confused about fats page

[gn]

so, reading this blog / forum as well as other sources of primal / paleo communuity, one gets the idea that in terms of either health or weight / body fat management fats, including saturated fats, are not evil as they are sometimes portrayed by conventional nutritional science and CW


fats are classiffied into various groups: saturated / unsaturated, of which the latter has two types - monounsaturated and polyunsaturated, of which the latter, in its turn, has omega-3 / omega-6 / omega-9


so, the basis of primal / paleo nutritional advice is that saturated fat is good, MUFA is good, PUFA is bad, make sure you get plenty of omega-3


but omega-3 is PUFA!


so, what i want to know is what should be a priority: sat.fat or o-3?

for example, how should we think about palm oil - according to nutritiondata, 100 grams of it has 49.3 g. of sat fat, 37 g. of MUFA and 9.3 g. of PUFA (i wonder, what constitutes the remaining 4.4 g.) - so, it is "good"; but on the other hand, its o-3 / o-6 ratio is 1 / 45.5 - so, it is "bad" (and coconut oil has no o-3 at all)


on the other hand, cod liver oil has equal SFA - PUFA ratio (a lot of PUFA!) but 21.1 / 1 of o-3 / o-6 ratio

[grandma]

PUFAs are not bad, in fact they are necessary for life. However there is growing evidence that too much too much n-6 is bad for you. The ratio is not as important as total values -- I have gotten stuck in this trap too. If the values are small, then you can balance it with fish oil.


This is a good practical guide:


http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...mega-fats.html