This content is part of an article series.
In the first article of this series we talked about the negative impact of 4 common food toxins: wheat, industrial seed oil, fructose and processed soy. In the second article we discussed which fats, carbohydrates and proteins are the best source of fuel for your body. In this article we’re going to importance of eating real food.
“Real food” is:
- Whole, unprocessed and unrefined
- pasture-raised (a.k.a. grass-fed) and wild
- local, seasonal and organic
Let’s look at each of these in turn.
Whole, unprocessed, and unrefined: if it comes in a bag or a box, don’t eat it!
The introduction of industrial food processing has without a doubt had the most detrimental effect on our health of any other factor in the last few hundred years – and possibly in the entire history of humankind.
New research is revealing the harm these newfangled processed foods have on us almost every day. Just yesterday a study was published demonstrating that emulsifiers used in packaged foods ranging from mayonnaise to bread to ice cream increase intestinal permeability (“leaky gut”) and cause a chain reaction of inflammation and autoimmune disease.
Another study showed that diet soda consumption increases your risk of stroke and causes kidney damage, possibly because of the phosphoric acid used as an acidifying agent to give colas their tangy flavor.
To avoid the harm caused by processed and refined foods, a good general rule is “if it comes in a bag or a box, don’t eat it.“
Of course not all foods that come in bags and boxes are harmful, so this isn’t meant to be taken literally. It’s just a helpful guideline. Butter is often packaged in a box, and Trader Joe’s (for some strange reason) packages vegetables in sealed plastic bags. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t eat butter and vegetables.
But in general, if you follow this guideline, you’ll avoid most common food toxins. And that’s more than half the battle.
Pasture-raised animal products and wild-caught fish: as nature intended
While the reasons to eat pasture-raised animal products and wild-caught fish span social, political, economic and nutritional considerations, I’m only going to focus on nutritional factors here. For a more comprehensive discussion, check out Eat Wild.
Several studies have been done comparing the nutrient content of pasture-raised (PR) and grain-fed (confinement animal feeding operations, or CAFO) animal products. PR animal products are superior to CAFO in 2 primary respects: they have a better fatty acid profile, and higher levels of vitamins and other micronutrients.
Omega-6 ratio
If you remember from Step #1: Don’t Eat Toxins, for optimal health we want to consume a roughly equal amount of omega-6 (n-6) and omega-3 (n-6) fats. This ratio, referred to as the n-6 ratio, should be as close to 1 as possible. Studies have shown that grain-feeding animals depletes their omega-3 levels, thus raising the n-6:n-3 ratio. The following chart from Eatwild depicts the effect of grain-feeding on the omega-3 levels of cows:
Ducket and colleagues studied the omega-3 and omega-6 content of both pasture-raised and grain-fed animal products. They found that grass-fed beef had an n-6 ratio of 1.65, whereas grain-finished beef was 4.84. They also found that grass-feeding decreased total fat content by 43%.
Rule and colleagues found an even more significant difference. They looked at the n-6 ratio of several different types of meat, ranging from pasture-raised bison and beef to wild elk to chicken. They found the following ratios:
- Range-fed bison: 2.09
- Feedlot bison: 7.22
- Range-fed beef: 2.13
- Feedlot beef: 6.28
- Elk: 3.14
- Chicken breast: 18.5
What is apparent from both Ducket and Rule’s studies is that pasture-raised beef has approximately three times the amount of omega-3 than grain-fed beef, and is much closer to the ideal n-6 ratio of 1.
Another interesting thing to note, which I mentioned in Step #2: Nourish Your Body, is the high n-6 ratio of chicken. In fact, it has about 14 times more n-6 than pasture-raised beef. This is why I recommend eating mostly beef, lamb and pork, and limiting chicken to the occasional meal (assuming you like it, that is). And when you do eat chicken, it’s best to choose skinless breast and cook it in a healthy traditional fat like butter or coconut oil, because the dark meat with skin has the highest concentration of n-6 fat.
Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA)
Meat, fat and dairy from pasture-raised animals are the richest source of another type of good fat, called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).
CLA may have anti-cancer properties, even in very small amounts. In animal studies, CLA at less than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of total calories prevents tumor growth. In a Finnish study on humans, women who had the highest levels of CLA in their diet had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels. In another human study, those with the highest levels of CLA in their tissues had a 50 percent lower risk of heart attack than those with the lowest levels.
Pasture-raised animal products are the richest known source of CLA in the diet, and are significantly higher in CLA than grain-fed animal products. When ruminant animals like cows and sheep are raised on fresh pasture alone, their products contain from 3-5 times more CLA than products from animals fed grain.
Minerals, vitamins and micronutrients
The Ducket study I mentioned above also found that pasture-raised animal products have much higher levels of several vitamins and minerals, including:
- 288% greater vitamin E content
- 54% greater beta-carotene content
- Twice as much riboflavin (vitamin B2)
- Three times as much thiamin (vitamin B1)
- 30% more calcium
- 5% more magnesium
Grass-fed products also have a lot more selenium than grain-fed products. Selenium plays an important role in thyroid function, has antioxidant effects and protects the body against mercury toxicity. Grass-fed bison has 4 times more selenium than grain-fed bison.
