optimal micronutrient ratios - soylent discourse

8/15/2019 Optimal Micronutrient Ratios - Soylent Discourse

1/68


discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162 1

DIY SoylentOptimal Micronutrient Ratios

type your search terms h

You have no notifications right now.

DIY SoylentOptimal Micronutrient Ratios

You have selected 0 posts.

select all

cancel selecting

160

of

160

Sintax

select +replies select

22

31 Aug

Hello everyone,

So I'm sure most of you know that each vitamin and mineral can influence each other and compete for absorption. The generally accepted solution to

this complexity seems to be a bit of a trial and error, with blood tests used to detect any serious problem before damage done. One common line of

logic is that, in the worst case, we're still better off than the standard unhealthy diet of a college student, etc.

I agree with that in principle, and for the most part we still have to wait for research to find all the answers to these issues. But there are some things

that we apparently do know about now, and it would be a pitty not to apply that knowledge to get a more optimal set of DRIs and ULs. I've seen

some of these mentioned here on the forums and I'd like to propose we dump everything we know in one place (Unless it's already being done

somewhere I couldn't find)

For now, we've found this (will be updated as information is gathered):

Mineral ratios

Calcium : Phosphorus ratio = at least 1:320 (2.5:135 for blood content, not diet)

Calcium : Magnesium ratio = from 1:115 to 2:18

Potassium : Sodium ratio = at least 2:113

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/5/1035S.full.pdfhttp://www.naturalnews.com/025820_sodium_potassium_health.htmlhttp://www.enerex.ca/en/articles/calcium-to-magnesium-ratiohttp://www.wellnesstimes.com/articles/understanding-calcium-magnesium-ratiohttp://www.examiner.com/article/balancing-the-ratio-of-calcium-to-phosphorous-your-body-a-nutrition-issuehttp://www.nutritionj.com/content/12/1/90http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049http://discourse.soylent.me/category/diy-soylenthttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049http://discourse.soylent.me/category/diy-soylenthttp://discourse.soylent.me/


2/68



Iron : Copper ratio = from 10:1 to 17:15

Zinc : Copper ratio = from 10:1 to 15:1

Iron : Zinc ratio = no more than 2:11 (lower limit N/A?)

Phytic Acid molar ratios

PA : Zn = no more than 15:12

Ω Acids

Ω-6 : Ω-38 = from 1:1 to 2.3:111

???Ω-6 shouldn't exceed 4% of calories??? (debate in progress)

Other

Any significant presence of phytic acid (molar ratio greater than 0.6:1 wrt to Iron) will inhibit Iron absorption by 60-80%. There is likel

no mitigating this.

These are the implications:

Phosphorus (OUT OF DATE. Based on erroneous Ca: P ratio)

The DRI of 700mg seems to be a good starting point for all that follows

UL should be dropped from 4000mg to 1900mg because anything more than 1900 would push your recommended minimum calcium

past its upper limit.

This makes the acceptable phosphorus window rather narrow. I'm finding that the closer to 700 it is, the easier everything else is to

balance. So phosphorus is rather important to regulate accurately.

Calcium

DRI should be 1.3x Phosphorus, with a strong preference to push it to 2.5x

Magnesium

DRI should be 0.5x Calcium

UL should be 1x Calcium

Potassium

DRI should be 2x Sodium (no UL)

Zinc

DRI should be 10x Copper

UL should be 15x Copper

Iron

If there is any phytic acid (>10s of mg /day), the initial USDA DRI should be raised to 24mg for men, 36mg for women

3xDRI for men (only 2x for women to keep safely under the UL) based on USDA recommendations for vegetarians3 (page

332)

Also, increase Vitamin C to at least 100mg / meal1. (300mg) This part may be critical for women during menstruation.

DRI should be at least 10x Copper UL should be the lowest of:

17x Copper

2x Zinc (should always be higher if Zinc recommendations are followed)

Phytic Acid

UL should be ((Zn[mg] / 1000) / 65.4) x 15 x 660 (preferably significantly lower)

Omega-3 Fatty acids

DRI should be Omega-6 total / 2.3

UL should be 1x Omega-6

Omega-6

One recommendation is for an UL of ((Calorie budget * 0.04) / 9)

Likely most useful if the ratio to Omega-3 cannot be met

I'm making my spreadsheet's DRIs and ULs dynamically adjust with cross references. I will continue to post here as I find out more, and hopefullywe'll end up with a far more accurate set of RDAs.

1Reply

12 people liked this.

Created

31 Aug

Last post

http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049http://jacknorrisrd.com/veganhealth-org-update-vitamin-c-and-iron/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/Essential_Guide/DRIEssentialGuideNutReq.pdfhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-to-be-an-issue/4256/32?u=sintaxhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/1/179S.full?ijkey=5c7af875f3dc71a303f7df78c52145e8b7c31643http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11025080.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11846013http://www.livestrong.com/article/504502-nutrition-the-zinc-to-copper-ratio/http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART02869/zinc.htmlhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/5/1035S.full.pdf


3/68



27 Nov

Posts

160

Views

2.5K

Users

23

Likes

86

Links

104

40

23

14

40

23

14

12

12

11

8

6

5

4

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162


4/68



1

1

1

1

1

1

35 examiner.com/article/balancing-the-ratio-of-calcium-to-phosphorous-your-body-a-n

27 naturalnews.com/025820_sodium_potassium_health.html

23 makesoylent.com/recipes/ians-recipe

20 nutritionj.com/content/12/1/90

15 wellnesstimes.com/articles/understanding-calcium-magnesium-ratio

show all 104 links...

There are 160 replies. Save reading time by displaying only the most relevant replies?

Summarize This Topic

Phytic acid: not enough of it to be an issue?8

djskinner


1

31 Aug

This post covers Na:K ratios in some detail:

Potassium RDA and Sodium overconsumption

I had a thought. Is it possible that the Potassium RDA has been artificially inflated to compensate for the fact that most people's salt

intake is too high? The theory here would be that Sodium and Potassium need to be balanced, and if you can't stop people taking too

much Sodium, maybe you can at least give them more Potassium to match. I looked into it and apparently the recommendation is that

you get at least twice as much P as S (currently searching for a proper source for this), and still…

15 posts, last post 1 day ago, created 1 day ago, 71 views

1Reply

1 person liked this.

Potassium RDA and Sodium overconsumption3

Sintax


1

31 Aug

http://www.naturalnews.com/025820_sodium_potassium_health.htmlhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/potassium-rda-and-sodium-overconsumption/5013http://discourse.soylent.me/t/potassium-rda-and-sodium-overconsumption/5013?u=djskinnerhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/djskinnerhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/djskinnerhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-to-be-an-issue/4256/32http://www.wellnesstimes.com/articles/understanding-calcium-magnesium-ratiohttp://www.nutritionj.com/content/12/1/90http://makesoylent.com/recipes/ians-recipehttp://www.naturalnews.com/025820_sodium_potassium_health.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/article/balancing-the-ratio-of-calcium-to-phosphorous-your-body-a-nutrition-issue


5/68



Cool! We can add that. I found this14 which backs that up.

Also, the 4:1 calcium:magnesium ratio appears to be a bit outdated. The current consensus appears to be somewhere between 1:13 and 2:1. I'll

update the main post with this info.

That makes the whole balancing act rather challenging when you consider the upper limit of magnesium from supplementation is 350mg. Add to that

the fact that most magnesium rich foods appear to also be phosphorus rich, which raises the required magnesium further to keep the ratio.

However, it seems1 that if you're splitting the magnesium up throughout the day and not getting a big concentrated dose all at once, then there's no

problem... one of us may have to end up testing that, but it makes sense logically if magnesium "from food" is safe; we may be able to consider

soylent food for that purpose.

Chris_Tanti


31 Aug

Why not consider intaking these minerals at different times of the day (or alternate days) so that they do not interfere with each others' absorption?

I had a mild issue of hypocalcaemia earlier this summer and I attributed it to regular intake of magnesium.

1Reply

Chris_Tanti


31 Aug

Calcium absorption is also inhibited by fibre, phytates, oxalates and unabsorbed fatty acids. It's enhanced by Vitamin D, sugars and protein.

