Re: Response re Flaxseed

[Guest guest]

Something mixed here, LA C18:2n-6, is a true essential fatty acid.

We have questioned ALA before because of the Prostate cancer link.

The one thing I looked for is what function does ALA have if we ingest EPA/DHA and I didn't find such. This article doesn't say what either.

Besides that we get plenty of ALA, LA in diet.

I haven't found ANY oil/fatty acid to benefit HTN - simply no pathways known to do that. Show me some data on either issue, not an opinion from the flax council.

Regards.

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

From: Gay e

Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 3:44 AM

Subject: [ ] Response re Flaxseed

You may be interested in this reply I got after asking a question of the Flaxseed Council.-------------------------------Dear Gay,Your question was referred to me by the Flax Council of Canada. I write articles about the health benefits of flax for the Council.You ask an excellent question. My answer, which some people might say is biased, since I am knowledgeable about flax and help educate consumers and researchers about it, is that, Yes, there are good reasons to eat flax for its omega-3 fat content. As you may know, the specific omega-3 fat in flax is ALA. ALA is the parent compound of the omega-3 family. Here are some things to consider where ALA and human health is concerned --1. ALA is the only true "essential" omega-3 fatty acid. When I say "essential," I am speaking in the strictest sense of the word. In other words, ALA is essential in the diet because our bodies do not make it. In this sense, ALA is no different from vitamin C, folic acid, calcium, potassium, niacin, and all the other "essential" vitamins and minerals. It is required in the human diet because our bodies can't make it.2. But, as you ask, if you get plenty of EPA and DHA, which can be made from ALA, is there any reason to still eat foods rich in ALA? I say, Yes, there is. The relationship of ALA to EPA and DHA is much like that of beta-carotene to vitamin A. When I was in graduate school back in the dark ages (the late 1970's and early 1980's), I was taught that beta-carotene was a precursor of vitamin A and that was virtually it's only function. It was important in the diet because of its role as a vitamin A precursor. Not until the 1990's was there research to show that beta-carotene has unique benefits of its own. We know now that it is an antioxidant, which means it plays an important role in preventing chronic disease.3. ALA stands now at the point where beta-carotene stood 25 years ago. Many researchers believe the only use for ALA is as a precursor of EPA and DHA. However, until the 1990's, there wasn't much research on ALA. Virtually all of the omega-3 research conducted over the past 40 years was done on EPA and DHA -- and much of that was funded by the fish oil supplement industry.4. Does ALA have any unique benefits -- that is, does ALA have health effects that are separate from those of EPA and DHA? Yes, it does. Several clinical studies suggest that ALA plays a unique role to play in preventing heart disease. In addition, new research proposes a unique role for ALA in the health of the prostate. For example, the prostate appears to need a rich supply of DHA in particular for normal function. It was long thought that diet was the source of this DHA. New research suggests otherwise -- dietary ALA is the source of DHA for the prostate gland. Dietary DHA, which circulates in the blood stream, is not picked up by the prostate. Rather, the prostate picks up dietary ALA and converts it to DHA. So, here we have an essential nutrient -- ALA -- which has not been studied very much and whose unique functions are not fully known. I believe research over the next decade will show that ALA has specific functions, in addition to the recent research related to heart disease and the health of the prostate gland -- and that its role in human health is just as important as the roles of EPA and DHA. The bottom line is that ALL omega-3 fats are important for human health, and North Americans, in particular, will benefit from eating more ALA, EPA, DHA, DPA and stearidonic acid from plants, fish and omega-3-enriched foods like eggs and other novel foods!Best wishes,DianeDiane H. , PhDNutritionist-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Flaxseed debate Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:37:45 +0100 From: Gay <flax@...> HiI wonder if you could answer a theoretical question for me.Several of us on the hypertension board take flaxseed. I myself find it lowers my cholesterol. This made me interested enough to read up on EFA's, LNA etc.My question is this:Even if one took a lot of fish/supplements and therefore for a lot of Omega-3 via EPA/DHA, would there still be a case for taking Flaxseed?I will still be taking my flaxseed but I would like to be able to advise the others with confidence, that flaxseed is still a good idea even if they have a lot of fish in their diet or take a fish oil supplement.Can you help?Best wishes, Gay

