Does anyone know if there have there been any adjustments to Omega 3’s or 6’s in 1.4 from the fat adjustments and powdered oil implementation?
Speaking of this, what is the ratio of 3’s to 6’s in Soylent? And does it even matter? I have heard people speak gloom and doom about omega 6’s.
Based on the science, I don’t believe ratios matter. What matters is the type and quantity of omega-3s.
Earlier work seemed to point to ratios, but the type and quantity of omega-3 is always part of the ratio, so it’s no surprise that it was easy to conflate.
A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies
Looking at only the ratio could give us the wrong idea. 200 gms of omega 6 and 200 gms of omega 3 is a ratio of 1:1. Does it mean comsuming that much is healthy?
The individual quantities of both (whether they are between the lower and upper limits) is more important. And that by itself often gives you a healthy ratio.
Right, the earlier work seemed to point to ratios. You’re citing a paper that covers a review of the research leading up to 2002; it was not a new study. Later work suggests that it’s not the ratios, but the quantities that mater. In fact, even the paper you cite is suggestion the same thing. From the abstract:
Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today’s Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects.
So first they say a high ratio of 6 : 3 is associated with a problem, but then they say if you raise the level of omega-3, you suppress those effects by creating a lower ratio. So, is it the ratio, or is it the omega-3?
High ratio: 8 g o-6 / 0.5 g o-3… 8 / 0.5 = ratio 16:1
Low ratio: 8 g o-6 / 2.0 g o-3… 8 / 2 = ratio of 4:1
Very low: 8 g o-6 / 3.0 g o-3… 8 / 3 = ratio of 2.7:1
We see a 70% decrease in mortality on the ratio of 4:1, versus a ratio of 16:1… but is it the ratio? Or is it just the presence of the o-3?
I think part of the early bias may simply come from the fact that it’s much easier to estimate fatty acid ratios in a given diet than to estimate actual intake. If I know what meals you’re eating, and the ingredients used to make them, I can figure the ratios, and compare you to someone eating a different diet with different ratios… all I have to do is ask some general questions about your meals, and look at the recipes. But figuring out exactly how much you’re taking in requires actually weighing the amounts consumed by each eater, as well as weighing each eater… much more complex and much more approximate.
It’s both. You can have plenty of n-3, but if you have too much n-6 it can be a problem. n-3 and n-6 follow similar metabolic pathways, so too much of one kind suppresses the effects of the other.
Do you have a reference to support this?
Omega-3, omega-6, and omega-9 fatty acids compete for the same desaturase enzymes.
Thankfully Soylent contains a source of DHA and EPA.
LA and ALA compete for the same elongase and desaturase enzymes in the synthesis of longer polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as AA and EPA.
But apparently n-9 has its own desaturase enzyme. I do remember reading that LA conversation does compete with ALA conversation and can affect the efficiency of the conversation of ALA to DHA and EPA. Makes sense seeing as apparently they share the enzymes for conversation.
But “LA and ALA compete for the same elongase and desaturase enzymes in the synthesis of longer polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as AA and EPA.” (quote from the same page you cited). So if you’re getting enough AA (an omega-6), then you body doesn’t try to synthesize it from LA, and there is no competition.
What’s more, ALA (omega-3) gets first dibs on the enzymes in question, so excess LA (omega-6) is a red herring. Here’s the rest of the passage you quoted:
Omega-3, omega-6, and omega-9 fatty acids compete for the same desaturase enzymes. The desaturase enzymes show preference for the different series of fatty acids in the following order: omega-3 > omega-6 > omega-9. Consequently, synthesis of the omega-9 fatty acid eicosatrienoic acid (20:3n-9, mead acid, or 5,8,11-eicosatrienoic acid) increases only when dietary intakes of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are very low; therefore, mead acid is one marker of essential fatty acid deficiency (32).
So the LPI page does not support the theory that that ratio of 6:3 is of great significance.
Do you have any modern references that indicate too much omega-6 is a problem even in the presence of adequate omega-3, or that the ratio is significant, irrespective of omega-3 levels? I don’t find that for any reasonable levels.
Define “reasonable” and I’ll continue my research.
What about the flip side? You’re saying too high a ratio (6:3) may not be bad, but does that imply that there are no benefits to lower ratios? (assuming reasonable n-3 of course) I’d like to go one better than just “not bad”, and shoot for potential benefits from specific levels and/or ratios.
I just mean within some kind of normal human dietary ranges - as opposed to a case study of a rare person who had a problem, but consumed absurd amounts of oil, or a study based on mass-feeding rodents supra-natural levels of omega-6 oils.
No, I’m not saying there’s no problem from high ratio or no benefit to low ratios. What I’m saying is that it’s not actually about the ratio. It’s really about healthy intake levels, and the ratio thing was a false lead.
When you look at the early findings of benefits from “lower ratios,” you can pretty much uniformly interpret the same data as saying the benefit comes from “more omega-3…” but it’s not expressed that way, because the researchers weren’t setting out to asses the effects of different levels of omega-3s, they were setting out to compare the effects of different ratios.
In other words, the way the answer was expressed was inherent in the way the question was being asked, but it seems that they were initially asking the wrong question.
How about this question. Are there some upper limits to n-6 and n-3 that we should avoid?
Did we ever figure out how much is actually in 1.4?
Perhaps I should tag @Conor to see.
Sorry for the delay, the values for 1.4 are: 1.05g ALA + >.22g DHA = >1.27g (Omega 3)
8.15g LA (Omega 6)
This ratio is being improved for the next version.
Is that just the ratio? What’s the values in grams?
I updated that for you.