Magnesium absorption is enhanced by carbohydrates (+ vitamin D) and inhibited by the same stuff that inhibits Calcium.

So one could couple carbs with magnesium in the morning and calcium with protein in the evening etc

1Reply


in reply to Chris_Tanti

Sintax


31 Aug

Yeah, that is a supposed benefit of getting food from various sources, and perhaps it is an inevitable requirement that will become obvious once the

soylent testers hit 1 year or 2 years or more. But I think it's worth trying to shoot for a simple one-stop-shop solution.

Of course, if something like hypocalcaemia or some other problem like that pops up, doctors will recommend specific deviations from normal ratios

of minerals to compensate; and I'm sure they'd recommend exactly what you are in that case. Hopefully someday we can rely on a soylent machine to

mix the exact ratios that we personally need based on our genetics, age, weight, health, activities, time of day, etc.

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Chris_Tantihttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Chris_Tantihttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Chris_Tantihttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Chris_Tantihttp://drsircus.com/medicine/magnesium/warnings-contraindicationshttp://www.wellnesstimes.com/articles/understanding-calcium-magnesium-ratiohttp://www.enerex.ca/en/articles/calcium-to-magnesium-ratiohttp://www.naturalnews.com/025820_sodium_potassium_health.html


6/68



in reply to Chris_Tanti

Sintax


31 Aug

@Chris_Tanti said:

Calcium absorption is also inhibited by fibre, phytates, oxalates and unabsorbed fatty acids. It's enhanced by Vitamin D, sugars and

protein.

Magnesium absorption is enhanced by carbohydrates (+ vitamin D) and inhibited by the same stuff that inhibits Calcium.

That's great! Do you have any numbers?

Sintax


1

31 Aug

Zinc Copper Iron and Manganese2 appear to form another set of interdependent minerals1.

The only numbers I can find are that the zinc-copper ratio should be between 10:1 to 15:1. From reading these, I get the impression there may be

some breathing room depending on the levels of Iron and Manganese and whether or not you're close to the UL for Zinc of 40μg.

We need numbers for the rest if they exist. How could there not be one resource with all of this information yet?

jrowe47


31 Aug

This could be a reason why whole foods are good for you because they physically separate the nutrients, so deletorious reactions simply don't

happen.

1Reply


kthprog


31 Aug

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/jrowe47http://discourse.soylent.me/users/jrowe47http://www.livestrong.com/article/504502-nutrition-the-zinc-to-copper-ratio/http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART02869/zinc.htmlhttp://www.copperinfo.co.uk/health/downloads/copper-iron-zinc-factsheet-nov-09.pdfhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/5/1035S.full.pdfhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/chris_tantihttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintax


7/68



Thank a lot! I'm going to re-post my picture here showing all nutrient interactions, too, if you don't mind.

kthprog

select +replies

select

31 Aug

In the newer DRIs the RDA for phosphorus was in fact dropped to 700mg.

kthprog


31 Aug

Also, calcium, magnesium and other bulk minerals share a common metabolic pathway for uptake. So the solution of taking micros at different times

is valid.

in reply to jrowe47

kthprog


31 Aug

My whole foods recipe only meets 2/4 of these recommendations, but I'd never thought of the physical separation side of it.

kthprog


31 Aug

http://i39.tinypic.com/11izk3d.jpghttp://i39.tinypic.com/11izk3d.jpghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthprog


8/68



11izk3d.jpg1024x768

Can you figure out the interactions for the rest of these?

A - indicates that the nutrient on the non-pointy side of the arrow negatively affects absorption of the nutrient on the point side of the arrow and a +

represents a positive effect on uptake.

EFAs are essential fatty acids.

Keep in mind that these effects are probably there to maintain homeostasis, so whether or not we really need to adjust our intake to match I'm not

sure.

I forgot to put a + or - on the zinc -> copper one so I'm not sure what the effect is there.


Sintax


1 Sep

Wow, that's incredibly thorough. Thanks! This will help direct the search for hard numbers a great deal.

The zinc-copper interaction is mutually deleterious. If the ratio is higher than 15:1 in favor of zinc, then copper will be inhibited. If it's significantly less

than 8:1, then copper will inhibit zinc. The only reliable source I can find states the optimal ratio is 10:1, but I've seen anecdotal claims that that is

incorrect and 8:1 is actually optimal.

The involvement of Iron and Manganese makes things a bit messy too... Iron will deplete zinc1 past a ratio of 2:1 in favor of Iron. I haven't found

numbers on the Iron-copper relationship or the Manganese-anything relationship yet.

...the solution of taking micros at different times is valid.

Absolutely. I hope I didn't give the impression I was dismissing @Chris_Tanti's point on that. What I want to know is that if we do take everything a

once, what ratios would make the staggering unnecessary in general for any healthy person. Or is that even possible, considering everyone hasdifferent specific needs.

An alternative to this approach would be to define a set of 3 nutrient sub-DRIs. A breakfast-lunch-dinner profile that gives you what you need in

waves that have minimal negative interactions and maximum positive interactions. But that would require 3 different recipes, which I'm personally not

as motivated to push for.

This could be a reason why whole foods are good for you because they physically separate the nutrients, so deletorious reactions simply

don't happen.

Are there vitamin/mineral combinations that actually react with each other, even outside the GI tract? As I understand the problem, at least for what

I've seen so far, it's not that they necessarily directly react with each other, but that the absorption occurs with the same resources in the GI tract. So

whether they're physically separated or not, if they arrive together, they still compete. Hence the importance of staggering, or getting the right ratios if

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/chris_tantihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11846013http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://i39.tinypic.com/11izk3d.jpg


9/68



they arrive together.


kthprog


1 Sep

Yep, the problem at least with the minerals, is that they all share a common metabolic pathway for absorption.

I really can't wait to see what the results of this are though. If we start with a well-established RDA like (1200mg) calcium, and build our way throug

the interactions to find the best ratios, we may even get a more accurate RDA for each nutrient.

When I have some time in the future I'm going to create something like I have above for every common metabolic pathway in the human system. I

want to create a mathematical model for 'perfect' health.


Sintax


1 Sep

A quick note when researching for ratio information. There is a difference between the ideal ratios for ingestion vs the ideal ratios to be

measured from parts of the body (such as hair samples4), to diagnose health issues.

The body needs a 2:1 potassium:sodium ratio in our diet, but the way the body processes these minerals are different, so healthy individuals will havethe inverse ratio in their hair. Try not to get them mixed up. I've almost posted bad information a couple times.

The link above is easy to confuse as a treasure trove of good data.


ianproth


1 Sep

I'm not sure I you already thought of this, but wouldn't the ration be messed up anyway as you are consuming it throughout the day and not in on big

serving? Or is the ratio important before consumption, like just after you make it.

Sintax

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/ianprothhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/ianprothhttp://www.traceelements.com/docs/newsletternov-dec2010.pdfhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthprog


10/68




1 Sep

Thinking about ratios instead of absolute amounts is important precisely because with soylent we drink a little bit at a time throughout the day. We're

only eating one thing and there is no variation between what we eat in the morning and evening.

With a varied diet, it's possible to get a bunch of copper at once with no zinc, and then a bunch of zinc at once with no copper later on. In that case,

there would be much less competition for GI resources, and the ratio would be less important. With a highly varied diet, a lot of potential problems o

deleterious interactions get masked by the fact that the body is resilient and gets more efficient at absorbing minerals as any deficiency kicks in.

As long as you mix your soylent homogenously, and assuming you actually crush up your supplements and put it into the drink itself, then however much you drink - a little bit at a time throughout the day, 3 big helpings, or all of it at once - for minerals, the ratios might even be more important tha

the DRIs.

in reply to djskinner

chimonger

select +replies select2 Sep

NO. Potassium actually is highly necessary; most folks fail to intake enough. HOWever, it can be over-done.

The amounts or RDA's of nutrients are not adequately tested.

Humans are laregely deficient in all minerals, particularly magnesium, which is best tested using a red blood cell assay--testing serum magnesium is

wrong.

Testing in vivo levels differs from testing cadaver levels, which many levels are based on. Live levels vary depending on what "compartment" levels

are tested in.