Pasture-raised eggs
We see a similar difference between eggs from hens raised on pasture, and those raised in confinement. Pasture-raised hens contain as much as 10 times more omega-3 than eggs from factory hens. Pastured eggs are higher in B12 and folate. They also have higher levels of fat-soluble antioxidants like vitamin E and a denser concentration of vitamin A.
Wild-caught fish
Farmed fish contain excess omega-6 compared to wild-caught fish. Tests conducted in 2005 show that wild-caught salmon contain 10 times more n-3 than n-6, whereas farmed salmon have less than 4 times the amount of n-3 than n-6.
Another study found that consuming standard farmed salmon, raised on diets high in n-6, raises blood levels of inflammatory chemicals linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and cancer.
Wild salmon also contains 4 times as much vitamin D than farmed salmon, which is especially important since up to 50% of Americans are deficient in this important vitamin.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
Organic, local and seasonal: more nutrients, fewer chemicals
More nutrients
Organic plant foods contain, on average, 25 percent higher concentrations of 11 nutrients than their conventional counterparts. In particular, they tend to be higher in important polyphenols and antioxidants like vitamin C, vitamin E and quercetin.
Even more relevant in determining nutrient content is where your produce comes from, and in particular, how long it’s been out of the ground before you eat it. Most of the produce sold at large supermarket chains is grown hundreds – if not thousands – of miles away, in places like California, Florida and Mexico. This is especially true when you’re eating foods that are out of season in your local area (like a banana in mid-winter in New York).
A typical carrot, for example, has traveled 1,838 miles to reach your dinner table. Days – maybe more than a week – have passed since it was picked, packaged and trucked to the store, where it can sit on the shelves even longer.
The problem with this is that food starts to change as soon as it’s harvested and its nutrient content begins to deteriorate. Total vitamin C content of red peppers, tomatoes, apricots, peaches and papayas has been shown to be higher when these crops are picked ripe from the plant. This study compared the Vitamin C content of supermarket broccoli in May (in season) and supermarket broccoli in the Fall (shipped from another country). The result? The out-of-season broccoli had only half the vitamin C of the seasonal broccoli.
Without exposure to light (photosynthesis), many vegetables lose their nutrient value. If you buy vegetables from the supermarket that were picked a week ago, transported to the store in a dark truck, and then stored in the middle of a pile in the produce section, and then you put them in your dark refrigerator for several more days before eating them, chances are they’ve lost much of their nutrient value. A study at Penn State University found that spinach lost 47% of its folate after 8 days.
This is why buying your produce at local farmer’s markets, or even better, picking it from your backyard garden, are better options than buying conventional produce shipped from hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Fewer chemicals
Another important benefit of organic produce, of course, is that it’s grown without pesticides, herbicides and other harmful chemicals that have been shown to cause health problems – especially in vulnerable populations like children. A study published in the journal Pediatrics concluded that children exposed to organophosphate pesticides at levels typically found in conventional produce are more likely to develop attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
A panel of scientists convened by President Obama to study the effect of environmental toxins on cancer released a report in 2010 urging Americans to eat organic produce grown without pesticides, fertilizers or other chemicals. The report states that the U.S. government has grossly underestimated the number of cancers caused by environmental toxins.
The report especially highlights the risk of toxins in conventionally grown foods to unborn children. Exposure to harmful chemicals during this critical period can set a child up for lifelong endocrine disruption, hormone imbalances and other problems.
Supporting local economies and preserving resources
Aside from having more nutrients and fewer chemicals, there are other non-nutritional reasons to eat local produce. These were summarized well in Cornell University’s Northeast Regional Food Guide:
Community food systems promote more food-related enterprises in proximity to food production, marketing, and consumption. Such systems enhance agricultural diversity, strengthen local economies (including farm-based businesses), protect farmland, and increase the viability of farming as a livelihood. Local food systems mean less long-distance shipment of the produce we enjoy, which means decreased use of nonrenewable fossil fuels for food distribution, lower emission of resulting pollutants, and less wear on transcontinental highways.
I’ve also found that forming relationships with the people that grow my food leads to a greater sense of community and connection. In an increasingly technophilic, hyperactive world, that is especially welcome.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Lacey: thanks for your feedback on the design. Glad you like it.
Glenn: quoting Peskin isn’t going to convince me, since I don’t subscribe to his theories. I’d like to see actual peer-reviewed studies suggesting that fructose from fruit behaves differently than fructose from HFCS, or that n-6 from chicken & nuts behaves differently than n-6 from seed oil. Period. Otherwise, you’re just barking at the moon.
I acknowledged that HFCS has many other undesirable qualities aside from fructose content alone, so let’s not belabor that point. And n-6 seed oils are far worse than chicken or nuts because their n-6 content is so much higher. But this isn’t the issue. The issue is whether eating too much chicken and nuts can potentially raise n-6 levels in the tissue, and whether increased tissue levels of n-6 can cause inflammation. The answer to both of those questions – according to peer-reviewed research – is yes.
