Grains are very high in omega-6 fatty acids. If you feed them to an animal,
their meat is high in omega-6 fatty acids.  But if you eat the grain
yourself--you the animal get mega-doses of omega-6.  I imagine that just
eliminating the grain from your diet would drastically reduce your
omega-6:omega-3 ratio, even if you're still eating grain-fed beef.

In a message dated 2/20/2002 10:00:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> I am asking for help on clearing something up.  Forgive me if the answer is
> a simple one that I've overlooked.
>
> I can understand the logic behind Cordain's and others' description of the
> superiority of wild game and grassfed beef to grainfed beef.  I understand
> why a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of Omega 3 fatty acids to Omega 6 fatty acids is a
> good thing, that our ancestors fed on animals that shared similar Omega
> ratios.
>
> 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?
>
> Well, I am healthy.  Undeniably, much healthier than before I started this
> life-changing diet.  And my feeling is that, say, 90% of the benefits of
> paleo eating can be gained by simply eliminating grains, dairy, etc and not
> worrying about fat.  I believe that we're carrying over ideas, such as the
> emphasis on low fat, that rely on the consumption of these non-paleo foods
> for their efficacy.
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
>
> Jim Swayze
>