1

votes

Too much omega 6?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created October 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I am still trying to figure out this whole Paleo thing and measuring everything I eat.

Today, I started using paleotrack to make sure I am staying under a certain amount of calories a day (I still have a few pounds to lose). Good news is, I am. Bad news is, it is giving me a warning for eating too much omega 6 in comparison to omega 3. I am confused as to why my omega 6 is so high, considering I am following a pretty healthy diet (and what has been recommended to me by my nutricionist).

Today, for example, my meal plan is as follows:

Breakfast: 2 hard boiled eggs (on the smaller side) and a papaya juice freshly made at home, sugar free

Lunch: 150 grams of chicken, grilled with some onions,mushrooms & spinach sauteed on the side

Dinner: Tuna fish (a can), and a lettuce, tomato, celery, cucumber, artichoke salad with just some lime juice and salt

Any recommendations to boost up my omega 3? Or cut down my omega 6?

Thanks in advance!

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:49 AM

So...from that quote it looks like you might be able to interpret his recommendation as O6 to 3.2% of calories, not 0.3% (EPA and DHA are O3's). Also, he said this in the comments: "I’ve changed my view somewhat on omega-6 from natural sources since writing this article. I think it’s somewhat unlikely that n-6 from walnuts would cause harm, and of course nuts and seeds have health benefits".

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:43 AM

It's a very un-Kresser-esque post in that there's a shit-ton of math involved. His recommendation is in the last paragraph. JERF gets you 90% of where you need to be.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:43 AM

"Chris Kresser recommends that O-6 be no more than 0.3% of calories"...is that correct, i could not find that. the only mention i could see on 0.3 % was about epa & dha (both n3 pufas).

00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:18 AM

I don't think I misread the post. Here's the context for the 2% figure: "Further reducing intake of n-6 to less than 2% of calories would in turn further reduce the requirement for n-3. But limiting n-6 to less than 2% of calories is difficult to do even when vegetable oils are eliminated entirely." Here's the context for the 0.3% figure: "On the other hand, if we increased our intake of EPA and DHA to the recommended 0.65g/d (0.3% of total calories) and maintained ALA intake at 2.35g/d, but reduced our intake of LA to roughly 7g/d (3.2% of total calories), the ratio would be 2.3:1..."

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:01 AM

GLA & DGLA are sometimes (google away) termed as anti-inflammatory n-6 pufas

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 19, 2012
at 12:22 AM

You misread Chris's recommendation. He suggests less than 2% (5 grams or less on a 2500 calorie diet) which seems overly restrictive. The common mystical "4%" often touted is equally overly restrictive. Real food has PUFAs, healthy PUFAs.

76211ec5301087de2588cfe3d6bccba9

(1178)

on October 18, 2012
at 10:22 PM

the OP said she is getting too many 06. 06 is by its nature inflammatory as opposed to anti-inflammatory. if an ideal ration of 3:6 is 1:1 and that ratio is virtually impossible to achieve with today's modern foods, then it makes sense why the OP would want to lower 06

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:56 PM

^Wrong. They're inflammatory AFTER A CERTAIN POINT. If you eat .0000001 grams of linoleic acid (omega 6) your body won't magically get inflammation. In fact, it might do the opposite.

76211ec5301087de2588cfe3d6bccba9

(1178)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:14 PM

omega 6 fatty acids are inflammatory.

58908e2a5be1d634e49c97da9f2558ce

(185)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:13 PM

Really, I don't WANT to lower it. But like I said, the site is giving me some warnings (which threw me off) about it and was wondering if I am doing something wrong. My ratio was pretty unproportional for what is recommended. I am no expert in this, just started about a month ago...just looking for input.

58908e2a5be1d634e49c97da9f2558ce

(185)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:12 PM

Really, I don't WANT to lower it. But like I said, the sight is giving me some warnings (which threw me off) about it and was wondering if I am doing something wrong. My ratio was pretty unproportional for what is recommended. I am no expert in this, just started about a month ago...just looking for input.

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:04 PM

Omega-6s are ESSENTIAL fatty acids. Why do you want to lower your consumption of healthy o6s if you're eating all whole, real foods?

  • 58908e2a5be1d634e49c97da9f2558ce

    asked by

    (185)
  • Views
    2.9K
  • Last Activity
    1430D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

6 Answers

3
76211ec5301087de2588cfe3d6bccba9

(1178)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:15 PM

eat grassfed beef instead of chicken and a can of sardines instead of tuna. voila

3
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 18, 2012
at 08:07 PM

First, I think paleotrack is too conservative for O6.

