No announcement yet.

Nuts are very good for heart health!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46

    Heart disease is rampant in India. Urban Indian population has a O3:O6 ration of 1:36, amongst the highest in the world. Until the early 80s people ate traditional fats, but now everyone uses "heart-healthy, no-cholesterol/cholesterol-lowering" refined seed oils. Combine that with a high carb diet and the country is a CVD epidemic waiting to happen.


    • #47

      So, CW is killing everyone except us primals, then.


      • #48

        The links to the papers are in the blog, but I'll copy them here for you.


        Allow me to explain. These lines are based on values predicted by a formula developed by Dr. Lands that determines the proportion of omega-6 in tissue HUFA (highly unsaturated fatty acids; includes 20- to 22-carbon omega-6 and omega-3 fats), based on dietary intake of omega-6 and omega-3 fats. This formula seems to be quite accurate, and has been validated both in rodents and humans. As a tissue&#39;s arachidonic acid content increases, its EPA and DHA content decreases proportionally.</blockquote>

        Yes, some of the data are based on a predictive model that has been validated. Stephane appears to be a straight shooter.

        If you would like to get a test for you n-6/n-3 ratio of your red blood cells (I don&#39;t know if that is the same test from the study), it is available:

        I&#39;m done now. We are still in "violent agreement". Take your Fish Oil, Eat some nuts, be happy.

        It's grandma, but you can call me sir.


        • #49

          Sir Grandma and erik.cisler,

          Thanks for bringing up that post by wholehealthsource.

          I had read it before, but I didn&#39;t really *get* it until I re-read it.

          I didn&#39;t really conceptualize the whole 4% thing.

          Happy Wednesday!



          • #50

            OK, look what I just found. I have no idea at all what this means, but it is definitely weird to say the least.

            On that "track your plaque" page it gives all this info by William Harris about how this ratio is important. This is in 2008.


            Now if you look at this AHA review from 2009 (I know, IMO, they are a biased organization, but anyway) it says that William S. Harris is the chair of the study, and it says that Omega 6&#39;s are good for heart health and should make up 5-10% of your daily intake of calories.


            I don&#39;t know if it is the same guy, and I guess William Harris is a somewhat common name, but what are the chances of two guys with the same name studying basically the same exact thing.

            I don&#39;t really know what to make of this. I want to figure out if its the same guy. Also I would be interested in figuring out if any of these guys get any kickback from that track your plaque thing selling for 150 bucks.

            OK, I looked, and it is definitely the same guy. Check this site out. It says that Harris is William S. Harris and that he is the developer of the Omega 3 index, which is talked about in the track your plaque page. Looks like the guy has had a change of heart. Here is the link, his name is in the first bullet point near the bottom of the page. Looks like he thought omega 6&#39;s were bad, but then changed his mind when he looked at all the evidence. Unless the AHA paid him off...which I guess is possible but quite the conspiracy theory.



            • #51


              If you go through the post referenced above:


              (It&#39;s a little confusing, I didn&#39;t get it the first time.)

              But he goes over why studies don&#39;t show any ill effects of Omega 6 any longer, and why they did before 1960. (or around that time.)

              Basically anything above 4% of your diet (if not balanced by omega 3s) will be the same for heart health.

              So you could eat 4%, or 40% and it would do the same damage.

              So if you&#39;re doing a study on the effects of 5%-10% of your diet with Omega 6... Then you&#39;re already over the 4%, and you&#39;d likely see no difference, and therefore conclude that Omega 6 is not bad.

              That&#39;s my theory on the study you just posted.


              P.S. Also part of their evidence for "omega 6 is good" comes from this quote:

              "observational trials provide evidence that replacing saturated fatty acid or refined carbohydrate (eg, sugars, white bread, white rice, potatoes) with omega-6 PUFAs reduces CHD risk."

              Of course reducing sugars, white bread, etc could have a positive impact on heart health. We have good evidence that especially sugar converts to triglycerides in your liver therefore increasing risk of heart disease. So even if you take out sugar and replace it with almost *anything* you&#39;ll likely get similar results. They just happened to use O-6 in this paper.



              • #52

                Sean, I went back over that link. It is interesting for sure. I&#39;m going to go through those links that Stephan gave for the early trials that said omega 6&#39;s were causing death. First of all, in the first study he mentions (rose et al), they had 3 groups. A corn oil group, an olive oil group, and a control group. Who do you really think is going to win out here? Olive oil has been basically proven to be heart healthy. Both the olive oil and corn oil groups were asked to lower their animal fat intake as well.

                Two years after the study, infraction or death occurred in 1/4 more people in the corn oil group than in the control group. This wasn&#39;t even statistically significant...but it approached it. Also, the whole group was in the study was only 80. so that means less than 30 per group. It was a very small study and it didn&#39;t really show much. The decrease in heart health (not even a significant one) could have also been due the fact that the corn oil group limited their animal fat intake while the control did not. Either way, it is such a small study and it is pretty short term. It isn&#39;t the evidence that stephen claims it is to say the least.

                Unfortunately I cannot find the anti coronary study, but once again it is replacing animal fats for omega 6&#39;s. You could say it is the n-6 or you could say it is the reduction in animal fat. From the study you cannot tell one way or the other.

                And as for the lyon diet heart study, that stephen says proves his point...well to be blunt, it doesn&#39;t. It just shows that a Mediterranean diet is heart healthy. Stephen says this must be because of the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio, but this is just as valid as saying it is because of the reduced total cholesterol. Honestly, I feel like this guy is reaching to prove this point, and the only researcher that seems to be supporting this is WE Lands. Practically every study that says this ratio is important, Lands is involved with.

