Hi ALL! Just thought you would find this amusing! It is a conversation a friend of mine had with Brian Peskin, author of Radiant Health, which was pulled from the bookstores....his answers are highlighted in blue....don't let it get to you! They have also sent me 11 pages of research showing how fish oil is dangerous and unhealthy to be taking..........can't wait to read this one...crumbelina Subject: EFA Ratios Dear Brian, I wanted to begin by saying congratulations on your day in court. I spoke with one of the women at YES and she let me know how everything turned out.[color=blue:bfb1f0256e] thanks. truth wins ......... [/color:bfb1f0256e] Recently, I was having a conversation with a couple of people who have embraced Dr. Barry Sears information on EFA's (his book). They began asking me what was in your product and what the ratio of 3 to 6 was in the oils. [color=blue:bfb1f0256e]more parent omega 6 than parent 3[/color:bfb1f0256e] [color=blue:bfb1f0256e]and NO fish oils! [/color:bfb1f0256e] I know you have changed the formula and I feel great taking it--and for me, real life results is proof. What are your thoughts on his information. He recommends taking PURIFIED fish oil and avoiding safflower, pumpkin, canola and other omega 6's because he thinks we get enough in our diet and will thow off the ratio of 3 to 6 that we need. Can they really puritfy fish oil without taking out the nutritional properties? [color=blue:bfb1f0256e]i assure you that he knows little in this area.[/color:bfb1f0256e] [color=blue:bfb1f0256e]other areas ok but NOT here --- lunatic![/color:bfb1f0256e] I am sure you are more than familiar with all of this. I would like to know how to respond to their insistance that he is right. I have called Biocytology company to get your updated science which I believe they are selling and waiting for a return call. In the mean time, I would love your feedback. [color=blue:bfb1f0256e]** it is my science [/color:bfb1f0256e]Since taking your new product, I do not have a desire to eat nuts and seeds. Are there oils or certain fats that one should avoid with the new supplement? Also, If you have this information in print somewhere, please let me know. I do have the Radiant Health Book, but I know you have updated some of that information. [color=blue:bfb1f0256e]look at XXXXXXX for the omega paper, but since you ask, here it is! my best, b[/color:bfb1f0256e]Thank you for your help as always, XXXXX XXX

Peskin's research on fish oil and his product: The Cure's™ EFAs, are in our opinion, the ideal way to replenish some of the essential oils (your body can't make them, they must come from food) that Mother Nature intended for us to receive on a daily basis, before the food processors ruined them. You can now "cure" the deficiency. You can consume some of the "bad stuff" (cancer-causing transfats) so long as you have a constant source of "the good stuff" (unprocessed EFA-containing oils). Many of us are overdosing on harmful transfats and not getting enough of the unprocessed oils containing the precious EFAs. The Cure's™ EFAs use organically raised and organically processed (via low temperature) seed oils. This remarkable formulation is unique and highly specialized. You can rest assured there are no fishy oils that need to be masked with other flavors. Fish have no oil glands so creating fish oil supplements essentially means you get "juiced" fish. "Juiced" fish is not the best way to get your EFAs. This is one of the reasons we don't offer fish oils. Another reason is contaminated water supplies. Fish toxins, including mercury, will magnify into higher and higher levels in these concentrated fish oils. You do NOT want this regardless of who is making the claims for concentrated fish oils. Furthermore, fish is high in derivative EFAs, not the required “parent” EFAs, like Mother Nature intended. You can do much better than that and Y.E.S. gives you the solution. Here’s how. Instead of relying on fish oils containing mainly "derivative-based" EFAs, we use expensive organic Evening Primrose oil and/or organic high linoleic Safflower oil - both excellent sources of "parent" omega 6, along with organic flax oil and organic or wildcrafted Pumpkin oil for "parent" omega 3, to obtain what we consider the ideal science-based “parent” omega 3/6 combination. There is a misconception among nutritionists that we already get plenty of omega 6 in our diets. The problem is that we get very little pure, unadulterated "parent" omega 6 oils because, to get long shelf-life, most are turned by the food processors into cancer-causing transfats or damaged in some way making them ineffective. More than 97% of our body needs at least a 4/1 ratio in favor of "parent" omega 6 over "parent" omega 3 because that is what your tissue and organs require. We bring you convenience without compromising quality or requiring refrigeration. How do we know that our formula is so great? Because thousands of people from around the world, including athletes, celebrities, and people like you and me, rave about it, including our entire staff and many of their family members, and never miss a day without it! "What makes The Cure's™ EFAs worth the price?" It REALLY Works! In our opinion, these oils are better than "liquid gold." They are in a league of their own. All the money in the world can't help your health more than these products. Unlike most commercial oil supplements, The Cure's™ EFAs are produced in small, limited quantities. The oils have no pesticides and have organic certification. We have these incredible oils produced in a pristine part of the world that we won't even disclose, because we want to keep it pure and unadulterated. After low temperature pressing, we use special capsules with low oxygen permeability to protect the precious oils so no refrigeration is required. Because of our unique formula, their effectiveness can be up to 10 times greater than oils bought in your supermarket or health store. Since no fish oils are ever used, there is no "fishy" aftertaste. And you can rest assured that you receive "parent" oils, not the dangerous overdoses of "derivatives," as found in so many commercial products that some of the world's leading scientists speak about. Now, you don't have to settle for a "Toyota Tercel" when you can have the "Rolls Royce" of oils for just a tad more! Welcome to our "family." You will notice The Cure's™ difference, and we want your testimonial when you experience it. From Peskin's website! crumbelina

