A streamlined stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs - Adapt Naturals is now live. Learn more

How Too Much Omega-6 and Not Enough Omega-3 Is Making Us Sick

by

Last updated on

In the last article we discussed the problems humans have converting omega-3 (n-3) fats from plant sources, such as flax seeds and walnuts, to the longer chain derivatives EPA and DHA. Since EPA and DHA (especially DHA) are responsible for the benefits omega-3 fats provide, and since EPA and DHA are only available in significant amounts in seafood, it follows that we should be consuming seafood on a regular basis.

But how much is enough? What does the research literature tell us about the levels of EPA and DHA needed to prevent disease and ensure proper physiological function?

I’m going to answer this question in detail in the next article. But before I do that, I need to make a crucial point: the question of how much omega-3 to eat depends in large part on how much omega-6 we eat.

Over the course of human evolution there has been a dramatic change in the ratio of omega-6 and omega-3 fats consumed in the diet. This change, perhaps more than any other dietary factor, has contributed to the epidemic of modern disease.

The historical ratio of omega-6 to omega-3

Throughout 4-5 million years of hominid evolution, diets were abundant in seafood and other sources of omega-3 long chain fatty acids (EPA & DHA), but relatively low in omega-6 seed oils.

Anthropological research suggests that our hunter-gatherer ancestors consumed omega-6 and omega-3 fats in a ratio of roughly 1:1. It also indicates that both ancient and modern hunter-gatherers were free of the modern inflammatory diseases, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, that are the primary causes of death and morbidity today.

At the onset of the industrial revolution (about 140 years ago), there was a marked shift in the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids in the diet. Consumption of n-6 fats increased at the expense of n-3 fats. This change was due to both the advent of the modern vegetable oil industry and the increased use of cereal grains as feed for domestic livestock (which in turn altered the fatty acid profile of meat that humans consumed).

The following chart lists the omega-6 and omega-3 content of various vegetable oils and foods:

efa content of oils

Vegetable oil consumption rose dramatically between the beginning and end of the 20th century, and this had an entirely predictable effect on the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats in the American diet. Between 1935 and 1939, the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids was reported to be 8.4:1. From 1935 to 1985, this ratio increased to 10.3:1 (a 23% increase). Other calculations put the ratio as high as 12.4:1 in 1985. Today, estimates of the ratio range from an average of 10:1 to 20:1, with a ratio as high as 25:1 in some individuals.

In fact, Americans now get almost 20% of their calories from a single food source – soybean oil – with almost 9% of all calories from the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA) alone! (PDF)

This reveals that our average intake of n-6 fatty acids is between 10 and 25 times higher than evolutionary norms. The consequences of this dramatic shift cannot be overestimated.

Omega-6 competes with omega-3, and vice versa

As you may recall from the last article, n-6 and n-3 fatty acids compete for the same conversion enzymes. This means that the quantity of n-6 in the diet directly affects the conversion of n-3 ALA, found in plant foods, to long-chain n-3 EPA and DHA, which protect us from disease.

Several studies have shown that the biological availability and activity of n-6 fatty acids are inversely related to the concentration of of n-3 fatty acids in tissue. Studies have also shown that greater composition of EPA & DHA in membranes reduces the availability of AA for eicosanoid production. This is illustrated on the following graph, from a 1992 paper by Dr. William Landis:

percentage of n-6 and n-3 in tissue associated with

The graph shows the predicted concentration of n-6 in the tissue based on dietary intake of n-3. In the U.S. the average person’s tissue concentration of highly unsaturated n-6 fat is 75%.

Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!

Since we get close to 10% of our calories from n-6, our tissue contains about as much n-6 as it possibly could. This creates a very inflammatory environment and goes a long way towards explaining why 4 in 10 people who die in the U.S. each year die of heart disease.

(Note: the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 matters, but so does the total amount of each.)

In plain english, what this means is that the more omega-3 fat you eat, the less omega-6 will be available to the tissues to produce inflammation. Omega-6 is pro-inflammatory, while omega-3 is neutral. A diet with a lot of omega-6 and not much omega-3 will increase inflammation. A diet of a lot of omega-3 and not much omega-6 will reduce inflammation.

Big Pharma is well aware of the effect of n-6 on inflammation. In fact, the way over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs (ibuprofen, aspirin, Celebres, etc.) work is by reducing the formation of inflammatory compounds derived from n-6 fatty acids. (The same effect could be achieved by simply limiting dietary intake of n-6, as we will discuss below, but of course the drug companies don’t want you to know that. Less profit for them.)

As we discussed in the previous article, conversion of the short-chain n-3 alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), found in plant foods like flax and walnut, to DHA is extremely poor in most people. Part of the reason for that is that diets high in n-6 LA inhibit conversion of ALA to DHA. For example, one study demonstrated that an increase of LA consumption from 15g/d to 30g/d decreases ALA to DHA conversion by 40%.

