Nuts are very good for heart health!
(66 posts) (17 voices)-
OnTheBayou
MemberNot wishing to get deeper into the quicksand, I'll just say this:
1. bobby, you never said anything about consuming large does of fish oil with your nuts, uh, your almonds.
2. The matter of the Israeli Jews and their diet is well documented.
3. N-6 is n-6.
4. As Jess and Erik say, and I did, it's in the HOW MUCH. Twenty five percent or the mythical average 2000 calories a day from nuts is a lot.
5. Sean, I understand what you are saying, see #4.
Oh, bobby, I really, really appreciate your presence here. You are a good researcher.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
erik.cisler
MemberAccording to Stephan from Whole Health Source, serum AA production maxes out at 4% of calories from linoleic acid. Anything in excess of 4%, then, is harmless; the damage is already done. That's why studies on modern populations often show no harm from increasing Omega 6, because they're way past the 4%. If you drop linoleic acid to sub-4% of diet, you'll see improvements.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
erik.cisler
MemberThis should clear things up: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Sir Grandma
MemberLook at the blog, it is very convincing.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html
It basically says that the amount of n-6 in your tissue does not increase significantly with dietary increase above 4% (with no n-3 intake). It also says that increasing your n-3 intake decreases the amount of N-6 in your tissue.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-disease.html
And this one says that the amount of n-6 in your tissue is directly proportional to your CHD mortality risk.
I think this is inline with your studies and we are in "violent agreement" except on what this means for nuts.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberIn those links I just see a whole lot of graphs without accompanying studies. I have no idea how these graphs were developed. If these links had the studies that went with them (presuming that there even were studies that went with them) I think I would take a closer look. I am just wondering how they got all of this data, because the test for omega 6 hufa in tissue is so uncommon that I wouldn't be surprised if these graphs were just estimated. Basically if they were just fabricated. To be honest, that one graph looks just as convincing as the 7 country study done by keys...and we know how that turned out.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
eva
Membero-6=inflammatory
o-3=antiinflammatory
but nuts are probably the least of our problemmakers as it comes to o-6 consumption and their benefits could outweigh their negatives. What we should be conserned about are the main o-6 contributors- seedoils. if you have elliminated these then i think you can afford a few nuts :)Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberI do stay away from processed seed oils. As of right now the only oils I eat are olive oil on my steamed veggies and ghee when I am cooking eggs or meat. But to be honest I don't think that the link between heart disease and omega 6 is clear. As for those graphs, they would make you think that this ratio was the only important indicator for CHD when we know that is not the case. I would rather be ingesting corn oil than 200+ grams of highly refined carbs that most westerners ingest on a daily basis.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
OnTheBayou
MemberI know this is rather cursory:
]"2. Israeli ParadoxHave you heard of the Israeli Paradox, which is less known but may be is more important?
The Israeli Paradox is the fact that Jewish Israelis have very high rates of heart disease and diabetes in spite of a diet low in total fat, saturated fat, and high in polyunsaturated fats (the supposedly “good”fats). According to the current conception, polyunsaturated fats contained in vegetable seed oils are supposed to lower the risk of heart disease. Yet, high consumption of these oils doesn’t seem to have prevented the Israelis from dying from heart attacks.
Researchers suggest that the explanation for this paradox is Israel’s high intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (mainly from soybean oil), the predominant essential fat in soybean, safflower, and corn oils.
Israel has one of the highest dietary polyunsaturated/saturated fat ratios in the world. The consumption of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids is about 8% higher than in the USA, and 10-12% higher than in most European countries. In fact, Israeli Jews may be regarded as a population-based dietary experiment of the effect of a high omega-6 fats diet, a diet that until recently was widely recommended. Despite such national habits, there is paradoxically high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and obesity[1]. There is also an increased cancer incidence and mortality rate, especially in women, compared with western countries. Thus, rather than being beneficial, high omega-6 fatty acids diet may have some long-term harmful effects.
Non-Jewish Israeli citizens have rates of heart disease and diabetes roughly half the Jewish rate. The non-Jews consume lots of olive oil (low in omega-6) rather than soybean oil."
1. Yam D, Eliraz A, Berry EM. Diet and disease–the Israeli paradox: possible dangers of a high omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid diet. Isr J Med Sci. 1996 Nov;32(11):1134-43. PubMed
http://www.homefitnessbody.com/blog/health-paradoxes-around-the-world/
Nine other health paradoxes there, too.
I think a fair assessment is that you can't avoid n-6 fatty acids, but you should as much as reasonably possible. For about the 43rd time mentioned here, all things (nuts) in moderation. Well, except nice, fatty meat!
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
PrimalK
MemberSpeaking from a position of knowledge gained from the inside, I would suspect that Jewish Israeli health also has a lot to do with the very high carb diet, not just omega ratios etc.