Apparently they are not aware that the conversion of short-chain omega-3s is very inefficicent. (1)(2) Since biological pathways evolve in reverse, the only way to explain this inefficiency is that Mother Nature intended humans to get their omega-3's in long-chain form. This is supported by the evidence that modern humans evolved near the water. (1) Virginia M. Ursin "Modification of plant lipids for human health: development of functional land-based omega-3 fatty acids" Journal of Nutrition 133:4271-4274, Dec 2003 (2) Michael J James, et al "Metabolism of stearidonic acid in human subjects: a comparison with the metabolism of other n-3 fatty acids" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 77, No.5, 1140-1145, May 2003

Just three of 11 pages, if anyone would like to read the rest just let me know! [b:f2bd272fe8]EFA SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS[/b:f2bd272fe8] [color=red:f2bd272fe8]WARNING:Everyone is Overdosing on Omega 3[/color:f2bd272fe8] — Fish Oil Decreases Immunity! Analysis of the western diet shows a signifi cant preponderance of omega 6 compared to omega 3 —most people ’s diets consist of foods that contain approximately twelve times more omega 6 than omega 3.Physicians and nutritionists tell us that we are therefore “overdosed ” on omega 6 from our food,,while undersupplied with omega 3.This is why they say that we need to supplement with mostly omega 3 EFAs and take few if any omega 6 EFAs.But there are crucial mistakes in this recommendation.The truth is that we are now actually overdosing on omega 3,and this is a mistake that can make you more susceptible. The following article shows how omega 3 in the dosage amounts and types often recommended by physicians and nutritionists,in particular from fi sh oil , will signifi cantly decrease your immune system response to infection.This information comes from the proceedings of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL)4th Congress,June 4-9,2000 in Tsukuba,Japan.1 Prepare to be shocked! “… [S ]tudies indicate that at the levels used,fi sh oil [omega 3 derivatives ]decreases a wide range of immune cell responses such as natural killer cell and cytotoxic T lymphocyte activities,lymphocyte proliferation and production of IL-2 and IFN-y (1,2)… “…Recent studies have indicated that relatively low levels of the long chain omega 3 fatty acids (EPA or DHA at a level of 4.4%of total fatty acids or 1.7%of dietary energy) are suffi cient to bring about some of the suppressive effects [on the immune system ],that dietary EPA and DHA [omega 3 derivatives ] both inhibit lymphocyte proliferation ,and that dietary EPA but not DHA inhibits natural killer cell activity .” 1 The report is titled “Omega 3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids,Infl ammation and Immunity,” by Philip C..Calder, Institute of Human Nutrition,University of Southampton,Bassett Crescent East,Southampton,UK. 3 These articles reveal that only a relatively small quantity of omega 3 derivatives will give rise to these immune problems.This is an immediate danger to the public, given the recent huge push in the promotion and sale of fi sh oil capsules (which are mainly omega 3 derivative-based).If you consume fi sh oil supplements ,then you will be taking a quantity of omega 3 derivatives that is signifi cantly in excess of the immune-suppressing threshold amount given in the article above.We therefore do not recommend taking omega 3 derivatives from a supplement .You may eat all the fi sh you desire,but supplement only using the guidelines given below. ***WARNING:Excess Omega 3 in Any Form is Hazardous!*** We recommend taking a very conservative amount of parent omega 3 and letting your body make its own omega 3 derivatives (from the parent omega 3),as it needs them.Note that we say take a “conservative ” amount because overdosing on parent omega 3 from fl ax seed and other parent omega 3-containing oils can also be very harmful because,in your body ’s effort to rid itself of the overdose,it too will produce more immunosuppressive omega 3 derivatives.