# Saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated fats, etc..



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

I must confess to being confused on ideal fat intake. I'm not referring to the amount of total fats, which is of course very dependant on diet philosophy and individual response to diet. What I really mean is the ideal ratio - if it exists - of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. This is of course further complicated in that there are also MCTs (which I believe are a type of saturated fat) and omega 3/6 (polyunsaturated). @dtlv suggests avoiding saturated fats (as well as hydrogenated and rancid fats) and moving towards mainly monounsaturated fats, whilst keeping in check the omega 3/6 ratio and also consuming MCTs. @hackskii on the other hand recently suggested to somebody a 33% ratio of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Rather different to what dtlv suggested.

So - what are we supposed to do?

What is the ideal ratio of omega 3/6 and how do we practically achieve this ratio as well as the total daily amount of omega 3 fatty acids?

dtlv goes so far as to suggest considering the three main types of fatty acid to be different macros and thus counted separately. For my part I mainly avoid saturated fats of animal origin, but consume plenty of olive oil (mainly monounsaturated), avocado (also mainly monounsaturated), walnuts (polyunsaturated fats with omega 3), fatty fish (mostly swordfish) and coconut (saturated fats with high % of MCTs). So - am I on the right track here?

I would like to read feedback, especially from the aforementioned moderators who are both very well versed in the science.


----------



## marknorthumbria (Oct 1, 2009)

Wow.

I just see it as much pesto/cashew/evoo/red meat fats I get down me the better haha!


----------



## Talaria (Jun 30, 2011)

me too


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

think saturated is the bad sh!t


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

I think that considering fat intake as the banal total intake of the various fatty acids is misguided, but I'd like to know more hence why I've started this thread. Especially since we have the fortunate of having some extremely clever posters and moderators who will be able to tell us plenty.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_truth_about_saturated_fat


----------



## Big Cat (Apr 4, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> I must confess to being confused on ideal fat intake. I'm not referring to the amount of total fats, which is of course very dependant on diet philosophy and individual response to diet. What I really mean is the ideal ratio - if it exists - of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. This is of course further complicated in that there are also MCTs (which I believe are a type of saturated fat) and omega 3/6 (polyunsaturated). @dtlv suggests avoiding saturated fats (as well as hydrogenated and rancid fats) and moving towards mainly monounsaturated fats, whilst keeping in check the omega 3/6 ratio and also consuming MCTs. @hackskii on the other hand recently suggested to somebody a 33% ratio of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Rather different to what dtlv suggested.
> 
> So - what are we supposed to do?
> 
> ...


Ratio of n3/n6 is 1:2 to 1:10 depending on which source you believe. The 1:10 is actually what the WHO recommends, but its the only one to allow such a large divergence, all others are 1:5 or better. A proper balance can easily be achieve supplementing just 1-1.5g of omega-3. There is no need to go very low, let alone avoid saturated fats. Our bodies are designed to process and use them just fine, as long as calories and macro-nutrient ratio's are within a healthy norm. One typically does not need to add omega-6 to the diet, since animal and plant derived fats contain plenty, with various oils and eggs leading the way. If you supplement them, supplement a modest (500-800 mg) dose of arachidonic acid. It is the physiologically relevant omega-6. Unlike supplementing n3's, which will supplant n6's in various membranes, taking additional n6 will not supplant n3's, but higher more relevant n6's (like arachidonic acid) will supplant lower order n6's (GLA, DGLA, LA).


----------



## Dogbolt (Jun 23, 2009)

MutantX said:


> http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_truth_about_saturated_fat


Interesting link, thanks for posting that.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> I must confess to being confused on ideal fat intake. I'm not referring to the amount of total fats, which is of course very dependant on diet philosophy and individual response to diet. What I really mean is the ideal ratio - if it exists - of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. This is of course further complicated in that there are also MCTs (which I believe are a type of saturated fat) and omega 3/6 (polyunsaturated). @dtlv suggests avoiding saturated fats (as well as hydrogenated and rancid fats) and moving towards mainly monounsaturated fats, whilst keeping in check the omega 3/6 ratio and also consuming MCTs. @hackskii on the other hand recently suggested to somebody a 33% ratio of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Rather different to what dtlv suggested.
> 
> So - what are we supposed to do?
> 
> ...


