Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:28:23 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
<00b901c221e7$72886aa0$c68227a2@hppav> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
0.24 = 0.24/1 = 24 %
Michael
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Matt Baker wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > their omega 6 level is much lower than flax [whic is 20% Om-6].
>
> Here's the chance I've been waiting for to ask how to read Cordain's
> notations of ratios. I have always been accustomed to seeing ratios
> expressed with a : (colon) between the two numbers, and read as "X to Y."
> Apparently notation form has changed over time, for it appears that they are
> now expressed with a . (period/dot) between the two numbers. Is this right?
>
> For instance, on pg. 127 of Paleo Diet Cordains says, "Flaxseed oil is,
> hands down, the best oil for you. It contains a very low omega 6 to omega 3
> ratio of 0.24." The heading for the list on pg. 128 says "Omega 6 to
> Omega 3" and gives the same numerical data of 0.24. My mind sees this as
> 0:24, whereas with the period/dot my mind sees it as 24 hundredths.
>
> He uses this same kind of notation (period/dot) throughout the book for
> different lists of rations and it always throws me for a loop. Am I to read
> the above as "0 omega 6 to 24 omega 3"? (Incidentally, this grabbed my
> attention because I've read elsewhere that flax oil does contain omega 6,
> so wouldn't Cordain be indicating here that it contains none?)
>
> I think I am supposed to read it that way since on pg. 135 he has a tabular
> list of nuts and their respective ratios. The heading for the numerical
> column reads "Omega 6 to Omega 3 Ratio" and the first line item is Walnuts
> 4.2. Therefore, I'm to read this figure in the exact way as the heading,
> right? (And mentally convert it to what's more recognizable to me -- 4:2).
>
> Theola
>
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 404-894-9467
Fax: 404-894-4700
Mail: MiRC, Ga Tech, 791 Atlantic Dr, Atlanta GA 30332-0269
|
|
|