Potassium can be used to compensate, to some extent, for excess salt intake.

Kelp or sea veggies can provide about all a person's mineral needs, but few other foods can do that.

Too much potassium can cause signs and symptoms similar to those in peple who are deficient.

Good hydraton and proper nutrient intake proportions, can help many serious health conditions--like using special diets like the "LCHF" or

"ketogenic" diet....Soylent is NOT that.

CONSIDER:

There are pretty firm Minimum RDA's for protein and for good fats.

There are NO minimum RDA's for carbs.

That is because your body can burn fats to provide energy, that makes energy producton more stable.

It burns and stores carbs rabidly, as these are so easily burned and stored.

It is preferred NOT to burn proteins to make energy to run the body.

Using a diet that is high protein, and low fat, is likely the cause of so many being deficient in Vitamin D, and developing so many new cases of IBS,

Chron's, etc., as well as many other ills--including the sweeping numbers of mental and emotional imbalance issues.

We are designed to need to consume good fats, in quantity...Carbs are only needed if one is burning LOTS of calories fast, such as in high-intensity

sports--even those carbs are not necessarily needed, if the person gets lots of good fats, instead...the body will burn them preferentially.

And we really need minerals--not just some, but MANY.

2Replies


kthprog


2 Sep

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/kthproghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/chimongerhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/chimonger


11/68



Did you just join recently?

I've only seen two of your posts so far and I've really liked both of them.

in reply to chimonger

Sintax


2 Sep

I don't understand your point. A lot of that was off topic, but you did touch on some relevant optimum ratio topics, so I hope you don't mind

answering some questions I have about those:

NO. Potassium actually is highly necessary

Are you recommending a ratio higher than 2:1? If so, do you have any numbers or sources? All of the sources linked to the 2:1 suggestion have it as

a bare minimum, with recommendations ranging from 7:1 to 13:1 to 16:1.

Too much potassium can cause signs and symptoms similar to those in peple who are deficient.

Are you recommending an upper level for Potassium? Do you have any numbers or sources?

The amounts or RDA's of nutrients are not adequately tested. ... And we really need minerals--not just some, but MANY.

Are you recommending higher DRIs than the official FDA recommendation? Do you have any numbers or sources?

Good hydraton and proper nutrient intake proportions, can help many serious health conditions--like using special diets like the "LCHF"

or "ketogenic" diet....Soylent is NOT that.

Are you saying good hydration and proper nutrient intake proportions are not appropriate for soylent?

Sintax


2 Sep

Grapeseed oil: Huge amounts of Omega 6? Nutrition

As far as I understand, Rob is using grapeseed oil for his Soylent. That stuff is 70% omega-6. How is is he ever going to balance that

with omega-3? Am I missing something?12 posts, last post 20 hours ago, created 23 hours ago, 66 views

Wow, the Ω acids need a balance too? Crazy. This3 is the best source I can find so far. It seems to imply an ideal ratio of 1:1 but only gives hard

numbers for down to a 2.5:1 ratio

Grapeseed oil: Huge amounts of Omega 6?2

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/grapeseed-oil-huge-amounts-of-omega-6/5069http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/579/2http://discourse.soylent.me/category/nutritionhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/grapeseed-oil-huge-amounts-of-omega-6/5069?u=sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintax


12/68



Mqrius


2 Sep

Yeah they do! I actually thought that was common knowledge, but it seems not.

As for ratios: Wikipedia suggests that the research isn't unanimous, suggesting different o6:o3 ratios from 4:1 to 1:4, while most people are way off

with normal food, getting between 10:1 and 30:1.

Then there's another complication, because o3 from flax seed oil and other plant sources is in the ALA form. Your body converts this into theessential EPA and DHA at a very low efficiency (~5%), so it's better to take EPA and DHA directly. You can get this from fish oil, like rob does, or

you can grab a vegan version, sourced from algae: http://opti3omega.com/5

Now, what I don't know, is whether the ratios mentioned on wikipedia and in papers is actually referring to the ALA form, or the active forms.

That's pretty relevant, since it gives a 20-fold difference in intake.


richardtkemp


2 Sep

Mqrius said:

I don't know, is whether the ratios mentioned on wikipedia and in papers is actually referring to the ALA form, or the active forms.

I think it must be ALA, simply because how on earth would you get enough EPA/DHA to keep up with a typical omega6 intake? The way I

approach it is to get as much EPA/DHA as is reasonably possible, then the rest via ALA up to a ratio somewhere around 1:1

2Replies

Mqrius


2 Sep

Well, with the typical western intake, you wouldn't keep up.

But with soylent, it's easy. I take 70 grams of olive oil, and 2 pills of EPA/DHA pills. Gets me around 4:1 ratio.

Food stamp friendly Soylent

richardtkemp


2 Sep

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/food-stamp-friendly-soylent/4424/15http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://opti3omega.com/http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqrius


13/68



I'm struggling to find proper sources (in human studies at least), but several places on the web state that Phosphorous should not exceed 1.5x

Calcium intake, lower is preferable. Otherwise, Calcium may be leached from the bones.

Info here1, but the sources cited there don't contain the relevant info.

1Reply

in reply to richardtkemp

Sintax


3 Sep

Ok, I've got some good news4 on the ALA business:

MEETING DIETARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR n−3 FATTY ACIDS

...

"The recommended ratio of n−6 to n−3 fatty acids is 2.3:1 and has been made to maximize the conversion of ALA to DHA"

Specifically, they say that on a ratio of o6:o3 of 7.5:1 your conversion of ALA to DHA is 40% higher than on a ratio of 15:1. So getting thatlower ratio makes the conversion more efficient, getting you even more DHA to your system.

This is hard evidence that @richardtkemp's strategy is probably the best idea. Considering that, I suggest that we set the o6:o3 ratio recommendation

to a range of 2.3:1 to 1:1, regardless of the source of the o3.

Special thanks to @Mqrius for pointing me in the right direction on the ALA conversion issue.


in reply to richardtkemp

Sintax


1

3 Sep

That would be consistent with our current recommendation of the inverse ratio. My setup right now has the calcium minimum tied to the current

phosphorus level to prevent this.

If we can get a hard source on that, then we can basically just announce that using the current official upper limit of 4000mg for phosphorus could be

outright dangerous. If anyone sees a soylent recipe with that ratio, give them a warning and a link.

(My first soyent recipe had a 1:1.5 Ca : P ratio!)

richardtkemp


3 Sep

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/1/179S.full?ijkey=5c7af875f3dc71a303f7df78c52145e8b7c31643http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://www.livestrong.com/article/472289-calcium-phosphorus-ratio-in-nutrition/


14/68



Phosphorus=P, Potassium=K.

Did you mean P in your last line?

Sintax


3 Sep

lol, oops. yes - thank you!

Sintax


4 Sep

I found Iron : Copper3

...ratios of iron to copper exceeding 20:1, which is higher than the recommended ratios of 10–17:1

1Reply


Sintax


4 Sep

Ca : Zn link debunked1

...calcium does not impair zinc absorption, regardless of whether dietary phytate is low or high

I've seen lots of conjecture, but no proof (in humans), so we don't have to worry about the effect of this high calcium recommendation on zinc.

in reply to Sintax

Defender


5 Sep

The full quote from that article is "More than 80% of the infant formulas examined had ratios of iron to copper exceeding 20:1, which is higher than

the recommended ratios of 10–17:1."

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Defenderhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Defenderhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/3/839.fullhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/5/1035S.full.pdfhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintax


15/68



I read that as the ratio for infants.

in reply to Defender

Sintax


5 Sep

Ah, fair point, I probably should have addressed this when I posted that. Do you have any specific concerns about using that ratio range? If you can

find a particular reason we shouldn't use it, I will remove it from our list.

I don't think it's an issue, though. In short, it's the best we've got for now and I think it's a pretty sensible recommendation, because it is common

knowledge that too much Iron will deplete Copper, and visa versa.

Long answer:

The article is using examples for "dietary supplements, infant

formulas, and ready-to-eat breakfast cereals" to make the case that proper ratios are not being met to keep copper intake in line, as a general pointabout the food industry.

