. Most fish oil caps contain either 300 or 500 mgs of Omega 3, so depending on which you buy, you need to take either three or five a day. Don't be worried about the brand of Fish oil. Fish oil is all run though the same manufacturing process, no matter how much "deep blue fjords" spin they give you. None of them contain mercury. What you are buying is the Omega 3 in it.
Hey Nick,
Why aren't you cooking/preparing food? ;-) There aren't too many good reasons not to, unless you have a wife like me who takes over the kitchen and leaves little space for anyone else to wedge in. ;-)
Trying new activities is good for the synapses, too, eh?
Not chastising, just encouraging...
Bill Millan
It is great to see more people appreciating the importance of Omega 3.
You said
"Nick, if you get a gram and a half or better of Omega 3 from fish oil caps you won't need to worry about your Omega 6."
I can see where you are coming from, and it is an easy clear cut message, which has its advantages, but it is not that simple as Stephan's graphs in the previous post show. The amount of Omega 6 we eat is a significant factor in the way the body works at a cellular level.
You may enjoy this paper which is free and can be found with a search.,
Sorry I forgot the paper;
Healthy intakes of n–3 and n–6 fatty acids: estimations considering worldwide diversity –
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/S1483
While we're being unscientific, what do you think of Barry Sears' Zone ideas? That is, Sears is big on monkeying around with the balance between different sets of Omega-6 based eicosanoids. He is big on fish oil but also on GLA.
Robert, I think it's still "early days" on this issue. My attitude, from a CHD standpoint, is to eat normally while supplementing three grams of Omega 3.
Nick,
I believe your calculations for the number of almonds is off. If I am wrong, I hope someone here will speak up and set me right on this because it is important.
If I understand correctly, the 4% of calories is for omega 6 only. Almonds have 3.4 grams omega 6 per ounce which translates to about 31 calories (at 9 cals per gram). If your only consumption of omega 6 were almonds, you would want to consume less than about 3.25 ounces (about 75 pieces) to stay below your 100 calorie goal.
I have been grappling with this info as well and trying to understand it in terms of my food choices. I got all the big ones - I don't eat grains, stay away from all vegetal (thanks Aaron) oils but do consume regular meats for the most part do to lack of availability of grass-fed. I am careful about the quantity of nuts and nut flours I consume because of the omega 6 and I still need to lose about 30 more pounds and have found they slow weight loss.
I do take fish oil and krill oil to help balance my diet but don't want to take more than I need to. I would rather change my diet than take supplements when possible.
I'd like to have comment for this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211817?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Mirka, this was a "study of eleven other studies."
I have learned not to trust that kind of info very much.
Any idea why fish consumption doesn't seem to correlate more strongly with reduction of cancer risk?
You would think that people eating 3 grams (about 1% of energy) of fish oil per day should see some reduction in inflammation, based on what you have written. Numerous cancers are associated with inflammation -- colon, gastric, esophageal, breast, lung... So, I am wondering why epidemiological studies don't' pick up a stronger association.
I found the following abstract that may address this issue but can't read the full article. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/6/935
Mirka, This study means: Don't eat saturated fats because it will cause heart disease; instead replace SFA intake in your diet with PUFA's (polyunsaturated fats) rather than Carbs. And don't worry about MUFA intake, because it has no significant impact on CHD.
Essentially the researchers are saying it's better to replace saturated fatty acids with PUFA's (e.g., Omega 3, 6, and 9 food sources) rathern than carbs. And since many of the same foods that contain PUFA's also contain MUFA's (e.g., oils, nuts, etc.) and MUFA's were found to be essentially neutral (i.e., they had no association with CHD), the bottom line is simply this: Replace SFA's in the diet with PUFA's, but not with increased intake of carbohydrates. Doing so will help prevent CHD and reduce the risk of an adverse event.
BUT: Although they look at events what they may actually be looking at is the reduction in events from omega-3 PUFA (not the effects of omega-6s) imo. The only legitimate conclusion that I take away is that (refined) carbs are B A D and increases events, esp when it replaces SFA.
Laura,
(blush)...thank you for straigtening me out with the almond calculation.
Anna,
Being a good cook definately does not run in my family. My mother was a complete felon in the kitchen! I like it in the context of a social gathering, but being divorced and living alone, grilling and sauteing seem to be about all I like to do. I'm hoping these blogs are helping with the synapses, starting with math! I think I mostly cook as an excuse to drink wine, which may offset the wiring of synapses that happens when I read this blog.
