Question on HUFA graph
Mark points to this graph
in several posts. The implication being that we should strive for a lower percentage of Omega 6 in our food - and a good Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio of 1:1.
If I look at the worst case, say USA, the CHD mortality per 100,000 is 200. That is 0.2%. Why worry about a 0.2% risk? Is it worth the effort to reduce it to a 0.1% risk? I would probably improve my longevity more by taking better care when crossing the road.
It's not just CHD/CAD that Omega 6: Omega 3 affects. You're only looking at a small part of the picture.
Absolutely, I'm just trying to reconcile this graph with other data. For one the graph doesn't say the time period. Is it CHD mortality per 100,000 per year or what?
Originally Posted by lolov
List of causes of death by rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually I think I figured it out for myself. % of all cause death per 100,000 per year is 0.916%, so 0.1% absolute reduction is significant. 29.34% of deaths per year is from cardiovascular diseases. We all die of something eventually, so the graph is probably per year.
Dying isn't the only way to lose the game either. Living with chronic illness, injury, and inflammation aren't much better alternatives either, especially when the solution might be nothing more than taking care of your omega 6-3 ratio.