Gyroscopic Investing

This mornings "medical news" included

April 13, 2016

New Look at Old Data Finds Diets Rich in Omega-6s of No Mortality Benefit

By Kelly Young Edited by David G. Fairchild, MD, MPH, and Lorenzo Di Francesco, MD, FACP, FHM Swapping out saturated fats with omega-6 fatty acid doesn't seem to improve clinical outcomes and may even be tied to worse survival among seniors, according to a reanalysis of 45-year-old data. The new findings appear in The BMJ.

So omega 6s are bad for you, who knew?

Who thought omega-6 was good for you? The only claims I've seen are for omega-3...

Libertarian666 wrote: Who thought omega-6 was good for you? The only claims I've seen are for omega-3...

In a general way, fats are either:

Saturated
Mono (unsaturated) or
Poly-unsaturatred (all the omegas i.e. 3, 6, etc fall in here)

At some point decades ago it was thought that replacing saturated fats ("bad") with polyunsaturated fats would be beneficial.    This was before people knew about omega 3 vs omega 6s.  Of course Udo Erasmus published Fats that heal,Fats that Kill in 1993.  So anyone being surprised today that omega 6s are "bad"...

Libertarian666 wrote: Who thought omega-6 was good for you? The only claims I've seen are for omega-3...

A few flawed studies used Omega-6 heavy vegetable oils to "prove" that it reduced the incidence of cardiovascular events vs saturated fats.  So it became part of the dietary saturated fat/cholesterol lipid hypothesis dogma.  Who cares about facts when politics is where the money is?