After I read your comment, I'm thinking it might be fun to take a few cooking classes.
Dan
You said "You would think that people eating 3 grams (about 1% of energy) of fish oil per day should see some reduction in inflammation, based on what you have written. Numerous cancers are associated with inflammation -- colon, gastric, esophageal, breast, lung... So, I am wondering why epidemiological studies don't' pick up a stronger association."
Because-
- Most have woefully low long china Omega 3 intake.
- Omega 3 blocks Omega 6 but its powers are limited. It is the Omega 6 chemicals that underlie many cancer promotion mechanisms.
- Because we store Omega 6 and do not store Omega 3
- Because we are are eating a huge excess of Omega 6 and not much Omega 3.
- Because the effect of Omega 3 and 6 is a combination of the balance between the two and the absolute intake quantity of each.
- Because effects are multi factorial and further exacerbated by excess calories and low density nutrient intake.
Author Omega Six The Devils Fat
www.Omegasixthedevilsfat.com
(revised improved version (a labour of love) nearing completion hopefully)
Robert,
I thought that we do store omega 3 in tissue, which is why tissue concentration of omega 6 is reduced after prolonged periods of consuming a higher omega 3/6 ratio.
Also, I believe that omega 3/6 do play a role in cancer prevention, so was looking for reasons why the studies might be missing a phenomenon that does exist.
I found the full text of the link I posted and it provided some very good guesses, which I will list here briefly: 1. n-3 consumption was too low in the "null" studies. 2. Little within-population variability of n-3 consumption. 3. Exposure measured generally over short period of time, with the result n-3's effect on cancer promotion and progression measured, and not the effect on cancer initiation. 4. Publication bias with respect to the relatively inexpensive animal studies, suggesting that only positive results get published (meaning maybe n-3 consumption not as protective in animal studies as we think). 5. Most null studies only take into account fish intake, not fish oil intake -- and there is a great variability in oilyness of fish. 6. Studies didn't take into account effect of vitamin E/C on n-3 at promotion, progression stage of cancer (turns out oxidized n-3's might cause cell death -- surprising). The authors also listed other possible explanations that I didn't find as plausible.
Signaling molecules that are functional similar to the omega 3 and omega 6 eicosanoids can also be omega-9 derived from Mead acid (C20:3n-9), which is known to accumulate during essential fatty acids deficiency. The lipid researcher Ralph Holman, which has done a lot of studies of EFA deficiency, introduced the use of the ratio of Mead acid to arachidonic acid (AA) as a marker of EFA deficiency. He claimed that if the ratio is more than 0.4, there is a deficiency in essential fatty acids. In the sci.med.nutrition newsgroup there have in the last years been a debate about if having high Mead acid levels are natural, which for instance Ray Peat thinks, or is just a kind of emergency compensation when the EFAs are lacking. Here's a thread with some studies showing that the metabolities derived from Mead acid can substitute for all the omega 6 and omega 3 eicosanoids that are established to be "essential":
http://www.docendi.org/mead-t65665.html?t=65665
The Mead acid consists of one less double bound than AA, and gets metabolized into less chemically reactive molecules than those of arachidonic acid. For example is Mead acid, by the 5-lipoxygenase enzyme, made into leukotriene A3 (LTA3), which is much more biochemically stable compared to an AA derived eicosanoid like leukotriene B4 (LTB4) which is very inflammatory.
http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/178/6/2261.pdf
Mead acid is made from oleic acid by the same enzymes that desaturate and elongate linoleic and alfa-linolenic acid into arachidonic acid and EPA. The same reason a high intake of linoleic acid inhibits the omega 3 synthesis, it also inhibits the formation of Mead acid in the body. A diet of foods that contain very little linoleic acid or eating fats that have a high oleic acid to linoleic acid ratio (like milk fat, tallow and lamb fat) will elevate the levels of Mead acid in the body.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/88/1/26.pdf
The studies that show beneficial effects of EPA, do this since EPA competes and inhibits the metabolism of arachidonic acid. The eicosanoids then made from EPA act with little or no inflammatory response, but don't do anything necessary by themselves. Chris Masterjohn argues in his PUFA report, http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/PUFA-Special-Report.html, that the only true essential fatty acids are AA and DHA, which are mostly needed during pregnancy, lactating, growth and development. For healthy adults otherwise there is no evidence that the essential fatty acids are required for proper health. By eating natural foods there is anyway impossible to avoid ingesting any PUFA, since there are at least trace amounts in every foods. When the consumption of omega 6 is kept low there should be no need for additional omega 3 and supplementation with omega 3 fish oils may turn out doing more harm than good since these fatty acids are very vulnerable to oxidation and deplete the body of vitamin E.
