Tweaking Cronometer Defaults: Adequate Intakes

[Doug_]

Jeff, I apologize for so many posts on your forum lately. I'll take a long time-out after this one so you can have some peace and quiet!

Anyone can personalize their target amounts for nutrients on Cronometer, which is nice. They really should adopt an alternative set of default sets of targets based on various programs like the one you recommend. Because as you know well, the default values of several nutrients (Zinc, Vitamin E, etc) make a lot of health-conscious people coming from here freak out (and they come back to you, like I am now) to find out that the values might be different for someone eating as you recommend.

I was discussing with someone elsewhere about how a very simple diet (like just potatoes and leafy greens) can provide a pretty good spread of needed nutrients, and in fact some of these simple diets seem to hit everything fairly well. As you demonstrate with the Mini type meals (Mary's, Wendy's). No one I know eats these things every day, but in principle, they're fun to show as generally adequate.

Except the typical recommendations for omega-6 (Cronometer default issue again).

Assume omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of less than 4:1. Ideally, 2:1 or maybe 1:1. Well-established, right? But there is still a minimum amount that is essential of course, even for omega-6.

Is the actual adequate intake for omega-6 probably ideally the same as for omega-3?

In your presentation on fats you use a middle-of-the-road value from the National Academy of Sciences adequate intake of omega-3 at 1.1 (women) to 1.6 (men).

I came across this discussion from 2010 you participated in on the topic of adequate omega-6:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17146#p160586

Simopoulos AP, Leaf A, Salem Jr N (2000). "Statement on the essentiality of and recommended dietary intakes for n−6 and n−3 fatty acids". Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 63 (63): 119–121.

On a 2000 kcal diet, it sets the AI for adults on linoleic acid at 4.44g (with an upper limit of 6.67g) and an AI of alpha linolenic acid at 2.22 grams.

To which you agreed was understanding the paper's findings correctly.

Am I to understand that the adequate intake of omega-6 is really similar or the same as omega-3 -- possibly only about 2X or 1X the adequate intake for omega-3? So for a man, a 2:1 ratio, adequate intakes of a daily average 3.2 grams omega-6 and 1.6 grams omega-3? A 1:1 ratio putting omega-6 at 1.6 grams?

If you were to put an AI of omega-6 into your default for Cronometer for those who followed your recommendations, what would that be, roughly? I doubt it would be 17 grams, as is the default, nor would it be zero

Without some whole grains, beans, or seeds, it seems to require a whole lot of broccoli or leaf lettuce to get 1.6 grams of omega-6. Would it be okay for someone to have only half the amount of omega-6 as omega-3? Dare anyone breech the 1:1 barrier?! A ratio of 1:2?! The deer and the antelope seem to do pretty well on that.

[JeffN]

The simple answer

Set your Omega 3 to either 1.6 or 2.2 (whichever you prefer)

Set your Omega 6 to 4x the Omega 3 number.

I am not convinced that the higher omega 6 numbers you see recommended on occasion are beneficial. I think most all of that benefit is coming from a substitution effect for other harmful foods.



In Health
Jeff

[Doug_]

Thank you!

Set your Omega 6 to 4x the Omega 3 number.

To clarify, is that a target value -- one to avoid dipping below (to say 2x or 1x) on average?

Thanks again.

[JeffN]

All these numbers are based mostly on population studies and include safety margins. They are not required daily intakes

I would say that makes these average targets over time

In Health
Jeff

[Doug_]

All these numbers are based mostly on population studies and include safety margins. They are not required daily intakes

I would say that makes these average targets over time

This is where I'm having trouble. I'm interested in what is adequate for someone eating a (less common) version of this program and their long term average. I want to determine if I should caution someone against achieving only the adequate intake of omega-3 (1.6 or 2.2 grams) and the same for omega-6 (1:1). Or even if I should caution them against only 2:1, starting with that AI omega-3. Average over time.

Would you worry about a man who for whatever reason needed to avoid grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, got the bulk of his calories from potatoes and starchy veggies, ate plenty of green leafy veggies, and in the long-term averaged 1.6 grams of omega-6? The target of 4x tends to make me think so. That's where I am having trouble. Maybe it's fairly uncharted territory.

[JeffN]

All these numbers are based mostly on population studies and include safety margins. They are not required daily intakes

I would say that makes these average targets over time

This is where I'm having trouble. I'm interested in what is adequate for someone eating a (less common) version of this program and their long term average. I want to determine if I should caution someone against achieving only the adequate intake of omega-3 (1.6 or 2.2 grams) and the same for omega-6 (1:1). Or even if I should caution them against only 2:1, starting with that AI omega-3. Average over time.

Would you worry about a man who for whatever reason needed to avoid grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, got the bulk of his calories from potatoes and starchy veggies, ate plenty of green leafy veggies, and in the long-term averaged 1.6 grams of omega-6? The target of 4x tends to make me think so. That's where I am having trouble. Maybe it's fairly uncharted territory.

Much of what you are asking is unknown, like CR. It's more theoretical with related evidence.

My general recommendations are the one above.

I am not into pushing the envelope to far either way. That is an individuals choice.

I think MR over in the CR Forum (and on the old list) makes a great case against overdoing PUFA's due to their instability.

In Health
Jeff

[Doug_]

Thanks. I'm satisfied with that answer. Very much appreciate your time.