Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: confused about fats page

  1. #1
    gn's Avatar
    gn is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009


    Shop Now

    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

  2. #2
    grandma's Avatar
    grandma is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification

    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:

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

Posting Permissions

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