My guess is that the various healthy cultures that don't consume an excess of omega 6 have mainly Mead acid instead of AA in their cells, and therefore don't suffer from the inflammatory diseases caused by overflow of eicosanoids produced from arachidonic acid.
Not only do the studies not look at fish oil intake, when they consider it, they use too low a figure. I consider that a useful intake of Omega 3 STARTS at about 1500 mgs a day. And for a heart patient like me, 3000 mgs is needed.
The same problem happens across the board when studying supplements. For instance, Vitamin D-3 intake is shown in most articles at 200 to 600 IU a day for supplements. And the normal range starts at about 30 on the low end. Your body doesn't start storing D until you reach a serum level of 50, which means that below that you are in a "Vitamin D starvation" condition. You need to be "over 60" to get good results from D, and this takes, for most people over 40, a daily intake of 4000 to 6000IU a day. Some need to go to 10 or 12 to get there.
Fjoraro
Thank you for posting those links some of them are fascinating.
You state “omega 3 fish oils may turn out doing more harm than good since these fatty acids are very vulnerable to oxidation and deplete the body of vitamin E”. Most of the reports I have read suggests that long chain Omega threes do not result in additional oxidation and may even be protective. There are a number of reasons out of biological level why this may be the case.
Long chain Omega threes are essential to the function of the brain and eyes and reproductive organs. Many people have difficulty converting the plant fats to the long chain fats, and for these people the only option is to get the long chain omega-3 fats through diet.
You also say “My guess is that the various healthy cultures that don't consume an excess of omega 6 have mainly Mead acid instead of AA in their cells,”. The trials you cite suggest that at very low levels of Omega six intake, around half percent Omega nine in liver tissue did increase by about 7% and Omega 6 AA reduced from around 14.5 % to 11%, with a change in Omega nine in the diet of the from 8 to 45% in the diet of the rats. http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/178/6/2261.pdf So yes at low Omega six intakes a high Omega nine intake will result in some displacement of Omega six AA, but I suspect that as the Omega six intake rises the effect will be much less significant. So I suspect overall whilst Omega six is around in the diet the body is going to use it preferentially, and the impact of increased Omega nine will be muted through these pathways. Omega nine properly comes really into its own in times of famine.
You also say “For healthy adults otherwise there is no evidence that the essential fatty acids are required for proper health.” I'm not exactly sure how one is going to define what is essential, when looking at normal rather than extreme intakes. I would rather turn the problem on the head and look at the function of these fats in the body. As observed above EPA and particularly DHA are essential to and a large component in the function of the brain and eyes and reproductive organs. EPA is the preferred material for the production of chemicals of the LOX pathway. The chemicals produced from Omega six in the LOX pathway like LTB4 have fundamental roles in body functions and particular roles in cancer and airway related conditions like asthma. Increased levels of EPA will result in the production of Omega three-based LOX products rather than Omega six-based LOX products which will moderate the effects of the Omega six-based products. To my mind the importance of Omega three EPA in these pathways places it in the essential to health bracket.
Hm. You know you're really starting to get exposure when drug companies come to your blog and start advertising. heh.
Bill Millan,
Regarding the Canola Oil email hoax
Some of the negative claims against Canola Oil are urban legend, and the article you cite debunks them. However, so did the WAPF article I cited. But the wild claims are just a straw man, because they are wrong and easily dismissed. What was not addressed in your article and what is not an urban legend is that canola oil has negative health effects.
Animal studies show that canola oil is definitely not healthy for the cardiovascular system. It causes fibrotic lesions of the heart. It causes Vitamin E deficiencies, undesirable changes in blood platelets, and shortened life-span in stroke-prone rats when it was the only oil in the rat’s diet. It seems to retard growth and is not approved for infant formula.
The modern processing of canola oil is problematic. Quoting from the article at http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html:
“The oil is removed by a combination of high temperature mechanical pressing and solvent extraction. Traces of the solvent (usually hexane) remain in the oil, even after considerable refining. Like all modern vegetable oils, canola oil goes through the process of caustic refining, bleaching and degumming--all of which involve high temperatures or chemicals of questionable safety. And because canola oil is high in omega-3 fatty acids, which easily become rancid and foul-smelling when subjected to oxygen and high temperatures, it must be deodorized. The standard deodorization process removes a large portion of the omega-3 fatty acids by turning them into trans fatty acids.”
Also, “there are indications that monounsaturated fats in excess and as the major type of fat can be a problem.”
More details and references available at the full article.
Lynn, I constantly comment that for every product out there that we ingest, somebody on the Internet is badmouthing it. I think Canola oil is the best of the processed oils. That said, I only use olive. I scramble my eggs in a pat of butter [the horror!] and almost never use oil for cooking. When I do, it's olive.
Dan
You said
"I thought that we do store omega 3 in tissue, which is why tissue concentration of omega 6 is reduced after prolonged periods of consuming a higher omega 3/6 ratio."
Yes of course you are correct I should have been more accurate and said that;
We aggressively store Omega 6, and store relatively little Omega 3 in fatty tissue deposits, no matter what the dietary Omega 3:6 intake is. The storage fats provide a long term background supply of Omega 6 which is going to partially counter balance any short term Omega 3 intake.
There is also the fact that western Omega 6 intake is arguably already in terms of the eicosanoid mechanisms well into the red zone, and so we are looking for effects outside the intake sensitive zone.
It is going to take fairly substantial Omega 3 intakes over long time frames to have effects that are observable on population wider bases, if the only strategy is to increase Omega 3 rather than reduce Omega 6 too.
In relation to the above I should also have explained that you must look at the composition of body fats and the contents of cell membranes of tissues separately, as they are different.
The composition of cell membranes is sensitive to Omega 3 intake.
The composition of stored fats is is relatively insensitive to Omega 3 intake levels compared to Omega 6 intake.
The composition of the cell membranes will reflect both stored fats and the current dietary intake.
Today (June 5) is National Donut Day! Free do-nots at Krispy Kreme, Dunkin, and possibly other places too.
Both of these chains have the following ingredient: Vegetable Shortening (Palm Oil, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil and Partially Hydrogenated Cottonseed Oil). I wish they only used Palm oil.
6 gr that is not saturated per donut (at both Dunkin and Krispy Kreme)--some MAY be MUFA, but I think mostly PUFA.
Last time I tried a Krispy Kreme I had to throw it out... the smell of burnt vegetable oil was nauseating. When they all went to lower trans fat versions (none are zero as long as "partially hydrogenated" is mentioned), the oils appear to burn more easily, and may have slower smoke points.
Stay away.
Bill Millan,
I think your reply to the report of adverse health effects of canola oil was flippant and indicates an unwillingness to address the evidence. So what if canola oil may or may not be the best processed oil out there. We do not need to eat any processed oils. Why eat any oil that is bleached, refined, subject to high heat, degummed, and deodorized?
I'm glad you don't seem to consume it. My argument is with Dr. Davis' recommendation to the TYP group to consume it.
I'm not sure that heating olive oil is all that safe. It does have a double bond which renders it susceptible to ill effects from heating.
I find no horror in using butter, ghee, coconut oil, palm oil, lard, and tallow for cooking involving heat.
In another debunking, you ought to read the WAPF update and Chris Masterjohn's article debunking the idea that cod liver oil involves too much Vit A. The links have been posted at the TYP forum.
G,
Nice work on the HDL! Wow, that really drives the point home that with a few diet/lifestyle modifications, you can massively raise HDL. You, Richard Nikoley and I have HDL that's above what is considered normal for Americans. Richard takes the cake though, at 133 mg/dL. The online Framingham risk calculator won't even accept my HDL value (111 mg/dL) because it's too high. Does not compute!! That's good, I guess?
Bill,
Congratulations for reducing your calcium score, that's impressive. Two questions: did you take statins, and did you take vitamin K2?
Stephan...
'Does not compute' *AHAA!!* You're so funny. Yes, I think it's perfectly FINE. Only an NMR gel electrophoresis or VAP test could measure the particle densities, but I'm pretty certain with the low TGs we have that the particles would be large, fluffy and P H A T . (and no synthetic drugs to prohibit massive maximization of particle buoyancy).
ANYONE can do it.
-G
In the light of what Robert Andrew Brown said this is also relevant
Mom’s High Omega-6 Diet Increases Eczema Risk in Their Infants
“Our results suggest that maternal intake of α-linolenic acid and docosahexaenoic acid during pregnancy may be preventive against infantile wheeze whereas maternal intake of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially linoleic acid, during pregnancy may increase the risk of childhood eczema.”
I read this recipe before I went to sleep, and then I had a dream where you explained to me how to make vegan cinnamon rolls.
add
Post a Comment