21 replies to this topic

[neogenic]

For so long, I've thought EPA is the one for lipid health/cardiac health, etc. and DHA is for brain development, etc. And while I haven't been on here in a while...what used to be consensus and recommended was a 4:1 EPA:DHA...an expensive product to be sure.

I like a company called LivingFuel. I use their cocochia bars, coconut snack mix and Thera-sugar. I was just reading a presser on their new product a fish oil. See below. What's confusing is they say the research points to a 1:1 ratio being optimal. Is this true? I know standard is 2:1 or so.

LivingFuel SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ now has 50% more Omega-3 DHA at the same great price. Conventional fish oil supplements contain significantly more EPA than DHA (typically a 3:2 EPA:DHA ratio), and mounting research suggests that higher levels of DHA are optimal for human health, supporting our new 1:1 EPA:DHA ratio.

SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ is far more than fish oil! While it does contain ultra-pure fish oils in their natural triglyceride form, it also contains protective Omega-6 GLA from borage seed oil, the powerful antioxidants Vitamin D and Vitamin A, full-spectrum Vitamin E, and the super powerful carotenoid Astaxanthin. SuperEssentials Omega is the perfect complement to LivingFuel’s functional superfoods and the ideal supplement for the entire family.

Living Fuel’s revolutionary SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ is the ultimate in antioxidant and essential fatty acids, and here’s why!

- SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ contains a unique combination of fish oils from sardines and anchovies with a small amount of mackerel caught in pristine cold waters
- Each SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ softgel offers 120 mg of EPA and 120 mg of DHA Omega-3 fatty acids and 30 mg of GLA Omega-6 fatty acids
- Studies show that consuming EPA and DHA Omega-3 fatty acids supports healthy brain function and may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
- Vitamin A in SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ supports healthy eye function and good night vision, normal skin and hair structure, reproductive health and healthy immune function.* Each softgel provides 500 IUs of Vitamin A.
- Vitamin D in SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ supports healthy bones and assists in healthy cellular functioning. Current research show that Vitamin D deficiencies may contribute to many age-related maladies.* Each softgel provides 250 IUs of Vitamin D.
- Full-Spectrum Vitamin E (tocotrienols and tocopherols) from rice bran oil and the super powerful carotenoid Astaxanthin in SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ help prevent lipid peroxidation and work as a natural preservative to insure the freshness of the fish oils.
- A proprietary flash molecular distillation helps insure SuperEssentials™ Omega’s unsurpassed levels of purity and quality.
- SuperEssentials™ Omega 3EDA+™ capsules are made from easy-to-swallow soft buffalo gelatin.

Edited by neogenic, 09 July 2011 - 01:21 AM.

[Logan]

Nordic naturals is not a 4 to 1 EPA/DHA ratio.

[e Volution]

We take fish oil to supplement a diet lacking in fish. I think nearly everyone would agree that a diet full of fresh fish and seafood would be optimal to supplementing with fish oil. Most fish is higher in DHA than EPA. Yet most supplements are higher in EPA than DHA. I still don't get this disconnect.

Edited by e Volution, 09 July 2011 - 08:03 AM.

[Robert C]

I've always been confused on this issue as well. I'm not sure we really know what ratio is best so I take salmon oil which is about a 50/50 ratio. I figure I can't be too wrong with a 50/50 ratio.

[neogenic]

Nordic naturals is not a 4 to 1 EPA/DHA ratio.

GNC EPA Xtra
They make a 4:1. They have many products.

Many people on here used to say EPA was the way to go. There was even a company making an 8:1...a longevity company.

So is the "tide" turning?

[nameless]

I agree with eVolution there regarding ratio, as if trying to mimic fish intake, one would think DHA should be higher than EPA.

However, even if that is the case, we don't know if DHA is necessarily better for us than EPA is. DHA does oxidize faster, so it could also be theorized that it may be safer longterm to consume EPA rather than DHA, at least in oil form. The DHA in fish itself may be better protected from oxidation than in an oil (depending on antioxidants, how fresh is the fish, etc).