So here’s what we know. Our ancestors had pretty close to a 1:1 n-6 ratio, and they were mostly free of inflammatory, degenerative disease. We know from modern clinical studies (including the one I linked to above, but also many more) that maintaining a tissue concentration of 60% n-3 LCFA (EPA & DHA) would protect 98.6% of the worldwide risk of cardiovascular mortality potentially attributable to n-3 deficiency. So how much n-3 do we need to attain 60% tissue concentration? That depends, of course, on n-6 intake. From my article How Much Omega-3 in Enough? That Depends on Omega-6:
This is simply another way of looking at it, but I believe it’s the most specific because it’s based on human studies of actual tissue concentration of n-3 and n-6, which is what determines eicosanoid production and subsequent inflammation. It is impossible to maintain 60% tissue concentration of n-3 LCFA (and 40% n-6 LCFA) while consuming seed oils, without ridiculously large doses of fish oil, which are harmful in their own right. But as I pointed out in this article and in the previous one linked to above, it’s not hard to get too much n-6 even when completely avoiding seed oils. Just 50g of walnuts and 1/4 pound of dark meat chicken would give you 23g of n-6. Assuming an intake of 0.65g/d of EPA & DHA (or about 3 6 oz. servings of fatty fish/week) and an ALA intake of 2.35g/d (which is average), you’d have to limit n-6 to 7g/d even to obtain a 2.3:1 n-6 ratio, and the desired 60% tissue concentration of n-3 LCFA. If you’re eating those walnuts and chicken every day, your ratio is going to be closer to 7 or 8.
Which brings us back to my point. I have never said “don’t eat chicken” or “don’t eat nuts”. What I’ve said is that, if you’re trying for optimal or “perfect” health (which is the name of this series after all), you should not make chicken a staple meat, and you should limit nut intake, because eating both ever day in significant quantities is going to elevate your n-6 ratio above evolutionary norms and the levels shown in clinical studies to prevent inflammatory disease.
I’ve also written about the 80/20 rule, which I still firmly believe in. If you haven’t read that post, read it now. Here’s the relevant part:
If you want to absolutely maximize your health, try to keep your n-6 ratio between 1 and 2.5. Otherwise, forget about it and just live your life! You’re under no obligation to follow any of this advice. I’m done here. I’ve said my piece, and now I have to get back to work!
First, the new site design looks great, Chris. I looked at it and thought, “this is what professional site design should look like.”
Since things are getting a bit heated with Glenn’s lengthy comments, I want to say that I’m appreciating the information being exchanged Chris and Glenn, and I feel that Glenn is raising some valid points and not just trolling to get a reaction. A 1:1 ratio of O6 to O3 might be optimal, but considering it takes some conscious manipulation of diet to get (O6 is everywhere, O3 not as common, plus the whole issue of overfishing affecting wild fish populations), I want to know without a doubt that this is what I need to be doing with my diet. Chris is without a doubt, but I’ve read some contradictory evidence on whether inflammation automatically occurs when the ratio of O6 of O3 goes above 2:1 (and on up to 6:1, although I agree that the national average of 18:1 is ridiculous). O6 seed oils are famous for being extremely processed (rapeseed, for instance, is so stinky that it has to be bleached and deodorized even after being cold pressed).
I’m not making claims for or against anything being said here; I’ll wait for all of the evidence to shake out. I’m just feeling skeptical of whole paleo/low carb diet movement starting with Taubes because the goalposts keep moving based on new evidence, so anymore I tend not to believe anything I read, even from intelligent sources like this blog, until I’ve seen it debated to death. I discovered this way of eating in September 2010 and I like what it’s done for me, but in the six months I’ve been at it, I’ve seen the conventional paleo wisdom go from “ketosis good” to ketosis not optimal,” I’ve seen dietary advice go from “starch gives you diabetes” to “you can’t live without safe starch,” and I’ve seen Kurt Harris tell us he eats generic rice krispies – and that’s just the beginning.
I’m not blaming Chris for what other people do (he’s not even officially paleo), but when I see so much shifting of approaches in the short six months I’ve been at this, I tend to be skeptical.
Chris,
Do you think the environment can really sustain production of grass-fed or wild-caught meat and organic vegetables enough to feed more than six billion people?
As for chemicals, as I understand it, organic farmers are allowed to use certain pesticides and fungicides, as long as they’re natural enough or something. Have these been studied adequately to show they lack short-term or long-term harmful effects on people or the environment? Because natural does not mean harmless, of course.
Also, I’m not sure I have a good idea of what proportions of foods you think are ideal. How much meat, dairy, eggs, fruits, and vegetables, relative to each other? Or does it depend on the person?
Thanks.
Brandon,
I hope you read my reply to Chris. If not, I’ll address your comment:
I believe you are correct in assuming that ANY animal that eats more grain will have lower omega-3 intake. In fact, Chris’s study which had details on beef, stated in the beginning that it was true of ALL animals. They just used beef in the proof. Chris’s summary was: “Studies have shown that grain-feeding animals depletes their omega-3 levels, thus raising the n-6:n-3 ratio.”
