Re: n6:n3 ratio

Yes, it's total BS, but they are right about one thing, that the omega
3 to 6 ratio was much closer to being balanced. What they fail to
mention is that consumption of omega 3s and 6s in total was very low,
and thus this fact matters little, if at all. Early humans lived on
coconuts and palm as easy, nutritious, calorie-dense, tasty, safe, and
healthy dietary staple products. There was no canola oil, even though
idiot "experts" tell us that Okinawans who are well over a hundred
years old now, owe it all to canola oil. Canola oil is one of the
worst oils you can use. If only people could do the Rancimat
experiments for themselves and see how easily this stuff starts off
dangerous free radical reactions there would be no need for debate. How
is it that hundreds of millions of Asians can consume huge amounts of
coconut, which is much more saturated than even lard (92% to 39%
saturated) and yet have hardly any "chronic disease?" It's all about
the free radical damage. You can go to the WHO web site and see the
statistics for yourself. When I did, I was amazed by it, but also by
the high rates of cancer and heart disease in nations like Italy, even
though the "experts" are fawning over the great "tradtional
Mediterranean diet." Here again, rates of "chronic disease" rise as
people switch over to the highly unsaturated oils, such as corn,
canola, vegetable, safflower, sunflower, etc., and as traditional fat
sources are either abandoned or have their antioxdiants refined out of
them (which is the case for much of the olive oil being sold today).

.

Quantcast