Omega-6 fats: Have they gotten a bad rap?

I don't know how much of this has percolated through to the mainstream media, but lately I've noticed quite a few articles and editorials directed at medical and nutrition professionals arguing that omega-6 fats have been unfairly maligned.

Out of balance

The idea that has taken hold in the popular consciousness is that we need to eat more omega-3 fats and less omega-6.  It's often pointed out that our ancestral (hunter/gatherer) diet provided roughly equal amounts of these two essential fatty acids and that the modern (post-agriculture) diet provides ten to twenty times as much omega-6 as omega-3.  This imbalance is thought to promote low-level systemic inflammation and hasten aging and disease.

We can address the imbalance by eating more omega-3 (found in fish, flax, hemp) and/or by consuming less omega-6 (found in vegetable oils and processed foods made with them).

But eating less of something is never as popular as eating more of something--or better yet, simply popping a pill that lets you continue eating whatever you want.  So, who wins here? Primarily, people who sell fish oil and other omega-3 supplements.  (See also this recent post on fish oil supplements and their impact on the environment.)

Defending Omega-6 fats

But someone (perhaps vegetable oil manufacturers?) seems to think that people are being needlessly alarmed about omega-6 fats. Thus, the rash of recent articles arguing that omega-6 fats are not the problem--in fact, they promote good health.

What's the evidence for this? Well, for example, it's been pointed out that people who eat more omega-6 fats have lower incidence of heart disease than those who eat less, and that increasing the omega-6 intake can have a favorable effect on cholesterol levels.

But let's take a closer look. It turns out that:

• Omega-6 fats improved the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio when they are consumed instead of carbohydrates.

• Omega-6 fats reduced LDL cholesterol  and heart disease risk when they are consumed instead of saturated fat.

So, what's actually at work here? Are these folks healthier because they ate more omega-6 or because they reduced their intake of carbohydrates and saturated fat?  Frankly, I think the most that can be concluded here is that omega-6 fats might be less damaging to your heart than carbohydrates and/or saturated fat. But I certainly wouldn't go looking for ways to increase my omega-6 intake based on this research.

My recommendations--pending further data

I am still convinced that improving the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats is a good idea. For the vast majority of us, this means increasing our intake of omega-3s and/or decreasing omega-6.   Note: A small amount of omega-6 is essential for health but you'd have to be eating close to a fat-free diet to be at risk of omega-6 deficiency.

Reducing refined carbohydrates or saturated fat may also improve your health. But I'd suggest you replace those calories with monounsaturated fats (such as those in olive oil) rather than vegetable oils. Unlike omega-6, which has only been shown to be LESS HARMFUL, monounsaturated fats have actually been shown to be BENEFICIAL.

Your thoughts?