This is the best argument I can see for people to either: 1) reduce their intake of carbs; or 2) increase their intake of omega-3, as in supplements; or 3)BOTH. I’m not saying this because I worry about the n-6:n-3 ratio. I’ve obviously declared my feelings there in favor of eating healthy foods (and now I must add “in a balanced diet” to appease Chris who points out that one can get too much omega-6 if they sit and eat only nuts) and that will take care of any balance issues. I’m saying it because omega-3 is an essential oil, and if we aren’t supplementing, we may be not getting enough because the typical American diet is excessively grains. Maybe not as imbalanced as what a feed-lot beef or chicken gets, but still unbalanced.
I think the important thing to remember, as Chris’ beef study points out, is that it is the omega-3 that varies. Eating more grain lowers the omega-3. This raises the n-6:n-3 ratio, but it does not give your body more omega-6. And the other REALLY important thing to remember is that regardless of what anyone considers an ideal ratio for these oils, we all should be serious about stopping our consumption of commercial oils and boxed/bagged/canned packages containing them. Yes, they are omega-6 oils originally, but they will be ruined for use in the human body by the time you ingest them. They will have no oxygen transport capability and yet they will be in your cell walls and once they are plentiful enough there, they will cause your cells to starve for oxygen. Any cell starving for oxygen will fall back on fermentation for its energy, and once it does that, it never again will use oxygen, but only sugar for metabolism. This is what a cancer cell is.
You said: “it’s going to be much harder for glenn to convince us that our bodies internal workings are smart enough to decipher the difference between a molecule when it comes from chicken or when it comes from seed oil.”
I think you got this from Chris, who is paraphrasing my statement: “show me ONE [study] that used, say, range-fed, organic chicken (or walnuts, etc.), and definitely NO commercial vegetable oil, as the source of the n-6.” What MY statement was trying to show was that almost all studies use commercial vegetable oil, and that no pains are taken to make sure it isn’t oxidized. This is very important and will totally change the results of the study. As I explained above at length in my answer to Chris’ last comment, the adulteration of the vegetable oil is what we are trying to avoid when we follow Chris’ guidelines as stated in this and his prior article of this series. We want to stop eating that kind of damaging oil. It is what causes cancer and heart disease. I was trying to point out that its the condition of the oil that can make the omega-6 in the study do bad things to the human (or mouse) body. I was not trying to say that healthy omega-6 can come only from nuts or seeds or fresh meat. It is just known to be better preserved as to its oxygen bearing properties when in a natural state.
I am really not trying to differ with Chris on what people should be eating, but am much more interested in increasing peoples ability to discriminate between healthy fats and oxidized fats (as in rancid or overheated), which the popular press and even Chris, up to this point, seem content to just label “omega-6”.
And as to the “skewing” you mentioned. The issue was that Chris, in this article, has taken as an objective, to reduce the n-6:n-3 ratio to 1:1, even though every example he has come up with (notice the elk, for example, in his quoted study) has over a 2:1 ratio. Also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, he was comparing chicken with beef, and the chicken is eaten with the skin included, whereas beef never is. This was not an intentional misrepresentation by Chris, just an oversight, but it likely skewed the reader’s impression of the relative merits of eating chicken.
Along these lines, you might like to read this article, which probably explains why the wild animals mentioned in Chris’ study have n-6:n-3 ratios much closer to 2:1 than do humans and our livestock:
http://www.brianpeskin.com/BP.com/publications/2011-anti-aging-therapeutics,pdf.pdf
In it you will find the statement: “Extremely fit individuals require less
omega-6 because their oxygen-transferring efficiency, including an increased number of cell
mitochondria, is greater than in non-exercising individuals.” I would suggest that “extremely fit individuals” live and exercise more like wild animals, and thus across the whole animal spectrum, the most active will have lower ratio’s than the more sedentary. For those interested in this ratio, it might be interesting to consider eating not just “grass fed” animals, but also more active animals, or even wild game. Human muscle has an average n-6:n-3 ratio of 6.1:1. So we are more sedentary than the elk. Our muscles are less efficient at using oxygen, and so we need more n-6 in our cells than do active, wild animals. I find this interesting.
Chris and Brandon, thank you so much for putting so much into this discussion. We are now getting somewhere.
Chris, you are picking at my comment “show me ONE that used, say, range-fed, organic chicken (or walnuts, etc.), and definitely NO commercial vegetable oil, as the source of the n-6” as though I insist that certain oil sources must be used. I used the word “say” to imply that the walnuts, etc. were examples, not that they were required.
What you are missing is this: omega-6 is not omega-6. When ingested, it better not be oxidized (rancid, pre-heated, whatever may cause it, even chemical additives) or it doesn’t function as it should. The very reason that omega-3 oils are not even used commercially for cooking is that they oxidize even faster than omega-6 oils. They would be turning rancid before they could be used. But omega-6 oils still are ruined when poured into a deep fryer, or even heated in baked goods. That is why it is so important how the oils are cared for if they are used in a study. And that is why most studies are worthless when the subject is something about the effect of the oils in our bodies. The researchers are being careless about the oxidation of the oils. But if, as I suggested, they had used raw foods to supply the oils, most probably the results would have been different, and more important, might have had some use to help healthy people be healthier. But, as the study you cited shows, the intent is just to prove the usefulness of a drug; the researchers use whatever form of oil makes the study prove what they want. And yes, oxidized omega-6 is going to create havoc in an organism and their drugs are going to have some effect. Oxidized omega-6 is not a substance that any health oriented person wants to put in their system. Oxidized omega-6 is not functionally the same as omega-6 ingested from fresh food or even lightly cooked meat.
Chris, this is an aside, but I’ll throw it in here anyway. Your quoted article states “Greater compositions of EPA, DPA, and DHA in membranes competitively lower the availability of AA for the production of eicosanoids (17, 47, 48)” and implies that there is a problem with too much AA. But notice it says “availability”. Not “existence”. The drug companies, as admitted in the article, has a huge vested interest in certain drugs. One of the things they are claiming is important is to reduce the availabilility of AA because it is obviously tied to “inflammatory” derivative acids. If you would only read Brian Peskin’s article on this, you would see that the body only takes the “available” AA and processes it to begin inflammation when it is needed. Lenoleic Acid is sitting in all our 100 trillion cell walls all the time, able to be broken down into the medium chain fatty acids when needed. Nothing is forcing it to automatically change into AA beyond what is needed, or to be broken down into any of the other necessary substance for cell life. The whole assumption of the study you quote is flawed by this very fact. Its like saying that because we know that gasoline causes fire, we therefore need to keep an absolute minimum in the gas tanks of all motor vehicles. Its ignoring the fact that there is a system in place that transports the gas and meters out the gas in the engine. We are not going to end up with excessive AA because we overdose on omega-6. Even oxidized omega-6! That is not one of the many significant problems with eating industrial vegetable oils that are oxidized. And its not a problem with healthy omega-6 oils. The first article mentioned below, which I can send you, has a lot more on this: 30 pages worth.
Brian Peskin articles:
I cannot find the article on line at this time that explains how AA is not going to be in excess just because there is plentiful Lenoleic Acid, but here is a tiny excerpt and I will gladly send you the full PDF from my computer if you specify an email address to receive it:
‘In fact, a very high dietary LA will reduce membrane AA [the
opposite effect!]…. Note: This is why it was reported in the article….that “AA in the phospholipids of Eskimos [consuming
lots of parent omega-6] is approximately one-third of that in
Danes.” ‘ (21 reference included)
http://www.brianpeskin.com/BP.com/publications/2011-anti-aging-therapeutics,pdf.pdf (44 references included)
To conclude, but to make sure you know I’m trying to cover all the issues you have raised with my last post, I’ll handle your repetition of what you explain as the problem with my logic. You said:
“Did they mention anything about where the n-6 came from? Did they say that it had a different effect when it came from meat than it did when it came from oils? No. Because that argument makes no sense.”
Did I answer this well enough above? I hope I explained that I’m not specifying that the source of the omega-6 matters, but the condition matters a lot. I was trying to address that when I talked about oxidation.
And then you said:
“Please show us some studies that suggest that n-6 in chicken or any other food behaves differently in the body than n-6 for seed oil.”
Do we agree that this is not what I was saying? If not, please respond.
As to fructose is fructose, here’s a couple of quotes:
“Additionally, there’s hard empirical evidence showing that refined man-made fructose like HFCS metabolizes to triglycerides and adipose tissue, not blood glucose.”
“Chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS were found to have ‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls. Reactive carbonyls are undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules, and are believed to cause tissue damage.”
I should mention that most naturally occurring fructose, as in fruits, but even in table sugar, is “bound”, meaning tied to glucose, and chemically stable. Therefore, as for omega-6: fructose is NOT fructose. There are differences. Here’s the complete article:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/24/Why-HighFructose-Corn-Syrup-Causes-Insulin-Resistance.aspx
References are highlighted
You closed by saying:
“So if people do that and just eat whole, fresh, and occasionally lightly cooked foods, how are they going to get too much omega-6?
“By eating too many nuts and too much chicken. Which is exactly my point.”
I think, at one place in your article, your point might have been “don’t eat too much chicken”. But it was based on omega-6 content, which I still have not seen proof of as being a bad thing. But I will certainly concede that a balanced diet is important and eating one thing to the exclusion of too much else is going to cause problems.
When I think about what our “points” are though Chris, I would rather think that your original point was to get people to eat healthy by focusing on raw, fresh, whole, and probably organic foods. I can’t agree more. And I think my original point was that if we do exactly what you are focusing on, (with the extra stipulation that we eat a well balanced diet, which neither of us mentioned to start with), then counting omega’s or balancing omega’s will be no more important than counting calories, measuring vitamin content, or mineral and enzyme content. If you wish to focus on balancing omega’s in the future, I think I will ignore that. I haven’t been convinced that its necessary, but I’ll let you talk about it all you want. Please visit Brian Peskin occasionally though. You can ask him questions. He will answer your email. His writings are a valuable resource, just as are yours.
David,
I can’t vouch that the below information is correct, but I’ve seen it quoted often. Yes, It would be great to see Chris’s take on this.
“A recent analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that grass-fed steak has about twice as many omega-3s as a typical grain-fed steak. Another study published in March in Nutrition Journal backed up those numbers.
Still, with 35 milligrams of heart-healthy fats per serving, grass-fed steak can’t compete with a salmon dinner, which has about 1,100 milligrams.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125722082
@Chris
Thanks for the numbers. Trust me I totally get what you are saying about the chicken. I was mainly curious about the numbers for beef though, as I tend to eat more of that, and from what I know, the amounts of n6 in beef stay relatively constant regardless of feeding type.
it really makes sense that chicken would contain more n-6 when you think about what they eat then…grains and plant foods containing n-6.
and that when they get to eat insects and meat too…their n-3 content will be increased.
similar to the data showing n-3/n-6 content in cattle eating corn vs. grass.
and since conventional chickens ONLY get to eat grain and soy…naturally…less n-3, more n-6. seems logical.
and though, of course, humans aren’t chickens, or cows, or rats…BUT…this same logic probably does apply to us. we eat more n-6…we ARE more n-6. and if we believe that n-6 is inflammatory in humans, as shown in chris’ explanation of eicosanoids and anti-inflammatory drugs (for example)…then how are we to believe that chicken could be an optimal food. it seems that glenn is arguing that you’ll be healthier if your n-6 comes from chicken and nuts. and he’s probably right, i don’t think anyone is denying him that…but it’s because now it’s going to be extremely difficult to reach the quantities you would with the seed oils. so it’s more tolerable but still not optimal. it’s similar to an ornish diet where he swears his patients are healthier because of the “low fat”…BUT he also cuts out all refined products…and when you look at the net effect…he’s actually reduced the carbohydrate intake of his subjects more (by percentage) than fat. yet it’s the fat that’s unhealthy?
it’s going to be much harder for glenn to convince us that our bodies internal workings are smart enough to decipher the difference between a molecule when it comes from chicken or when it comes from seed oil.
i mean does the chicken n-6 make it to your “gut bouncer” for him to say…”hey, this n-6 isn’t on the guest list, he’ll cause a scene in the place”…and the rest of the chicken particles say “he’s cool, he’s with us”…”oh well in that case he won’t be harmful.”
it almost seems like by this logic…if we always ate seed oils with a whole food we could fool our bodies into thinking it was from chicken…and therefore it would consider it healthy. come on!
i never saw chris make any unique and specific claims for any individual here. he simply offers his best interpretation of the data thus far. i didn’t really find any “skewing” or “specific advice”…so i always find it amusing when someone accuses another of this…only to spend a paragraph or two doing exactly what they say they are supposedly against.
i just wonder why anyone would spend time on this site reading the work someone has done based on their best interpretation of the data thus far…and then argue for a more tolerable diet vs. an optimal one.
David: one pound of dark-meat chicken with skin has 13.6g of n-6, which is quite significant, IMO. Even 1/2 pound of chicken, which many people could eat quite easily in one day, has 6.8g. On a 2,000 calorie diet, limiting n-6 to 2% of calories means eating no more than 4.5g of n-6 a day. That half-pound of chicken just used up your whole allowance, and a little bit more. See Don Matesz’s article for a good breakdown.
Again, I’m not saying we should never eat chicken. I’m just saying it shouldn’t be a staple meat.
I don’t see where I’m not being fair, or logical. It is illogical, on the other hand, to assume that a chemical compound with an identical molecular configuration (i.e. omega-6 linoleic acid, or fructose) would have a different effect on the body when it comes from chicken or nuts than it does when it comes from seed oils.
“I’m asking you to show a study that proves that parent omega-6 oils, taken into the human body in a fresh state, (as you want us to eat anyway per this article) have any damaging effect, even in a ratio of 10 to 1 over omega-3 oils.”
I just did show you that study, but apparently you didn’t read it. The study I linked to in the previous comment looked at n-3 and n-6 content in the food supply of 38 different countries. They weren’t only looking at refined seed oils, as you suggest. From the study:
That list contains a wide range of “natural” foods and oils, including the ones you want people to continue to eat liberally. And what did that study find?
Did they mention anything about where the n-6 came from? Did they say that it had a different effect when it came from meat than it did when it came from oils? No. Because that argument makes no sense.
As the authors point out, the suppression of n-6 eicosanoids with ibuprofen, aspirin and other drugs is a big-time industry. Those eicosanoids are produced when n-6 is in excess of n-3 in the tissue – regardless of the source of the n-6. My point in writing these articles is right in line with the author’s suggestion: instead of taking Advil every day, why not reduce dietary intakes of LA to decrease tissue concentrations of AA?
Please show us some studies that suggest that n-6 in chicken or any other food behaves differently in the body than n-6 for seed oil. And while you’re at it, show us a study indicating that fructose from HFCS behaves differently than from fruit. They are the same molecules. The only difference is that it’s much easier to get large amounts of n-6 from seed oils and fructose from HFCS. Of course there are many other reasons to avoid HFCS and industrial seed oils, but it’s not because they have a “different” type of n-6 or fructose. That’s just basic biochemistry, Glenn.
So if people do that and just eat whole, fresh, and occasionally lightly cooked foods, how are they going to get too much omega-6?
By eating too many nuts and too much chicken. Which is exactly my point.