Death by vegetable oil

So what are the consequences to human health of an n-6:n-3 ratio that is up to 25 times higher than it should be?

The short answer is that elevated n-6 intakes are associated with an increase in all inflammatory diseases – which is to say virtually all diseases. The list includes (but isn’t limited to):

  • cardiovascular disease
  • type 2 diabetes
  • obesity
  • metabolic syndrome
  • irritable bowel syndrome & inflammatory bowel disease
  • macular degeneration
  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • asthma
  • cancer
  • psychiatric disorders
  • autoimmune diseases

The relationship between intake n-6 fats and cardiovascular mortality is particularly striking. The following chart, from an article entitled Eicosanoids and Ischemic Heart Disease by Stephan Guyenet, clearly illustrates the correlation between a rising intake of n-6 and increased mortality from heart disease:

landis graph of hufa and mortality

As you can see, the USA is right up there at the top with the highest intake of n-6 fat and the greatest risk of death from heart disease.

On the other hand, several clinical studies have shown that decreasing the n-6:n-3 ratio protects against chronic, degenerative diseases. One study showed that replacing corn oil with olive oil and canola oil to reach an n-6:n-3 ratio of 4:1 led to a 70% decrease in total mortality. That is no small difference.

Joseph Hibbeln, a researcher at the National Institute of Health (NIH) who has published several papers on n-3 and n-6 intakes, didn’t mince words when he commented on the rising intake of n-6 in a recent paper:

The increases in world LA consumption over the past century may be considered a very large uncontrolled experiment that may have contributed to increased societal burdens of aggression, depression and cardiovascular mortality.

And those are just the conditions we have the strongest evidence for. It’s likely that the increase in n-6 consumption has played an equally significant role in the rise of nearly every inflammatory disease. Since it is now known that inflammation is involved in nearly all diseases, including obesity and metabolic syndrome, it’s hard to overstate the negative effects of too much omega-6 fat.

In the next article, we’ll discuss three different methods for determining healthy intakes of n-3 that take background intake of n-6 into account.

ADAPT Naturals logo

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.

Chris Kresser in kitchen

424 Comments

Join the conversation

  1. For me it’s a truely good perspective. I meet individuals who rather say the things they suppose others wish to hear. Good and well written! I’ll come back to your website without a doubt!

  2. “The best fats to consume and cook with are those that are the most saturated: butter, coconut oil, ghee, tallow, duck & goose fat. Pretty much the opposite of what we’ve been told.”

    I’m so confused now. Aren’t saturated fats bad for you? I understand that to cook with it’s best to use saturated fat, as the smoke point in vegetable oils can be lower than the cooking one, thus harmful by creating more free radicals. Not to mention they could cause an imbalance in the omega 3 and 6 ratio. However, consuming saturated fats, I thought, would be s different matter, giving room, in this case, to monounsaturated fats, like olive oil, as long as not used for cooking. Could you please clarify that? Am I killing myself and loved ones trying to be healthy?

    • There is no doubt that saturated fats are not as healthy for you as unsaturated. But, they are leaps and bounds better than trans-fats. I believe those will do you in. I try to use as little fat as possible to cook with and have been sticking to cannola. I think the critical question is “how do I get more Omega-3 fatty acids?” We know for a fact that the closer your Omega-6 to omega 3 ratio approaches 1:1, the higher the conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA.

      • Canola? Or as you spelled it, “cannola”? That’s one of the WORST oils to use, in any fashion, especially cooking with it.

        You also have to consider the fact that most foods, including vegetables, include decent amounts of omega 6.

        As Chris, says, saturated fats are indeed the healthier option over ANY type of unsaturated oil.

  3. I’m not that a web reader to tell the truth but your sites really nice, keep it up! I’ll go on and save your website to return in the future. Best wishes from solarenergie

  4. This is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!

  5. Great information! I’d learned about the imbalance of fats and inflammation in my Nutrition Masters program, and appreciate the depth of information you presented. What is the best strategy for decreasing inflammation – increase omega-3, decrease omega-6 or both?

  6. What is the difference between Fish Oil with Omega-3 and Omega-3 and Omega-6. Which is better. I am confused.

  7. I will go with chris’ research conclusions as I have seen in this part of the world what over consumption does to people and that actually grilled meats and fishes along with lots of dark & green vegetables boiled or cooked with very little oil is most healthy. Yes I can see how consuming more n6 oils will negate the effects of n3 body assimilation effects. I have 2 people who are aged 90 and have used just the above formula above that I am talking about in confidently going with Chris here. In fact the 2 subjects that I have been observing seem to be doing something else very unique that I see more the reason that they are bright, fully functional and standing walking human beings still very much contributing to society and a total inspiration to me. I won’t divulge the secret of their longevity but you are free to email me if you like..well done Chris!!