[Guest guest]

Hi Gay:

I wouldn't personally pay too much attention to the Flax Council's

views about ALA. We do know that there is a fairly strong

correlation between ALA and advanced prostate cancer. Perhaps it is

the ALA that is the problem, or perhaps the ALA is simply a marker

for something else. But either way it suggests that males consuming

too much of it are more likely to get advanced prostate cancer.

What I would like to see is a study in mice or chimps or humans

examining the effects, if any, of a diet containing zero ALA.

Perhaps there would be negative effects. Perhaps not. We will not

know until the study is done. But no source I have asked is aware of

clear evidence that, beyond its contribution to DHA and EPA, ALA is

essential, in its own right.

I avoid flax and other sources of ALA. Perhaps it will turn out that

that is not a good idea. Just me 'placing my bet' on the basis of,

as usual, incomplete information.

Rodney.

--- In , " Gay e " <@s...>

wrote:

> You may be interested in this reply I got after asking a question

of

> the Flaxseed Council.

> -------------------------------

> Dear Gay,

> Your question was referred to me by the Flax Council of Canada. I

> write articles about the health benefits of flax for the Council.

>

> You ask an excellent question. My answer, which some people might

> say is biased, since I am knowledgeable about flax and help educate

> consumers and researchers about it, is that, Yes, there are good

> reasons to eat flax for its omega-3 fat content. As you may know,

> the specific omega-3 fat in flax is ALA. ALA is the parent

compound

> of the omega-3 family. Here are some things to consider where ALA

> and human health is concerned --

>

> 1. ALA is the only true " essential " omega-3 fatty acid. When I

> say " essential, " I am speaking in the strictest sense of the word.

> In other words, ALA is essential in the diet because our bodies do

> not make it. In this sense, ALA is no different from vitamin C,

> folic acid, calcium, potassium, niacin, and all the

> other " essential " vitamins and minerals. It is required in the

> human diet because our bodies can't make it.

>

> 2. But, as you ask, if you get plenty of EPA and DHA, which can be

> made from ALA, is there any reason to still eat foods rich in ALA?

> I say, Yes, there is. The relationship of ALA to EPA and DHA is

> much like that of beta-carotene to vitamin A. When I was in

> graduate school back in the dark ages (the late 1970's and early

> 1980's), I was taught that beta-carotene was a precursor of vitamin

> A and that was virtually it's only function. It was important in

> the diet because of its role as a vitamin A precursor. Not until

> the 1990's was there research to show that beta-carotene has unique

> benefits of its own. We know now that it is an antioxidant, which

> means it plays an important role in preventing chronic disease.

>

> 3. ALA stands now at the point where beta-carotene stood 25 years

> ago. Many researchers believe the only use for ALA is as a

> precursor of EPA and DHA. However, until the 1990's, there wasn't

> much research on ALA. Virtually all of the omega-3 research

> conducted over the past 40 years was done on EPA and DHA -- and

much

> of that was funded by the fish oil supplement industry.

>

> 4. Does ALA have any unique benefits -- that is, does ALA have

> health effects that are separate from those of EPA and DHA? Yes,

it

> does. Several clinical studies suggest that ALA plays a unique

role

> to play in preventing heart disease. In addition, new research

> proposes a unique role for ALA in the health of the prostate. For

> example, the prostate appears to need a rich supply of DHA in

> particular for normal function. It was long thought that diet was

> the source of this DHA. New research suggests otherwise -- dietary

> ALA is the source of DHA for the prostate gland. Dietary DHA,

which

> circulates in the blood stream, is not picked up by the prostate.

> Rather, the prostate picks up dietary ALA and converts it to DHA.