                To be honest I am pretty skeptical of the whole thing and I think for the most part it is nonsense. And to be honest the great majority of the medical community, researchers, and evidence in general agrees with me.

                Also, just check out this quote from stephen about the lyon diet heart study.

                "So what&#39;s left that&#39;s unique about the Lyon trial? It was the only trial to dramatically reduce omega-6 consumption, to below 4% of calories, while increasing omega-3 consumption from plant and seafood sources. In my opinion, that combination is the only plausible explanation for the large reduction in heart attacks and total mortality. "

                This is completely his opinion. It is based on nothing really other than his opinion. It has no statistical evidence to back it up. This is just what he thinks. I haven&#39;t read the lyon diet heart study, but I can guess that the omega 3:6 ratio is not even brought up once in the whole thing. In my opinion, the mediteranean diet is heart healthy because of the large amounts fruit, vegetables, and olive oil. And to be honest, most of the evidence points to this as well. I&#39;m not buying Stephen&#39;s argument.


                • #53


                  We could argue both ways all day. And even with better data, I&#39;m sure we could argue.

                  That being said... hey, give it a shot, bump up your Omega 6 and don&#39;t balance it with Omega 3.

                  You&#39;re free to do what you like.

                  Personally, I think there&#39;s enough anecdotal evidence, and also just looking at populations such as the USA compared to France, Japan, hunter gatherer type cultures, etc.

                  It doesn&#39;t hurt me much at all to pick less omega-6 fats, and go for "better" choices. (Such as olive oil which I believe is proven better for your heart because it&#39;s *not* omega-6, and when you use olive oil, you usually replace your corn oil, safflower oil, etc with it therefore reducing your total omega-6 intake. And thus you end up healthier.)




                  • #54

                    bobby, you sure are a pit bull.

                    Stephan, despite your reasonable criticisms, is probably one of the most intelligent, educated, in the field bloggers out there. No one bats 1000, but he&#39;s as good as it gets, I think.

                    I&#39;d bet that the "pro n-6" researchers had grants from, oh, Cargill, ADM, etc. Like Keyes did, I&#39;ve heard (no seen proof.) They damned well know what their grain oils are full of.

                    No one here has said don&#39;t eat nuts. Many of us have suggested that 25% of calories is a "bit" much. As Sean has said, do what you want. But I think you know no one hear agrees with you. That&#39;s fine. And keep taking that O-3!


                    • #55

                      Sean, I&#39;m just trying to say that I don&#39;t think the ratio is all that important. Basically, I just want to eat my almonds in peace. The only oils I use are homemade ghee for frying (and even still I keep it at a low temperature so the fats do not break down) and olive oil to put on my already made vegetables. I also eat 1.5 grams of dha/epa every day in 5 fish oil pills. I don&#39;t use any oils that are mainly n-6, nor do I plan to in the future. Basically I am just saying that this ratio is not that important when you are eating things like nuts and olive oils with bad ratios. Basically I just think highly processed vegetable oils should not be consumed, and if you are eating primal, your ratio doesn&#39;t matter that much.

                      I am now going to eat my almonds feeling guilt free, and I hope everyone else does as well.


                      • #56

                        OK, to just clarify, my MAIN point is that there is no reason to avoid a healthy amount of nuts and olive oil due to their o3:6 ratio. Also, even if corn oil and other processed oils do not cause harm (which I still believe they probably do) there are better healthier alternatives to use instead. I am not supporting going out and buying corn oil, but I am supporting not avoiding things that fit into the primal blueprint that do not have an "optimal" o3:6 ratio. And to close with a corny pun, go nuts...actually 2 puns in that one.


                        • #57


                          I&#39;m totally not arguing with you about nuts.

                          I think they&#39;re great, and personally I eat quite a bit of macadamia, almonds and cashews.

                          Pretty much every day.

                          But I don&#39;t think people should ignore the O-6 to O-3 ratio, and I don&#39;t think you should go buck wild with Omega 6&#39;s.

                          Personally, I eat my almonds, macadamias and cashews in peace. Why shouldn&#39;t you?




                          • #58

                            So what&#39;s the verdict? Can I eat my almonds without the guilt?


                            • #59

                              Hey look everybody!

                              Grade 5 Math suggests that everybody is right.

                              If 2400 calories are consumed and only up to 4% n6 can do damage then:

                              2400 * .04 = 96

                              Wow... 96 whole calories at 9 cal per gram then:

                              96 / 9 = 10.6

                              So 11 g of n6 does max damage.

                              What I get from this is that for every tiny amount of n3 you get you are drastically reducing the damage of n6.

                              1g of n3 11:1

                              2g of n3 5.5:1

                              3g of n3 3.6:1

                              4g of n3 2.75:1

                              So sure, the ratios make a difference.

                              Also, nuts are not bad at all since you are probably consuming more than 11g of n6 before you even put nuts in your mouth.

                              Go ahead eat 25% of your cal from nuts. Max damage is accumulated already. Just make sure you get your n3 to reverse it.

                              As JamieBelle likes to point out it&#39;s not Rocket Surgery.

                              Now if only my grammer and spelling where at the Grade 5 level...

                              Don't be a paleotard...






                              • #60

                                Just wanted to say that William S. Harris is a knowledgeable doctor and author who helped lot of people to regain health and curtail their risk of IHD

                                A fan of low carb eating and detractor of wheat he seems to know what he talks about.