Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Nuts are very good for heart health! page 3

  1. #21
    bobbylight's Avatar
    bobbylight Guest

    1

    Primal Fuel


    Sir Grandma, here is another guy that did a review on the effects of omega 6 on heart disease. He seems to think otherwise.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17876199?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=3


    Here is another review that suggests that lowering omega 6 intake could cause heart problems


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507020?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4


    Here is a quote from the abstract:


    "Lower linoleic acid content was associated with increased risk for non-fatal events." So this means that people that ate less omega 6 were more likely to have heart attacks or other CHD that did not result in mortality. Well at least they didn't die, right?


  2. #22
    bobbylight's Avatar
    bobbylight Guest

    1



    Here is another study about the omega 3 and omega 6 relation.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630029?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=9


    A quote from the study:


    "For example, men with > or = median long-chain n-3 PUFA intake (> or =250 mg/d) had a reduced risk of sudden death whether n-6 PUFA intake was below (<11.2 g/d; hazard ratio [HR]=0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.34 to 0.79) or above (> or =11.2 g/d; HR=0.60; 95% CI=0.39 to 0.93) the median compared with men with a < median intake of both."


    So this is suggesting that if you are eating more omega 3&#39;s it will is related to heart health even if you are eating more than average omega 6&#39;s. This seems to make sense.


    And for the conclusion in the abstract:


    "CONCLUSIONS: n-3 PUFAs from both seafood and plant sources may reduce CHD risk, with little apparent influence from background n-6 PUFA intake. Plant-based n-3 PUFAs may particularly reduce CHD risk when seafood-based n-3 PUFA intake is low, which has implications for populations with low consumption or availability of fatty fish."


  3. #23
    grandma's Avatar
    grandma is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    64

    1



    http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/circulationaha;109/13/1609


    This one is interesting too, it says that ALA is better for you than MUFA.

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

  4. #24
    bobbylight's Avatar
    bobbylight Guest

    1



    Sir Grandma, you said "I&#39;m not sure where the emotion came from for this thread, I thought nuts were on the good list? "


    I have read a lot of these forums recently and a lot of people are saying cut out the nuts or keep the nuts to a bare minimum because of the omega 3:6 ratio. I just think that this isn&#39;t smart because there is a ton of evidence that people that eat nuts are much less likely to develop CHD. You could claim that every person that eats nuts are living healthier lifestyles, but that is a huge assumption to make.


  5. #25
    SeanBissell's Avatar
    SeanBissell is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    26

    1



    bobbylight,


    I don&#39;t have time to go through all your examples. But in the last one you gave... Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630029?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=9


    They only compare people who take 250mg of Omega 3 and then those who take 11.2g of Omega 6.


    And then they just blanket state that whatever range between greater than or equal to 250mg and less than or equal to 11.2g there was no difference.


    That&#39;s a HUGE amount of distance between 250mg and 11.2 GRAMS a day.


    Where were people in the middle? I don&#39;t think you can just say that *anywhere* in between there there is no change... That&#39;s way to big of a range.


    That could include people who have a ratio of 1:44 to 1:1, or lower.


    My guess is that they didn&#39;t even have anyone who ate close to the "recommended" 1:4 or lower ratio.


    So *any* increase in Omega 3 would bring them closer, and therefore decrease their likelihood of heart disease.


    Not the best study to use in supporting that a ratio *doesn&#39;t* matter.


    I have similar issues with the other studies, but don&#39;t want to type all day...

    -Sean


  6. #26
    bobbylight's Avatar
    bobbylight Guest

    1



    Sean, what you are not seeing is the fact that an increase of omega 3&#39;s being equal to or above 250mg per day (which is a tiny amount) correlated with better heart health regardless (both higher or lower than 11.2 grams) of omega 6 intake compared to men that had less than the average of both.


    If the ratio was so important, people that ate equal to or more omega 3&#39;s would not see a benefit if they were eating more omega 6&#39;s as well. Right? Well this study states that this is not the case. If the ratio was so important there would be a direct correlation between the people eating the most omega 6 and heart disease, but that is not the case. The correlation is between omega 3 and prevention of heart disease, regardless of omega 6 consumption. I don&#39;t see how this does not hurt the argument for the ratio being so important.


    Judging from your post I will guess that you missed the fact that the people that ate equal to or more omega 3&#39;s AND ate more than average omega 6&#39;s reduced their risk of heart disease as well.


  7. #27
    SeanBissell's Avatar
    SeanBissell is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    26

    1



    bobbylight,


    You state this:


    "If the ratio was so important, people that ate equal to or more omega 3&#39;s would not see a benefit if they were eating more omega 6&#39;s as well."


    But they didn&#39;t actually have any data on anyone who actually ate close to "equal or more omega 3&#39;s" they just had a range of 1:44 to 1:0.


    It states it in the study with these remarks:


    n-3 PUFA intake (> or =250 mg/d) PUFA intake was below (<11.2 g/d) or above (> or =11.2 g/d)


    Actually come to think of it, they only compared those people who had a ratio of 1:44 or below, to those who had 1:44 and above.(At the extreme limits)


    I&#39;m sure there were people in the middle, but... they don&#39;t talk about those.


    So what is this study really comparing?


    All I can figure out is that an increase in O-3 would be helpful to *anyone* in this study, because their ratios are so out of whack anyhow that any increase in O-3 would probably bring them closer to a good ratio.

    -Sean


  8. #28
    Niklas's Avatar
    Niklas Guest

    1



    The typical ratio of the average SAD eater is 20:1 n6 to n3. But even a diet with lot of nuts and enough omega-3 would at most lead to a ratio of 7:1


  9. #29
    bobbylight's Avatar
    bobbylight Guest

    1



    I sent a question to mark about this yesterday. I said that I was eating up to 500 calories worth of almonds a day and I was eating 5 (120/180) fish oil pills a day, and was wondering if I should tone back my almond intake for fear of a bad ratio. This was his (speedy) response:


    With the fish oil supplements you&#39;re taking, you should be fine with the hefty amount of almonds. While 1:1 is an excellent ratio, the problems really start with a diet that is all but void in omega 3&#39;s.


  10. #30
    SeanBissell's Avatar
    SeanBissell is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    26

    1



    bobbylight,


    While I do think you should pay attention to your omega 3 to 6 ratio, I don&#39;t think 500 calories a day of almonds is going to hurt you.


    That&#39;s only about 10 grams of O-6.


    If you have 2 grams of 0-3, then you&#39;ve got a 1:5 ratio right there.


    Not anywhere near the 1:20, or 1:44 (as in the study you cited above.)


    The real problem is when people start using cooking oils, and packaged foods, fast food, etc, that has huge amounts of O-6, and they don&#39;t balance it with any O-3. (And that happens more than you&#39;d think.)


    My 2 cents,

    -Sean


Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •