Is There an Optimal Ratio of PUFAs, MUFAs, and Saturated Fats?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN on June 15, 2011

Q. Is there an optimal ratio of polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and saturated fats that you’d recommend for optimal health?

A.  Interesting question, and any answer I give will be controversial, but I certainly don’t mind getting the conversation started!  (If you need a refresher, here’s a quick rundown of the different types of fat and which foods they are found in.)

Here’s how the typical American diet (which, one could argue, is clearly not optimal) breaks down,  with fat taking up 34% of total calories.


 

 

 

 

 

 



Should We Eat More Monounsaturated Fats?

The traditional Mediterranean diet features a significantly higher percentage of MUFAs.  Not only that, but it’s also  relatively high in total fat, with about 40% of calories coming from fat.   And yet, the Mediterranean diet is not only heart-healthy, it is also correlated to lower rates of obesity.  In fact, some researchers argue that MUFAs might even be less “fattening” than other types of fat because of they are more likely to be burned and less likely to be stored.  In her book, The Omega Diet, researcher Artemis Somopoulos, MD, proposes the following “ideal” mix of fats.

Should We Eat Less Saturated Fat?

Perhaps the biggest area of controversy is saturated fat.  The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting saturated fat to no more than 10% of calories and we’re almost there–averaging about 11% of calories from saturated fats.

However, many question whether limiting saturated fat is really necessary. After all, a 2010 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that people who ate less saturated fat were just as likely to have heart disease as people who ate more.

However, as researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health pointed out, it really depends on what you replace those saturated fats with.  Those who cut back on saturated fats and replaced those calories with refined carbohydrates (low-fat cookies, for example) or hydrogenated oils (margarine, for example) may have jumped from the frying pan into the fire in terms of heart-damaging ingredients.  On the other hand, those who cut back on saturated fats and replaced them with PUFAs did enjoy a 20% reduction in their heart disease risk.

See also this post from my (discontinued) blog on NutritionData.com: Is Saturated Fat Back on the Hook?

How Essential Are Polyunsaturated Fats?

For the most part, the Dietary Recommendations lump MUFAs and PUFAs together as being “preferable” sources of fat. However, there are two “essential” fatty acids–meaning that the body cannot manufacture them and must get them from dietary sources.  Both are PUFAs.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, adults need to consume at least 12 to 17 grams of linoleic acid (an omega-6 fat) and a minimum of 1 to 2 grams of alpha linolenic acid (an omega-3 fat) a day.   For a diet that gets 30% of total calories from fat (the midpoint  of the NAS’s recommended range of 25-35%),  a diet that follows the Dietary Guidelines would look something like this:

I’m sure I don’t need to point out, however, that the Dietary Reference Intakes are merely intended to keep most people out of trouble.  ”Adequate” is usually a far cry from  ”optimal.”

The Omega Ratio

The only area where there is serious talk of optimal ratios, of course, is between the two major types of PUFAs: Omega-3s and Omega-6s.  Although the Dietary Reference Intakes that I mentioned above imply a 10:1 ratio between Omega-6 and Omega-3, most believe that a lower ratio would be far preferable.  The hard core aim for a 1:1 ratio; more moderate or pragmatic folk might settle for something like 4:1.

Given the modern food supply, maintaining a low ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats can be pretty challenging, especially if you don’t eat a lot of fish.   Pounding fish oil is one way to do it.  Limiting your intake of omega-6 (found in vegetable oils and foods made with them) is another.

See also this episode of my podcast:  Fish oil and omega 3s

Is There an Answer in Here Somewhere?

As I’m sure you’ve probably realized by now, I can’t really give a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. For one thing, we don’t live on fat alone and the choices you make in the rest of your diet will have an impact here. For example, as  I have observed in the past, people whose diets are very low in refined carbohydrates can often sustain a high intake of saturated fat without an increase in heart disease risk factors.   Vegans, on the other hand, usually have higher carbohydrate intake but lower saturated fat intake–another equation that appears to be heart protective.

Personally,  olive oil is my primary source of fat, with butter and dairy products in the #2 slot, followed closely by nuts, which I eat virtually every day.     Other regular but not daily sources of fat include eggs, olives, avocados, fish, meat, flax and other seeds. I’d guess my omega ratio to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2:1.   My pie chart  usually looks something like this, with fats at about 35-40% of total calories.

I’m not saying my diet would be optimal for everyone, of course, but it works well for me.  And (full disclosure) when it comes to food, I’m balancing more than just nutrition.  As I wrote in the introduction to my book, Secrets for a Healthy Diet:

“When it comes to diet, I am neither purist nor perfectionist. The fact is, very few of us make food choices based on nutrition alone. We are also influenced by taste, cost, availability, convenience, and habit. If you’re also trying to balance things like environmental impact, social and animal welfare, religious beliefes, and other factors, you’ll frequently have to pick your priorities….”

Fortunately,  we humans appear to be fairly flexible, with the ability to thrive on a variety of dietary patterns.  What’s more, we are extremely varied organisms and don’t all respond identically to the same inputs.  Although it’s clearly possible to kill yourself with food (just look around you), I don’t believe there is just one “optimal” prescription for the human diet.

Thoughts?

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Daniel June 15, 2011 at 7:29 am

As a future dietitian in college, my thoughts on the issue:

I believe it’s all about moderation, which is what we should be focusing on instead of semi-complex percentages and number values. Too often someone sees the spectrum as black or white and it’s either “no butter ever” or “lay the butter on me!” The guidelines almost make it seem like you’re going to harm yourself if you eat over that 7-10% saturated fat limit in one typical day and it’s more about the pattern over a given period of time than it is any one day. If you spluge and have a few pieces of cake but you’re not doing that as part of your daily routine, there’s nothing wrong with that at all.

I also like that you bring up the point that when saturated fats are replaced with refined carbohydrates detrimental effects begin to happen. I sort of lean in the direction that saturated fat, coconut oil, butter and salt, in themselves, aren’t necessarily the culprits, but how they’re processed and put into all of the processed foods on the shelves of the grocery store that people tend to consume.

Great piece though, I really enjoyed reading it and I’m even happier to see that your conclusion was that there isn’t one set ratio or pattern, or secret formula, that is universal and that everyone is different and has different dietary needs.

Reply

Eric Esterling, MS RD June 15, 2011 at 11:48 am

Here are some thoughts:

(1) Simopoulos’ recommendation is ridiculous and worth ignoring. Even olive oil is “too high in saturated fat” to fit into that ratio (11% saturated/FNIC data). Including nearly any nuts in the diet would make getting polyunsaturated fatty acids down unachievable. Tropical oils and nearly any animal fat would be right out because getting saturated fat would be unachievable.

(2) The idea of an “ideal ratio” is reductionist. Declaring oneself “healthy” based on ratios of types of fat would be delusional. When people focus on macronutrient ratios or similar nutrient-oriented ideals of healthy eating, they lose focus on the more important “wholesome foods” view.

(3) I feel safe in asserting, one person’s ideal will not be ideal for another. Different genetic predisposition, activity level, age, etc will strongly affect “ideal.”

(4) These fat groupings while simple are lacking practical value. As Monica stated, not all PUFAs are the same. Also, not all SFAs are the same. I think there is sufficient evidence, for example, to make MUFA oleic acid and SFA stearic acid one group as their effects are very similar. Short chain SFAs are very different than medium chain, etc. I predict eventually, these monikers will be dropped in the public health arena just as “soluble and insoluble” fiber are largely dropped.

Like you, I believe there is plenty of room for slop in macronutrient ratios. I hate to see people being slaves to nutrient numbers rather than circumspect about healthy eating patterns.

Reply

Monica Reinagel, MS, LN June 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Thanks for your thoughts, Eric.

Reply

Terri June 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm

This is a very, very interesting topic, but as you mention – very controversial. I agree that there is probably no one “optimal” ratio. I eat a lot of fat – lots of EVOO, nuts/nut butters, but also saturated fat from cheese. I don’t eat too much carbohydrate – veggies, some whole grains and fruit, and dairy products. I try my best to avoid refined carbs. I don’t believe high fat diets are necessarily the healthiest. I just find them most convenient to get adequate calories (I am one of the perpetually thin).

Also, relating to PUFAs, have you seen this new review article about LA? The debate regarding LA and inflammation is an interesting one. With diets like The Zone bashing it profusely and pinning it as a major cause of obesity, it is interesting to hear different opinions. I know Walter Willett is adamant that LA is not inflammatory.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/36/abstract

Reply

Monica Reinagel, MS, LN June 16, 2011 at 9:33 am

Thanks for the link, Terri. Another reader forwarded it to me just a couple of days ago but haven’t had a chance to read beyond the abstract yet. It’s on my list!