Awesome new site design! I like how there are several articles stacked on top of each other like ‘previews’ versus the entire newest article, and then the entire 2nd newest article… etc. Well done Chris. Seems fresh and more up to date.
@Glenn
Actually, fructose is fructose regardless of where it comes from. The amount of time it takes to break the fructose out from it’s molecular bond to other sugars, or to break down the fiber from the fruit, may lead to a different digestion period, but in the end it will go through the hepatic portal vein like every other molecule of fructose.
Monosaccharides are quite atomic in nature, they are the smallest form of a sugar. If fructose were to exist in another form, it wouldn’t be fructose – it would be glucose.
Chris, great article and wonderful redesign of your blog.
I was wondering, do you have the average absolute values of PUFA’s in those various types of meat? The ratios are certainly alarming, but I feel they don’t tell the whole story.
If one feeding type produced a extremely high n-6/n-3 ratio like I dunno how about 18:1, but the absolute amount of PUFA per pound is only 1 gram, then the problem seems much less dire to me. That’s not really a lot of PUFA considering the portion size.
Here is the answer to omega-6 vs. omega-3.
Omega-6 supports inflammation – omega-3 counteracts inflammation.
Both are required by the body to function optimally in all its complexity.
If you feel chronic aching all over, you likely have too much omega-6 and not enough omega-3.
Since both are called ‘essential fatty acids’ it follows, that they, in fact, are.
They are also quasy harmless to consume, therefore if one feels the above mentioned imbalance, eat some more omega-3 for a while and see, whether you feel any better. It’s that simple!
Gosh Chris, you are making statements for the whole readership to view. I would try to use a bit of fairness and good logic if I were you. That is all that I am doing.
Your argument: “fructose is fructose, omega-6 is omega-6”. Do you really want to stick with that argument? I’ll wait for you to reply before I go to work on it, because I’m not going to waste the time pointing out how both those statements are totally wrong unless you say you want to stick with that statement. Your readership has probably read plenty already about the difference between fructose in fruits and fructose introduced as HFCS and so realizes the different effects these cause. But I will be happy to re-explain it for you, as well as the difference, physiologically, between adulterated omega fats and unadulterated omega’s.
And no, the burden of proof is not on me. You are the one with all the articles about n-6 / n-3 balance. I am saying to you, of all the studies you use for showing the damage caused by n-6, and therefore a NEED for balance, show me ONE that used, say, range-fed, organic chicken (or walnuts, etc.), and definitely NO commercial vegetable oil, as the source of the n-6. You are going to come up empty handed. Probably because the fish-oil or the drug companies paid for the studies, but regardless, you are not going to find that they were trying to use natural sources for the n-6, which is what we will all be eating if we follow your good advice on staying “fresh, local and natural”.
Here is an example of what you need to provide. Its the closest I can come up as to a research team trying to preserve oils in a natural state. It shows the oils used, and that they were maintained refrigerated until actually used in the test. This is the full study, not an abstract.
http://www.jlr.org/content/44/10/1984.full?sid=bc2c8227-10c2-465b-97d6-3260b5abf28d
However, unfortunately, what was tested here were derivative oils (pure ethyl-EPA, ethyl-GLA, and AA), not the parent omega-6. I’m asking you to show a study that proves that parent omega-6 oils, taken into the human body in a fresh state, (as you want us to eat anyway per this article) have any damaging effect, even in a ratio of 10 to 1 over omega-3 oils.
So your whole argument against n-6 is really an argument against eating commercial vegetable oils and foods made with them, because that is what is causing the sickness in the studies. That is fine. I like that argument. I agree that its the adulterated oils that are causing the heart disease and cancer these days. All I’m saying is, put the blame on the adulterated oils, and explain carefully that n-6 oils have been just fine until the last century when the whole “salad oil” industry began. That’s what you seem to imply anyway when you recommend against ingesting vegetable oils and packaged foods containing those oils. The whole, sad result, if you carelessly imply that omega-6 oils are unhealthy in any proportion greater than 1:1 with omega-3 oils, is that you are causing undue label reading, and possibly driving people to a worse state of health than if you had never mentioned the word “omega-6” and had just stuck with your comment above: “Food refining has brought us all four of the food toxins destroying our health: white flour, white sugar & HFCS, industrial seed oils and processed soy products.” Notice you were careful to modify the “seed oils” with “industrial”. Good work.
The crux of the matter is this: You have already said we should stop eating commercial vegetable oils. You have already said we should stop eating packaged food and junk food. So if people do that and just eat whole, fresh, and occasionally lightly cooked foods, how are they going to get too much omega-6? To say that each and every item we eat must, in itself contain a acceptable ratio of n-6 to n-3 is ludicrous. But that is what you are saying. You aren’t saying that we must get all the fats and protein we need from a carrot. You aren’t saying that we must get all the vitamins we need if we eat beef. But you ARE saying that the omega’s must be in balance for each and every food we eat. I immediately question that approach. I feel like you seem to be generating just one more “food scare” that we don’t need. Where is the logic that every food that a human eats must contain a balance of necessary nutrients? Where is the logic that even ONE food that we eat must contain a balance of even two nutrients?
if you’re wealthy, purchase the pastured chickens from tropicaltraditions.com.
they made em a special soy free coco-feed in addition to the pastures.
http://www.grassfedtraditions.com/pastured_poultry.htm
Brandon: every chicken farmer I know, including Joel Salatin, supplements with grain. Salatin uses soy and corn, I believe. We have chickens in our backyard, and we found a soy- and corn-free feed that has wheat, oats, barley, field peas, fishmeal, alfalfa, flax seed, kelp, live yeast culture (brewers’ yeast), natural amino acids, vitamins and minerals. They also forage in our yard for worms, grubs, etc. and get kitchen scraps every day, including meat (most people don’t know that chickens are omnivores, and are crazy for meat – ours will nearly kill each other for the meat scraps.)
I have not seen any data comparing the n-6 content of chickens fed this type of feed vs. chickens fed conventional mash. I have seen data (which I linked to in this article) indicating that pastured chicken eggs have 3x more n-3 than conventional chicken eggs, so it probably stands to reason that pastured chickens fed a corn/soy-free ration will have a better n-6:n-3 ratio than commercial birds.
I want to be clear that I’m not suggesting no one should eat chicken, ever. I’m just saying: be aware of the higher n-6 ratio, and don’t make it a staple meat.
Great post and comments. I’m sure most towns will have a mail delivery service of organic/pastured meats. Here in Christchurch, New Zealand we do (justorganic.co.nz). I note the parent organisation for this delivery is located in the UK.
I get my pork wild from a rabid pig-hunter who sometimes can’t find enough grateful friends to accept his gamey gifts. The free-range eggs come from a work colleague who has a farmlet where she breeds show poultry for her daughter to show. She never kills the males so that’s sits OK with my conscience. I guess they don’t eat that much anyway if they’re not producing eggs. She feeds them organic wheat and that’s all.
It will probably be worthwhile scooping up roadkill if practicable as they would be a great source of maggots for the chooks. In fact one vegetarian couple I know used to eat the roadkill as they went the same roads every day and knew what was fresh roadkill. Presumably they could spot TB if that was an issue.
NZ mussels are my toher source for Vit B12 and iron which are supplied in high amounts. I’m afraid to say the trend in NZ for the farmed animals is for corporatisation. As you all know, this means supplementing or surplanting our pasture feeding with environmental evils such as palm kernel.
Greenpeace are trying to pressure the dairy farmers into using fodder from growing maize instead but there is an incestuous hook-up between Fonterra and the palm kernal plantations which are being created in Indonesia from burnt virgin forest displacing indigenous communities by force and orangutans etc.
Jack,
I love your list of “no-nos”. I agree that if one is caught reading a list of ingredients, the “no-no” list is indispensable. And there are times that we all want something that is packaged and we check to see if we can “survive” in spite of the ingredients.
I still prefer Chris’ general rule to avoid anything packaged, if possible. Partly because its a simple way to avoid toxic substances, but also heavily because it saves so much time.
So I agree, we shouldn’t take it as cut and dried: never buy a package. But for me, every package I never pick up to read, is a savings of time. I’d hate to have to count the times and measure the time wasted, that I have gone down a grocer’s shelf reading label after label, trying to chose the least of all the “evils” there. I’ve done a lot of that. Your list is great for those exceptional times.
“there has never been any proof that omega-6 in its natural state (arriving in our stomachs from fresh meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts, etc.) is bad for the human body in ANY quantity.”
The burden of proof is upon you to show that omega-6 from chicken has a different action in the body than omega-6 from vegetable oil. Why should we think it does? The same argument is made by people who say you can eat as much fruit as you want, because the fructose in fruit doesn’t have the same effect on the body as fructose in HFCS. That’s not true. The effect is the same; the only difference is the amount. Fructose is fructose, and n-6 is n-6.
It is well-known that the biological availability of n-3 fatty acids is inversely proportional to the concentration of n-6 fatty acids in the tissue. It *does not matter* whether those n-6 FAs come from chicken or seed oil.
As Kurt Harris said to you in the last thread, “If you are skeptical of Chris’ advice, then eat all the tasteless factory chicken you want. It’s your body, but I am pretty sure we did not evolve eating grain-fed albino fryers from Tyson.”
Nor did we evolve to eat huge handfuls of nuts every day. You continually ignore these points in your claims that n-6 in whole foods isn’t harmful.
I will absolutely prejudice people against n-6 because the evidence – both anthropological and clinical – supports that prejudice. So far you have not provided a single reference to support your claims. I’ve provided 30+ in my series on EFAs. Show us your proof that n-6 in nuts and chicken behaves in a different way in the body than n-6 from vegetable oil.
We’ll wait here for it.
Just in reference to the comment “The same argument is made by people who say you can eat as much fruit as you want, because the fructose in fruit doesn’t have the same effect on the body as fructose in HFCS. That’s not true.”
You quoted the YouTube video “sugar: the bitter truth” in one of your articles and in that video the doctor says that it is ok to have fructose in fruit because it comes with fiber. That’s one of his practical recommendations at the end, that if you do have sugar you consume it with fiber.
I have so far appreciated your articles, just wondering if that comment I quoted above was you saying you don’t think it’s good to have fruit because it contains fructose.