For depression, and some anti-inflammatory and auto-immune issues, I believe EPA has been show to provide a greater benefit than DHA has.

Heart-wise, I think DHA has been shown to reduce triglycerides to a greater degree than EPA, but if that equates to reduced CVD risks over EPA only... not sure.

I know the JELIS study used EPA only, but is anyone aware of any EPA vs DHA studies related to heart health? I mean mortality or CVD studies, not just biomarkers.

[MrSpud]

I tend to take one product that is higher in DHA in the morning and a different product that is higher in EPA in the evening, so the closest answer for me was the 1:1

[OneScrewLoose]

To OP: be wary of any product touting the benefits of Omega 6. We already get plenty of Omega 6 in our diets and do not need to supplement it.

Also, does anyone else feel like this whole EPA/DHA debate probably doesn't make a difference in the end, as long as we're getting enough of both?

Edited by OneScrewLoose, 10 July 2011 - 04:59 AM.

[e Volution]

Also, does anyone else feel like this whole EPA/DHA debate probably doesn't make a difference in the end, as long as we're getting enough of both?

I think it will certainly make a meaningful difference, but we don't yet have enough evidence to say either way. I do envisage enough evidence at some point in the future prescribing an optimal ratio (which may well be unique for each of us).

[tintinet]

From the DHA/EPA Omega 3 Institute:

"WHAT IS THE PREFERRED RATIO OF DHA/EPA IN SUPPLEMENTS?
Dear SA,

The vast majority of studies which have evaluated and supported the benefits of consuming omega-3 fatty acid as DHA/EPA in fish or as supplements for cardiovascular events and related mortality have used mixtures of these two omega-3 fatty acids. All fish contain a mixture of both omega-3 fatty acids (DHA + EPA) and most studies using supplements (particularly the long-term studies) have used mixtures of these two fatty acids. In the more recent JELLIS study from Japan (see recent reports on our website) utilized a concentrate of EPA only. Since mixtures of DHA/EPA have been used in the vast majority of long-term studies related to cardiovascular events and mortality, the 1999 Workshop in Bethesda, Maryland (invited international experts) recommended an intake of 650 mg of omega-3 fatty acid in the form of DHA/EPA combined each day for normal healthy people with at least one-third of the mixture being represented by either EPA or DHA. In other words, a recommended DHA: EPA ratio ranging from 2:1 on one extreme all the way to 1:2 on the other. Long-term studies over many years which look at cardiovascular disease and related events (including mortality) would be ideal wherein various mixtures DHA+EPA were studied and compared to purified concentrates of EPA or purified concentrates of DHA. Due to prohibitory costs, it is unlikely that such studies will be initiated for many years to come. It should be noted that the focus has been on DHA in infant formula preparations in view of the fact that DHA accumulation in the brain and retina (eye) of young infants has been directly implicated with respect to a structure-function relationship for DHA in optimal neuronal and visual functioning, respectively."

[Matt79]

I tend to take one product that is higher in DHA in the morning and a different product that is higher in EPA in the evening, so the closest answer for me was the 1:1

Why do you do this? Eating fish it wouldnt be possible to do this, hence your method is unnatural.

[MrSpud]

I tend to take one product that is higher in DHA in the morning and a different product that is higher in EPA in the evening, so the closest answer for me was the 1:1

Why do you do this? Eating fish it wouldnt be possible to do this, hence your method is unnatural.