Reply

Beth@WeightMaven June 17, 2011 at 11:41 am

When you read it, see who the surveyed population is. My understanding is that in the presence of high fasting insulin, LA can be converted to AA (via DGLA and upregulated delta-5 desaturase). So omega-6 PUFA may not be the ticket for those with metabolic syndrome.

http://weightmaven.org/2011/04/21/our-western-diet-prescription-for-disaster/

Reply

Tuck June 17, 2011 at 11:55 am

My approach is to keep the PUFAs as low as possible in the diet, and in balance.

In practice, this means eating no processed seed oils, some olive oil, and eating fish regularly. I also avoid grain-fed meats, as the practice concentrates omega-6 fats in the tissues and lowers omega-3 fats.

I don’t worry about the saturated and monounsaturated fat composition of the diet, because I’ve not seen evidence that there’s much of a health risk for consumption of either, their may be some benefits, and they both seem to be clearly healthier than excess carbohydrates. (But no artificial trans fats!)

Monica’s diet keeps the omega-6 PUFAs low enough to be below the threshold that seems to create toxicity in humans and animals. That’s the same approach that I take.

Given the causal relationship between omega-6 fat intake for various types of cancer (notably breast cancer) in animals, and clear indications of a relationship between human consumption of excessive amounts of omega-6 fats, this seems like the wisest approach, since it’s still well above the likely required levels for PUFAs in the diet.

“N-3 and N-6 fatty acids in breast adipose tissue and relative risk of breast cancer in a case-control study in Tours, France”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.10130/full

“Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and breast cancer risk in Chinese women: a prospective cohort study.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20878979

Reply

Philip February 14, 2012 at 7:56 am

The challenge is that by increasing the MUFA ratio you are skewing the rato of omega 6:3 to be less favorable. For example olive oil’s ratio of omega 6:3 is not ideal. So we could just have fish as our fat source – that would be the only way to obtain a 1:1 ratio of omega 3:6

How in an ideal world can you physically achieve this 1:1 ratio?

Reply

Monica Reinagel February 14, 2012 at 8:00 am

As I said above, I think that the 1:1 ratio is unrealistic and probably unnecessary. Getting the ratio from 10:1 down to 3 or 4:1 would probably deliver the lion’s share of the benefit.

Reply

Philip February 14, 2012 at 8:30 am

thanks Monica – but…. in the mathmatical sense the difference is huge between 1:1 and 1:3 as a rato – and I would also be interested to dig a little deeper into the underlying reasons why the 1:1 ratio was established in the first place. I think the expression some things matter but they usually matter an awful lot is appropriate. I think in nutrition this is one of those things. Cancer, CVD all seem to point in this direction.

I can say from experience and observation when experimenting in my own diet – rapid improvements in skin tone and quality and also quality of thought processes when I have been a situation to leverage lots of fresh fish in the diet for example…

What strategies do you have to get as close as possible to maintain a 1:3 ratio?

Reply

Monica Reinagel February 14, 2012 at 8:41 am

I don’t think the 1:1 ratio really has been “established”–merely proposed as a (wild) guess about the likely ratio of primitive diets–and the utility or rationality of trying to emulate primitive diets is a whole ‘nother conversation!

To your expression, I would add the Pereto Principle: that 20% of an effort usually produces 80% of the result.

You might be interested to read Harris (Current Atherosclerosis Reports 2006 8:453-459). I don’t agree with all of his arguments but he makes some interesting observations on the utility of ratios vs. absolute values of n-3 and n-6.

As for real-world applications, my primary strategy is to limit omega-6 and not worry too much. See also: http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/fish-oil-and-omega-3-fats.aspx

Reply

Sandi March 22, 2012 at 11:12 am

Check out the following website that teaches about the
importance of Omega-3 fatty acids in 7 easy lessons. http://www.fatfaq.org

There are 2 fatty acid balancing acts that our body seems to respond to:
1. a Balance of Total Fats
2. a Balance of Omega-6: Omega-3 fatty acids

Note: click one slide at a time to view at your own pace.
Enjoy!

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: