Omega-3 and Omega-6

This content has been removed.

maxbbbr wrote: »

Are there apps that help you track Omega-3 and Omega-6 (even if I have to look up the nutritional data myself)?

Well... there is google. Dietary planning for something the doctor has told you to raise is really just about adding more variety to your diet. Googling things that you need can help you put those pieces into your weekly puzzle. Once you have a plan just wait for the next set of blood results to see if you need to increase or decrease the amount you have added.

My own levels are sky high because of the large amount of seafood I consume each week for protein. I also routinely eat things like chia seeds and soybean products. I love seaweed snacks.

maxbbbr wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

maxbbbr wrote: »

Are there apps that help you track Omega-3 and Omega-6 (even if I have to look up the nutritional data myself)?

Well... there is google. Dietary planning for something the doctor has told you to raise is really just about adding more variety to your diet. Googling things that you need can help you put those pieces into your weekly puzzle. Once you have a plan just wait for the next set of blood results to see if you need to increase or decrease the amount you have added.

My own levels are sky high because of the large amount of seafood I consume each week for protein. I also routinely eat things like chia seeds and soybean products. I love seaweed snacks.

That's sort of winging it. Ideally, I'd like my omega-3 to omega-6 ratio to be 2:1.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/


Omega-3 is rare in modern diets, so it's actually easier to track by hand, but omega-6 is not.

What happens if you are much higher than 2:1? My 3 level is the highest my doctor has ever seen.

Wish I could help with something more specific but it is not something I try and track. I don't have any of the diseases mentioned and my obesity is decreasing daily. Unless there is a problem with a very high number, which my doctor didn't mention, I suppose I am good.

kshama2001 wrote: »

The USDA database doesn't have that info either. This is for walnuts, which I knew off the top of my head have Omega 3: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/12155?fgcd=&manu=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=default&order=asc&qlookup=Nuts,+walnuts,+english&ds=SR&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing=

It actually does, you just have to hit full report.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

maxbbbr wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

maxbbbr wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

maxbbbr wrote: »

Are there apps that help you track Omega-3 and Omega-6 (even if I have to look up the nutritional data myself)?

Well... there is google. Dietary planning for something the doctor has told you to raise is really just about adding more variety to your diet. Googling things that you need can help you put those pieces into your weekly puzzle. Once you have a plan just wait for the next set of blood results to see if you need to increase or decrease the amount you have added.

My own levels are sky high because of the large amount of seafood I consume each week for protein. I also routinely eat things like chia seeds and soybean products. I love seaweed snacks.

That's sort of winging it. Ideally, I'd like my omega-3 to omega-6 ratio to be 2:1.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/


Omega-3 is rare in modern diets, so it's actually easier to track by hand, but omega-6 is not.

What happens if you are much higher than 2:1? My 3 level is the highest my doctor has ever seen.

Wish I could help with something more specific but it is not something I try and track. I don't have any of the diseases mentioned and my obesity is decreasing daily. Unless there is a problem with a very high number, which my doctor didn't mention, I suppose I am good.

Too much omega-3/6 was associated with some bad stuff. From my first ref: "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. "

As I understand it, your cells need the omegas to be at a certain ratio, and deviations are abnormal.

What about in otherwise healthy people though? There are many aids for people who have specific medical conditions. Lower sodium may help with high blood pressure for some people but the average healthy person doesn't really need to worry about sodium. I didn't see that a certain imbalance of omegas actually caused anything just that it could help with people who have something.

If you are currently suffering from a disease that this may help I hope you find a way to track it. If not, I hope you don't chase stuff like this too much because it can kind of drive you crazy to cure/mitigate illnesses that you don't have.

Omega-3/Omega-6 balance, based on my reading, is a good thing even for healthy people. I agree that it's well down the priority list from attaining a healthy weight, getting adequate macros, eating enough veggies/fruits, for most people.

And yes, MFP doesn't track it because it isn't on labels, so it can't.

OP, in my understanding, omega 3/6 ratios are one of the things that Cronometer tracks (though I'm not a Cronometer user). Perhaps you'd be happier tracking there?

I was just checking my blood test result and I am not sure how to interpret the ratio because it is a decimal. I have new results coming soon so I may ask the doctor to explain it to me just out of idle curiosity and how much I pay him.

This content has been removed.

maxbbbr wrote: »

Thanks, Cronometer must be the one I saw.

It looks like it doesn't break down Omega-3 by subtypes though. The ones in chia seeds are apparently different from the ones in salmon (Your body can convert them, but apparently very very poorly)

Does https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/12155?n1={Qv=1}&fgcd=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=default&qlookup=Nuts,+walnuts,+english&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=&Qv=1&ds=SR&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing= Full Report give you what you need?

kshama2001 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

The USDA database doesn't have that info either. This is for walnuts, which I knew off the top of my head have Omega 3: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/12155?fgcd=&manu=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=default&order=asc&qlookup=Nuts,+walnuts,+english&ds=SR&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing=

It actually does, you just have to hit full report.

Oh! I didn't realize there was that option - thanks.

While there are now lots more results for Lipids, nothing says Omega 3 or 6 - what should we be looking for?

I think under the polyunsaturated they are the ones ending with n-6 and n-3, the n-3 are broken up into different types like DHA and EPA.

I would agree that it's way easier to just let Cron do it for you if you really want to track them, though.

This content has been removed.

maxbbbr wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

maxbbbr wrote: »

Thanks, Cronometer must be the one I saw.

It looks like it doesn't break down Omega-3 by subtypes though. The ones in chia seeds are apparently different from the ones in salmon (Your body can convert them, but apparently very very poorly)

Correct. You can use the full report at USDA (which would be an enormous pain), or just learn what foods have them. As you were talking about McDougall's diet, worth noting that there are no really good dietary sources of DHA and EPA that are vegetarian -- the best sources are fatty fish. If you eat starch solution and no fish, I'd supplement with a DHA/EPA supplement (they can be fish oil or algae).

Since I eat lots of fatty fish and not much packaged food with added oils (my understanding is that omega-6 tends to be high in many people's diets due to high consumption of industrial seed oils),

That's what I'm trying to do currently, actually. One thing to watch out for is fish canned in oil. Even with the oil drained, their ratios are completely backwards.

I believe that McDougall argues that what plants have (chia seeds, etc.) is enough.

I don't know if he's right, but he may be, because the majority of our ancestors around 200,000-50,000 years ago probably lived on dry land. OTOH when Norwegians during WW2 started eating a lot more fish instead of meat, their cardiovascular health improved noticeably.

I don't really worry about it.

I don't think it's a good idea to deviate in the ratio in the opposite direction either. You don't want to have a disease named after you

I'm kind of nutrition-obsessed, but not that obsessed. I think eating a normal mostly whole foods diet is unlikely to be problematic. People in blue zones don't track obsessively and less stress is likely helpful.

That said, I'm interested in nutrition so track off and on at Cronometer, and if I'm not eating fatty fish (I do plant-based off and on), I supplement.

I don't trust McDougall, he's misrepresented the protein recs, and I tend to think veg are more important than starch. I also think he's wrong re ALA being sufficient, but many hard-core vegans (but not many here) try to argue that no supplementation is necessary, and I think that's wrong re B12 and DHA/EPA (and I think everyone in cold/cloudy climates may do better supplementing D3 in the winter).

I'm not sure why you'd assume our hunter-gatherer ancestors did not eat fish. One thing to keep in mind is that they had darker skin (lighter skin is associated with the first farmers). That suggests that dietary Vit D was not an issue, which suggests likely that they consumed fish. The agricultural diet would have had less dietary Vit D, meaning that in colder/cloudier climates lighter skin (absent dietary fish) would have been an evolutionary advantage.

This content has been removed.