On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Jim Swayze wrote:

> Here's what I cannot understand.  If the makeup of the fats we consume is
> of primary importance, rather than a nice next step to the paleo eater
> wanting to even further improve one's health, how on earth have my blood
> cholesterol levels gone from barely tolerable to excellent during the same
> time period that I've increased my consumption of fat, primarily in the
> form of grainfed beef fat and the grease from uncured bacon, five-fold?  If
> Omega ratios are of primary importance, I shouldn't be healthy, should I?

I have not been able to confirm Cordain's claim that the
omega-6:omega-3 ratio of beef fat is unfavorable.  According to
the USDA, it is between 2:1 and 4:1, which is not bad.
Furthermore, the absolute amount of these fats in feedlot beef is
not much less than that of wild game, also according to USDA.
Where you see a difference is in *total fat* and percentage of
saturated fat.

For example 100g of beef (composite) has .59g of omega-6 fat and
.22g of omega-3.  So the ratio is 2.7:1.  For 100g of elk, the
values are .28g of omega-6 and .04g of omega-3.  The ratio is
7:1, which is a bit high but not terrible.  For deer it's .41g
and .07g, with a ratio of over 14:1, which is quite high.  For
rabbit the ratio is 4:1.  This is only referring to muscle meat;
other tissues would get different values.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what "uncured bacon" might be; it
seems to me to be an oxymoron, but assuming it is pork belly, the
omega-6:omega-3 ratio is 10.7:1.  Better than deer but worse than
elk.

If you were to compare feedlot beef and pork to wild game meat in
terms of total fat, and percentage of fat as EFA, as Amadeus has
done, then you would see large differences.  What those
differences mean is a source of endless discussion around here.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]