I found this study on the association between one’s Omega6-to-Omega3 ratio and mortality risk to be interesting because it is based largely on actual bloodwork (rather than being wholly food questionnaire-based).
Certainly, the researchers’ conclusions square with what many have been preaching for years about the wisdom of avoiding seed oils. @PaulL has addressed this topic extensively over the years on this forum.
So all of this leaves me predisposed to want to embrace their findings. It’s certainly worth reading:
Nonetheless, here are a few quick observations:
The association of highest quintile (highest O6:O3 serum ratios) with mortality risks (all-cause, cancer, and heart disease) may be confounded by the fact that roughly 17% of highest quintile cohort are current smokers compared to about 7% of the lowest quintile cohort. (Presumably they “corrected” for this? If so, I’m unsure as to how.)
Looking at the actual absolute # of deaths by quintile cohort, it’s unclear to me how these higher risk stats were derived. More specifically:
-
There were 1348 all-cause deaths in the lowest O6:O3 ratio quintile and 1369 all-cause deaths in the highest quintile … so how does that translate into a x1.34 higher relative risk of death when the N size of both groups is identical (= 17,085)? I must be missing something.
-
Such figures are even more confusing with respect to the other mortality causes, with there being fewer absolute # deaths in the highest O6:O3 ratio cohorts for both cancer and heart disease as compared to the lowest O6:O3 cohort. So there must have been some serious “adjusting” going on, but that’s not immediately clear to the reader what that might have been.
Separate but related: Unlike most CNN reports on scientific studies, this one seems fairly reasonable. They cite the fact that correlation is not causation, and cite comments about the prospects for confounding factors to be at play.
I’d give them a “fair” grade on this particular article given the study being covered.
Thoughts?
