Fredrik Murman wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:13:57 -0800, Neil Abrahams <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Prof. Cordain, in Paleodiet, says that excessive Omega-6 EFA consumption
>>is bad, so says not to consume almonds, among many other nuts and oils.
>>First, does anyone know what the actual amounts are.  But what interests
>>me is the question of whether it's the ratio itself that effects health,
>>and not the actual quantity of one or the other, alone, that counts.  I
>>like almonds and almond milk, so if it's the ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6
>>EFAs that count, then, if I know the quantity of 6's I'm consuming, I
>>can be sure to get enough 3's.  The other components of almond oil don't
>>seem to be a problem.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not a fan of
>any oils but don't mind eating certain nuts and seeds. See
>the following page. It has some information about the amount of omega-3 and
>omega-6 in oils, nuts and seeds, including almonds. Presumably accurate
>values even if the author has a number of different views than me and many
>others on what's healthy and not.
>http://www.annecollins.com/dietary-fat/omega-3-efa-6-chart.htm
>
>
>
>>And certainly, the almond board of California has sponsored research
>>showing almonds to be a healthy food.
>>
>>
>
>That is very convincing. Do you know that the sugar industry has sponsored
>research reportedly showing that refined sugar is okey?
>
>Fredrik
>
>
>
>
Thank you for the link.  I learned from it that walnuts, although they
have a lower 6:3 ratio than most nuts, still has almost six times the
omega-6, per gram, as almonds.  It's that almonds lack omega-3 entirely
that make the ratio bad.  I like almonds, and they are relatively
inexpensive, there aren't in the same class as sugar, and I don't think
the research they've sponsored is shoddy.