That particular example is talking about infants, yes, and unfortunately that's the only point in the paper that the ideal Fe:Cu ratio is mentioned. As I

understand it, the absolute amounts are the only thing that are significantly different between humans' nutritional needs at different stages of life. Since

ratios are about preventing deleterious interactions between minerals - regardless of the absolute amount - then the only way the ratios would need to

be different is if the fundamental biochemical processes in our GI tract change significantly as we age, or between sexes, etc.

I haven't read anything in any of my searching for ratio information that makes a distinction between the needs of a male vs female, infant vs child vs

adult vs elderly, pregnant vs lactating or anything else. In fact, many try to claim animal tests as sufficient evidence! I was actually pretty happy about

this one because it's for humans. I've found a lot of info on the ratios we're missing, but only for animals. (The Calcium:Zinc connection, for example,

appears to be a rat problem, not human)

On the other hand, neither have I found any explicit assertion that the recommended ratios do not change. In fact, we all know that everybody's body

is a bit different and what we need nutritionally does change with health, age and activity. So considering that we each have this unique nutritional

need "fingerprint", and that there is still a ton that we don't know, this could very well be an inaccurate ratio.

But if it's safe for babies, I'm not worried about using it.

in reply to Sintax

Defender


6 Sep

Well, I'm on board with this paper researching the interaction between Cu and Fe, since independently looking at RDAs won't take this specific

interaction into account. But looking at what we have for RDAs (though there isn't an official value for Copper), we can see:

Nonetheless, a cursory search for each one separately yields:

Iron - http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/vitamins/iron.html1

Copper - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR6022731 (no official RDA)

For "babies", a ratio of 10:1 - 17:1 could very well fall within the listed values for both minerals. However for Adults, men are looking at 3:1 - 5:1,

females at 6:1 - 12:1. Now, I can't 100% trust these sources (especially the mayo clinic's numbers), but it's interesting to note.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR602273http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/vitamins/iron.htmlhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Defenderhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Defenderhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintax


16/68



For what it's worth, my (adult male) soylent recipe has a 10:1 ratio, so I'm hoping that's acceptable. Haven't made it yet, though; partly because of

things like this very thread.

3Replies

UK Ketogenic Soylent recipe1

ianproth


6 Sep

Exactly the reason I haven't made mine yet, those dang seeds of doubt....

1Reply

in reply to Defender

Defender


6 Sep

Hey, look at that. USDA does have Fe and Cu recommendations:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/Essential_Guide/DRIEssentialGuideNutReq.pdf4

Copper

TABLE 1 Dietary Reference Intakes for Copper by

Life Stage Group

DRI values (ug/day)

EAR RDA AI UL

males females males females

Life stage group

0 through 6 mo 200 ND

7 through 12 mo 220 ND

1 through 3 y 260 260 340 340 1,000

4 through 8 y 340 340 440 440 3,000

9 through 13 y 540 540 700 700 5,000

14 through 18 y 685 685 890 890 8,000

19 through 30 y 700 700 900 900 10,000

31 through 50 y 700 700 900 900 10,000

51 through 70 y 700 700 900 900 10,000

70+ y 700 700 900 900 10,000

Iron

TABLE 1 Dietary Reference Intakes for Iron by

Life Stage Group

DRI values (mg/day)

EAR RDA AI UL

males females males females

Life stage group

0 through 6 mo 0.27 40

7 through 12 mo 6.9 6.9 11 11 40

1 through 3 y 3.0 3.0 7 7 40

4 through 8 y 4.1 4.1 10 10 40

9 through 13 y 5.9 5.7 8 8 40

14 through 18 y 7.7 7.9 11 15 45

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/Essential_Guide/DRIEssentialGuideNutReq.pdfhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Defenderhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Defenderhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/ianprothhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/ianprothhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/uk-ketogenic-soylent-recipe/5131


17/68



19 through 30 y 6.0 8.1 8 18 45

31 through 50 y 6.0 8.1 8 18 45

51 through 70 y 6.0 5.0 8 8 45

70+ y 6.0 5.0 8 8 45

So it appears that the USDA, in regards solely to the total RDA for each mineral (separately), would end up having ratios (MALES):

~1:1 for 0-6 months (Adequate Intake only)

50:1 for 6-12 months (RDA and AI)

20.5:1 for 1-3 years

22:1 for 4-8 years

11:1 for 9-13 years12:1 for 14-18 years

9:1 for 19-70+ years

(FEMALES)

17:1 for 14-18 years

20:1 for 19- 50 years

9:1 for 51-70+ years

So... conclusions?

1) With slightly more certainty, it looks like 10:1 - 17:1 (as listed already) is what the USDA would like us to have. I withdraw any previous

objections I had to this recommendation.

2) Don't use the same soylent formula for a grown adult as for children under 9 years old. But I'm hoping this was already understood.


Sintax


6 Sep

Wow, nice work. That's really interesting to see the DRI ratios.

I've been using this4 as my resource for DRIs. Particularly the top link. These are pretty complete lists, so it makes for a nice one-stop-shop.

Some handy definitions:

Estimated Average Requirements (EAR)

Estimated to be sufficient for at least 50% of the population

Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA)

Estimated to be sufficient for at least 97% of the population

Adequate Intakes (AI)

Believed to be sufficient, but not enough testing to conclude what % of the population

As far as I understand, the numbers for each vitamin and mineral are determined independently, and don't necessarily take interactions into account.

For example, the upper limit of copper is 10mg (10,000μg), because that's when you get copper poisoning. But if you had 9,000mg of copper everyday over a long period of time, I can't imagine not ending up with zinc and iron deficiencies.

(Also, there's at best a ~3% chance for each vitamin and mineral that the number may not be enough for you personally! ^_^ but I digress)

Anyway, although your ratio calculations made me more confident in the Fe:Cu connection, I don't think that looking at just the DRIs is enough to tell

us exactly what the optimal ratios should be. Especially for the ones that we don't have explicit ratio sources on yet.

The 10-17:1 ratio for Fe:Cu is for infants, but according to the DRIs for infants, you found 1:1 OR 50:1. For women, you found 20:1, but women

also need 18mg of Fe vs 8 for men, so maybe women need to increase their Cu too, to prevent Fe from depleting it? Maybe their DRI is 18mg

precisely because Cu depletion of Fe was a factor in their tests that they didn't account for? It's difficult for us to know.

Anyway, the research is still ongoing - the Ca : P ratio seems to have been discovered recently. I'm sure more will be discovered in years to come

that will help people become even more healthy and avoid diseases. But you shouldn't wait!

http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-tableshttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintax


18/68



Wrt to guys' concerns:

Defender said:

Haven't made it yet, though; partly because of things like this very thread.

ianproth said:

Exactly the reason I haven't made mine yet, those dang seeds of doubt....

My soylent recipe... the one for the breakfast I'm drinking right now as I write this... doesn't meet any of the ratio requirements yet. I've got way toomuch phosphorus, not enough calcium, not nearly enough magnesium and a metric crap-ton of zinc. But it meets all the DRIs, and that's better than

anything I have time to cook with groceries.

What I think we're zeroing in on is a more strict, narrow range of DRIs that is even healthier than what the USDA suggests, but it'll never be perfect.

If you're nervous, plan to have 1 or 2 meals/day instead of jumping right into all 3.

2Replies


ianproth


6 Sep

Sintax said:

My soylent recipe... the one for the breakfast I'm drinking right now as I write this... doesn't meet any of the ratio requirements yet. I've

got way too much phosphorus, not enough calcium, not nearly enough magnesium and a metric crap-ton of zinc. But it meets all the

DRIs, and that's better than anything I have time to cook with groceries.

What I think we're zeroing in on is a more strict, narrow range of DRIs that is even healthier than what the USDA suggests, but it'll

never be perfect. If you're nervous, plan to have 1 or 2 meals/day instead of jumping right into all 3.

My recipe23 right now takes into account all of the ratios mentioned to the best that I could get them without majorly changing it around.

1Reply


Sintax

select +replies select6 Sep

The nutrient profile looks great.

This14 is the one I'm planning to upgrade to. I can't find anything more on the ratios we're missing, so I think I'll go ahead and order what I don't

have already and try it soon.

Many of the ingredients are Japan-specific, so I think the spreadsheet itself is probably more valuable to everyone. I have the cells cross referenced

to dynamically raise the target of a nutrient or lower the upper limits based on the ratio list. It also keeps track of the current ratios.

If anyone is interested in a blank copy for their own use, let me know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArgDn-H13m8ndGpGM1VheDlMV1ZOMWRaTHZFTWVjUEE&usp=sharinghttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://makesoylent.com/recipes/ians-recipehttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/ianprothhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/ianproth


19/68



KennyBruse


7 Sep

This is the best thread on the forum. Thank you to all contributors.

Mqrius


1

7 Sep

Here's an interesting thing about the Zinc:Copper ratio:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/zinc/#safety

The major consequence of long-term consumption of excessive zinc is

copper deficiency. Total zinc intakes of 60 mg/day (50 mg supplemental

and 10 mg dietary zinc) have been found to result in signs of copper

deficiency. Copper deficiency has also been reported following chronic

use of excessive amounts of zinc-containing denture creams (>2 tubes

per week containing 17-34 mg/g of zinc; (100)). In order to prevent

copper deficiency, the U.S. Food and Nutrition Board set the tolerable

upper intake level (UL) for adults at 40 mg/day, including dietary and

supplemental zinc (5).

The reference goes to http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309072794

Edit: This one is the same, but more readable as a PDF: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Vitamin_A/442-501_150.pdf

So that means you would probably be fine with taking more than the UL of Zinc, as long as you have enough Copper to compensate, no? It's

interesting to be aware of these leniencies; most of the stuff we found in this thread have made the accepted ranges more restricted, but this increases

it a little

I'm now less worried about increasing my Zinc to match up my 300% iron and copper ratios.

Mqrius


7 Sep

I'm battling the proper ratios into my recipe right now. I think I've mostly got it down -- I'm only slightly worried that my magnesium is at ~1000 mg,

but if I get diarrhea, I guess I'll notice.

Here's what I got:

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Vitamin_A/442-501_150.pdfhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309072794http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/zinc/#safetyhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/KennyBrusehttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/KennyBruse


20/68



Phosphorous: 846 mg -- can't bring this down, it's included in the macronutrients I take.

Calcium: 1866 mg -- Mostly supplement

Magnesium: 1021 mg -- Mostly supplement

Potassium: 5.24 g -- Mostly coming from 20g potassium gluconate, and some from Lays classic potato chips (it's a good source of potassium

actually, and tasty! And you can keep the salt out of your drink.)

Sodium: 1.52 g -- Soy protein, Losalt, potato chips

The next ones are all around 300% RDA

Iron: 27 mg -- Soy protein, multivit

Copper: 2.67 mg -- Multivit, macrosZinc: 37 mg -- Multivit, macros, supplement

Fatty acids: Canola oil, flax seed oil, omega3 supplements

This gives the ratios:

Ratios min max Accepted Actual

Calcium:Phosphorus 2.5ish 2.5ish TRUE 2.21

Calcium:Magnesium 1.1 2 TRUE 1.83

Potassium:Sodium 2 9,999 TRUE 3.46

Iron:Copper 10 17 FALSE 9.98 (Close enough :P)

Zinc:Copper 10 15 TRUE 13.90

Iron:Zinc 0 2 TRUE 0.72

Omega6:Omega3 1 2.3 TRUE 1.60

Interestingly, most things I needed to supplement to reach proper ratios (calcium, magnesium, zinc) I found combined in one supplement in a local

store (HEMA)3. It's meant to take 3 per day, but I'll have to be taking 6. I think I'll split it into two batches.

Edit: Linkey to my recipe that tends to be in flux: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?

key=0Aginfn56EnJmdGtwOUt5NGZzQmxfb2NKLUpGNEcydEE#gid=08


DIY Recipe (Vegan), requesting second opinions!1

alfredbester


7 Sep

Disclaimer: I don't know much about nutrition, biology, or chemistry and am learning as I can.

I think you can't discuss calcium, iron, and in particular zinc ratios to other micronutrients without talking about phytic acid. If you search around the

forum, there are a few discussion about it. Phytic acid binds to those minerals and forms an insoluble precipitate that is poorly absorbed. Since phytic

acid doesn't affect bioavailability of micronutrients equally, I think it should be taken into account when discussing ratios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid#Food_science4

I don't claim to have a lot of answers here, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion in relevance to this great ratio discussion.

As an example, @Sintax posted a recipe and it estimates it contains 2.23 g of phytic acid a day. That is well above anything I've read to be an

estimated acceptable amount. Wouldn't this have a strong effect on the e.g. zinc:copper ratio? Is that ratio taking into account some average daily

intake of phytic acid already? From limited data, this is far above average. (Data is somewhere in that article linked to on nih.gov I think)

Like others, I haven't found a lot of data. I think it's safe to say it's generally agreed that you should have some phytic acid in your diet but not too

much. It's not like cholesterol which isn't needed in your diet. It does have a role in your body's processes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36115503 (Can anyone find the full text for free?)

http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/living-with-phytic-acid1 (This guy thinks anything under 0.8 g a day is probably okay for most)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytase (It looks like it's added to animal feed and it interacts with phytic acid. I don't understand much beyond that.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytasehttp://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/living-with-phytic-acidhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3611550http://discourse.soylent.me/users/sintaxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid#Food_sciencehttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/alfredbesterhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/alfredbesterhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/diy-recipe-vegan-requesting-second-opinions/4700/28https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aginfn56EnJmdGtwOUt5NGZzQmxfb2NKLUpGNEcydEE#gid=0http://www.hema.nl/winkel?fh_location=//nlhema/nl_NL/pnl_product_type%3E%7Bbooks;shop%7D/%24s=zink&fh_secondid=pnl_11400000


21/68



1Reply

jrowe47


7 Sep

A Monte Carlo simulation of the system would be appropriate to solve for the various ratios. Normally, foods aren't suitable to this solution because

too many variables aren't known. In this case, most variables are known, so once modeled, you can sample wide ranges of variables to approximate

the best solution. I'd like to point out, however, that the things that can't be modeled are still pretty important - individual genetics and physiology

determine the amounts of stomach acids, enzymes, and other digestive catalysts. Gut bacteria also play an important role that can cause the simulation

to vary widely from one person to the next. These factors mean that 100% perfect nutrition for all individuals is not possible with a single formulation

100% perfect nutrition for an individual would require taking into account all those dynamic variables. The best, and only plausible solution, would be

to test the outcome and adjust accordingly. Digestive processes, after a certain point, should be left as a black box, because of the intrusive and

general pain in the ass nature of the tests required.

The cool thing is, though, all of the calculations being done to solve up to the point of intrusive testing are fill-in-the-blank type formulas. Great work

so far in the thread!


Sintax


8 Sep

So this thread by @nwthomas is a great place to start if you're worried about the phytic acid problem.

My take on it is that there just isn't enough real verified information to make any conclusions one way or the other. The conversation is made quite

difficult by the cacophony of unscientific vegetarian/vegan/paleo anecdotal claims from people who ran into this problem long before us. People get

understandably nervous about the idea that something in their food is leeching nutrients, when they've gone to so much unconventional trouble to eat

healthily. Most of what I've read has been from people who are nervous and don't have any real data to base anything on, so they just talk about

mitigation techniques without looking at whether mitigation is necessary nor not.

Unfortunately, that's probably going to have to be our solution as well, although we do know some things. Zinc, for example, is supposedly the most

phytophillic (if that's not a word, it should be ^_^) nutrient. According to the USDA (page 407), you can maintain moderate bioavailability with a

molar ratio of phytic acid to zinc of 5:1 to 15:1. More than 15:1 and you end up with problems, but even then only when you're close to the required

minimum.

Since Zinc is both the most sensitive to phytic acid and has the 2nd lowest DRI, above Copper, I figure keeping the ratio below 15:1, which isn't veryhard at all, should be good enough. [(PA grams / 660) / (Zn grams / 65.4)]. I use rye because it has the highest amount of phytase among grains,

which supposedly neutralizes phytic acid, but I can't find good numbers on that reaction either.

alfredbester said:

I think you can't discuss calcium, iron, and in particular zinc ratios to other micronutrients without talking about phytic acid.

I wish we could, but I don't know how we can talk about it, honestly. There is no data to suggest how much of one mineral over another is

neutralized by PA. That paper also states:

"To date, a useful algorithm for establishing dietary zinc requirements based on the presence of other nutrients and food components

has not been established, and much information is still needed to develop one that can predict zinc bioavailability"

http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11025080.pdfhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/Essential_Guide/DRIEssentialGuideNutReq.pdfhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/nwthomashttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-to-be-an-issue/4256?u=sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/jrowe47http://discourse.soylent.me/users/jrowe47


22/68



Certainly even at a ratio of 5:1, there's some leeching happening, but how much? If we assume it leeches from all nutrients equally, then it won't effect

the ratios. We know it doesn't necessarily do that, but we don't have any numbers, so what else can we do?

This goes back to just being confident that we're more healthy than we would be otherwise anyway and just accepting that until there's hard data to

act on.


Phytic acid: not enough of it to be an issue?1

alfredbester


8 Sep

Thanks for the nice response! As probably mentioned, in the end you can always get blood tests to see where you're at.


Soylent Macronutrient Overview

Sintax


8 Sep

I may have spoken too soon, actually. Zn may not be an issue, but Fe is worth a second look. Lets move the phytic acid discussion here, though.

Phytic acid: not enough of it to be an issue?

richardtkemp


8 Sep

Excerpt from "The Perfect Health Diet":

Peroxidizability is zero for saturated fats and almost zero for monounsaturated fats, but high among polyunsaturated fats.

Lipid peroxidation is extremely dangerous, for two reasons:

• It is a cascading process; as in an avalanche, peroxidation of one PUFA leads to peroxidation of many more.

• Peroxidation of PUFA generates highly toxic compounds, such as aldehydes, which mutate DNA, oxidize LDL, and turn proteins into advanced

lipoxidation end products (ALEs).

Due to the abundance of PUFA in the body, their extreme fragility, and the highly toxic nature of their peroxidation products, PUFA peroxidation is a

central factor affecting health and longevity. Peroxidative damage to mitochondria causes serious health problems:

• Damage to mitochondria in skeletal muscle—the chief disposal organ for excess omega-6 fats—leads to rapid fatigue and decreased physical

endurance. These in turn lead to reduced physical activity and contribute to obesity.

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-to-be-an-issue/4256/25http://discourse.soylent.me/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-to-be-an-issue/4256/25?u=sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/soylent-macronutrient-overview/10288/70http://discourse.soylent.me/users/alfredbesterhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/alfredbesterhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/phytic-acid-not-enough-of-it-to-be-an-issue/4256


23/68



• Damage to liver mitochondria leads to liver disease.

Peroxidative damage to LDL particles creates oxidized LDL, a major factor in atherosclerosis. The rate of lipid peroxidation appears to be a

dominant factor controlling longevity in animals. The more PUFA animals have in their membranes, the shorter their life span. Here is how the

“peroxidation index” of membranes relates to life span across a number of animal species:

[[ graph ]]

The lower the peroxidation index, the longer the maximum life span. If PUFA are so dangerous, why do our bodies keep them around? There are

two main reasons:

• Some biological processes function best in flexible PUFA-rich membranes. Saturated fats, which lack carbon double bonds, are rigid, which is why beef fat (which is full of saturated fat) is white and solid at room temperature. PUFA bend and twist at their double bonds and are liquid, flexible, and

slippery. (Next time you have fresh salmon, get some of the oil on your hands and feel how slippery it is.) Neurons and retinal cells, in particular, need

PUFA-rich membranes. Cold-water fish such as salmon and arctic char have a lot of PUFA in order to maintain flexible membranes at cold body

temperatures.

• The body uses the fragility of highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA)—PUFA with four or more double bonds—to sense when something is awry.

For instance, infections and immune activity generate oxidative stress, and the body uses oxidated HUFA to sense and regulate the local level of

oxidative stress. Oxidation of omega-6 HUFA detects infections and stimulates an inflammatory immune response; oxidation of omega-3 HUFA

detects excessive inflammation and tamps it down. The body carefully regulates the amount of HUFA in membranes to preserve the integrity of this

signaling.

SCIENCE OF THE PHD (Perfect Health Diet)

Life Span Extension with a PUFA-Restricted Diet No other factor accounts for variations in life span as well as the rate of lipid peroxidation. A study of the reasons why rats live at most five years,

while pigeons live up to thirty-five years, concluded:

The only substantial and consistent difference that we have observed

between rats and pigeons is their membrane fatty acid composition,

with rats having membranes that are more susceptible to damage.

Diet can modify the peroxidation index. In mice, calorie restriction extends life span and lowers the peroxidation index. The reduction in peroxidation

index and the increase in life span exactly track the interspecies relationship. This is exciting, because it suggests that dietary interventions that reduce

polyunsaturated fat content of membranes can

extend human life span.

The Peak Health Range for Omega-6 Fats

As we did with carbs, we’ll let biology guide us to the optimal intake. You’ll recall that when carb intake is too low, the body manufactures glucose

from protein; when carb intake is too high, the body converts carbs to fat. The neutral carb intake, where the body neither manufactures nor destroy

glucose, is the optimal carb intake.

Something similar happens with PUFA. Omega-6 and omega-3 fats cannot be manufactured, but the body can regulate PUFA abundance in tissue

by controlling whether they are burned for energy and can regulate HUFA levels in membranes by controlling whether PUFA are lengthened and

desaturated into HUFA.

Omega-6 Benefits End: The Bottom of the Peak Health Range

On omega-6-deficient diets, omega-6 fats are conserved and rarely oxidized for energy. Reduced oxidation of omega-6 fats indicates that dietary

omega-6 intake is too low. Another sign of PUFA deficiency is a failure of the body to achieve optimal levels of HUFA in membranes. This failure to

achieve optimal HUFA levels causes dysregulation of immune function and generates the clinical symptoms of omega-6 or omega-3 deficiency. Whe

dietary PUFA intake increases from zero, PUFA are rapidly converted to membrane HUFA until the membrane HUFA levels reach their optimum. From that point, membrane HUFA levels plateau; cells resist adding more HUFA to their membranes. Additional dietary PUFA are burne

for energy.

Only a small amount of dietary PUFA is necessary to prevent a deficiency:

• Judged by the dietary omega-6 intake at which tissue levels of arachidonic acid (an omega-6 HUFA) plateau, omega-6 deficiencies are eliminated

by 1 to 2 percent of calories as omega-6 fats if the diet has no omega-3 fats and by just 0.3 percent of calories as omega-6 fats if the diet has over 1

percent omega-3 fats. Thus, a little omega-3 fat in the diet reduces the requirement for omega-6 fat.

• Omega-3 fat deficiency can be relieved, bringing DHA in the liver to normal levels, by eating as little as 0.2 percent of calories as omega-3 fats.

Thus, the peak health range for PUFA can be entered by consuming as little as 1 percent of energy as PUFA (0.5 percent each of omega-6 and

omega-3). Even on unbalanced diets, 2 percent of energy as PUFA will achieve optimal membrane HUFA levels.

Omega-6 fats constitute 2 percent or more of most natural foods, so on plant-and-animal-food diets it is impossible to become deficient in omega-6

fats, unless some medical condition such as cystic fibrosis prevents fat digestion. Absolute omega-3 deficiencies are also rare.


24/68



Although deficiency of omega-6 fats in general is almost impossible, it is possible to achieve a deficiency of omega-6 HUFA, such as arachidonic

acid, under oxidative stress. High levels of immune activity generate oxidative stress, and if the diet is deficient in antioxidants, depletion of AA may

follow, generating classic omega-6 deficiency symptoms such as eczema.

Omega-6 Toxicity: The Upper End of the Peak Health Range

As omega-6 intake increases above optimal levels, the body begins to preferentially oxidize omega-6 fats ahead of other fats. This is an effort to

dispose of excess omega-6.

