11 replies to this topic

[Reincarnatian]

Hi all!

How in the world is it possible to achieve a a better omega 3 - 6 ratio, while not exceeding the "dangerous" amount of EPA + DHA? 

Also taking in consideration that alpha linolenic acid is more or less useless? 

 

[niner]

Consume less of the industrial seed oils.

[Reincarnatian]

I see your point. However what i mean is, that it is impossible to aim for a a good ratio (1-1,1-3 etc.) without eating dangerous amounts of EPA + DHA? Or is EPA + DHA safe in very high amounts every day?

 

[JohnD60]

There are two routes to accomplish this, first is to become vegan and eat raw foods, this will greatly reduce intake of Omega 6, and thus enhance processing of AA to EPA/DHA. I go the second route, the non vegan route, avoid:  fried foods, vegetable oils, grains, chicken; eat: cold water fish, 100% grass fed beef, lamb, pastured or Omega 3 enhanced eggs, Krill and Fish oil supplements to make up for those times I have to eat out and can't find the above.. Not sure where you are getting this 'dangerous amounts of EPA and DHA', I suspect you are getting misinformation, probably some vegan site nonsense, the body is going to burn excess Omega 3 PUFAs for fuel.

Edited by JohnD60, 19 July 2014 - 05:28 AM.

[niner]

I see your point. However what i mean is, that it is impossible to aim for a a good ratio (1-1,1-3 etc.) without eating dangerous amounts of EPA + DHA? Or is EPA + DHA safe in very high amounts every day?

 

EPA and DHA are extremely oxidation-prone, due to their high level of unsaturation.  (The likelihood of oxidation increases exponentially with the degree of unsaturation.)  Basically, a little fish oil is good and a lot is bad.  Here are some refs I posted a while back.  The best way to get a low ratio is to eat less omega-6 fatty acids. 

[Dolph]

The whole idea of an "ideal" ratio of Omega 3/6 is also based on quite a few big assumptions! Especially there is very conflicting epidemiological "evidence" and a lack of conclusive interventional RCTs.
I for me strongly believe that very many people are pushing their Omega 6s too low these days, especially in relation to their ingestion of saturated FAs. At least they push them lower than any evidence is justifying.

Edited by Dolph, 19 July 2014 - 03:44 PM.

[bracconiere]

the RDA for omega-3's here in the USA, is based on ALA...you only need mg's of DHA/EPA...so trying to get a 1:3 ratio using the already converted DHA/EPA is foolish....You only need to worry about a 1:3 ratio to compensate for the poor conversion of ALA to DHA/EPA...livestrong says the RDA for DHA/EPA is 500mg's, and that between 6-1.2 percent ALA is converted to DHA/EPA...I get about a 1:3 ratio of 3's 6's from flax and sunflower seeds, don't supplement with any oil's, been doing it for 5 or so years now haven't dropped dead yet. And my lipids are good.

[Duchykins]

There is no need for any oils. If you're looking for a more natural 3-6-9 balance then just work on your diet. Add some fish, it doesn't always have to be salmon which can get very boring if you don't vary your fishes, cod is one acceptable substitute without going higher up in the food chain where there is increased presence of certain undesirable chemicals; add some seeds, I especially like chia because you can throw them on just about anything with compromising the flavor of the dish, but I also like to hang onto hemp and flax because they go great with certain dishes. Decrease your n-6 intake if you need to (short chain, the longer n-6 chains are not that bad and do have good uses), not everybody needs to do this because they never had an excess to be concerned about.

If diet change creates too much hardship or too much change at once, take small to moderate doses of cod liver oil if you're looking specifically for EPA/DHA over ALA, but don't rely on this, all of the oils best works as supplemental rather than primary sources of fatty acids - and that's when they're having a beneficial effect at all. There is no good reason to go in either extreme unless you have certain recommendations from your doctor. For the bulk of humanity, the default position is that supplements will always be, in varying degrees, inferior to whole foods.

