On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Richard Archer wrote:

> At 1:16 +1000 10/4/1999, Todd Moody wrote:
>
> >Now, how about listing foods according to a composite score that
> >somehow incorporates favorable ratio and absolute amounts.  For
> >example, we could take the w-3:w-6 ratio (instead of the
> >w-6:w-3), so that higher is better.  Then multiply it by the
> >percentage of w-3, so that more is better.  Is that doable?
>
> Certainly is. Flax seeds come out on top again :)

This is really fascinating.  The aromatic herbs and spices again
do very well is this array, further confirming the theory that we
have adapted to liking the taste of these spices because they
really are good for us, and many have potent antioxidant effects
as well (notably turmeric).

And yet again Oscar Mayer canned ham is a winner!

Now, if we were to devise a scoring system that heavily favors
EPA and DHA over ALA we would get a very different list.  I'm not
sure but I think Simopoulos estimates that EPA/DHA is ten times more
potent, in its eicosanoid regulatory effects.  Such a list would
favor cold-water fish to the exclusion of just about everything
else.  Eaton claims that wild game meats, unlike feedlot cattle
meats, have significant levels of EPA and DHA but I have been
unable to confirm this by USDA surfing.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]