I've read multiple times that the ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 in the body is an important factor. I don't remember all of the research behind it, but it sounded pretty convincing when I heard Paul Jaminet discussing it for example. Not everyone here agrees with Paul but he sure makes sense whenever I hear him speak or when someone debates him, and anyway this ratio is discussed by all kinds of people.
So since almost nobody (even on a Peat diet) is not ingesting Omega 6 oils to some extent doesn't it make sense to eat a little bit of Omega 3 to try to achieve the optimum balance? By not eating any Omega 3 aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot (except for maybe 1% of the people who eat almost no Omega 6 such as Ray)?
Also Ray talks about most fish oil going rancid before you even ingest it or shortly thereafter, but if that was the case then it wouldn't show up in your tissues as Omega 3 oil would it?
From Paul:
Arachidonic acid is made from linoleic acid, and so those two oils were considered as roughly equivalent in their ability to meet our nutritional needs, but a large part of current research is devoted to showing the details of how fish oils protect against arachidonic acid. The “balance” between the omega -3 and the omega -6 fatty acids is increasingly being presented as a defense against the toxic omega -6 fats. But the accumulation of unsaturated fats with aging makes any defense increasingly difficult, and the extreme instability of the highly unsaturated omega -3 fats creates additional problems.
From Ray (he mentions the ratio & doesn't really argue against it):
Arachidonic acid is made from linoleic acid, and so those two oils were considered as roughly equivalent in their ability to meet our nutritional needs, but a large part of current research is devoted to showing the details of how fish oils protect against arachidonic acid. The “balance” between the omega -3 and the omega -6 fatty acids is increasingly being presented as a defense against the toxic omega -6 fats. But the accumulation of unsaturated fats with aging makes any defense increasingly difficult, and the extreme instability of the highly unsaturated omega -3 fats creates additional problems.
So since almost nobody (even on a Peat diet) is not ingesting Omega 6 oils to some extent doesn't it make sense to eat a little bit of Omega 3 to try to achieve the optimum balance? By not eating any Omega 3 aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot (except for maybe 1% of the people who eat almost no Omega 6 such as Ray)?
Also Ray talks about most fish oil going rancid before you even ingest it or shortly thereafter, but if that was the case then it wouldn't show up in your tissues as Omega 3 oil would it?
From Paul:
Arachidonic acid is made from linoleic acid, and so those two oils were considered as roughly equivalent in their ability to meet our nutritional needs, but a large part of current research is devoted to showing the details of how fish oils protect against arachidonic acid. The “balance” between the omega -3 and the omega -6 fatty acids is increasingly being presented as a defense against the toxic omega -6 fats. But the accumulation of unsaturated fats with aging makes any defense increasingly difficult, and the extreme instability of the highly unsaturated omega -3 fats creates additional problems.
From Ray (he mentions the ratio & doesn't really argue against it):
Arachidonic acid is made from linoleic acid, and so those two oils were considered as roughly equivalent in their ability to meet our nutritional needs, but a large part of current research is devoted to showing the details of how fish oils protect against arachidonic acid. The “balance” between the omega -3 and the omega -6 fatty acids is increasingly being presented as a defense against the toxic omega -6 fats. But the accumulation of unsaturated fats with aging makes any defense increasingly difficult, and the extreme instability of the highly unsaturated omega -3 fats creates additional problems.