Paul Saladino· MD
the Omega-3s are worse typically because they have more double bonds and they're more they lead to more permeability and more susceptibility oxidation than the Omega 6 is
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
the Omega-3s are worse typically because they have more double bonds and they're more they lead to more permeability and more susceptibility oxidation than the Omega 6 is
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Omega-3s are typically less stable more unsaturated with more double bonds meaning that they're more susceptible to oxidation not only when they're on the Shelf but also when they're in our tissues
if we're concerned about all those things with Omega sixes we should be that much more concerned with the Omega-3s
on the basis that the worst part of the omega-6 is is the permeability and susceptible susceptibility to peroxidation both again on the Shelf in our digestive systems in our blood and in our tissues the Omega-3s are that and worse because they are more susceptible to peroxidation
Omega-3s are typically less stable more unsaturated with more double bonds meaning that they're more susceptible to oxidation not only when they're on the Shelf but also when they're in our tissues