(Note that neither Omega 6 nor its derivatives cause this immunosuppressive effect.) Rather than supplementing with fi sh oils,we recommend a plant-based omega 3 formulation (from various seeds)that contains parent omega 3 EFAs ,and NO omega 3 derivatives . Prepare to be shocked again!The article continues: “Supplementation of the diet of healthy human volunteers with fi sh-oil-derived omega 3 PUFA (1.2-1.4 gm/day*)results in decreased lymphocyte proliferation,decreased monocyte and neutrophil chemotaxis,decreased production of IL-1,IL-2,IFN- y,IL-6 and TNF,and decreased expression of MHCII and some adhesion molecules on the monocytes …” [all of which are very detrimental to your immune system ].“This decrease causes increased cellular bacteria and impaired tumor cell killing.”increased cellular bacteria and impaired tumor cell killing.”increased cellular bacteria and impaired tumor cell killing. * This is a very small amount,just a couple of capsules,to cause so much damage. Below,in the section,“The Supplement Calculation,” we provide for the fi rst time a thoroughly worked-out scientifi c analysis of the correct ratios of omega 6 to 3 to supplement with,as well as why very little omega 3 —from any supplement source — should be taken! 4 [color=red:f2bd272fe8]How Much Omega 3 and Omega 6 Are We Taking In?[/color:f2bd272fe8]What nutritionists and health commentators are missing is that most of the omega 6 EFAs in today ’s foods are ruined —they are either hydrogenated into transfats, cooked,or otherwise adulterated so they won ’t go bad on the supermarket shelf. And just looking at the harmful transfat content alone in commercial oils and oil products doesn ’t tell the whole story.Analysis of commercial “omega 6 ” oils show,in addition to lots of cancer-causing,non-oxygenating transfats,the presence of harmful preservatives and additives.Many of these additives and preservatives ruin the oils ’ oxygen--transfer capability.That ’s why traditional margarine,with perhaps a 30%transfat content,can still be kept unrefrigerated in the garage for years and no living animal will eat it —nor will it oxidize and become rancid.The remaining 70% un hydrogenated oil that supposedly isn ’t “treated ” has also lost its oxygenating ability because of preservatives and additives.Even though the oils in margarine started out with lots of healthy EFAs before processing,there is no remaining ingredient in margarine that makes it healthful. A medical article titled “Who ’s afraid of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids [omega 6 ]?”was published in 2001,but few in the medical and nutrition fi elds saw it.This article detailed why it is wrong to simply use only omega 3 or only omega 6 in experiments, and why experimental results are often misinterpreted.As mentioned in the fi rst paragraph above,most nutritionists and even physicians wrongly state that any extra omega 6 is “bad.” This is because they are NOT using organic unadulterated oils in most of their experiments.Researchers use ruined omega-6-containing oils,like those found at your local commercial supermarket.These are loaded with cancer-causing transfats,preservatives and other additives,so you ’d expect a problem. But the basic reason for researchers ’ distorted results are that,,under real-life conditions (which Life-Systems Engineering ALWAYS utilizes),the two healthy essential oils are consumed together most of time and only rarely apart.Researchers weren ’t adhering to real-life conditions,so the test results were wrong.It ’s that simple. The following is the pertinent phrase from the medical journal article,“Who ’s afraid of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids?” Berry,E.M.Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2001 Jun;11(3):181-188: “N-6 Fatty Acids [omega 6 ] are Essential for Normal Growth ....and it is therefore wrong to condemn only n-6 fatty acids in their etiology .”acids in their etiology .”acids in their etiology

[quote:4e072f3883="Scott"]This is supported by the evidence that modern humans evolved near the water. [/quote:4e072f3883] Though there is some evidence that evolution may have ocurred, there is also a lot of "evidence" that it may not have. It is only a theory, albeit widely accepted but only a theory, and also still widely disputed by many, much more knowledgeable and intelligent than I. This is my only objection to your thoughts. I do not have the answers, nor claim to be scientific - just highly skeptical.