Luckily, I'm not Israeli. But having to suddenly give up the gluten and dairy based food due to food intolerances served at celebratory meals (last week it was a bris) then it does reduce the available food somewhat. To fruit (a no no for me), salmon and some salad veg.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
maba
MemberHeart disease is rampant in India. Urban Indian population has a O3:O6 ration of 1:36, amongst the highest in the world. Until the early 80s people ate traditional fats, but now everyone uses "heart-healthy, no-cholesterol/cholesterol-lowering" refined seed oils. Combine that with a high carb diet and the country is a CVD epidemic waiting to happen.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Sir Grandma
MemberThe links to the papers are in the blog, but I'll copy them here for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592205
Allow me to explain. These lines are based on values predicted by a formula developed by Dr. Lands that determines the proportion of omega-6 in tissue HUFA (highly unsaturated fatty acids; includes 20- to 22-carbon omega-6 and omega-3 fats), based on dietary intake of omega-6 and omega-3 fats. This formula seems to be quite accurate, and has been validated both in rodents and humans. As a tissue's arachidonic acid content increases, its EPA and DHA content decreases proportionally.
Yes, some of the data are based on a predictive model that has been validated. Stephane appears to be a straight shooter.
If you would like to get a test for you n-6/n-3 ratio of your red blood cells (I don't know if that is the same test from the study), it is available:
http://typ.trackyourplaque.com/products/Default.aspx?pid=9
I'm done now. We are still in "violent agreement". Take your Fish Oil, Eat some nuts, be happy.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Sir Grandma and erik.cisler,
Thanks for bringing up that post by wholehealthsource.
I had read it before, but I didn't really *get* it until I re-read it.
I didn't really conceptualize the whole 4% thing.
Happy Wednesday!
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberOK, look what I just found. I have no idea at all what this means, but it is definitely weird to say the least.
On that "track your plaque" page it gives all this info by William Harris about how this ratio is important. This is in 2008.
http://typ.trackyourplaque.com/products/Default.aspx?pid=9
Now if you look at this AHA review from 2009 (I know, IMO, they are a biased organization, but anyway) it says that William S. Harris is the chair of the study, and it says that Omega 6's are good for heart health and should make up 5-10% of your daily intake of calories.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/119/6/902
I don't know if it is the same guy, and I guess William Harris is a somewhat common name, but what are the chances of two guys with the same name studying basically the same exact thing.
I don't really know what to make of this. I want to figure out if its the same guy. Also I would be interested in figuring out if any of these guys get any kickback from that track your plaque thing selling for 150 bucks.
OK, I looked, and it is definitely the same guy. Check this site out. It says that Harris is William S. Harris and that he is the developer of the Omega 3 index, which is talked about in the track your plaque page. Looks like the guy has had a change of heart. Here is the link, his name is in the first bullet point near the bottom of the page. Looks like he thought omega 6's were bad, but then changed his mind when he looked at all the evidence. Unless the AHA paid him off...which I guess is possible but quite the conspiracy theory.
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/video_show_item.php?id=75
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
If you go through the post referenced above:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html
(It's a little confusing, I didn't get it the first time.)
But he goes over why studies don't show any ill effects of Omega 6 any longer, and why they did before 1960. (or around that time.)
Basically anything above 4% of your diet (if not balanced by omega 3s) will be the same for heart health.
So you could eat 4%, or 40% and it would do the same damage.
So if you're doing a study on the effects of 5%-10% of your diet with Omega 6... Then you're already over the 4%, and you'd likely see no difference, and therefore conclude that Omega 6 is not bad.
That's my theory on the study you just posted.
-SeanP.S. Also part of their evidence for "omega 6 is good" comes from this quote:
"observational trials provide evidence that replacing saturated fatty acid or refined carbohydrate (eg, sugars, white bread, white rice, potatoes) with omega-6 PUFAs reduces CHD risk."
Of course reducing sugars, white bread, etc could have a positive impact on heart health. We have good evidence that especially sugar converts to triglycerides in your liver therefore increasing risk of heart disease. So even if you take out sugar and replace it with almost *anything* you'll likely get similar results. They just happened to use O-6 in this paper.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberSean, I went back over that link. It is interesting for sure. I'm going to go through those links that Stephan gave for the early trials that said omega 6's were causing death. First of all, in the first study he mentions (rose et al), they had 3 groups. A corn oil group, an olive oil group, and a control group. Who do you really think is going to win out here? Olive oil has been basically proven to be heart healthy. Both the olive oil and corn oil groups were asked to lower their animal fat intake as well.
Two years after the study, infraction or death occurred in 1/4 more people in the corn oil group than in the control group. This wasn't even statistically significant...but it approached it. Also, the whole group was in the study was only 80. so that means less than 30 per group. It was a very small study and it didn't really show much. The decrease in heart health (not even a significant one) could have also been due the fact that the corn oil group limited their animal fat intake while the control did not. Either way, it is such a small study and it is pretty short term. It isn't the evidence that stephen claims it is to say the least.
Unfortunately I cannot find the anti coronary study, but once again it is replacing animal fats for omega 6's. You could say it is the n-6 or you could say it is the reduction in animal fat. From the study you cannot tell one way or the other.