>

> So, here we have an essential nutrient -- ALA -- which has not been

> studied very much and whose unique functions are not fully known.

I

> believe research over the next decade will show that ALA has

> specific functions, in addition to the recent research related to

> heart disease and the health of the prostate gland -- and that its

> role in human health is just as important as the roles of EPA and

> DHA.

>

> The bottom line is that ALL omega-3 fats are important for human

> health, and North Americans, in particular, will benefit from

eating

> more ALA, EPA, DHA, DPA and stearidonic acid from plants, fish and

> omega-3-enriched foods like eggs and other novel foods!

>

> Best wishes,

> Diane

>

> Diane H. , PhD

> Nutritionist

>

> -------- Original Message --------

> Subject: Flaxseed debate

> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:37:45 +0100

> From: Gay

> <flax@f...>

>

> Hi

>

> I wonder if you could answer a theoretical question for me.

>

> Several of us on the hypertension board take flaxseed. I myself

> find it lowers my cholesterol. This made me interested enough to

> read up on EFA's, LNA etc.

>

> My question is this:

>

> Even if one took a lot of fish/supplements and therefore for a lot

> of Omega-3 via EPA/DHA, would there still be a case for taking

> Flaxseed?

>

> I will still be taking my flaxseed but I would like to be able to

> advise the others with confidence, that flaxseed is still a good

> idea even if they have a lot of fish in their diet or take a fish

> oil supplement.

>

> Can you help?

>

> Best wishes, Gay

[Guest guest]

Hi JW

I wasn't saying that I took on board everything they wrote. I was

hoping for comments on the statement, such as you made.

I have to say the my cholesterol figures have done well since I

started using ground flax. I was already using a small amount of fish

oil.

I have no difficulty getting adequate LN in my diet but which foods do

you get your ALA (as opposed to EPA/DHA) from?

My main interest in this, from some-one that doesn't like fish much

and therefore will take supplements, is whether by taking fish oil

supplements ONLY, I may be missing something by not taking flaxseed.

Having said that, I prefer a belt and braces approach and would take

both until proved pointless.

Of course, I may need to rethink if the calorie content becomes overly

relevant in my diet or I am able to get closer to optimal nutrition.

At the moment I am taking a slow approach to improving my diet to one

I can live with long term and addressing a number of health issues.

As regards hypertension, we discuss general health and diet issues on

the board and flaxseed is of interest for this reason. I do believe

many are short of Omega-3 regardless of which health isuue we are

discussing.

Regards, Gay

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Something mixed here, LA C18:2n-6, is a true essential fatty acid.

> We have questioned ALA before because of the Prostate cancer link.

> The one thing I looked for is what function does ALA have if we

ingest EPA/DHA and I didn't find such. This article doesn't say what

either.

> Besides that we get plenty of ALA, LA in diet.

> I haven't found ANY oil/fatty acid to benefit HTN - simply no

pathways known to do that. Show me some data on either issue, not an

opinion from the flax council.

>

> Regards.

[Guest guest]

Gay,

I don't know if you read Message 19312 which addressed your comment

about lowering cholesterol. It seems that only LA lowers cholesterol

and ALA does not (perhaps because it is normally consumed in minute

quantities).

Also, oils that contain both palmitic acid and LA may not lower

cholesterol because the cholesterol increase from palmitic acid

cancels out the decrease from LA. Olive oil is a good example of an

oil that does not affect cholesterol too much because of these

cancelling effects.

If your cholesterol is high, you are probably deficient in LA even

though LA may be present in some oils that you eat. Some of this LA

does not count because of the cancelling effect. My note today on

replacing carbs with polyunsaturated fatty acids is also applicable.

Tony

===

--- In , " Gay e " <@s...>

wrote:

> I have to say the my cholesterol figures have done well since I

> started using ground flax. I was already using a small amount of

fish

> oil.

>

> I have no difficulty getting adequate LN in my diet but which foods

do you get your ALA (as opposed to EPA/DHA) from?