[quote:3d11648f84] [b:3d11648f84]EFA SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS[/b:3d11648f84] [color=red:3d11648f84]WARNING:Everyone is Overdosing on Omega 3[/color:3d11648f84] — Fish Oil Decreases Immunity! .The truth is that we are now actually overdosing on omega 3,and this is a mistake that can make you more susceptible. The following article shows how omega 3 in the dosage amounts and types often recommended by physicians and nutritionists,in particular from fi sh oil , will signifi cantly decrease your immune system response to infection.This information comes from the proceedings of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL)4th Congress,June 4-9,2000 in Tsukuba,Japan.1 Prepare to be shocked! “… [S ]tudies indicate that at the levels used,fi sh oil [omega 3 derivatives ]decreases a wide range of immune cell responses such as natural killer cell and cytotoxic T lymphocyte activities,lymphocyte proliferation and production of IL-2 and IFN-y (1,2)… “…Recent studies have indicated that relatively low levels of the long chain omega 3 fatty acids (EPA or DHA at a level of 4.4%of total fatty acids or 1.7%of dietary energy) are suffi cient to bring about some of the suppressive effects [on the immune system ],that dietary EPA and DHA [omega 3 derivatives ] both inhibit lymphocyte proliferation ,and that dietary EPA but not DHA inhibits natural killer cell activity .” 1 The report is titled “Omega 3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids,Infl ammation and Immunity,” by Philip C..Calder, Institute of Human Nutrition,University of Southampton,Bassett Crescent East,Southampton,UK.[/quote:3d11648f84] Sears himself has said that if your AA/EPA ratio is too low it can increase your risk of infection. This is not shocking news. However, most ailments are the result of an overactive immune response/excess inflammation (allergies, asthma, lupus, MS, arthritis), so reigning in that overactivity is a good thing. [quote:3d11648f84]If you consume fi sh oil supplements ,then you will be taking a quantity of omega 3 derivatives that is signifi cantly in excess of the immune-suppressing threshold amount given in the article above.We therefore do not recommend taking omega 3 derivatives from a supplement .You may eat all the fi sh you desire,but supplement only using the guidelines given below.[/quote:3d11648f84] That's interesting. The ISSFAL also presented a study which showed that the uptake of EPA/DHA is greater from eating fish than capsules. OOPS! [quote:3d11648f84]Note that neither Omega 6 nor its derivatives cause this immunosuppressive effect.)[/quote:3d11648f84] The studies showing the role of arachidonic acid and its metabolites in tumorigenesis are too numerous to count. [quote:3d11648f84]The following article shows how omega 3 in the dosage amounts and types often recommended by physicians and nutritionists,in particular from fi sh oil , will signifi cantly decrease your immune system response to infection [/quote:3d11648f84] [quote:3d11648f84]This article detailed why it is wrong to simply use only omega 3 or only omega 6 in experiments, and why experimental results are often misinterpreted. [/quote:3d11648f84] Hmmmm. Doesn't the latter quote put into question the former?

[quote:b24aef47f3] Though there is some evidence that evolution may have ocurred, there is also a lot of "evidence" that it may not have. It is only a theory, albeit widely accepted but only a theory, and also still widely disputed by many, much more knowledgeable and intelligent than I. This is my only objection to your thoughts. I do not have the answers, nor claim to be scientific - just highly skeptical.[/quote:b24aef47f3] Thanks for your thoughts. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. I've often heard that if you think something is true, you'll find evidence to support it. Even proponents of evolution can't agree with each other! I'll rephrase it this way--the high need for long-chain DHA by the developing brain and eyes, in conjunction with the longer-chain fatty-acid composition of human breast milk are pretty strong indicators that our bodies prefer these fatty-acids in their long-chain form.

[quote:84742278c4="Scott"]I'll rephrase it this way--the high need for long-chain DHA by the developing brain and eyes, in conjunction with the longer-chain fatty-acid composition of human breast milk are pretty strong indicators that our bodies prefer these fatty-acids in their long-chain form.[/quote:84742278c4] :wink: Thanks, Scott! :) (Much better!)

