>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