Second, there is not a consensus on what is most important, O3:O6 ratio or magnitude of O3 (i.e. total grams in).

Sorry, but the answer is we don't know!

2
235b077872243d4ee5796c6ace3c0970

on October 18, 2012
at 08:17 PM

Instead of tuna, try wild Alaskan salmon occasionally to boost your O3s.

Instead of chicken, try some grass-fed red meat to decrease your O6s.

1
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 18, 2012
at 10:24 PM

I don't see any reason to fret over PUFAs or your ratio. I can't imagine your ratio is much higher than 4-6:1 O6:O3, perfectly fine, particularly when coming from whole foods instead of food isolates. Total PUFA might be a tad high for some folks, but those folks also think grass-fed beef is a good source of O3s (it's not). The total PUFA numbers I see tossed around make little sense evolutionarily.

Heck, your diet seems low in total fat, and I'm not one whose default answer is eat more fat.

0
7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

on October 19, 2012
at 12:30 AM

“The main dietary PUFAs, omega-3 fat and omega-6 fat, are considered essential because they can’t be metabolized by the body and they need to be obtained from food. This could also suggest that they aren’t all that important because the most important macro nutrients like glucose, monounsaturated fat and saturated fat can be metabolized by the body when there is a need. Moreover, PUFA deficiencies are extremely rare and could only be reproduced in humans at the time when complete parenteral nutrition didn’t contain any PUFAs.”

and

“A good rule of thumb would be to consume no more than 4% of your calories as Omega-6 fat and around as much Omega-3 fat. Practically, this means cutting off all vegetable oils except coconut oil, olive oil and palm oil, cooking with low PUFA oils and fats like clarified butter, coconut oil and tallow and eating only limited amounts of the nuts that are high in Omega-6 fat. With this strategy, a pound of fresh fatty fish per week is enough to balance out the Omega-6 consumption.”

Source: http://paleodietlifestyle.com/many-dangers-of-excess-pufa-consumption/

0
00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on October 18, 2012
at 10:57 PM

Chris Kresser recommends that O-6 be no more than 0.3% of calories and a 2.3:1 O6:O3 ratio. Bill Harris, OTOH, recommends that O6 be 5 – 10 % of calories, because some O6 fats also have *anti-*inflammatory properties, and makes no recommendations (that I've found) on the O6:O3 ratio. My favorite lipid researcher, Chris Masterjohn, notes that prior to the 1930's, which marked the beginning of both higher O6 intake and rapid increases in heart disease, Americans consumed about 15g of O6 fat/day.

The 150g of chicken at lunch is the biggest source of O6 fat in your daily meals. Eggs are a good source of choline, so I think it's worth the tradeoff for their O6, though you might want to eat them every other day, just for variety. (BTW- how do you make sugar-free papaya juice at home?)

If you can, adjust your target amount of O6 in Paleotrack (I've never used the tool).

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:43 AM

"Chris Kresser recommends that O-6 be no more than 0.3% of calories"...is that correct, i could not find that. the only mention i could see on 0.3 % was about epa & dha (both n3 pufas).

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:43 AM

It's a very un-Kresser-esque post in that there's a shit-ton of math involved. His recommendation is in the last paragraph. JERF gets you 90% of where you need to be.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 19, 2012
at 12:22 AM

You misread Chris's recommendation. He suggests less than 2% (5 grams or less on a 2500 calorie diet) which seems overly restrictive. The common mystical "4%" often touted is equally overly restrictive. Real food has PUFAs, healthy PUFAs.

00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:18 AM

I don't think I misread the post. Here's the context for the 2% figure: "Further reducing intake of n-6 to less than 2% of calories would in turn further reduce the requirement for n-3. But limiting n-6 to less than 2% of calories is difficult to do even when vegetable oils are eliminated entirely." Here's the context for the 0.3% figure: "On the other hand, if we increased our intake of EPA and DHA to the recommended 0.65g/d (0.3% of total calories) and maintained ALA intake at 2.35g/d, but reduced our intake of LA to roughly 7g/d (3.2% of total calories), the ratio would be 2.3:1..."

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 19, 2012
at 01:49 AM

So...from that quote it looks like you might be able to interpret his recommendation as O6 to 3.2% of calories, not 0.3% (EPA and DHA are O3's). Also, he said this in the comments: "I’ve changed my view somewhat on omega-6 from natural sources since writing this article. I think it’s somewhat unlikely that n-6 from walnuts would cause harm, and of course nuts and seeds have health benefits".

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!