On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> It's one possible example to infer from the milk composition to
> the adult's needs. (Other possibilities might be to infer something
> from the prehistoric available food items :-))

Here's something to think about.  During early development,
massive brain growth is happening.  Brain tissue consists of
large amounts of cholesterol, which the liver makes.  One of the
things that increases cholesterol production is saturated fat.
Thus, it makes sense that the early childhood diet would contain
plenty of saturated fat, in the form of mother's milk.

> I think in then brain construction discusson it's not a bad starting point,
> because in the early childhood the brain is growing very fast,
> and if we're looking at the w-3 fat need from the brain, then the
> early childhood needs ought to be at a peak at that time.

Not necessarily, because w-3 fats apparently retard cholesterol
synthesis.  This is good when we are adults but not so good when
we are infants.  This doesn't mean that we don't need w-3 fats
when we are infants, but it suggests that the optimal ratios
would be different.

> How do you get to the 2:1 ideal as opposed to the 7:1?

This is an area of ongoing research, but the main idea is that
the ratio affects eicosanoid production, with a lower ratio
creating a more beneficial balance of eicosanoids.  Things are
complicated, however, because the w-6:w-3 ratio is not the only
thing that affects eicosanoid production.

> >From the "omega plan"-website i found "less than 4" (while todays
> average was 14 to 20).

That's probably a reasonable conservative estimate.

> How could such rations (2:1) be reached with any paleolithic food item?
> Fish are not paleolithic food items.

According to Eaton, the fat of wild animals is about 4% w-3 fats,
with relatively low levels of saturated fats.  Note also that
there is evidence that some saturated fat enhances the beneficial
effects of w-3 fats. (I'll try to append a reference below)

> >Since the ratio of nuts averages about 10:1 or
> >more, we must seek our w-3 fats elsewhere.
> Maybe 7:1 or 4:1 *is* a right value.
> The Walnut data
> showed a fine value and a quite large ALA content.

I stand corrected.  The ratio for walnuts is about 4.7, which
isn't bad.

> Accepting a little higher ratios,
> that looks to me like nuts still were the right place to look.

Well, many nuts have no measurable w-3 at all

> I did come to nuts as a key nutrition food item also in other
> aspects, as you'll recall. They satisfy our increased vitam
> in B1 needs.

Yes, I am well persuaded of the nutritional value of nuts.  In my
opinion they are almost an ideal food.  I would still want more
protein and more w-3 fat, however.

Do you have information about the fiber content of nuts?  That
is, is it mostly insoluble fiber, as I suspect?


Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]