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney

Your first sentence pretty much says what I was thinking anyway.

There was nothing concrete as an answer to my question. I am

looking back in the posts for past discussion on flaxseed and

prostrate cancer especially as I was about to get my husband to

start taking some.

Can you point me to the best source of simple information re. the

study? I'm not as quick on the uptake of the scientific stuff as

some of you. I'd like to know how much was too much.......

I note you said previously " I have chosen to get all the ALA I need

from the foods I regularly eat (I get plenty of DHA and EPA from

fish) " . This is similar to comments from others but, feel free to

correct me as I'm still learning, DHA/EPA is not ALA although

DHA/EPA are derived from it.

What sources of ALA do you have in your diet apart from EPA/DHA or

were you referring to EPA/DHA?

I'm still a little puzzled over various suggestions of (differing)

requirements for ALA eg Walford, Erasmus. Are they making these

suggestion based on our need for Omega-3? What did our ancestors

eat to make Omega-3? What did we stop eating to become 'deficient'?

Regards, Gay

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi Gay:

>

> I wouldn't personally pay too much attention to the Flax Council's

> views about ALA. We do know that there is a fairly strong

> correlation between ALA and advanced prostate cancer. Perhaps it

is

> the ALA that is the problem, or perhaps the ALA is simply a marker

> for something else. But either way it suggests that males

consuming

> too much of it are more likely to get advanced prostate cancer.

>

> What I would like to see is a study in mice or chimps or humans

> examining the effects, if any, of a diet containing zero ALA.

> Perhaps there would be negative effects. Perhaps not. We will

not

> know until the study is done. But no source I have asked is aware

of

> clear evidence that, beyond its contribution to DHA and EPA, ALA

is

> essential, in its own right.

>

> I avoid flax and other sources of ALA. Perhaps it will turn out

that

> that is not a good idea. Just me 'placing my bet' on the basis

of,

> as usual, incomplete information.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Gay:

Al Pater's post # 19379 provided the study in which non-animal

sources of ALA more than doubled the chances of getting advanced

(metastatic) prostate cancer. Animal sources, it showed, also

increased it but less so - presumably because the effects are

diminished as the offending component undergoes digestion in the

animal's stomach.

Here is an excerpt from the study's abstract: " In contrast, the

multivariate relative risks (RRs) of advanced prostate cancer from

comparisons of extreme quintiles of ALA from nonanimal sources and

ALA from meat and dairy sources were 2.02 (95% CI: 1.35, 3.03) and

1.53 (0.88, 2.66), respectively. EPA and DHA intakes were related to

lower prostate cancer risk. The multivariate RRs of total and

advanced prostate cancer from comparisons of extreme quintiles of the

combination of EPA and DHA were 0.89 (0.77, 1.04) and 0.74 (0.49,

1.08), respectively. LA and AA intakes were unrelated to the risk of

prostate cancer. "

Now there are also studies which show that ALA reduces the risk of

CVD. So for that reason some people who consider prostate cancer to

be irrelevant may wish to consume a significant amount of ALA, for

the CVD benefit.

My attitude to CVD is that CR is likely to do a lot more to reduce

CVD risk than ALA. So it seems to be more important for me to

protect myself from prostate cancer than to reduce my already low

risk of CVD. Most vegetable products contain some ALA. Flax

contains a ton of it. The people whose risk of getting advanced

prostate cancer was doubled were presumably not all eating flax. So

even moderate levels of ALA consumption seem to be a problem. I

generally avoid things I know to be heavy in ALA (flax). But I do

eat vegetables and some grain products and a little meat, and have

decided that is all the ALA I want to have.

It would be nice if people advocating 'omega-3' fats would specify

which ones they are referring to, how much of each, and why. I go to

some trouble to AVOID ALA, and go to the trouble of GETTING EPA and

DHA. Perhaps I should also be taking EPA/DHA supplements. I don't

at the moment, but may do so some time in the future if I see

information suggesting I should.