Scott, your thoughts on this (and the post that follows) would be of interest.......thanks crumbelina! Life-Systems Engineering translation: [b:65fcd9e48a]We require plentyof unadulterated,unprocessed omega 6 ,regardless of what you may be told.[/b:65fcd9e48a] Moreover,the argument that omega 6 and omega 3 EFAs must be taken together and in the correct balance with each other is documented in the following quote from a medical textbook article.This article makes it clear that omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids in combination,even at what are considered “low doses,” are more effective than omega 3 alone at higher doses.The following is the pertinent phrase: “…[There is a ] synergistic effect of n--6 [omega 6 ] and n- 3 [omega 3 ] fatty acids at low doses which is greater than the effect of high doses of n-3 fatty acids alone.” ((Prostaglandins in the Cardiovascular System,1992.) Perhaps this information won ’t stop most people from following the popular health press and medical authorities and incorrectly thinking that any extra omega 6 is “bad,” and all omega 3,,at almost any dosage,is “good.” But you will soon see how easy it is to overdose on omega 3 by following these bad recommendations . [b:65fcd9e48a]What Percentage of EFAs In Your Food Have Been Ruined?[/b:65fcd9e48a] As mentioned above,most of the omega 6 EFAs in today ’s foods are ruined — either hydrogenated into transfats or adulterated with chemicals and preservatives so the foods that contain them don ’t go bad at the supermarket or on your shelf at home. Everything from peanut butter and frozen foods to salad dressings and cooking oils is loaded with ruined omega 6 EFAs. We can safely hypothesize that,at the very minimum,the majority (51%)of the oxygen transfer capability in commercial omega 6 oils and oil-containing foods has been ruined from transfats,preservatives,and chemicals.The proof of this is that any of these oils can stay open and exposed to air for weeks before going bad,instead of just days, as unprocessed oils do!(It is obvious when oil has gone bad because it smells and tastes bad and gives off gases that release when the container is opened.)Most commercially available oils have been ruined through such processing or they would not be so “spoil- proof.” Now,with western diets containing an estimated twelve times the amount of omega 6 as omega 3,and the fact that at the very minimum,at least 51%of omega 6 EFAs are ruined as to their oxygen transfer ability,we obtain at most a 49%effectiveness of the omega 6 EFAs eaten in the normal diet.If we round these fi gures to 50%ruined versus 50%effective,it equates to an estimated 6 to 1 ratio of ef fective omega 6 EFAs to omega 3 EFAs obtained in the diet.This is actually the greatest amount of effective EFAs in the diet we could reasonably expect to fi nd.We will see below that this ratio falls slightly under our calculation of the average human requirement for EFAs. But there are further factors to consider that will affect what our ratio of omega 6 to 3 EFA supplementation should be.Even if you consumed the above ratio so you were getting a 6 to 1 ratio of effective omega 6 EFAs to omega 3 EFAs in your foods, given that at least half of it is adulterated,you would need even more “good,” organic,, unadulterated,parent omega 6 than that to compensate for the bad.Importantly,the amount of omega 3 required stays the same because there are few foods containing omega 3 that are “ruined ” in the way that omega 6 EFAs are..Let ’s continue. Are There Other Things We Need to Know? Yes,and the fi rst one is a whopper!Virtually everyone is missing a key point concerning “competition ” in the body between ruined and good omega 6::your body still uses the defective EFAs,even though they don ’t work!That is correct —your body will use the “next best thing ” in the cells if it can ’t get the parent omega 6 EFA it needs. It will use adulterated or transfat parent omega 6,it will use an EFA derivative,or it will be forced to even use the non-essential oleic acid (omega 9)that your body can either manufacture on its own or can come from foods like olive oil.But these substitutes do not provide the highest level of oxygenation for the cells.They are thus nearly worthless in improving cell respiration and health.You must therefore “overpower ” the defective EFAs you are taking in through the diet with adequate pure,unprocessed and unadulterated omega 6 EFAs to take their place. As mentioned above,the omega 3 that you get from foods is usually not adulterated.This is a further reason that more omega 6 supplementation in relation to omega 3 is needed .There is no “competition ” between good omega 3 EFAs from supplements and bad omega 3s from food,and therefore no need to overwhelm any bad omega 3 EFAs. The last factor,described in the next section,is the simple fact that the body needs and uses much less omega 3 than omega 6 overall.

