----- 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