As regards your husband ............ it depends on what it is you

are trying to do to him ;; ^ )))

Rodney.

> > Hi Gay:

> >

> > I wouldn't personally pay too much attention to the Flax

Council's

> > views about ALA. We do know that there is a fairly strong

> > correlation between ALA and advanced prostate cancer. Perhaps it

> is

> > the ALA that is the problem, or perhaps the ALA is simply a

marker

> > for something else. But either way it suggests that males

> consuming

> > too much of it are more likely to get advanced prostate cancer.

> >

> > What I would like to see is a study in mice or chimps or humans

> > examining the effects, if any, of a diet containing zero ALA.

> > Perhaps there would be negative effects. Perhaps not. We will

> not

> > know until the study is done. But no source I have asked is

aware

> of

> > clear evidence that, beyond its contribution to DHA and EPA, ALA

> is

> > essential, in its own right.

> >

> > I avoid flax and other sources of ALA. Perhaps it will turn out

> that

> > that is not a good idea. Just me 'placing my bet' on the basis

> of,

> > as usual, incomplete information.

> >

> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony

Thanks for the response. Yes I did read it and, to be honest, I was

doubtful. However I am learning all the time and recording my

cholesterol figures each week.

I have only been analysing the Omega-3 Omega-6 split this last

week. I intend to look into this further but unfortunately the

times when I had my best results, I don't have enough information to

analyse properly, eg holidays.

I won't bore you with my figures to date but I hope in time I will

be able to draw some personal conclusions.

What I need is to decide on the most likely suitable strategies

first eg I don't want to force feed myself saturated fat to prove it

makes my cholesterol worse <grin>.

There are certain circumtances where I could see an Omega-6

deficiency, eg recently as I have been watching my fat intake, but

it's hard to blame past problems on that. Not that's there is

anything to say that saturated fats may have caused earlier problems

and an EFA deficiency is the cause now.

Time will tell.

Thanks again, Gay

--- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

wrote:

> Gay,

>

> I don't know if you read Message 19312 which addressed your comment

> about lowering cholesterol. It seems that only LA lowers

cholesterol

> and ALA does not (perhaps because it is normally consumed in minute

> quantities).

>

> Also, oils that contain both palmitic acid and LA may not lower

> cholesterol because the cholesterol increase from palmitic acid

> cancels out the decrease from LA. Olive oil is a good example of

an

> oil that does not affect cholesterol too much because of these

> cancelling effects.

>

> If your cholesterol is high, you are probably deficient in LA even

> though LA may be present in some oils that you eat. Some of this

LA

> does not count because of the cancelling effect. My note today on

> replacing carbs with polyunsaturated fatty acids is also

applicable.

>

> Tony

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Gay:

Here is a chart showing the fat contents of various oils:

http://www.freshhempfoods.com/nutrition/comp-table.html

The alpha-linolenic is the orange-colored bars.

Rodney.

> > Hi Gay:

> >

> > I wouldn't personally pay too much attention to the Flax

Council's

> > views about ALA. We do know that there is a fairly strong

> > correlation between ALA and advanced prostate cancer. Perhaps it

> is

> > the ALA that is the problem, or perhaps the ALA is simply a

marker

> > for something else. But either way it suggests that males

> consuming

> > too much of it are more likely to get advanced prostate cancer.

> >

> > What I would like to see is a study in mice or chimps or humans

> > examining the effects, if any, of a diet containing zero ALA.

> > Perhaps there would be negative effects. Perhaps not. We will

> not

> > know until the study is done. But no source I have asked is

aware

> of

> > clear evidence that, beyond its contribution to DHA and EPA, ALA

> is

> > essential, in its own right.

> >

> > I avoid flax and other sources of ALA. Perhaps it will turn out

> that

> > that is not a good idea. Just me 'placing my bet' on the basis

> of,

> > as usual, incomplete information.

