5 ms·

The foods we eat today have higher amounts of Omega 6. Theres a ratio between omega 6 and omega 3, 3:1, 2:1 for healthy omega 6 to omega 3 balance. when Omega 6

The foods we eat today have higher amounts of Omega 6. Theres a ratio between omega 6 and omega 3, 3:1, 2:1 for healthy omega 6 to omega 3 balance. when Omega 6 is high it seems to correlate to autoimmune disease and allergic diseases along processed seed oils are in most foods we eat

diordiderot 3y ago
Paper?
- lamp_book 3y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646454/ This is dealing with a specific condition (MGD) but after the intro sections it describes how dietary omega fatty acids play into inflammation.
  - jasonhansel 3y ago
    That study says that the risk factor is red meat consumption, not seed oils: > The typical American and Northern European diet is high in omega-6 FAs, with the average person having an omega-6 to omega-3 FA intake ratio between 15:1 and 18:1. These populations tend to overconsume red meat and underconsume unprocessed oils and cold-water fish.
    - lamp_book 3y ago
      You can google what foods have high omega 6:3 ratio - plant seed oils are just one culprit of many. Livestock is largely fed corn derived feed so that’s why our meat is high in omega 6 content.
      - hombre_fatal 3y ago
        So, stick to canola oil over olive oil if you want lower omega 6 ratios. Stick to unsaturated fats over sat fats. People who fixate on omega 6 and seed oils usually dismiss the downsides of saturated fat, as a rule. They will go on about the dangers of seed oil based on something that isn’t scientific consensus, yet the overwhelming balance of evidence against saturated fat doesn’t meet their epistemic standard. Always awkward to watch.
        lamp_book 3y ago
        Agreed, trying to avoid omega 6 just gets insane. Better to add an omega 3 supplement if you’re worried about it and move on.
isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
Interesting idea - where do you hear this?
hombre_fatal 3y ago
Here’s a look at the human health outcomes of our best research into high-LA seed oils: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-... > The notion that modern culinary oils containing high amounts of PUFA, particularly LA, are inflammatory is an idea that has managed to permeate virtually every diet camp imaginable. The paleo/ancestral nuts believe it. The vegan/plant-based nuts believe it. The keto/carnivore nuts believe it. Zealots belonging to Ray Peat's diet cult definitely believe it too. But is there actually evidence for this claim from human experiments? Intrigued? Make sure you’re not just regurgitating things to be true that you’ve merely heard repeated a thousand times online. Because that got me too not long ago. The anti seed oil sophistry is one of the most ubiquitous nutrition misconceptions today. On social media, at least.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  I don't buy any specific anti-seed-oil claims, but it generally seems like a bad idea to dramatically change where people get a high % of their calories from using a food source that has has in some cases (canola) never before been consumed in humans and in others was consumed only in much smaller quantities. The safest bet is probably to eat diets as closely resembling those of your healthy ancestors as reasonably possible. Human biology is so insanely complex that we're simply never in our lifetimes going to be able to intelligently meddle here.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    That we evolved with a food doesn’t mean it’s better for us. There’s an antagonistic pleiotropic effect where our genes make trade offs for our fertile years at the incidental expense of our long term health, and that also incurs trade offs made with so called “ancestral” foods. I also don’t see how a naturalistic fallacy is more convincing than human health outcome data. If novel foods like canola oil are worse than adapted foods like saturated fats, how come health outcomes improve when you swap saturated fat with canola oil? In other words, if our best nutrition intervention data doesn’t meet your standard of evidence, then what is the alternative that does? Hand waving over some cozy claims about ancestral foods, evidence be damned?

diordiderot 3y ago

Paper?

lamp_book 3y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646454/ This is dealing with a specific condition (MGD) but after the intro sections it describes how dietary omega fatty acids play into inflammation.
- jasonhansel 3y ago
  That study says that the risk factor is red meat consumption, not seed oils: > The typical American and Northern European diet is high in omega-6 FAs, with the average person having an omega-6 to omega-3 FA intake ratio between 15:1 and 18:1. These populations tend to overconsume red meat and underconsume unprocessed oils and cold-water fish.
  - lamp_book 3y ago
    You can google what foods have high omega 6:3 ratio - plant seed oils are just one culprit of many. Livestock is largely fed corn derived feed so that’s why our meat is high in omega 6 content.
    - hombre_fatal 3y ago
      So, stick to canola oil over olive oil if you want lower omega 6 ratios. Stick to unsaturated fats over sat fats. People who fixate on omega 6 and seed oils usually dismiss the downsides of saturated fat, as a rule. They will go on about the dangers of seed oil based on something that isn’t scientific consensus, yet the overwhelming balance of evidence against saturated fat doesn’t meet their epistemic standard. Always awkward to watch.
      - lamp_book 3y ago
        Agreed, trying to avoid omega 6 just gets insane. Better to add an omega 3 supplement if you’re worried about it and move on.

isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago

Interesting idea - where do you hear this?

hombre_fatal 3y ago

Here’s a look at the human health outcomes of our best research into high-LA seed oils: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-... > The notion that modern culinary oils containing high amounts of PUFA, particularly LA, are inflammatory is an idea that has managed to permeate virtually every diet camp imaginable. The paleo/ancestral nuts believe it. The vegan/plant-based nuts believe it. The keto/carnivore nuts believe it. Zealots belonging to Ray Peat's diet cult definitely believe it too. But is there actually evidence for this claim from human experiments? Intrigued? Make sure you’re not just regurgitating things to be true that you’ve merely heard repeated a thousand times online. Because that got me too not long ago. The anti seed oil sophistry is one of the most ubiquitous nutrition misconceptions today. On social media, at least.

Amezarak 3y ago
I don't buy any specific anti-seed-oil claims, but it generally seems like a bad idea to dramatically change where people get a high % of their calories from using a food source that has has in some cases (canola) never before been consumed in humans and in others was consumed only in much smaller quantities. The safest bet is probably to eat diets as closely resembling those of your healthy ancestors as reasonably possible. Human biology is so insanely complex that we're simply never in our lifetimes going to be able to intelligently meddle here.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  That we evolved with a food doesn’t mean it’s better for us. There’s an antagonistic pleiotropic effect where our genes make trade offs for our fertile years at the incidental expense of our long term health, and that also incurs trade offs made with so called “ancestral” foods. I also don’t see how a naturalistic fallacy is more convincing than human health outcome data. If novel foods like canola oil are worse than adapted foods like saturated fats, how come health outcomes improve when you swap saturated fat with canola oil? In other words, if our best nutrition intervention data doesn’t meet your standard of evidence, then what is the alternative that does? Hand waving over some cozy claims about ancestral foods, evidence be damned?