Then there is the issue of the fragility of these oils. It doesn't matter where you buy them, online or at a local shop, unless you're going directly to the place where they where manufacture it you have little assurance of the freshness and quality of these oils. Products are exposed to heat all the time during shipping unless the manufacturer takes extra pains and costs to keep the products cool, which happens quite often with fresh foods but almost never with dietary supplements, especially when shipped over land. Boxes closest to the truck's engine, exhaust pipe, all the inner workings of the vehicle are the most at risk for degredation through heat exposure. Boxes in trucks passing through hot weather for hours at a time, trapping heat from sunlight while having little ventilation. There's no knowing when or if your product has been compromised during shipping, unless you are buying gelcaps online and they arrive cracked, popped or melted together inside a perfectly sealed and undamaged bottle - and that's only if they were exposed to a LOT more heat than usual. The gelcaps could still have been exposed to enough heat to compromise the quality of the liquid contents without damaging the outer capsule. A lot of people don't know this but it's a good reason not to buy stuff like coQ10 in gelcaps or liquid form, since it's so fragile and everyone tends to go with the most cost effective method of shipping. You have less choices with the omega oils because you can't buy them as powders and mix them with oil yourself and store them properly, as you can with coQ10.


Last there is Dolph's point, this ratio thing is hypothetical. And what little we do know is blown out of proportion by -surprise- the food and supplement industries capitalizing on and simultaneously encouraging the omega 3 fad. If anything, there is more circumstantial evidence supporting small amounts of EPA and DHA in our natural omega balances than there is evidence supporting the benefits of regular consumption of omega oils for a combined total of EPA & DHA by the gram in healthy people. We also know very little about the other omegas and through that ignorance we could very well be doing more harm than good by focusing so much on n-3s or EPA/DHA in particular.

Edited by Duchykins, 22 July 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[timar]

There is no need for any oils.

 

There is no need for a lot of things, if one looks at the diet from a strictly nutritional perspective. But of course, diet is much more than just basic nutrition - at least if you are a human being. It is equally about pleasure, social relation and personal identity (eating is an act of relating oneself to other people, history and nature). This is why I reject radical approaches to diet stemming from a onesided nutritional perspective. Even if a ultra-low-fat vegan diet devoid of added fats would be nutritionally superior to any other dietary pattern (for which there is really not much evidence) it would still be a form of cultural vandalism and self-imposed social isolation and as such not supportive to human health.

 

For the bulk of humanity, the default position is that supplements will always be, in varying degrees, inferior to whole foods.

 

I agree, but as you imply in the adverbial clause, it is not a matter of black and white. For the bulk of people eating a western diet, a low dose EPA/DHA supplement will be beneficial. Of course, it would probably be more beneficial if they regularly ate fatty fish instead (and instead of meat) and decreased their intake of linoleic acid, but realistically, for most people popping pills is easier.

 

Then there is the issue of the fragility of these oils.

 

I don't think that's too much of an issue if you a) buy fish oil only in caps, never in liquid form, b) make sure it has an GMP label and a date of expiry at room temperature at least two years from the date of purchase (this is only possible if the manufacturer has high standards and adds enough antioxidants) d) store them in the freezer. I gave some more detailed advice on this subject in another topic.

 

Last there is Dolph's point, this ratio thing is hypothetical. And what little we do know is blown out of proportion by -surprise- the food and supplement industries capitalizing on and simultaneously encouraging the omega 3 fad. If anything, there is more circumstantial evidence supporting small amounts of EPA and DHA in our natural omega balances than there is evidence supporting the benefits of regular consumption of omega oils for a combined total of EPA & DHA by the gram in healthy people. We also know very little about the other omegas and through that ignorance we could very well be doing more harm than good by focusing so much on n-3s or EPA/DHA in particular.

 

I agree that there is much speculation and "hearsay evidence" about the importance of the omega 6/3-ratio (driven to the most ridiculous extremes - of course - in the Paleosphere). But I think that there is mounting evidence (e.g. the recent meta-analysis by Ramsden et al. in the BMJ) that the omega 6/3 ratio in the diet is of importance. My point - and by the way that of the DGE (German Nutrition Society) - is that it is so easy to get that ratio right, that there is no reason not take care of it. This is why the DGE pragmatically recommends a ratio of 4:1 (the Japanese ratio) or higher, and I concur with that recommendation. This is what I would recommend to acchieve that goal - and much more:

 

