What i have found on google seems to suggest that almost everything i'm eating is massively weighted in favour of Omega 6.
The correct ratio appears to be twice as much 6 to 3. But that may be based on the same evidence that underpins conventional dietary guidance. I have no idea how on earth you could track this either.
this is very confusing. I have to say this is borderline unacceptable. LCHF is already a diet that goes against standard dietary advice. That's fine and videos such as have been posted appear to prove that advice to be incorrect. But if a high fat diet is to be advocated it must be accompanied by very clear and easy to follow guidance and advice. I have seen 'official' sources claiming that it's ok to eat nuts. That's partly why i included them as a source of fat. Now i find that isn't quite the case.
It would appear to be a gargantuan task to balance omega 3 and omega 6. You'd have to consume fatty fish all day long - and that is simply impossible given how expensive such food is. Salmon is extremely dear. What else can you do? Drink olive oil - assuming that is balanced. EDIT it
isn't
Saying that fat is healthy belies what appears to be a mountain of confusing caveats that are not made clear. If half my food intake is rich in the wrong kind of omega then I don't know what to do. I couldn't replace beef as my main meat intake, it isn't pleasant to eat all the time, nor is lamb. If I take out brazil nuts, i'm cutting my fat intake by a good 20g or so. This whole thing is bonkers