Well there is no established certainty for these ratios, but some things are observed fairly consistently, and what hacks suggests (which I believe is based upon what Dr Barry Sears suggests) is good for the science, and also not at all far from what I'm suggesting (taken from the same evidence base) even if at face value it seems different -

Humans need about 10-11% of their total maintenence energy intake to come from a combination of saturated and monounsaturated fats for optimal production of testosterone and estrogen and for structural use in cells.

Polyunsaturated fats need to be around 10% of total maintenance energy intake to provide the necessary biological functions of these fats.

Also, polyunsaturated fats are either omega 3 or omega 6 (this basically refers to the shape of the polyunsaturated molecule), and each type has a different function and in some situations compete against each other. To avoid one kind of PUFA out-competing the other, the ratios need to be between 1:2 and 1:4 omega 3mega 6 (call it 1:3).

This then means 7.5% of total kcals from omega 6's and 2.5% total kcals from omega 3's.

This covers all the essential fat intake, but for those who don't want to rely too heavily on carbs for kcals it is desirable to increase total fat intake above this. A 30% total fat intake seems to be much better, and can help with preventing testosterone from being excessively bound up to SHBG and thus increasing free testosterone compared to a 20% intake.

You can of course increase PUFAs, sat fat or mono fat to get this extra 10%, but since you don't want to mess with your omega 3:6 ratio, the simplest way is to increase sat fats or mono fats.

The thing with sat fats above 10% of intake though is that at this point they start to mess with insulin sensitivity and, unless you have deliberately selected short and medium chain sat fats, they will also increase your LDL cholesterol levels and can start (in combo with other factors) to contribute to longer term health problems that at lower intakes they do not.

So, a simple way to get fats in the way that you need is as hacks suggests - one third from PUFAs, on third from sat fats, and one third from mono fats with each group counting for roughly 10% of maintenance calories in quantity. A small amount of dietary cholesterol is also required to aid production of bile salts to help digest the other long chain fats, but no need to seek this out deliberately as it mostly comes hand in hand with saturated fat.

If you want to then add any extra dietary fat (like if avoiding carbs) then look to mostly mono fat or short and medium chain sat fats (not long chain/meat sat fats), because these are least likely to disrupt anything... and especially avoid transfat, rancid fats and oxidized fats and oxidized cholesterol because these are hugely disruptive of many physiological processes involving fatty acids.

That's my take on a 'text book' intake. Measuring things to that degree though is very fussy, but you'll actually find that if you eat very clean and include a wide range of plant foods including fatty plants (olives, avocados, coconut), not too many nuts (most nuts are heavy omega 6 and very low omega 3), a sprinkling of seeds and plenty of various types of oily fish then you'll pretty much hit these ratios automatically, or close to them, without anally measuring anything at all (if you are going to be anal over one thing only let it be omega 3/6 ratio).


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

It would be great to see an example diet for say 2500 cals that would fit these numbers @dtlv

Head is spinning now :lol:


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Thanks alot for that @dtlv. Yet another one of your posts which I've copied and pasted for future reference. One of these days I'm going to publish a book out of these notes and make a fortune.

I always thought that walnuts were a great source of omega 3. Whilst they do have a good content of omega 3, upon further analysis I now realise that the ratio of omega 3mega 6 is perhaps not quite ideal. Another thing I'm beginning to realise is that unless you eat alot of fatty fish you're going to have problems hitting your goal of omega 3.

For example, if a diet is 2500 calories per day, fat macro of 30%, this means that:

Calories from fat = 750

g of fat (all types) = 83,3g

g of PUFA = 27,5g (assuming 1/3 of total amount of fat)

g of omega 3 = 6,9g (assuming a ratio of 1:3 omega 3/6)

I think that hitting a total of nearly 7g of omega 3 is going to be difficult without supplementing. Unless you eat a hell of a lot of fatty fish.

According to wikipedia mammalian brains and eyes are an excellent source of omega 3 fatty acids. :drool:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> Thanks alot for that @dtlv. Yet another one of your posts which I've copied and pasted for future reference. One of these days I'm going to publish a book out of these notes and make a fortune.
> 
> I always thought that walnuts were a great source of omega 3. Whilst they do have a good content of omega 3, upon further analysis I now realise that the ratio of omega 3mega 6 is perhaps not quite ideal. Another thing I'm beginning to realise is that unless you eat alot of fatty fish you're going to have problems hitting your goal of omega 3.
> 
> ...


The thing with omega 3's shows just how far modern diets are removed from true 'paleo' nutrition when we ate fish and animal brains a plenty. My understanding of it is that pre-humans became human when, among other things, they suddenly evolved the ability to digest and absorb omega 3's and other fatty acids from plant sources rather than just from fish and seafood - this then allowed early humans to migrate inland and spread out a lot further and take advantage of more food sources, whereas before they were limited to hunting and foraging over a small coastal area of east africa.

The most important omega 3's are of course EPA and DHA, which are not found in plants, and ideally you would get at least 2-3g of these per day as part of total omega 3 intake. However, the body does have the ability to convert ALA (only found really in plants and the omega 3 fatty acid found in nuts, seeds and oils) into the minimal required quantities of EPA and DHA, so this has to be looked at as useful too.

I think the best strategy to avoid oily fish overload is to ensure 4 decent portions per week (around 150g of oily fish roughly provides 2-4g of EPA/DHA) and for the rest of the omega 3 requirement to 'top up' with flax seed oil, hemp seed oil and via walnuts (roughly 1:4 omega 3:6, which isn't too bad imo). Also good for variety to change the kind of oily fish you use - mackerel, sardines, salmon etc (list of oily fish here - http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/fics_03_01_annex_01.pdf)

Hemp oil is especially good because it has an omega 3:6 ratio of 1:3 - it has the perfect ratio by itself. Flax oil is the only oil I can think of that has higher omega 3 than omega 6, so that is a great one to redress balance in a high omega 6 diet.

Rather than spend loads on fish oil supp's, my choice is to simply do as above - oily fish several times a week and a couple of tablespoons of hemp or flax oil as salad dressings to top up with more on the non-fish days. The 'more natural' thing to do would be to eat hemp and flax seeds, but they are expensive, hard to get around here (I live in the rural middle of nowhere), and spoil very easily. They are also less convenient I think, and for me adding them in makes the difference between dietary fiber content seeming about right to suddenly having a bit too much... mg:

They oils spoil/go rancid pretty quickly too (PUFAs spoil much more readily than any other type of fatty acid) though, and so require the usual precautions - dark glass bottle, stored in cool dark place and sealed air tight. Also better to buy small bottles so once opened there isn't much left hanging around for ages waiting to go rancid. Rancid hemp oil is rank, I definitely wouldn't recommend tasting it!


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

OK - I understand alot more thanks to you dtlv.

One more question that comes to mind - if we say that 1/3 of total fats should be saturated, does it matter a great deal what type of saturated fats they are, i.e. animal-origin fats? Or else is it better to try to consume MCTs (which I believe are a type of saturated fat) such as coconut/coconut oil and keep to a minimum the animal-derived fats?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> OK - I understand alot more thanks to you dtlv.
> 
> One more question that comes to mind - if we say that 1/3 of total fats should be saturated, does it matter a great deal what type of saturated fats they are, i.e. animal-origin fats? Or else is it better to try to consume MCTs (which I believe are a type of saturated fat) such as coconut/coconut oil and keep to a minimum the animal-derived fats?


As we've discussed before MCT's are the super sexy sat fats, and at high intakes of sat fat they definitely make a superior choice than lots of long chain sat fats IMO... but where total energy intake and total fat intake is sensible I don't think it matters one bit.

In my view this is why there is controversy over saturated fat and heart disease - as I see it is neither true that there is a strong link (as anti fat people suggest), or that there is no link (as the pro low carb brigade suggest)... to me the data looks mixed, with the most obvious explanation for the mixed results being type of sat fat factored against quantity, pre existing health and energy intake. In some circumstances long chain sat fat is fine, in others it can be part of a problem.

This is true of carbs and sugars also IMO, is almost childishly poor science to make a definitive statement about carbs or sat fats being either healthy or unhealthy, or that they are solely responsible for obesity or heart disease - diet is more complex than that, is never about single factors.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

I remember hearing that the omega 3 fatty acids from sources like flax oil and hemp seed are poorly absorbed by the body and thus vastly inferior to fish oils. Is this purely down to the low content of EPA and DHA as you mentioned before, or is there something else to it?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> I remember hearing that the omega 3 fatty acids from sources like flax oil and hemp seed are poorly absorbed by the body and thus vastly inferior to fish oils. Is this purely down to the low content of EPA and DHA as you mentioned before, or is there something else to it?


