How We Got Omega-6 Fat Wrong – This Will Change Your Mind

Perspective. Whether it's a lioness lovingly carrying her cub in her maw, or a discussion about nutrition, it's all about perspective. Perspective shapes everything, and sometimes we can easily flip our viewpoint. But sometimes the more informative and valuable lens takes effort to find. And that's what we're going to do here together in this video. We are going to unpack the story of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. And I'm gonna change your perspective. Now, as a quick primer— many of you might know this, but as review— omega-3 and omega-6 fats are both essential nutrients. We need to consume them in our diets because our body doesn't make them. Omega-3 fats, at least in their long-chain form, come primarily from fatty fish and seafood, and omega-6 fats largely derive from plant-based foods, although these are not hard and fast rules, and if you want the nuance notes, Here they are. Anyway, a common belief is that while both classes are essential, omega-3 are heart healthy, brain healthy, and anti-inflammatory, and more is generally better for you. And omega-6s, on the other hand, are considered easy to overconsume, especially in modern diets through processed foods and industrialized seed oils, although a lot of people fear omega-6 fats from natural sources like walnuts, for example. Anyway, omega-6, they can be converted in the body into pro-inflammatory compounds. What's more, research consistently suggests that the balance between these fats does matter. A lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, being specific, is associated with better health outcomes. So that means lower omega-6 and higher omega-3, right? And this includes reduced cardiovascular risk and lower all-cause mortality—death. So it's understandable why many would conclude, eat more omega-3, eat less omega-6, improve your omega-6:3 ratio, reduce the ratio, and better health will follow. That sounds really reasonable, right? Well, hold that thought and remember our theme: perspective. Because the full story of these fats and their ratio is more complex Now, in the study I want to review with you, researchers measured blood levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fats—they measured blood levels, not just dietary intake—in 85,425 people and followed them for an average of 12.7 years. Now, over that period, 6,461 of these participants died of various causes, and the researchers then examined the association between omega fat levels and mortality. Death, including the omega-6 to 3 ratio. Now starting with that, they found that a higher omega-6 to 3 ratio was associated with greater risk of mortality—death. Specifically, they found that the highest quintile with a median ratio of 14.8 omega-6 to 3 ratio exhibited a 26% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to the lowest quintile. With a median omega-6 to 3 ratio of 5.9. So once again, the conclusion appears clear, right? High omega-6 to 3 ratio, bad. Lower ratio, good. Therefore, eat less omega-6, more omega-3, and you'll optimize your ratio and your health, right? Well, not so fast. Here's where we revisit perspective. The researchers ran additional analyses, this time looking at omega-6 and omega-3 levels in the blood individually rather than as a ratio. And the results were interesting. Now take a look at this graph. The x-axis shows the omega-3 quintiles—participants split into fifths based on their blood omega-3 levels. The z-axis, the depth, shows omega-6 quintiles—the same concept. And the y-axis, height, is relative risk of death from all causes —normalized to the number 1.0 for the group with the lowest omega-3 and omega-6 levels combined. Bars that are lower than 1.0 indicate reduced risk. So, for example, a bar that's 0.67 is a 33% lower risk of death. Now, both omega-6 and omega-3 levels were independently associated with lower all-cause mortality. In other words, more omega-6 in the blood better outcomes. More omega-3 in the blood, better outcomes. And the effects compounded— they added. The group with the highest omega-3 and the highest omega-6 levels combined had the lowest mortality risk, at a relative risk of death of just 0.48. That is a 52% reduction in all-cause mortality. So even though the omega-6 to 3 ratio was linked to worse outcomes at higher values, the numerator of that ratio, omega-6, was still associated with better outcomes when looked at on its own. Are you confused? Are you surprised? Here's just one way to think about it. Higher levels of both fats may be beneficial, up at least until a point, but omega-3 appears to have the stronger effect. So when you analyze the ratio at a population level, it gives the impression that more omega-6 in the body is worse. However, we are now starting to see how that story can be incomplete at best and misleading at worst. But this is not what you'd expect if omega-6 were just the villain of the story, so again I'll echo the word that started us off: perspective. Now let's pause and double-click on our key takeaway thus far. When we focus on the omega-6:3 ratio, we see a story of imbalance and risk. But when we look at the omega-6 and omega-3 levels individually, the story shifts and becomes more nuanced, and I think more interesting and more valuable. Both are associated with better health outcomes. This is the power of perspective. It's easy to misjudge, just like accusing that lioness of infanticide instead of perceiving her tender maternal care. Now, if we focus on only one part of the picture, we do risk misunderstanding the whole. But we're not done. Let's dig into some more practical points for you to carry into your everyday life. First and foremost, it should be clarified that omega-6 and omega-3 levels in the body do not parallel perfectly the dietary omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. The reason for this discrepancy is manifold, including how fats compete for different enzymes in the body or are otherwise metabolized, being turned into ketone bodies, burned for fuel, or stored in tissues. There are more nuances here that I discuss in the Stay Curious Metabolism newsletter linked below, but at a high level, that's what the data suggest. The practical implications and my suggestions is to prioritize omega-3, especially from fatty fish and seafood, and not to fear omega-6. Otherwise stated, eat salmon— well, after you watch this video, eat salmon— and there's nothing wrong with some walnuts. Now, I'm sure you're wondering about the healthiest sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Well, here are my two cents at a high level. For omega-3, eat fatty fish that are also low in mercury and rich in micronutrients. Among these, I think mackerel, sockeye salmon, and whole sardines take the cake. And for omega-6, try to consume whole foods with other potentially beneficial compounds. Go for the beneficial compounds, think of the omega-6s as just coming on for the ride. So, like walnuts, which are rich in ellagitannins, sesame or tahini, which are rich in lignan antioxidants that actually protect omega-6 fats from oxidation, and pecans because, well, they're freaking delicious. Anyway, for more thoughts on my rationales for eating these specific foods, again, you can see the newsletter. And if you want even more nuances, see my interview with Dr. Nick Verhoeven from the Physionic Channel about seed oils. It was actually my first official interview for this channel on the new interview series that I'm starting, and I was really pleased by the positive responses. So tell me what you learned from this video, what questions you still have, and who you'd like to hear from in the interview series. What are your favorite sources of omega-6 fats that are healthy— healthy omega-6? And please, subscribe here to support me and at the Stay Curious Metabolism newsletter at staycuriousmetabolism.com. Let's keep learning together, thanks for listening, and did I change your perspective? Stay curious. Bye.