I don't know for sure what ratio would be the best or if natural selection makes the ratio of what is obtainable naturally from fish the best. I do know that when I found out I had extremely high triglycerides (over 1100) and I started eating wild salmon many times a week and also taking 18:12 fish oil simultaneously that my triglycerides went down really good (less than 100). I maintained this for about 3 years. Then I had some bad salmon and stopped eating it and tried just taking the supplements ( either 18:12 or 30% total where the EPA is dominant) and my triglycerides are up and my doctor recommended upping my fish oil. My triglycerides aren't as bad as they were when I was first diagnosed (greater than 1100), but higher than what is considered to be acceptable (the low 200s). Rather than just keep taking higher levels of higher EPA ratio fish I wanted to try taking more DHA in the morning and more EPA in the evening. Both have lesser amounts of the other, but one is dominat part of the time and the other is dominant the other. Perhaps they share some attributes and are perhaps synergistic, but they may also compete with each other and lessen the others effects sometimes too. If my triglycerides end up where I want them then I'll probably continue this way, if not I might try differenly.

Edited by MrSpud, 01 September 2011 - 04:17 AM.

[nameless]

I don't know for sure what ratio would be the best or if natural selection makes the ratio of what is obtainable naturally from fish the best. I do know that when I found out I had extremely high triglycerides (over 1100) and I started eating wild salmon many times a week and also taking 18:12 fish oil simultaneously that my triglycerides went down really good (less than 100)

Approx. how many servings of salmon did you eat weekly? And fish oil, at the time?

Just wondering if may be a bio-availabilty difference (fish vs fish oil), rather than a EPA/DHA ratio issue. Although DHA should lower your trigs more than EPA does.

Were the total Omega 3 amounts more or less the same when you switched to fish oil only? I think one serving (4g or so) of salmon has about 1.2 g of Omega 3s.

[MrSpud]

Approx. how many servings of salmon did you eat weekly? And fish oil, at the time?

Just wondering if may be a bio-availabilty difference (fish vs fish oil), rather than a EPA/DHA ratio issue. Although DHA should lower your trigs more than EPA does.

Were the total Omega 3 amounts more or less the same when you switched to fish oil only? I think one serving (4g or so) of salmon has about 1.2 g of Omega 3s.

I was eating 3-5 servings a week of wild salmon and taking about 6 to 9 1000mg 18:12 EPA:DHA triglyceride form a day back then. More recently, before I got my triglycerides measured the last time, I was taking 3-6 of the enteric coated 1000mg 30% total Omega-3s that are always higher in EPA than DHA and tend to be much lower than the 12% DHA. They are triglyceride form but were molecularly distilled as ethyl esters and then turned back into triglycerides. Now I am taking the enteric coated ethyl ester 500mg DHA, 250mg EPA three capsules at a time in the AM and then taking 3 of the enteric coated 1000mg 30% at night. I'll continue this til the next time I get my triglycerides measured and see how it goes.

[nameless]

I was eating 3-5 servings a week of wild salmon and taking about 6 to 9 1000mg 18:12 EPA:DHA triglyceride form a day back then. More recently, before I got my triglycerides measured the last time, I was taking 3-6 of the enteric coated 1000mg 30% total Omega-3s that are always higher in EPA than DHA and tend to be much lower than the 12% DHA. They are triglyceride form but were molecularly distilled as ethyl esters and then turned back into triglycerides. Now I am taking the enteric coated ethyl ester 500mg DHA, 250mg EPA three capsules at a time in the AM and then taking 3 of the enteric coated 1000mg 30% at night. I'll continue this til the next time I get my triglycerides measured and see how it goes.

So roughly averaging things out, you previously were getting about 3g daily of EPA/DHA, from salmon and fish oil.

You switched to enteric oil, and if we avg. up highish, to 5/daily, that'd be 1.5g/daily.

Trigs got worse when you switched, which makes sense, as you dropped your Omega 3 content in half.

Now you are taking over 3g daily again.

The only thing bad (well, bad isn't the right word)... but confusing issue will be, if your trigs return low on your next test, will it be due to the EPA/DHA ratio + split time of day taken, or simply the fact that you are taking about the same total amount of Omega 3s now, as you were when you consumed salmon + fish oil?