Poorly absorbed is not quite right - they are just as well absorbed as any other long chain fatty acid, saturated, polyunsaturated or monounsaturated.

The isssue is conversion. In total absence of DHA and EPA, the body can convert ALA into those two but with poor efficiency, and seemingly a decreased effieciency as people age. In the total dietary absence of DHA and EPA your body will convert enough to avoid malnutrition, but status will never be optimal.

The best strategy seems to cover the bases with EPA and DHA, and then to use to ALA to boost the total amount of omega 3 to create the ideal inflammatory/anti-inflammatory balance.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

eezy1 said:


> think saturated is the bad sh!t


Not bad at all, in fact necessary for good health.

did you know that all sex hormones are made from cholesterol?

And, no such thing as bad cholesterol either, at least not how it is portrayed.



Big Cat said:


> Ratio of n3/n6 is 1:2 to 1:10 depending on which source you believe. The 1:10 is actually what the WHO recommends, but its the only one to allow such a large divergence, all others are 1:5 or better. A proper balance can easily be achieve supplementing just 1-1.5g of omega-3. There is no need to go very low, let alone avoid saturated fats. Our bodies are designed to process and use them just fine, as long as calories and macro-nutrient ratio's are within a healthy norm. One typically does not need to add omega-6 to the diet, since animal and plant derived fats contain plenty, with various oils and eggs leading the way. If you supplement them, supplement a modest (500-800 mg) dose of arachidonic acid. It is the physiologically relevant omega-6. Unlike supplementing n3's, which will supplant n6's in various membranes, taking additional n6 will not supplant n3's, but higher more relevant n6's (like arachidonic acid) will supplant lower order n6's (GLA, DGLA, LA).


Is this the same Big Cat that wrote that article on SERMS back in 2003 or just after that?

You are the one that writes the science articles on steroids and stuff right?

If so, hats off to you, read many of your articles, and have much respect for you.

I like the rato of 1:1 to 1:4 of 3 to 6.

Just because of all the excessive inflammation going on in our bodies it seems as of late.

If you look at today's ratio, it can be as high as 1 to 25.

Are you suggesting adding in arachidonic acid to the diet?

There was a that dude that put out the steroid handbook that marketed that stuff, I remember years ago having a little debate with him, William Llwellin or someone like that.

I dont like the idea of having higher ratios of that to cause more inflammation on the body, I feel most have more than enough.

I understand the concept used with training, but to me, it probably is in excess anyway, no need to supplement.



dtlv said:


> Well there is no established certainty for these ratios, but some things are observed fairly consistently, and what hacks suggests (which I believe is based upon what Dr Barry Sears suggests) is good for the science, and also not at all far from what I'm suggesting (taken from the same evidence base) even if at face value it seems different -
> 
> Humans need about 10-11% of their total maintenence energy intake to come from a combination of saturated and monounsaturated fats for optimal production of testosterone and estrogen and for structural use in cells.
> 
> ...


Nice post.

I think there is something to having a higher fat, to lower carb ratio diet.

I heard on the news just yesterday that atherosclerosis was actually caused from something to do with intestinal flora, I was driving so I could not remember the details, I was driving like 90 miles an hour and in a hurry so I only got the tid bits of it:lol:

Saturated fats bad?

Well, lets just toss a spanner wrench in the mix here, lets use an old study in Framingham Massachusetts

Snipped from Westin Price:

The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof of the lipid hypothesis. This study began in 1948 and involved some 6,000 people from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. Two groups were compared at five-year intervals-those who consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat and those who consumed large amounts. After 40 years, the director of this study had to admit: *"In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.*"3 The study did show that those who weighed more and had abnormally high blood cholesterol levels were slightly more at risk for future heart disease; but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with fat and cholesterol intake in the diet.

Personally, I never remove the fat from my meat, chicken, anything.

I mean, of course buy organic, or even better free range if you can, that will be better on the ratio of 3 to 6, as well as the benefits of CLA in free range meat.

Or, how about free range eggs having 19 times Omega 3's than the ones that sit in the cage all day?

The ratio has gone the wrong way for some time, due to processing, and the bad hype of the industry trying to help us but probably killing us, for example:

Remember margarine being more healthy than butter?

Well, on baby cows they used other cheaper fats on the babies to save money and use the cream for exports, and butter, guess what happened?

The babies either got sick, and or died.

That is because high fat for babies (either cattle or children), is necessary for healthy bodies, and a good mind, just the way nature intended it.