And as for the lyon diet heart study, that stephen says proves his point...well to be blunt, it doesn't. It just shows that a Mediterranean diet is heart healthy. Stephen says this must be because of the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio, but this is just as valid as saying it is because of the reduced total cholesterol. Honestly, I feel like this guy is reaching to prove this point, and the only researcher that seems to be supporting this is WE Lands. Practically every study that says this ratio is important, Lands is involved with.
To be honest I am pretty skeptical of the whole thing and I think for the most part it is nonsense. And to be honest the great majority of the medical community, researchers, and evidence in general agrees with me.
Also, just check out this quote from stephen about the lyon diet heart study.
"So what's left that's unique about the Lyon trial? It was the only trial to dramatically reduce omega-6 consumption, to below 4% of calories, while increasing omega-3 consumption from plant and seafood sources. In my opinion, that combination is the only plausible explanation for the large reduction in heart attacks and total mortality. "
This is completely his opinion. It is based on nothing really other than his opinion. It has no statistical evidence to back it up. This is just what he thinks. I haven't read the lyon diet heart study, but I can guess that the omega 3:6 ratio is not even brought up once in the whole thing. In my opinion, the mediteranean diet is heart healthy because of the large amounts fruit, vegetables, and olive oil. And to be honest, most of the evidence points to this as well. I'm not buying Stephen's argument.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
We could argue both ways all day. And even with better data, I'm sure we could argue.
That being said... hey, give it a shot, bump up your Omega 6 and don't balance it with Omega 3.
You're free to do what you like.
Personally, I think there's enough anecdotal evidence, and also just looking at populations such as the USA compared to France, Japan, hunter gatherer type cultures, etc.
It doesn't hurt me much at all to pick less omega-6 fats, and go for "better" choices. (Such as olive oil which I believe is proven better for your heart because it's *not* omega-6, and when you use olive oil, you usually replace your corn oil, safflower oil, etc with it therefore reducing your total omega-6 intake. And thus you end up healthier.)
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
OnTheBayou
Memberbobby, you sure are a pit bull.
Stephan, despite your reasonable criticisms, is probably one of the most intelligent, educated, in the field bloggers out there. No one bats 1000, but he's as good as it gets, I think.
I'd bet that the "pro n-6" researchers had grants from, oh, Cargill, ADM, etc. Like Keyes did, I've heard (no seen proof.) They damned well know what their grain oils are full of.
No one here has said don't eat nuts. Many of us have suggested that 25% of calories is a "bit" much. As Sean has said, do what you want. But I think you know no one hear agrees with you. That's fine. And keep taking that O-3!
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberSean, I'm just trying to say that I don't think the ratio is all that important. Basically, I just want to eat my almonds in peace. The only oils I use are homemade ghee for frying (and even still I keep it at a low temperature so the fats do not break down) and olive oil to put on my already made vegetables. I also eat 1.5 grams of dha/epa every day in 5 fish oil pills. I don't use any oils that are mainly n-6, nor do I plan to in the future. Basically I am just saying that this ratio is not that important when you are eating things like nuts and olive oils with bad ratios. Basically I just think highly processed vegetable oils should not be consumed, and if you are eating primal, your ratio doesn't matter that much.
I am now going to eat my almonds feeling guilt free, and I hope everyone else does as well.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberOK, to just clarify, my MAIN point is that there is no reason to avoid a healthy amount of nuts and olive oil due to their o3:6 ratio. Also, even if corn oil and other processed oils do not cause harm (which I still believe they probably do) there are better healthier alternatives to use instead. I am not supporting going out and buying corn oil, but I am supporting not avoiding things that fit into the primal blueprint that do not have an "optimal" o3:6 ratio. And to close with a corny pun, go nuts...actually 2 puns in that one.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
I'm totally not arguing with you about nuts.
I think they're great, and personally I eat quite a bit of macadamia, almonds and cashews.
Pretty much every day.
But I don't think people should ignore the O-6 to O-3 ratio, and I don't think you should go buck wild with Omega 6's.
Personally, I eat my almonds, macadamias and cashews in peace. Why shouldn't you? :)
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
chima_p
MemberHey look everybody!
Grade 5 Math suggests that everybody is right.
If 2400 calories are consumed and only up to 4% n6 can do damage then:
2400 * .04 = 96
Wow... 96 whole calories at 9 cal per gram then:
96 / 9 = 10.6
So 11 g of n6 does max damage.
What I get from this is that for every tiny amount of n3 you get you are drastically reducing the damage of n6.
1g of n3 11:1
2g of n3 5.5:1
3g of n3 3.6:1
4g of n3 2.75:1So sure, the ratios make a difference.
Also, nuts are not bad at all since you are probably consuming more than 11g of n6 before you even put nuts in your mouth.
Go ahead eat 25% of your cal from nuts. Max damage is accumulated already. Just make sure you get your n3 to reverse it.
As JamieBelle likes to point out it's not Rocket Surgery.
Now if only my grammer and spelling where at the Grade 5 level...
Posted 2 weeks ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.