> >

> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Our current discussion of the increased risk of prostate cancer with

ALA seems to be the negative part of the whole picture. According to

Simopoulos, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in modern diets is

approximately 15:1, whereas ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 have been associated

with reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease, suppressed

inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and decreased risk

of breast cancer.

A 2000-calorie diet with 30% fat (67 grams) from olive oil would have

a 10:1 ratio of omega6 to omega3. In order to achieve a 2:1 ratio,

you would have to mix about 60 grams of olive oil with 7 grams of flax

seed oil (about a teaspoon).

What risk is higher: Prostate, breast cancer, CVD, or arthritis?

Knowing the relative risks of these diseases may give us a better

picture whether we should eat flax seeds or not. For example, keeping

a BMI around 21 to 22 virtually eliminates the risk of CVD. Would it

be helpful for such a person to keep a 4:1 ratio of omega-6 to

omega-3? By the way, what is the typical ratio of a CR diet, e.g.,

something from Dr. Walford's recipes?

Tony

====

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

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

acids.

Simopoulos AP.

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.

PMID: 12442909

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

So, then, what is it that our ancestors are supposed to have eaten

that contained so much more omega-3 and so much less omega-6 than we

are eating today, and that resulted in a 1:1 ratio?

Or was it simply that there were few concentrated sources of any kind

of fat in the diet? Nuts are seasonal. Fish not avilable to the

majority who did not live on the coast. Elephant was among the menu

suggestions infrequently. And wild animals contain much less fat

than the domesticated ones.

Would most of us consider the components of that 1:1 diet healthy?

Rodney.

> Our current discussion of the increased risk of prostate cancer with

> ALA seems to be the negative part of the whole picture. According

to

> Simopoulos, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in modern diets is

> approximately 15:1, whereas ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 have been

associated

> with reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease, suppressed

> inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and decreased

risk

> of breast cancer.

>

> A 2000-calorie diet with 30% fat (67 grams) from olive oil would

have

> a 10:1 ratio of omega6 to omega3. In order to achieve a 2:1 ratio,

> you would have to mix about 60 grams of olive oil with 7 grams of

flax

> seed oil (about a teaspoon).

>

> What risk is higher: Prostate, breast cancer, CVD, or arthritis?

>

> Knowing the relative risks of these diseases may give us a better

> picture whether we should eat flax seeds or not. For example,

keeping

> a BMI around 21 to 22 virtually eliminates the risk of CVD. Would it

> be helpful for such a person to keep a 4:1 ratio of omega-6 to

> omega-3? By the way, what is the typical ratio of a CR diet, e.g.,

> something from Dr. Walford's recipes?

>

> Tony

> ====

>

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

>

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

> acids.

> Simopoulos AP.

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

> 20009, USA. cgnh@b...

> 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.

>

> PMID: 12442909

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And do we know pretty much for sure that ALA is more beneficial for

CVD than linoleic?

Rodney.

> Our current discussion of the increased risk of prostate cancer with

> ALA seems to be the negative part of the whole picture. According

to

> Simopoulos, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in modern diets is

> approximately 15:1, whereas ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 have been

associated

> with reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease, suppressed

> inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and decreased

risk

> of breast cancer.

>

> A 2000-calorie diet with 30% fat (67 grams) from olive oil would

have

> a 10:1 ratio of omega6 to omega3. In order to achieve a 2:1 ratio,

> you would have to mix about 60 grams of olive oil with 7 grams of

flax

> seed oil (about a teaspoon).

>

> What risk is higher: Prostate, breast cancer, CVD, or arthritis?

>

> Knowing the relative risks of these diseases may give us a better

> picture whether we should eat flax seeds or not. For example,

keeping

> a BMI around 21 to 22 virtually eliminates the risk of CVD. Would it

> be helpful for such a person to keep a 4:1 ratio of omega-6 to

> omega-3? By the way, what is the typical ratio of a CR diet, e.g.,

> something from Dr. Walford's recipes?

>

> Tony

> ====

>

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

>

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

> acids.