  8. Rob,

    I may be slightly off topic, but I thought I’d respond to the lifespan concern in order to help clear up your doubts about the context of the main topic (n-6:n-3 ratios in the diet).
    I’ve recently read a bit about the oft referenced “Lifespan Issue” when discussing our pre-agricultural ancestors. Many of us assume that the average life span (more specifically Average Life Expectancy At Birth) of around 35 – 38 of pre-historic people means 35 – 38 represented ripe old age. This simply is not the case. Average life span is heavily skewed by infant and child death (of which there was much more). When measuring Average Life Expectancy at age 15, for example, many modern hunter gatherers, and those ancient ones for which such data is attainable, match or exceed modern industrial people; and that all without the help of modern sanitation, antibiotics, dental care, etc.
    I do wish I could point to all the relevant sources for this point, but I cannot a this time, so I encourage you to take what i say with a grain of salt and look into it when/if you can. I believe you will find that my main point stands up to scrutiny.

    • Hi, I’d appreciate a reference to a source of information about hunter-gatherers having a high life-expectancy at the age of 15.

  9. Chris,

    Enjoyed reading your article, and appreciate the skepticism. Two questions for you: You stated “Throughout 4-5 million years of hominid evolution, diets were abundant in seafood and other sources of omega-3 long chain fatty acids…”. This really contradicts the paradigms I have of the hunter-gatherers that did not live along a coast. Assuming many of these were migrant groups, is it realistic that they would be able to catch that much seafood as they moved from lake-to-lake or river-to-river? (And if so, I wish they’d passed that knowledge on to me – I have enough trouble catching fish with a rod and reel!).

    You also stated “(Anthropological research) indicates that both ancient and modern hunter-gatherers were free of the modern inflammatory diseases, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, that are the primary causes of death and morbidity today.” While the modern examples are intriguing, isn’t it reasonable to think that the average lifespan of our ancient ancestors was such that would make comparisons quite skewed? You are suggesting that a single change “…perhaps more than any other dietary factor, has contributed to the epidemic of modern disease.” Yet the average life expectancy has continued to rise, (almost doubling since the Industrial Revolution). There seem to be too many variables here to use the lack of certain diseases in our ancient ancestors as evidence to support your argument.

    Finally – ha! – please share the magic ratio of olive oil to canola oil mentioned in your article: “One study showed that replacing corn oil with olive oil and canola oil to reach an n-6:n-3 ratio of 4:1 led to a 70% decrease in total mortality.” That’s going to put a big dent in the life insurance business…

  10. Tom, what is your website?

    Even if I don’t agree, I like to keep up with what people like David H. Freedman, or Ben Goldacre have to say!

  11.  
    Now to be clear, I do not claim that these are five different sources. There are five links because I’m labouring the point. It is just the one, very good source. He’s a doctor and I’m not, and he has more access to journals than I do, so maybe on reflection you should flame him instead of me. He likes it, anyway!
    Update: There are only two links, after all. I suspect that this website simply doesn’t allow links from ‘bad science dot net’. If you can see this, I was probably right! to get the others just do what I did. I typed ‘badscience omega 3’ into Google.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/bad-science-omega3-fish-oil
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/07/badscience.comment
    And no, I don’t mention Ben Goldacre being a doctor in order to say, “Therefore he is right.” I judge his authority in many ways, none so simple. If another doctor disagrees with him, I won’t be suddenly confused. I will scrutinise what they say, just as much as I do for Ben Goldacre.
    My current preconception is that they would fail to convince me!
     

    • Tom: I approved a couple of your comments and spammed the rest. I’m happy to entertain different points of view here, but this isn’t your personal soapbox. If you want one of those, feel free to start your own blog.

  12.  

    Omega-3 is shown by ZERO evidence to have ANY health benefits.

    Sorry, suckers! (Now flame me.)

    “Anthropological research suggests that our hunter-gatherer ancestors consumed omega-6 and omega-3 fats in a ratio of roughly 1:1.”
    Bollocks! How could they know a thing like that? Educated guesses about available food? What anthropologists (including archaeologists) find from empirical evidence is that humans today and in the past have survived equally well on a very wide range of diets.
    “How could they know a thing like that?” is a question this article keeps provoking in me. Perhaps they should ask such questions themselves? One thing the article certainly is not, is ‘healthy skepticism’.
    Even if it weren’t full of such objectionable statements as that one, it would still only amount to a desperate, elaborate validation of this damned fish oil hypothesis, not confirmation.

    This post will continue in a moment. Something in the content is stopping it from posting! Just working out what.

     

  13. I couldn’t post my full message.
    This post is just a test, to see if the simplest one possible works, with no formatting or links etc.