Brian Peskin presents the evidence that the proper Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio in our diet should be around 2.55:1 and that we should supplement with a good source of parent linoleic acid like Evening Primrose Oil. He also asserts that we should NOT be taking any sort of omega 3 fish oil capsules, as the EPA and DHA in these pills are in too high a concentration. We should get these through diet alone. He presents a lot of persuasive arguments backed by research studies, all of which are available for free on his website http://www.brianpeskin.com.
Peskin says that if our Parent omega 6 to omega 3 ratio is ok, than we should eventually see less atherosclerosis. I came across his writings as I was researching heart disease out of concern from having an elevated total cholesterol of 310 (got only that data when I donated blood the other day). I decided to stop taking my omega 3 fish oil capsules and start taking evening primrose oil capsules and see if my cholesterol and LDL ratios improve. I'm planning to get an NMR Lipoprofile test done 3 weeks from now, so I'll see what results I get.
asked bySid_1 (94)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on January 14, 2013
at 08:52 PM
2.55 to one is too low for warm adapted mammals but pretty damn close if you live using CT as I do.
on January 15, 2013
at 12:07 AM
Brian Peskin has some interesting theories behind why ALA might be better than the long chained forms of omega-3, but his supporting evidence is highly suspect. He cherry picks studies against fish oil and trumps up small trials showing the benefits ALA.
If you want to say fish oil is bad you should have some sort of explanation for the trials where they seem to have beneficial effects on heart disease, like those by Burr et al., Von Schackey at al., Einvik et al., Raitt et al., Marchioli et al. and Sacks et al. Maybe he has an explanation for these, but I haven't seen it.
And if you think ALA is better than fish oil you should have some supporting evidence, preferably some controlled trials. To my knowledge, the only major studies on ALA are the Norwegian Vegetable Oil Experiment and a study on mustard oil versus fish oil by Singh et al. Neither were well conducted, but neither seems to support the opinions of Brian Peskin that ALA is better than fish oil.
I'm totally open to the possibility that short chain omega-3 might be better than the long chain fish oil forms on diseases like heart disease, but the evidence supporting this conclusion is definitely not there at the moment.
on January 14, 2013
at 10:18 PM
2.5 to 1 is in the general paleo recommendation ballpark. But it's likely too low, it's freakin' hard to get a ratio that low without substantial supplementation or unnaturally restrictive diets. Anything else than 10:1 seems reasonable.
Human needs for DHA & EPA are rather low, so a heavy supplementation schedule is overkill particularly when the overall diet is low in PUFA and fairly balanced.
on January 15, 2013
at 03:16 AM
The dietary omega intake ratio looks to be in line with the Jaminet 'perfect health diet' recommendations...as far as i can tell * .
And, they do not recommend fish oil supplements either ( Fish, Not Fish Oil Capsules ).
( * i am going by the info in the 1st edition book, i have not read the latest book yet.
So anyone who has read it, pls comment ).
In 1st edition book, they recommend,
"aiming for a dietary intake of about 3 % calories omega-6 (from food), chiefly in the form of LA (linoleic acid), plus sufficient omega-3 to balance tissues ratios"
Here are a couple of averaged daily dietary intake ratios from the book,
LA=4.8 grams p/d, EPA+DPA+DHA=1.8 grams p/d ( o6:o3 ratio = 2.67:1 )
LA=7.2 grams p/d, EPA+DPA+DHA=2.6 grams p/d ( o6:o3 ratio = 2.77:1 )
I notice that they also included DPA in the examples above ( ... & I have no idea how that may impact things )