If you want to eat fats, eat them, high fat diets are not unhealthy, high fat, high carb diets are not healthy.

If you look at the food pyramid in the States, the diet is supposed to be predominantly carbs.

Now if you turned the pyramid upside down, then you probably have something....lol

My bro was listening to a pod cast the other day about a guy that lost tons of weight, he did it eating low carb, high fat, and he ate more cals than before yet lost more weight, felt better, had more energy as well.

I can get the pod cast if someone wants it.

I do feel this is not rocket science, you can eat all fruits and vegetables that have all the different colors, and rotate your proteins, and fats around.

So many choices to hold things to such a tight tolerance, not needed really.

If the diet is low in fish, add fish oils, if it is low in fats, add nuts, seeds, olives, olive oil, flax oil, etc, not too hard to work out.

Need to bump some cals, add some olive oil.

Which reminds me.

I just bought some 12 year aged balsamic vinegar, and some imported olive oil from Chile, and although this was a special place that imports from all over the world, the taste together was crazy good, and had some synergy in flavors.

That vinegar had the best taste ever, this was a taste testing place, and I asked him how many people bought that balsamic vinegar after tasting it, he said most of them did.


----------



## Big Cat (Apr 4, 2009)

hackskii said:


> N
> 
> Is this the same Big Cat that wrote that article on SERMS back in 2003 or just after that?
> 
> ...


It is. I'm working a new project though, little more mainstream (see sig)



> I like the rato of 1:1 to 1:4 of 3 to 6.
> 
> Just because of all the excessive inflammation going on in our bodies it seems as of late.
> 
> If you look at today's ratio, it can be as high as 1 to 25.


Yeah I think 1:15 to 1:20 is often considered the norm in Western countries.



> Are you suggesting adding in arachidonic acid to the diet?
> 
> There was a that dude that put out the steroid handbook that marketed that stuff, I remember years ago having a little debate with him, William Llwellin or someone like that.
> 
> ...


Well the average consumer most likely does not need increased arachidonic acid, that is true. However most fitness and bodybuilding enthusiasts have 1 to 6 times (500-3000mg) the omega-3 intake of high-fish consuming societies like Japan (arachidonic acid is roughly the same between Japan and the West) and an active lifestyle, that drastically reduces the amount of membrane omega-6, and because AA production and intake is limited, in particular AA. The link between dietary AA itself and inflammation is, as far as I can tell, non-existent in humans. The problem was largely with platelet aggregation in very high doses. Increasing AA does not affect omega-3, but does decrease other membrane n-6 FA's, as such contributing to an overall healthier profile, irrespective of its effects on hypertrophy.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

I have a further question, admittedly perhaps somewhat pedantic.

In 100g of avocado, the breakdown of fats is as follows:

Total lipids: 15.41g

Saturated: 2.126g

Monounsaturated: 9.799g

Polyunsaturated: 1.816

I took this from this site (the fat content of avocado was purely for example purposes):

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2176

Well, from that the total of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated (i.e. 2.126+9.799+1.816) is equal to 13.741g.

But the total lipids previously quoted are 15.41g. So why the difference??

Also - is there a good on-line resource detailing not just the amount of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids there are in the various common foodstuffs, but also the amount of MCTs and omega 3/6?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> I have a further question, admittedly perhaps somewhat pedantic.
> 
> In 100g of avocado, the breakdown of fats is as follows:
> 
> ...


Hmmm, usually where a nutritional label (for a processed product) has a discrepancy between the total dietary fat content and the listings for MUFA's, PUFA's and SAT, the difference is accounted for by transfats - but in this case, a food not known for transfat content, I'm not sure.

There is of course variability between strains of any plant for macros and even between individual plants, so nutritional breakdowns are always average rather than bang on the money precise figures. Ironically processed junk food is usually the most reliable in that sense for the label being on the money.

For MCT lists, if I've seen a decent list in the past I can't recall, but certainly not saved a link or copied anything. I think that's a job for hunting through google.


----------



## mattiasl (Jan 13, 2009)

MutantX said:


> http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_truth_about_saturated_fat


Great article!