> Simopoulos AP.

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

> 20009, USA. cgnh@b...

> 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.

>

> PMID: 12442909

[Guest guest]

Thank you Rodney and apolgies to Al for having overlooked an

important post. I'm afraid I find it hard to take it all onboard -

very frustrating as I'd like to understand more than I do.

However, doing my best with that information, here are my thoughts.

1. First I looked at the levels of ALA quoted and compared them to

my own figures. My figures are new 'improved' figures since I felt

I was deficient in ALA. Frightening.

2. 10 g of ground flax seed gives the same amount of ALA as 20g of

walnuts, the major difference being that there is more n-6 in

walnuts by far than there is in flaxseed, not ideal if you are

watching the ratio. (On the other hand if Tony is right perhaps

that doesn't matter.)

3. The ALA in both gives approx. 16 calories, just over 1% of a

1500 calories diet. On the other hand the total calories for the

flax seed is 50 rather than 150 for the walnuts.

3. Moving on to the EPA/DHA figures, those quoted are very much

less than the quoted ALA figures. How do we know that consuming

more fish/fish oil to increase the figures in line with the total

ALA figures, wouldn't produce the same or an even worse scenario?

4. Have I lost the plot or is the question perhaps, at what point

is too much ALA damaging rather than how to get the ALA?

5. How on earth am I going to decide what is a sensible figure for

my ALA intake now!

Thanks for the chart Rodney. I had seen it but it's always as well

to remind me. I have CFS and sometimes the little grey cells don't

remember what they should! As for my husband, well I would be a

very rich woman if he would only eat his mushrooms, or perhaps I

should say flaxseed.

Regards, gay

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi Gay:

>

> Al Pater's post # 19379 provided the study in which non-animal

> sources of ALA more than doubled the chances of getting advanced

> (metastatic) prostate cancer. Animal sources, it showed, also

> increased it but less so - presumably because the effects are

> diminished as the offending component undergoes digestion in the

> animal's stomach.

>

> Here is an excerpt from the study's abstract: " In contrast, the

> multivariate relative risks (RRs) of advanced prostate cancer from

> comparisons of extreme quintiles of ALA from nonanimal sources and

> ALA from meat and dairy sources were 2.02 (95% CI: 1.35, 3.03) and

> 1.53 (0.88, 2.66), respectively. EPA and DHA intakes were related

to

> lower prostate cancer risk. The multivariate RRs of total and

> advanced prostate cancer from comparisons of extreme quintiles of

the

> combination of EPA and DHA were 0.89 (0.77, 1.04) and 0.74 (0.49,

> 1.08), respectively. LA and AA intakes were unrelated to the risk

of

> prostate cancer. "

>

> Now there are also studies which show that ALA reduces the risk of

> CVD. So for that reason some people who consider prostate cancer

to

> be irrelevant may wish to consume a significant amount of ALA, for

> the CVD benefit.

>

> My attitude to CVD is that CR is likely to do a lot more to reduce

> CVD risk than ALA. So it seems to be more important for me to

> protect myself from prostate cancer than to reduce my already low

> risk of CVD. Most vegetable products contain some ALA. Flax

> contains a ton of it. The people whose risk of getting advanced

> prostate cancer was doubled were presumably not all eating flax.

So

> even moderate levels of ALA consumption seem to be a problem. I

> generally avoid things I know to be heavy in ALA (flax). But I do

> eat vegetables and some grain products and a little meat, and have

> decided that is all the ALA I want to have.

>

> It would be nice if people advocating 'omega-3' fats would specify

> which ones they are referring to, how much of each, and why. I go

to

> some trouble to AVOID ALA, and go to the trouble of GETTING EPA

and

> DHA. Perhaps I should also be taking EPA/DHA supplements. I

don't

> at the moment, but may do so some time in the future if I see

> information suggesting I should.

>

> As regards your husband ............ it depends on what it is

you

> are trying to do to him ;; ^ )))

>

> Rodney.