On nearly all modern diets, omega-6 fats are preferentially oxidized. An ingested omega-6 fatty acid is three times more likely to be burned for

energy than an ingested saturated fatty acid. Moreover, omega-6 fats are not completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water; rather, most omega-6

fats are partially oxidized and then reassembled into cholesterol and saturated fat. This increases the number of omega-6 fats that can be disposed

within the limits to mitochondrial energy production and transforms the dangerous and useless omega-6 fatty acids into safer and more usefulcholesterol and saturated fatty acids.

The crossover point—the “natural intake” level at which omega-6 fats are equally likely as saturated and monounsaturated fats to be burned for

energy—is not known, but it probably occurs with not more than 3 percent of energy as PUFA.

Looking instead at HUFA levels in tissue, intake of 1 to 4 percent of calories as omega-6 fats enables the body to optimize HUFA ratios. However,

when omega-6 intake exceeds 4 percent of energy, tissue levels of omega-6 DGLA and omega-3 EPA are suppressed. DGLA is a long-chain

omega-6 fat, but one that moderates the inflammatory effects of AA. Due to this effect, omega-6 consumption above 4 percent of energy increases

AA-to-DGLA and AA-to-EPA ratios with inflammatory effects.

A number of toxicity effects appear with omega-6 intake above 4 percent of calories. This omega-6 intake has been shown to reduce EPA and DHA

levels in pregnant mothers. In piglets, 1.2 percent omega-6 consumption with adequate omega-3 leads to healthy brain development, but increasing

omega-6 intake to 10.7 percent of calories deprives brains of DHA and compromises neurodevelopment.

Four percent of calories as omega-6 fats is the threshold of health impairment. Further problems appear when omega-6 fat intake reaches 6

percent of calories. At this intake level, oxidation can’t remove the omega-6 fats fast enough, and they start to build up in the body, especially inadipose tissue.

Accumulation of omega-6 fats in adipose tissue is observed in clinical trials. In the Finnish Mental Hospital Study, over four years on a diet rich in

soybean oil, participants’ omega-6 fats rose from 10.2 percent of adipose tissue fats to 32.4 percent. In the Los Angeles Veterans Administration

Study, on a diet that was 15 percent omega-6 by calories, participants’ adipose tissue omega-6 levels rose from 10 percent at the start of the study

to 33.7 percent over a five-year period.

A similar accumulation of omega-6 in adipose tissue has occurred in Americans over the last fifty years, according to data assembled by Stephan

Guyenet of the University of Washington. Here’s how it looks:

[[ graph ]]

The circles mark the percentage of body fat that is linoleic acid (the major omega-6 fat); the crosses mark the fraction of 18- to 29-year-olds who

are obese. The obesity epidemic began at the same time, or a few years after, omega-6 fats began accumulating in Americans’ bodies. Americans

currently obtain 9 percent of calories as omega-6 fats, their adipose fats are 23.4 percent omega-6, and fully a quarter of 18- to 29-year-olds areobese. Back in 1961, omega-6 fats made up 5.8 percent of the diet, adipose fats were about 9 percent omega-6, and obesity was rare.

It appears that when dietary omega-6 intake exceeds 6 percent of energy, omega-6 fats start to accumulate in adipose tissue, and obesity often

follows.

It’s a safe bet that 6 percent of energy as omega-6 fats is far above the peak health range.

Health Effects of Omega-6 Toxicity

Americans are now getting 9 percent of their energy as omega-6 fats, and toxicity begins at 4 percent of energy; so we ought to be able to see

negative effects from this excess. And we do. As a result of their excessive intake of omega-6 fats, Americans are experiencing elevated rates of live

disease, atherosclerosis, obesity, allergies and asthma, mental illness, bowel disorders, and cancer, not to mention elevated mortality rates. Let’s look

at some of the evidence.

Liver Disease Caused by High-PUFA Diets

Polyunsaturated fats—both omega-6 and omega-3—readily produce liver disease when eaten in conjunction with fructose or alcohol, which increasoxidative stress in the liver. High PUFA intake (say, from soybean oil or corn oil) is a prerequisite for liver disease, while low-PUFA diets (say, with

coconut oil or butter) prevent liver disease.

Here is a sampling of studies in which PUFA destroyed and SaFA rescued the health of lab animals’ livers:

• Researchers induced fatty liver disease in mice by feeding diets deficient in key nutrients. One diet provided 34 percent of calories as corn oil, the

other as coconut oil. (Corn oil is 57 percent omega-6 PUFA, while coconut oil is 2 percent omega-6 PUFA and 92 percent SaFA.) The mice fed

corn oil had severe liver damage, but “histological scores demonstrated significantly less steatosis, inflammation and necrosis in SaFA-fed mice of all

mouse strains.”

• Researchers induced liver disease by feeding mice a combination of alcohol and omega-3-rich fish oil. They then stopped the alcohol and split the

mice into two groups, one fed fish oil plus glucose, the other SaFA-rich palm oil plus glucose. Livers of the fish oil group failed to recover, but the

palm oil group “showed near normalization.” The researchers hailed SaFA as “a novel treatment for liver disease.”

• A study compared a high-carb corn oil diet (62 percent of calories as carbs, 21 percent as corn oil, 17 percent as protein) with low-carb coconut

oil or butter diets (17 percent of calories as carbs, 71 percent as coconut oil or butter, 12 percent as protein). Mice eating the coconut oil and butter


25/68



diets maintained healthy livers despite nutrient deficiencies that normally induce liver disease, while mice on the high-carb corn oil diet developed

severe disease.

• Scientists induced liver disease in mice by feeding alcohol plus corn oil. They then substituted a saturated fat–rich mix based on beef tallow and

coconut oil for 20 percent, 45 percent, and 67 percent of the corn oil. The more saturated fat, the healthier the liver.

• Mice fed 27.5 percent of calories as alcohol developed severe liver disease and metabolic syndrome when given a corn oil diet, but no disease at

all when given a SaFA-rich cocoa butter diet. (the first line of this paper reads, “the protective effect of dietary saturated fatty acids against the

development of alcoholic liver disease has long been known”—yet somehow this knowledge has eluded many nutritionists.)

It goes on..... But I'm getting bored of copying this in. You could probably find a PDF of this somewhere online if you searched...

4Replies


Canola Oil is Liquid Death

Here's my three source recipe :)

Canola Oil as Fat Source

Sintax


9 Sep

O_O

...wow.

It's not a ratio, but it's good to know.

So, Ω-6 UL = (calorie budget * 0.04) / 9

Sound good?

richardtkemp


9 Sep

Sintax said:

Ω-6 UL = (calorie budget * 0.04) / 9

Yeah, that's what I'm going with. It's really low though..

Mqrius


2

9 Sep

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Sintaxhttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/canola-oil-as-fat-source/3149/30http://discourse.soylent.me/t/heres-my-three-source-recipe/4558/32http://discourse.soylent.me/t/canola-oil-is-liquid-death/6860/12


26/68



richardtkemp said:

Saturated fats, which lack carbon double bonds, are rigid, which is why beef fat (which is full of saturated fat) is white and solid at room

temperature. PUFA bend and twist at their double bonds and are liquid, flexible, and slippery.

Errr, single bonds are very flexible, whereas double bonds not at all. The solidity at room temperature has to do with the melting temperature, and ha

nothing to do with the "rigidness" of a single molecule.

richardtkemp said:

A number of toxicity effects appear with omega-6 intake above 4 percent of calories. This omega-6 intake has been shown to reduceEPA and DHA levels in pregnant mothers. In piglets, 1.2 percent omega-6 consumption with adequate omega-3 leads to healthy brain

development, but increasing omega-6 intake to 10.7 percent of calories deprives brains of DHA and compromises neurodevelopment.

Omega 6 competes with Omega 3 for conversion into useful forms. If there's too much Omega 6, then Omega 3 in the form of ALA can't be

converted to EPA and DHA, leading to the effects he described. However, if you have EPA+DHA supplements in your food, plus enough Omega 3

to keep the O6 : O3 ratio correct, this competition is not an issue. Using 40 grams of Canola Oil and 20 grams of Flax Seed Oil, plus an EPA+DHA

supplement, gets you a 1:1 ratio of O6 : O3.

richardtkemp said:

However, when omega-6 intake exceeds 4 percent of energy, tissue levels of omega-6 DGLA and omega-3 EPA are suppressed.

