Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions (Omega6/3 ratios)

[Guest guest]

Francesca,

As the abstract of the Pubmed reference below says, " Several sources

of information *suggest* that human beings *evolved* on a diet with a

ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of

approximately 1. "

Speculation about what our ancestors ate may give us good leads about

what we should be eating today, given that our metabolism has not

changed significantly over the last 40,000 years. The fact that

walnut oil has some good effects, as noted in recent postings may just

be a reflection of the benefits of adding omega3 oils to our diet.

Many of our modern food preparation methods start with the verbs

" saute " , " stri-fry " , " deep-fry " and some kind of oil. Even foods that

are not cooked, like salads, are garnished with oils. Our ancestors

did not have access to edible oils like we do today, and maybe that is

a potential source of the modern health problems listed in the

abstract.

Many of the articles that I have read about the omega6/omega3 ratio

seem to be motivated by considerations of " Paleolithic " and

" pre-agricultural " diets.

Tony

>>>

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@e...>

Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:53 am

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions

I always thought that our ideas about Omega 3's came from recent

scientific info, not from what we surmise about our ancestors . What

our ancestors ate isn't a scientific way to go about planning a modern

diet and doesn't always jibe with the healthiest way to eat from what

we now know.

>>>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=

Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12442909 & dopt=Abstract

Simopoulos AP,

The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty

acids.

Biomed Pharmacother. 2002 Oct;56(8):365-79.

The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, DC

20009, USA. cgnh@...

Several sources of information suggest that human beings evolved

on a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids

(EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is

15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and

have excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the diet

on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were

established. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids

(PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's

Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including

cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune

diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low

omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary

prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated

with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced

rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas

a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The

lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated

with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in

patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a

beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had

adverse consequences. These studies indicate that the optimal ratio

may vary with the disease under consideration. This is consistent with

the fact that chronic diseases are multigenic and multifactorial.

Therefore, it is quite possible that the therapeutic dose of omega-3

fatty acids will depend on the degree of severity of disease resulting

from the genetic predisposition. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3

fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the

chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well as

in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of

the world.

[Guest guest]

You've probably all read The Omega Diet or the Omega Plan by Dr. Artemis Simopoulos and Jo . It came out a couple of years ago, and was widely discussed on the other forum and on this one. Dr. Walford mentions it in his last revision of the 120 year Diet. Jo wrote to the other list a number of times. We invited her to the local (Portland, Oregon) CR get together since she lived in Beaverton (about 15 miles from where we met) but she declined. Simopoulos believed that wild greens, such as purslane (which is growing wild in our garden here in Portland) were import sources of ALA. She pointed out that the fatty acid compostion of range fed animals who have not been fed on grains is very different from the animals we eat today. Her speculation was that the ideal ration was between 4/1 (Omega 6/Omega 3) and 1/1. Jo moved to Vashon Island in Washington State, and has written a small book on sources for range fed animals of various kinds. Soy is a good source of Omega 3's. Almonds are not, but they have been demonstrated to produce a consistent reduction in ldl cholesterol while maintaining HDL levels. Harvard University doesn't agree that Omega 6's are bad and Omega 3 is good. Willett is afraid that if we throw out the 6's that we'll lose some of the gains we've made against heart disease.

Ed S.

----- Original Message -----

From: citpeks

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:08 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions (Omega6/3 ratios)

Francesca,As the abstract of the Pubmed reference below says, "Several sourcesof information *suggest* that human beings *evolved* on a diet with aratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) ofapproximately 1." Speculation about what our ancestors ate may give us good leads aboutwhat we should be eating today, given that our metabolism has notchanged significantly over the last 40,000 years. The fact thatwalnut oil has some good effects, as noted in recent postings may justbe a reflection of the benefits of adding omega3 oils to our diet. Many of our modern food preparation methods start with the verbs"saute", "stri-fry", "deep-fry" and some kind of oil. Even foods thatare not cooked, like salads, are garnished with oils. Our ancestorsdid not have access to edible oils like we do today, and maybe that isa potential source of the modern health problems listed in theabstract.Many of the articles that I have read about the omega6/omega3 ratioseem to be motivated by considerations of "Paleolithic" and"pre-agricultural" diets.Tony>>>From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@e...>Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:53 amSubject: Re: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie QuestionsI always thought that our ideas about Omega 3's came from recentscientific info, not from what we surmise about our ancestors . Whatour ancestors ate isn't a scientific way to go about planning a moderndiet and doesn't always jibe with the healthiest way to eat from whatwe now know.>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12442909 & dopt=Abstract Simopoulos AP, The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fattyacids. Biomed Pharmacother. 2002 Oct;56(8):365-79. The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, DC20009, USA. cgnh@... Several sources of information suggest that human beings evolvedon a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids(EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, andhave excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the dieton which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns wereestablished. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids(PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today'sWestern diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, includingcardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmunediseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a lowomega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondaryprevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associatedwith a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reducedrectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereasa ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. Thelower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associatedwith decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation inpatients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had abeneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 hadadverse consequences. These studies indicate that the optimal ratiomay vary with the disease under consideration. This is consistent withthe fact that chronic diseases are multigenic and multifactorial.Therefore, it is quite possible that the therapeutic dose of omega-3fatty acids will depend on the degree of severity of disease resultingfrom the genetic predisposition. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of thechronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well asin the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest ofthe world.

[Guest guest]

Omega 6's are not bad, they are essential, by test. The Harvard women's study indicated a ratio of

LA:ALA

12.0 1.1

LEF's values:

11.1:2.2

IOM ymen,ywomen

17,12: 1.6,1.1

Modern Nutrition pg 91,

8.0:2.0

if you like ratios.