Let ’s continue with an examination of body tissue composition to discover what EFA ratio we require. [b:ca13e388f3]Important Organ and Tissue EFA Ratios[/b:ca13e388f3] It is necessary for us to study the EFA composition of various tissues and organs like your brain,skin,heart and muscle to discover the overall EFA requirement of the body.It is known from pathology studies that the brain and nervous system have a ratio of one part omega 6 to one part omega 3 (1 to 1). Here ’s another shocker that appeared in the medical journal article:“Fatty acid profi le of skeletal muscle phospholipids in trained and untrained young men,” Agneta Anderson (et.al),American Journal of Endocrinological Metabolism ,279:E744-E751,2000. A little-known but very key fact about muscle structure that many nutrition writers overlook is that muscle contains from 5.5 to 7.5 times more omega 6 than omega 3,depending on the degree of physical condition!(Extremely fi t individuals require less omega 6 because their oxygen-transferring effi ciency,including an increased number of cell mitochondria, is greater than in nonexercising individuals.But because most of us are not elite athletes,we require an even greater amount of omega 6.) So,on average,a muscle contains 6.5 times more omega 6 than omega 3 (a ratio of 6.5 to 1).And last,most other tissues in the body contain a 4 to 1 ratio of omega 6 to omega 3.These relationships are shown in the table below: Omega6 to Omega3 brain/nerves 1 : 1 organs, other tissue 4 : 1 muscles 6.5 : 1 The next thing to consider is what percentage of your body weight do the various organs constitute?We fi nd that brain and nerve-related organs make up only about 3% of body weight,a very small quantity.The remaining organs,such as your heart,liver, skin and pancreas,make up approximately 9%of body weight.And the last —a very important fi gure —is the percentage of body weight your muscles comprise.Muscle accounts for close to half of human body weight (50%). Now,many nutritional writers state that simply because the brain has a 1 to 1 omega 6 to 3 ratio,a 1 to 1 omega 6 to 3 ratio makes the ideal supplement.But this analysis is wrong.It should be obvious from the second table above that the majority of our EFA-containing tissues and organs (per the above chart,59%of body weight) require much more unadulterated omega 6 than omega 3 to function properly.If we use the EFA ratio of the brain and nervous system tissue (1 to 1),more than half the remaining tissues in the body will be shorted on omega 6 EFAs.On the other hand, keeping these tissues happy with enough unprocessed omega 6 is the key issue that most nutrition writers overlook.Letting any tissues run short on these omega-6 EFAs, as will occur if you follow the most prevalent nutritional recommendations,leaves your body signifi cantly more susceptible.

[quote:4cb802a0e7] Moreover,the argument that omega 6 and omega 3 EFAs must be taken together and in the correct balance with each other is documented in the following quote from a medical textbook article.This article makes it clear that omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids in combination,even at what are considered “low doses,” are more effective than omega 3 alone at higher doses.The following is the pertinent phrase: “…[There is a ] synergistic effect of n--6 [omega 6 ] and n- 3 [omega 3 ] fatty acids at low doses which is greater than the effect of high doses of n-3 fatty acids alone.” ((Prostaglandins in the Cardiovascular System,1992.)[/quote:4cb802a0e7] I don't have a problem with the above statement. In the OmegaRx Zone Sears discusses how too much omega-3 can inhibit the production of series 1("good") eicosanoids (dervived from the omega-6 linoleic acid), thus the need to balance EPA intake with GLA intake. [quote:4cb802a0e7]If we round these fi gures to 50%ruined versus 50%effective,it equates to an estimated 6 to 1 ratio of ef fective omega 6 EFAs to omega 3 EFAs obtained in the diet.This is actually the greatest amount of effective EFAs in the diet we could reasonably expect to fi nd.We will see below that this ratio falls slightly under our calculation of the average human requirement for EFAs.[/quote:4cb802a0e7] I'm not sure how they come up with the 50% figure, but comparing it with the skeletal muscle composition and coming to the conclusion that this then must be the dietary intake is flawed as I'll mention in the next post. [quote:4cb802a0e7]You must therefore “overpower ” the defective EFAs you are taking in through the diet with adequate pure,unprocessed and unadulterated omega 6 EFAs to take their place.[/quote:4cb802a0e7] Unless of course you aren't eating trans-fats and controlling insulin levels. Then the enzyme activity of the delta-6-desaturase becomes much more effective at converting the parent Omega-6 to GLA and the series 1 eicosanoids so less is needed. Too much will spillover into excess arachidonic acid.