As described above, taking direct EPA means there will be enough EPA. This is more of an issue of Ratio than of absolute Omega 6 amounts.

As for the DGLA, I don't know about that one. DGLA is made from GLA, which is made from Omega 6. If what he says is true, then this is still an

issue.

richardtkemp said:

The circles mark the percentage of body fat that is linoleic acid (the major omega-6 fat); the crosses mark the fraction of 18- to 29-

year-olds who are obese. The obesity epidemic began at the same time, or a few years after, omega-6 fats began accumulating in

Americans’ bodies.

Correlation vs Causation error. When you eat healthy, you don't get obese. Healthy means you don't eat too much in general, and specifically not too

much fat. Just because obese people have a lot of omega 6 in their body fat doesn't prove that omega 6 causes obesity. It's more likely that people

have started to eat badly due to culture which results in a) obesity, and b) a bad omega 6 to omega 3 ratio.

richardtkemp said:

Researchers induced fatty liver disease in mice by feeding diets deficient in key nutrients. One diet provided 34 percent of calories as

corn oil, the other as coconut oil. (Corn oil is 57 percent omega-6 PUFA, while coconut oil is 2 percent omega-6 PUFA and 92

percent SaFA.) The mice fed corn oil had severe liver damage, but “histological scores demonstrated significantly less steatosis,

inflammation and necrosis in SaFA-fed mice of all mouse strains.”

There's too many other factors which haven't been mentioned here. Deficient in which key nutrients? Where those maybe supplied by coconut oil bu

not by corn oil? Or perhaps omega 6 is only bad if you get no saturated fat at all. I strongly suggest not to accept his conclusion until you see the

paper itself in a peer-reviewed journal, and check what the researchers themselves concluded.

I'm bothered that he simply says "research has shown". Does he list his sources in the book? The conclusions he draws are sometimes too simplistic -- they remind me of news media looking at a research paper, skimming it, and then writing a headline that claims something that's not at all said in the

paper. I do believe he is actually trying to be rigorous, but I feel he tends to fall for confirmation bias.

All in all, I have to conclude these points:

The points brought up by the book are serious, and are worth considering

The points brought up can't be taken at face value.

There's a different guideline for PUFAs that cites its sources better, which puts the limit on 10%.

Note that eskimos on a low carb diet probably got a huge amount of PUFAs, but fish oil is 20% omega 3 and only 1% omega 6. Most of his

arguments are against omega 6, so this might still make sense.

I'll see if I can reduce my Omega 6 intake. I don't feel bringing it down would hurt , so it's a form of Pascal's wager.


27/68



3Replies


spryte


9 Sep

This article6 might be of some interest to the discussion of omega 6/omega 3.

1Reply


in reply to Mqrius

richardtkemp


9 Sep

Plenty of excellent points, I also was a bit suspicious about some of the arguments made. There are actually plenty of sources cited, I will aim to post

them up this evening.


Mqrius


1

9 Sep

Cool, I'm glad we're doing a discussion and not a debate (got slightly worried ^_^)

For people browsing through this thread, note also the post I made here, which summarizes the final report of the expert panel of Detection,

Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)

It seems to be fairly well-researched and referenced, but for this particular question they don't have a lot of research to go on.

Mqrius said:

I'm currently using canola oil, flax seed oil and EPA+DHA supplements, and I'm getting roughly 11% of my energy from PUFAs (

http://discourse.soylent.me/t/diy-recipe-vegan-requesting-second-opinions/4700/27 ) If you're going Ketonic then it's probably

unavoidable. But a ketonic diet is disregarding a number of guidelines anyway, so maybe it would be fine. It depends on the reason why

getting energy from PUFA is bad. I've got a somewhat more reliable link stating a maximum of 10% of the energ…

1Reply

Grapeseed oil: Huge amounts of Omega 6?

in reply to spryte

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/t/grapeseed-oil-huge-amounts-of-omega-6/5069/23http://discourse.soylent.me/t/diy-recipe-vegan-requesting-second-opinions/4700/27http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/richardtkemphttp://jn.nutrition.org/content/128/9/1411.longhttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/sprytehttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/spryte


28/68



Mqrius


9 Sep

Oh man, I bet GLA supplements are going to be hard to come by I would add some if I could find some, but I guess I'll have to let my

body synthesize this one!

spryte


9 Sep

There are actually several GLA supplements on the market. I'm having a very difficult time though in determining just how much is necessary. So

much of the research being done has been focused on diets that are already ridiculously high in Omega 6, so there's very little info on a baseline. I'm

still pretty confused about the whole issue, so it's difficult to say where to set limits. All the supplements contain LA, GLA and...I forget the name, bu

Omega 9? I think I'm going with a 1:1 ratio for omega 6/3 between the omega 6 found in my buckwheat, a GLA supplement and fish oil. I was

interested in the GLA specifically because I'm trying to make my recipe as anti-inflammatory as possible to help me heal from some health issues.

This3 was the cheapest supplement I have found to date with the highest mg of GLA.

Mqrius


9 Sep

Oh I see! (The last one you mentioned, omega 9, is oleic acid.)

I do kind of think that getting a GLA supplement is not really necessary if you get proper amounts of Omega 3 and 6 though... Eh, I'll think about it

(Also, I don't like that one because it has gelatin )

Teseracto


9 Sep

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Teseractohttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Teseractohttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00013Z0ZQ?tag=19-82341-20http://discourse.soylent.me/users/sprytehttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/sprytehttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqrius


29/68



richardtkemp said:

Excerpt from "The Perfect Health Diet":

(...)

My impression is that the author is being too simplistic: too much omega-6 in isolation is bad, ditto for omega-3.

These are the effects of high omega-6/adequate omega-3 diets. They are because of the high amount of omega-6, or of the unbalanced ratio?

He says later:

The Peak Health Range for Omega-3 Fats

It is diffcult to identify the omega-3 intake at which toxicity begins, because high omega-3 intake is a partial antidote to omega-6

toxicity. Most people consume far too much omega-6. For them, a high omega-3 intake may be toxic and yet beneficial because it

relieves omega-6 toxicity.

It this case the omega-3 continues to be toxic? Maybe omega-6 mitigates the omega-3 toxicity in a similar way omega-3 mitigates the omega-6

toxicity. Considering the importance of their ratio this might be the case.

Regarding the studies on mice, the ones fed high-PUFA diets have a very unbalanced O-6/O-3 ratios. Four of them use corn oil (high in omega-6),

and the other fish oil (high in omega-3). Maybe this unbalance is the cause of liver damage (or lack of recovery), and not the high PUFA fats by

themselves. Or most probably, the combination of both.

Mqrius said:

Note that eskimos on a low carb diet probably got a huge amount of PUFAs, but fish oil is 20% omega 3, and only 1% omega 6. Most

of his arguments are against omega 6, so this might still make sense.

He says similar things about omega-3 a little later in the book, so the eskimos should be suffering of PUFA toxicity too. However, probably most of

the research on PUFA's toxicity assumes a high-carb modern diet. A very low-carb ketogenic diet burns primarily fats, and seems plausible that this

fact allows a more easy disposal of the excessive amount of PUFAs.

Just an hypothesis.

1Reply


Mqrius


9 Sep

I agree with most of what you said. I just want to note that it's not impossible that adding so-called "toxic levels" of omega-3 would improve

someone's health by restoring the balance, while still doing damage in other areas.

Teseracto


9 Sep

Of course, high amounts of omega 6 and 3 surely is not the healthiest. But the recommended 4% max of calories from omega 6 assumes a too high

ratio. If they are balanced the safe limit could be higher. How much? I dont know.

Same can be applied to omega 3.

http://discourse.soylent.me/users/Teseractohttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Teseractohttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqriushttp://discourse.soylent.me/users/Mqrius


30/68

12/12/13 Optimal Micronutrient Ratios - So

optimal micronutrient ratios - soylent discourse

Documents