Todd Moody posted:

> Actually the latter claim is false. Commercial grain-fed beef
> has a 1:2 ratio of w3 to w6 fats, which is not considered low
> at all.

To which Kenny Brown replied:

> I challenge the w3 to w6 ratio in today's grain fed beef in
> Todd's post, the ratio is more like 1:11 of w6 to w3. In the
> Nicholson interview he states [snip]...

Note that the 1:11 w3/w6 ratio in the interview refers to the
_overall_dietary_ratio_ in Western diets, not the ratio in beef. Todd may
well be right about the w3/w6 ratio of grain-fed beef (he usually can be
counted to be on such technical points), and if so, I stand corrected as to
the interview's implication game meat is greatly better on that particular
point. (Although it's not clear from Todd's statement how a 1:2 ratio in
grain-fed beef compares to the w3/w6 ratio of wild game; about the same?
less/more?)

As I reread the section of my interview that you quoted, and consult the
supporting references (from Eaton's 1996 and 1985 papers), it looks like I
may have garbled the explanation of this point a bit, or at least assumed a
bit too much given the limited data I had to work with at the time. (Man,
how much things have mushroomed and changed in just three years thanks to
improved communications and more widespread availability of data from the
internet--marveloso. :-) ) Rechecking the original sources, Eaton was
expounding upon the beneficial effects of the _long-chain_ w3's such as EPA
and DHA, as well as the effect of an overall higher level of w3's compared
to w6's in hunter-gatherer diets due to their consumption of game meats.

However, Eaton was not clear on the specific point of whether it was game
meats per se, or what we now know (thanks to Carol Ember, Loren Cordain, et
al) as the higher _absolute_ amounts of game meats eaten in H/G diets that
was responsible for their better dietary overall w3/w6 ratio. Looking back,
and if Todd is correct about the w3/w6 level in beef, it is more than
likely simply the absolute amounts of game meats H/G's ate (combined with
little/no grain) that is mostly responsible. It's just that due to many
additional differing characteristics of game meats in numerous other
respects, pre-agricultural peoples didn't reap the negative fallout we do
today in Western diets; diets which also may contain similar levels of meat
(or substitute other animal foods [dairy, etc.], but also relatively large
amounts of grains and so forth.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>



> Other differences between these two meat sources are that
> significant amounts of EPA (an omega-3 fatty acid thought to
> perhaps help prevent atherosclerosis) are found in wild game
> (approx. 4% of total fat), while domestic beef for example
> contains almost none.[147] This is important because the higher
> levels of EPA and other omega-3 fatty acids in wild game help
> promote a low overall dietary ratio of omega-6 vs. omega-3
> fatty acids for hunter-gatherers--ranging from 1:1 to
> 4:1--compared to the high 11:1 ratio observed in Western
> nations. Since omega-6 fatty acids may have a cancer- promoting
> effect, some investigators are recommending lower ratios of
> omega-6 to omega-3 in the diet which would, coincidentally, be
> much closer to the evolutionary norm.[148]
>
> Kenny B.