[quote:3ecbd58750] It is necessary for us to study the EFA composition of various tissues and organs like your brain,skin,heart and muscle to discover the overall EFA requirement of the body.Here ’s another shocker that appeared in the medical journal article:“Fatty acid profi le of skeletal muscle phospholipids in trained and untrained young men,” Agneta Anderson (et.al),American Journal of Endocrinological Metabolism ,279:E744-E751,2000. A little-known but very key fact about muscle structure that many nutrition writers overlook is that muscle contains from 5.5 to 7.5 times more omega 6 than omega 3,depending on the degree of physical condition!(Extremely fi t individuals require less omega 6 because their oxygen-transferring effi ciency,including an increased number of cell mitochondria, is greater than in nonexercising individuals.But because most of us are not elite athletes,we require an even greater amount of omega 6.) So,on average,a muscle contains 6.5 times more omega 6 than omega 3 (a ratio of 6.5 to 1)[/quote:3ecbd58750] The fatty acid profile of muscle is not evidence of fatty acid requirements, its a [i:3ecbd58750]consequence [/i:3ecbd58750]of dietary fatty acid composition. Anderson, Agneta, et al [i:3ecbd58750]"Fatty acid composition of skeletal muscle reflects dietary fatty acid composition in humans" [/i:3ecbd58750]American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2002 Dec; 76(6): 1222-9. Shocking, isn't it? The fact that fit indiviudals have lower n-6/n-3 ratio than non-exercising individuals is further evidence that we need a lower ratio than what they are advocating, regardless of whether or not you are [i:3ecbd58750]fit[/i:3ecbd58750]. One of the primary hormonal responses to exercise is the lowering of insulin levels and lower accumulation of arachidonic acid. Of course, you can also lower insulin with diet. Either way, whether exercising or not, controlling insulin levels results in less arachidonic acid accumulation. The fact that non-exercising individuals have a higher skeletal muscle n-6/n-3 ratio is evidence of this accumulation, and thus not suprising that sedentary groups are at a greater risk for number of inflammatory diseases.

Scott (or should I call you Dr. Sears!), thank you for your reply.... it is a lot to take in for us amateurs. I want to make sure I am understanding correctly, does this mean that muscle ratio SHOULD BE 1:1, but that unhealthy eating and inactive lifestyle cause this ratio to rise to levels of 6:1or even higher? I have learned a lot from you and the studies you have posted, you really have a way of turning even the most technical information into easy reading, you should write a book! You have so much knowledge in this area, is your work related to this field? Thanks, crumbelina

[quote:bffe28fde8] I want to make sure I am understanding correctly, does this mean that muscle ratio SHOULD BE 1:1, but that unhealthy eating and inactive lifestyle cause this ratio to rise to levels of 6:1or even higher? [/quote:bffe28fde8] It would not suprise me if such a relationship exists with skeletal muscle composition, since diet influences such composition and exercise results in changes to muscle phospolipid composition to a more favorable n-6/n-3 ratio: Helge JW, et al "[i:bffe28fde8]Training affects muscle phopholipid fatty acid composition in humans[/i:bffe28fde8]" Journal of Applied Physiology 2001 Feb; 90(2):670-7 However, Sears position is that the n-6/n-3 ratio of serum phospholipid is the prime indicator for disease risk, with a 1.5-3.0 to 1 ratio of AA/EPA being ideal. Some studies have shown a relationship with erthrocyte(red blood cell) ratios and some diagnostic services do such RBC analysis (ie, Great Smokies) Heude, Barbara, et al "[i:bffe28fde8]Cognitive decline and fatty acid composition of erthrocyte membranes--The EVA study[/i:bffe28fde8]" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , Vol. 77, No.4, 803-808, Apr 2003. It would be interesting to know what the relationship is between seurm, RBC, and muscle phospholipid composition to see the correlations. [quote:bffe28fde8]I have learned a lot from you and the studies you have posted, you really have a way of turning even the most technical information into easy reading, you should write a book![/quote:bffe28fde8] Thanks Crumbelina. I sincerely hope that the info I post is helpful. Interesting coincidence that you mention writing a book :wink: ...though I think I need to brush up on my writing and organization skills. [quote:bffe28fde8]You have so much knowledge in this area, is your work related to this field?[/quote:bffe28fde8] Not even close... :lol: Though I am back in school obtaining a second degree in biology and licensure for secondary education.