Thanks!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Big Cat said:


> It is. I'm working a new project though, little more mainstream (see sig)
> 
> Yeah I think 1:15 to 1:20 is often considered the norm in Western countries.
> 
> Well the average consumer most likely does not need increased arachidonic acid, that is true. However most fitness and bodybuilding enthusiasts have 1 to 6 times (500-3000mg) the omega-3 intake of high-fish consuming societies like Japan (arachidonic acid is roughly the same between Japan and the West) and an active lifestyle, that drastically reduces the amount of membrane omega-6, and because AA production and intake is limited, in particular AA. The link between dietary AA itself and inflammation is, as far as I can tell, non-existent in humans. The problem was largely with platelet aggregation in very high doses. Increasing AA does not affect omega-3, but does decrease other membrane n-6 FA's, as such contributing to an overall healthier profile, irrespective of its effects on hypertrophy.


I get you on arachidonic acid as an interesting omega 6 fatty acid to look at possibly increasing (in small amounts) in highly active individuals with high omega 3 intakes. Is a long time since I've looked at any study data on it, but if I recall correctly there is at least one study where it was given to recreational bodybuilders, and although it didn't result in any significant effect upon body composition, it did show indications of healthier cell membranes, including an actual reduction in inflammatory markers I believe. I have no recollection of how (or if at all) they controlled or measured other aspects of diet in the experiment though. Anyway I think you are correct in that AA does not appear to have detrimental associations with inflammatory balance in humans. It certainly is an important FA in small quantities.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

dtlv said:


> The most important omega 3's are of course EPA and DHA, *which are not found in plants*, and ideally you would get at least 2-3g of these per day as part of total omega 3 intake. However, the body does have the ability to convert ALA (only found really in plants and the omega 3 fatty acid found in nuts, seeds and oils) into the minimal required quantities of EPA and DHA, so this has to be looked at as useful too.


Just a hypothetical question, since it doesn't apply to my particular case - how would a vegetarian thus ensure adequate intake and absorption of omega 3 fatty acids?


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Big Cat said:


> Well the average consumer most likely does not need increased arachidonic acid, that is true. However most fitness and bodybuilding enthusiasts have 1 to 6 times (500-3000mg) the omega-3 intake of high-fish consuming societies like Japan (arachidonic acid is roughly the same between Japan and the West) and an active lifestyle, that drastically reduces the amount of membrane omega-6, and because AA production and intake is limited, in particular AA. The link between dietary AA itself and inflammation is, as far as I can tell, non-existent in humans. The problem was largely with platelet aggregation in very high doses. Increasing AA does not affect omega-3, but does decrease other membrane n-6 FA's, as such contributing to an overall healthier profile, irrespective of its effects on hypertrophy.


Glad you are who I thought you were, even though you have been here 4 years. :lol:

Barry Sears has done much work with this one, there is a test called Silent Inflammation Profile Test (SIP), where they test the AA to EPA ratio, and not too surprisingly it is the Japanese that have low incidence in heart disease, and also the standard for the AA to EPA ratio they go after.

Basically you need both, if the ratio of AA to EPA is too high, you get more systemic inflammation, if the ratio of AA to EPA is within a certain range, then you will have less inflammation.

To the best of my knowledge AA is hardly ever too low nor would need to be supplemented, and actually from his work and tests he has run AA seems to be out of whack.

He suggests this is so due to the ratio of too many Omega 6's, and not enough Omega 3's.

So, using the test, he puts you on a certain amount of Omega 3's and reduces some 6's to get the right profile, then over a period of time re-tests you to move or modify the ratio.

Now to be fair, his work is predominantly on eicosanoid's, and their production, which basically little hormonal messengers that control inflammation, and immunity, among other things.

If the diet is pretty close, and eicosanoid's are in balance some tend to see great results in health, and vitality, and healthy heart.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Edited to add this: The JELIS study was one of the largest cardiovascular studies ever done using more than 18,000 subjects with elevated cholesterol levels. When these subjects were given high doses of EPA (1.8 grams of EPA per day), their average AA/EPA ratio decreased from 1.6 to 0.8. This reduction in the AA/EPA ratio was associated with an additional 19% reduction in cardiovascular events during the next four and half years (7).

That came from here: http://www.drsears.com/DesktopModules/EngagePublish/printerfriendly.aspx?itemId=68&PortalId=6


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> Just a hypothetical question, since it doesn't apply to my particular case - how would a vegetarian thus ensure adequate intake and absorption of omega 3 fatty acids?


Simply to go for a decent intake of ALA, and to not go overboard with competing omega 6 fats and then add in a vegan EPA/DHA algae derived supplement. Stuff like wakame seaweed and a couple of other seaweeds are an ok source of vegetarian EPA and the only veggie food sources I'm aware of that provide it any quantity. For DHA there is one particular kind of algae which is a good source (forget the name), but that's not a food is rather something used to make vegan DHA supplements.

Udo's oil is probably the best supp, although it's often not cheap.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Glad you are who I thought you were, even though you have been here 4 years. :lol:
> 
> Barry Sears has done much work with this one, there is a test called Silent Inflammation Profile Test (SIP), where they test the AA to EPA ratio, and not too surprisingly it is the Japanese that have low incidence in heart disease, and also the standard for the AA to EPA ratio they go after.
> 
> ...


Nice info buddy, and makes a lot of sense. I like Sears research on fatty acids - he seems one of the guys out there with a non hysterical or biased approach to the matter, which is not true of all the self proclaimed experts I think.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

dtlv said:


> Nice info buddy, and makes a lot of sense. I like Sears research on fatty acids - he seems one of the guys out there with a non hysterical or biased approach to the matter, which is not true of all the self proclaimed experts I think.


He is, he even suggested years ago that it was GLA that made the magic happen for eicosanoids, but later his research suggested otherwise, he even admitted to focusing too much energy trying to prove something that he could not prove, that was till he started his research on fish oils.

His research is almost 20 years old.

I did the zone diet to the letter, and at one point had unlimited energy, felt totally awesome, perfect skin, and was super lean.

I got down to 162 pounds and was ripped, noticed the veins everywhere, but lost too much weight, I upped the food, still lost, upped the food, still lost, and was eating 7 meals a day.

At the end, went back to eating normal, drinking beer, and now am the fat slob I am oh so proud of. :lol:

At 37 years old (now 53) I was leaner, and had a smaller waist than I did at 18, and was stronger and held more muscle too.

I always lifted and started at 15 so it does sound strange that over twice the age, being leaner, stronger, in better shape than in my youth.


----------



## Big Cat (Apr 4, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Glad you are who I thought you were, even though you have been here 4 years. :lol:


Haven't been too active of late anywhere online though. Only started making time for it again around new year, mostly writing for my own website now, muscleandsportsscience.com.

Barry Sears has done much work with this one, there is a test called Silent Inflammation Profile Test (SIP), where they test the AA to EPA ratio, and not too surprisingly it is the Japanese that have low incidence in heart disease, and also the standard for the AA to EPA ratio they go after.

Basically you need both, if the ratio of AA to EPA is too high, you get more systemic inflammation, if the ratio of AA to EPA is within a certain range, then you will have less inflammation.

To the best of my knowledge AA is hardly ever too low nor would need to be supplemented, and actually from his work and tests he has run AA seems to be out of whack.

He suggests this is so due to the ratio of too many Omega 6's, and not enough Omega 3's.

So, using the test, he puts you on a certain amount of Omega 3's and reduces some 6's to get the right profile, then over a period of time re-tests you to move or modify the ratio.

Now to be fair, his work is predominantly on eicosanoid's, and their production, which basically little hormonal messengers that control inflammation, and immunity, among other things.

If the diet is pretty close, and eicosanoid's are in balance some tend to see great results in health, and vitality, and healthy heart.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Edited to add this: The JELIS study was one of the largest cardiovascular studies ever done using more than 18,000 subjects with elevated cholesterol levels. When these subjects were given high doses of EPA (1.8 grams of EPA per day), their average AA/EPA ratio decreased from 1.6 to 0.8. This reduction in the AA/EPA ratio was associated with an additional 19% reduction in cardiovascular events during the next four and half years (7).

That came from here: http://www.drsears.com/DesktopModules/EngagePublish/printerfriendly.aspx?itemId=68&PortalId=6


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

A lot of good info available here for the casual reader on the topic of constructing a diet with a healthy intake of fats - http://www.precisionnutrition.com/research-review-balancing-fats


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

dtlv said:


> A lot of good info available here for the casual reader on the topic of constructing a diet with a healthy intake of fats - http://www.precisionnutrition.com/research-review-balancing-fats


Just had this email and was gonna post it lol


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

MutantX said:


> Just had this email and was gonna post it lol


Great minds think alike (and fools fail to differ :lol: ). 

PN does some very good articles IMO, a good site with a smart team of unbiased researchers.


----------

