>OK, let's be accurate. The USDA database lists wild atlantic >salmon as: 0.981% SFA, 2.103% PUFA and 2.539 PUFA. >These figures plainly refute your assertion. can you send me the link for this? here's a link which covers 5 fish oils..cod liver, herring, menhaden, salmon, sardine. http://health.fortworks.com/nutdata.php3?Item=04594 [but im not computer literate enough to know if you will get it as i have put it together] the lowest SFA % is 19% and the highest 30%. remember this is for oil, not fat. >And what percentage of total fat intake would that be in your >opinion? on a 3,000 calorie diet that would be 10-15%. it's a moot point whether that amount of PUFAs is healthy given their oxidative potential. a comment i have ben given on this: Chukchis in east coast of russia look defintely older than russians by middle age. >Low is relative to your inbuilt world view, and is as good as >meaningless in this context. low means as low as PUFAs for a start. but i agree its somewhat relative. since caloric requirements change according to metabolism and lifestyle and climate, it may make more sense to determine an absolute amount of PUFAs required, [just assuming for the moment that is possible] and then the variations above determine how much mfa/sfa and protein you need to get through the day. someone who is expending 5,000 calories today needs a lot more adipose fat and protein to eat, but does he need much more PUFAs? i would doubt it. so the ratio would vary considerably and yet both be appropriate. >Carbs can also prevent the onset of protein toxicity provided >they are available in sufficient quantities to prevent energy >from protein exceeding 40%. what is the mechanism of protein toxicity? andrew