Is US government nutrient profile wrong on omega ratio?


Its ratio is 10:1(omega-6 to omega-3), yet this source states that -

A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences.


The short reply is- Probably

The government profiles are two things, the bare minimum and based on old, confirmed research. This means that they avoid fad research, but they also don’t get newer research into actually needed or helpful things. The omega balance is pretty new compared to vitamins and whatnot, so I’m surprised they have a guideline for omegas at all.


Are you saying that the ω-6:ω-3 ratio of soylent is 10:1 ? If so, how do you know that ?

I think most “experts” recommand something like 3:1 up to 1:1 for ω-6 to ω-3 ratio.


I opened a topic before asking specifically which of the nutrient profiles is the best and everyone said U.S. government DRI, male 19-50, 2000 calories.

Now it turns out that it contains dangerous bullshit, no one even mentioned this discrepancy!


I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying omega-6 is dangerous bullshit ?


The ratio is, what’s wrong with you?


I did a rough calculation on the omega content of the oil blend, here:

I am not worried about Soylent’s omega profile. It follows more recent research, not the RDA.


@croatiansoylent I think I’m quite all right. But I thought you where saying that the diet the US government recommands contains dangerous nutrients. But okay, now I see you are saying the ratio they recommand is dangerous bull shit…

First, where did you read that the US government thinks that 1:10 ratio is optimal ?
Secondly, are you afraid of the omega-3: omega-6 ratio of soylent ?
Third, this is just one guy, saying what he thinks is healthy about food and why he thinks that.

Chris Kresser is someone I really appreciate, but if you will read some of his articles, you will see that there are much more other things he thinks differently about then the US goverment does. I don’t think you can talk about health science in such a black and white way. This guy is right and this theory is bullshit, etc.

It is more like, hm… this is probably healthy because of this and that reasons and this and that research. Let’s do some research and see if this is really true.


Well, if there is a consensus that for the 99% of the history of humanity the ratio was 1:1, shouldn’t just that be indicative enough?
Surely evolution hasn’t caught up in such a short time with such a complex organism like humans.


Do you have reference that there is consensus that for 99% of the history humanity the ratio was 1:1. I’ve seen some studies, but I think it’s quite hard to prove how the diet must have looked like in the history of humanity.

I could imagine that we’ve eaten things like nuts, olives and grains for already quite some time. They are all high in omega-6 and most nuts are low in omega-3.


There is also the fact that evolution has flaws and blind spots; if the downside of a certain diet is a increased risk of heart attack at 65, well, evolution won’t really care. That is part of why our health declines with age, there is no evolutionary force pushing for better health after child-rearing years, and a biological quirk that is good for you when you are young is far more likely to be a benefit than a trait that hinders you when you are old is a drawback, so places where the tradeoff is better youth for worse old age, youth gets selected. Overall, this leads to a prime shortly after adolescence and a decline afterwards, with the more lethal flaws tending to show up after you pass child-rearing ages.

Hence, the diet that we had could be suboptimal without putting in a drive to counteract its long-term drawbacks, esp if adaptations to allow for that would come with other tradeoffs which could easily outweigh the benefits.
Plus, the excerpt from the OP says it helped people with arthritis and asthma. This may not mean much for the wider population’s needs.


I have seen all over this site that the omega 6:3 ratio ought to be anywhere from 5:1-1:1, but definitely not 10:1 or even 17:1. my question is then, if we are to make the ratio 5/1:1, is it better to have less omega 6’s than the FDI RDI or more Omega 3s? currently my recipe has 233% of the FDA RDI for omega 3s and 68% of the RDi for omega 6s, making the ratio about 3:1. is this dangerous?


There is a short but informative overview for the layperson of the research data about omega-3:omega-6 fatty acid ratios on the following webpage under the heading “Reason #3 — Inflammation”: