Why does Cronometer have such a high ratio for Omega 6 to 3? Most research I have read indicates that it should be much lower
The research I've gathered says anything between 1:1 and 4:1 is good. Isn't that what the nutrient balance colour suggests?
According to WHO, based on both the scientific evidence and conceptual limitations, there is no compelling scientific rationale for
the recommendation of a specific ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids or LA to ALA, especially if intakes of n-6 and n-3
fats lie within the recommendations established in this report.
If there is no need to care about the ratio between the fatty acids, a user can easily turn off or disregard the nutrient balance wheel. The OP seems to think this is an important factor to them but the default is not set correctly on Cronometer. This is what we're trying to find out.
You may find this blog somewhat interesting: https://cronometer.com/blog/understanding-cronometers-nutrient-ratios/
The take home message is that there is still so much about nutrition we don't know. (Which, in my opinion, is why the field is so exciting to study!) In my practice, I focus less on the ratio between omega 3 and 6 and more on the absolute values. To see an excellent comparison of the recommendations for omega 3, check out this resource:
Susan Macfarlane, MScA, RD
Registered Dietitian Nutritionist
As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer