I have looked through MDA and these forums quite a bit. I would like to argue the point that nuts are good for you even after messing up the omega 3:6 ratio. First of all, I have yet to find any conclusive evidence that this ratio is as important as many sources claim. I understand the rationale that we evolved eating a certain ratio, so this is best. But to be honest our estimates of grok's 3:6 ratio is just hearsay. Anyway, if anyone has any conclusive studies stating the importance of this ratio to heart health (or health in general) please prove me wrong. The only thing I have found is someone looking at a study and guessing that positive results came from improving this ratio. I might not have looked hard enough though. So please prove me wrong.
One thing that is VERY well documented is nuts being heart healthy. First let us look at worker bee's post on almonds. It is extremely pro almond. Also, just to clarify, this post was made after Mark's own "guide to fats" where he first (first to my knowledge at least) addressed the issue of the omega 3:6 ratio. Also, on a side note, in Mark's own primal blueprint sample menu, he ate a serving of almonds and states "If I’m hungry mid to late afternoon and dinner looks to be a ways off I’ll often grab a handful of nuts. Macadamias, walnuts and pine nuts are great, but I usually reach for almonds." Anyway here is the article on almonds.
But there is a TON of research basically proving that nuts are great for heart health. Some researchers at Mcmaster University did a systematic review on the causes of heart disease. Anyway, here is a link to the abstract.
I unfortunately cannot access the full version, but Dr Briffa did and analyzed it. Here is a link to that.
According to Dr. Briffa "Of all of these factors, the ones that fulfilled 4 Bradford Hill criteria (i.e. those where there was most evidence of cause-and-effect) were:
Trans-fatty acid consumption
Consumption of foods of high GI or GL"
Obviously the trans fats and high GI or GL foods caused it, and vegetable consumption, mediterranean diet, and nut consumption prevented it.
The only factors that were shown to be effective in randomized studies were
"Adherence to a ‘Mediterranean’ type of diet
Increased intake of marine (fish and seafood derived) omega-3 fat "
So in randomized studies omega 3's show heart health benefits. You could say "Well this is because it gives a better omega 3 to omega 6 ratio." Or, what most people would say, is that it is just that omega 3's are heart healthy and adding them to your diet is good for heart health, regardless of omega 6 intake.
Anyway, it is an interesting review and study, and if anyone could get the whole thing and send it my way it would be greatly appreciated.
Anyway, nuts were one of the three factors that were most associated with reduced rate of heart disease. I could go through and post some of the studies that this review looked at, but I don't even think there is much of a need to do so.
So the question is, if the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 is so important for heart health, why are nuts that are raising the ratio proven to be heart healthy. Actually I challenge any of you to find me a study that suggests nuts are correlated with the onset of heart disease. I can almost guarantee that you cannot fine one.
Basically, what I am saying is that this is a website dedicated to beliefs based on science and reviewing studies. So why is everyone telling people to stop eating nuts due to the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio when nuts are basically proven to be beneficial to heart health? Nuts are extremely well researched where as the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio is not. Also Mark eats nuts and agrees they are part of a healthy diet.
Basically, I challenge any of you to prove to me that the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio is associated with heart disease through studies (I don't doubt that people will do this to be honest). But the main challenge is then showing that this heart risk outweighs the HUGE PROVEN heart benefit of eating nuts.