The real question is what is it if you're not a young men or young women?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Sullivan

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:32 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions (Omega6/3 ratios)

You've probably all read The Omega Diet or the Omega Plan by Dr. Artemis Simopoulos and Jo . It came out a couple of years ago, and was widely discussed on the other forum and on this one. Dr. Walford mentions it in his last revision of the 120 year Diet. Jo wrote to the other list a number of times. We invited her to the local (Portland, Oregon) CR get together since she lived in Beaverton (about 15 miles from where we met) but she declined. Simopoulos believed that wild greens, such as purslane (which is growing wild in our garden here in Portland) were import sources of ALA. She pointed out that the fatty acid compostion of range fed animals who have not been fed on grains is very different from the animals we eat today. Her speculation was that the ideal ration was between 4/1 (Omega 6/Omega 3) and 1/1. Jo moved to Vashon Island in Washington State, and has written a small book on sources for range fed animals of various kinds. Soy is a good source of Omega 3's. Almonds are not, but they have been demonstrated to produce a consistent reduction in ldl cholesterol while maintaining HDL levels. Harvard University doesn't agree that Omega 6's are bad and Omega 3 is good. Willett is afraid that if we throw out the 6's that we'll lose some of the gains we've made against heart disease.

Ed S.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: jwwright

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 1:27 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions (Omega6/3 ratios)

The real question is what is it if you're not a young men or young women?

Well, for me, no longer being young man or woman, I don't pay a lot of attention to the ratios. I have more trouble than that in simply controlling my appetite without getting into such complexities. But, as you know, there is some evidence that EPA/DHA is protective against dementia. If I remember correctly. There is some evidence that alpha linolenic acid may not be...or is it something else that's not good for the Japanese in Hawaii? Maybe the soy eaters don't eat enough fish? Maybe they don't get enough exercise? How come the Okinawan elders, the youngest of whom are my age, overcome the disadvantages of soy with moderate exercise and immoderate opitimism and faith in forefathers who hang around to keep them healthy. Maybe they're having a terrific time and just don't want to go...and those feel good body chemicals turn out to be good for ya! I say this because the Willcox brothers data (also Suzuki's) indicated that these geezers are not very demented as geezers go. Maybe there is no soy disadvantage.

Personally, I don't think there is a real question about 6 and 3 ratio at all. Even Willett says soy a couple of times a week is ok. Ornish suggests two epa/dha pills and one serving of full fat soy a day along with his skim milk allowance, veggie diet plus yoga, meditation, and exercise program. I include the non-food stuff because his program is not a diet, it's a program. He's quick to tell you that if you leave part of it out, including not eating unless your hungry and stopping before you're full, the program doesn't work nealry as well. Anyway, insofar as Omegas are concerned, that's a good place to start, I think. it's a simple plan. It's easily doable. vMy experience is the more complicated you make your program, then the more opportunities you will have to cheat, and if you're me, you probably will then cheat.

Ed S.

----- Original Message -----

[Guest guest]

Willett is probably referring to the cholesterol-CVD hypothesis,

specifically that polyunsaturates lower HDL and LDL. Whether or not

that is truly relevant outside academia and pharmaceuticalia, it

would be hard, if not impossible, to completely avoid all dietary

sources of Omega 6's.

One culprit of LA being harmful may be its transformation into the

negative Omega 6 pathway components in animals as opposed to plants.

If ALA is harmful, it may be because of the transformation into the

negative Omega 6 pathway components as well. The Omega 6/3 ratio

hypothesis may be indirectly reflective of this. So perhaps we can

make a reasonable assumption that plant-source LA is beneficial,

animal-source ALA is beneficial, and vice versa of both is harmful --

all within the proper ratio, of course.

Logan

--- In , " Ed Sullivan " <Sully@i...>

wrote:

Omega 3 is good. Willett is afraid that if we throw out the 6's that

we'll lose some of the gains we've made against heart disease.

[Guest guest]

Just to point out you jumped to EPA/DHA, another subject, IMO. And we probably do need some EPA/DHA at age.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Sullivan

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:38 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions (Omega6/3 ratios)

----- Original Message -----

From: jwwright

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 1:27 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: A Couple of Newbie Questions (Omega6/3 ratios)

The real question is what is it if you're not a young men or young women?

Well, for me, no longer being young man or woman, I don't pay a lot of attention to the ratios. I have more trouble than that in simply controlling my appetite without getting into such complexities. But, as you know, there is some evidence that EPA/DHA is protective against dementia. If I remember correctly. There is some evidence that alpha linolenic acid may not be...or is it something else that's not good for the Japanese in Hawaii? Maybe the soy eaters don't eat enough fish? Maybe they don't get enough exercise? How come the Okinawan elders, the youngest of whom are my age, overcome the disadvantages of soy with moderate exercise and immoderate opitimism and faith in forefathers who hang around to keep them healthy. Maybe they're having a terrific time and just don't want to go...and those feel good body chemicals turn out to be good for ya! I say this because the Willcox brothers data (also Suzuki's) indicated that these geezers are not very demented as geezers go. Maybe there is no soy disadvantage.

Personally, I don't think there is a real question about 6 and 3 ratio at all. Even Willett says soy a couple of times a week is ok. Ornish suggests two epa/dha pills and one serving of full fat soy a day along with his skim milk allowance, veggie diet plus yoga, meditation, and exercise program. I include the non-food stuff because his program is not a diet, it's a program. He's quick to tell you that if you leave part of it out, including not eating unless your hungry and stopping before you're full, the program doesn't work nealry as well. Anyway, insofar as Omegas are concerned, that's a good place to start, I think. it's a simple plan. It's easily doable. vMy experience is the more complicated you make your program, then the more opportunities you will have to cheat, and if you're me, you probably will then cheat.

Ed S.