1. Replace any refined seed oil with refined, or even better, expeller-pressed virgin canola oil, which is almost as high in monounsaturated omega-9 as olive oil (65%), very low in saturated FAs (5%), and still relatively - but not excessively - high in polyunsaturated FAs (30%), which come in an excellent omega 6/3-ratio of 2:1. Moreover it is cheap, more heat-stable and as neutral-tasting as any other refined seed oil (as a virgin oil, it has a nice nutty flavor).
2. Use canola and olive oil as your main dietary oils. Add only small amounts of other virgin oils high in polyunsaturated or saturated FAs for added taste and variety (if required). If you use the oil for broiling (which shoudn't be your prefered cooking method anyway), never heat it above the smoking point and use as little oil as possible. You can always add more oil at the end of cooking.
3. Avoid processed and manufactured foods containing unspecified "vegetable oil" (you should avoid most of them anyway). For canned fish, antipasti and sauces, choose the ones that are made with olive or canola oil.
4. Don't shy away from eating whole seeds and nuts because of their omega 6/3-ratio. There is plenty of evidence that nuts and seeds are healthy irrespective of that ratio. Moreover, to compensate for some omega 6-rich seeds and nuts you can always....
5. Include ground flax seeds in your diet. Buy them whole and grind them before eating, or store the ground flax seeds in your refrigerator (grinding is necessary to make their oil available to digestion). Flax and chia seeds are the only edible seeds containing more omega 3 than omega 6 (2:1). Flax seeds are preferable to the much-hyped chia seeds because they are not only dirt-cheap (hence you can't make a lot of money selling them, hence the lack of hype) but also because they contain by far the highest amount of lignans, the polyphenols most strongly linked to reduced mortality, which makes them an essential part of any longevity diet even if the whole omega 6/3-issue would eventually turn out to be bogus.
6. Eat fatty fish (eg. herring, salmon, trout, tuna, sardine) at least twice a weak and/or take a low-dose fish oil or algae-based EPA/DHA supplement. Shoot for a total daily intake of long chain omega-3s from fish or supplement of about 1 g a day, as recommended by the AHA. As I recently wrote in another topic: "This amount provides the maximum protection from arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (the most powerful benefit of fish oil) and has some additional anti-inflammatory and triglyceride-lowering effects, while staying in the range consumed by long-lived pupulations in Japan or the Mediterranean region."

Edited by timar, 30 July 2014 - 03:30 PM.

[DAMI]

Timar, according to this study lignany are NOT associated with reducedmortality: http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/23881072/

[timar]

Timar, according to this study lignany are NOT associated with reducedmortality: http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/23881072/

 

That study is based on data from the Spanish EPIC cohort, while the study I linked above is based on the PREDIMED trial which provides superior data. Food intake and health endpoints were much more meticulously monitored in the PREDIMED trial than in the large-scale observational EPIC study (i.e. the EPIC study administered one food frequency questionnaire at recruitment - that is one FFQ for a mean follow up of 13.6 years, while the PREDIMED trial administered one FFQ per year!).

 

Anyway, what is the point of your reply? Both studies provide evidence for health benefits from a diet rich in polyphenols. Moreover, there is plenty of compelling evidence for beneficial effects of lignans and flax seed in particular not only from observational studies (1*,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) but also from animal studies and even some RCTs (e.g. in hypertensive patients).

 

*from the abstract of the study by Frankenfield:

High urinary enterolactone concentration was inversely associated with obesity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.66), abdominal obesity (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.87), high serum C-reactive protein (CRP; OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.74), high serum triglycerides (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.61), low serum HDL cholesterol (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.61), and metabolic syndrome (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.74).

 

Btw. while looking up the above PubMed links I also came across a study by Mumford et. al, with the intriguing title: Higher urinary lignan concentrations in women but not men are positively associated with shorter time to pregnancy.

 

So I guess men being affraid that consuming phytoestrogens will turn them female can finally put their minds at rest!

 

Edited by timar, 30 September 2014 - 05:21 PM.

[Dolph]

Btw. while looking up the above PubMed links I also came across a study by Mumford et. al, with the intriguing title: Higher urinary lignan concentrations in women but not men are positively associated with shorter time to pregnancy.

lol
That's easily the most hilarious thing I read this year.