[hallucinogen]

2:1 - EPA:DHA

[MrSpud]

I won't be able to tell if it was the ratio or the amount or if other variables are changing things. For example, when I started eating the wild salmon I also stopped drinking anything with high fructose corn syrup, stopped eating anything with trans fats, upped my fiber intake and basically stopped eating just about all mammal fat. Now I'm still doing all of those things except I'm eating some mammal fat. Other variables are I am now taking astaxanthin, tocotrienols and phosphatidylserine with my fish oil whereas before when I was eating the salmon I was just taking d-alpha tocopherol. So I won't know exactly which variables are the ones that make a difference, but I'm going for results rather than specific knowledge. If my triglycerides still aren't down to a low enough level I will then make one or 2 more changes.

Oe other thing worth mentioning. When I was eating salmon and taking the 18:12 1000mg fish oil, they weren't enteric coated. There is some evidence that enteric coated fish oil is supposed to result in higher blood levels of the Omegas. I believe Fisol from Natures Way even marketed their product by saying their little bitty enteric coated softgel was the equivalent of a regular 1000mg big 20 oblong fish oil capsule. That's why I thought when I switched to taking the enteric I was hoping that I wouldn't need as many capsules. So that's one more variable.

Edited by MrSpud, 03 September 2011 - 03:34 PM.

[PerfectSeek]

Bump... see the following for a comparison of EPA / DHA. Based on their analysis DHA is superior to EPA for heart health, but EPA is better for depression.

Isn't DHA also found in offal (e.g. brains) of mammals? One would think that proponents of the paleo diet would favor DHA over EPA.

For those of you who take high dose fish oil... do you notice side affects after a certain period of time? I would imagine they might creep up with high doses over long periods, but I haven't tried it myself to be sure...

http://www.google.co...RaRbLuv6V1CZhfA

Edited by PerfectSeek, 22 May 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Heinsbeans]

So from all of the conflicting studies done on fish oil, what's the stance?
I too always thought that higher DHA was better for brain health and higher EPA was for cardiac health.
But the recent studies seems to be suggesting the opposite and I'm getting really confused.
Is it better to go with higher EPA than DHA for brain health now?
It seems like it since higher EPA has shown to have more benefits than DHA, like with cardiac health, anti-inflammatory, depression and possibly adhd.
And EPA can be converted to DHA but not the other way around.

I'm currently taking Omega Brain fish oil from Blackmores which contains 500mg DHA and 100mg EPA each capsule.
I've been taking two capsules a day for 6 years.

So for optimal brain health, what dosage and ratio of fish oil should I be taking?

If someone can recommend which fish oil I should switch to out of these three for optimal brain health, I'd appreciate it.
These are all from Blackmores.

1) Fish Oil 1000
EPA:DHA - 180mg:120mg

2) Omega Daily
EPA:DHA - 351.7mg:248.3mg

3) Omega Joint
EPA:DHA - 550mg:120mg

Edited by Heinsbeans, 25 October 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[kybernetes]

Omegabrite is a fish oil supplement company founded by Harvard researchers who have concluded that an EPA/DHA ratio of 7:1 or 70% EPA is optimal for mood, brain function, and overall health.

You can read some of the research on their site here: http://omegabrite.com/why/brain.htm
Another nice article on a well designed, controlled double blind study with this 7:1 ratio that shows great potential for anxiety and inflammation: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201111/fish-oil-and-anxiety

[Matt79]

I tend to take one product that is higher in DHA in the morning and a different product that is higher in EPA in the evening, so the closest answer for me was the 1:1

Why do you do this? Eating fish it wouldnt be possible to do this, hence your method is unnatural.

Perhaps they share some attributes and are perhaps synergistic, but they may also compete with each other and lessen the others effects sometimes too. If my triglycerides end up where I want them then I'll probably continue this way, if not I might try differenly.

Interested to hear if you still separate EPA and DHA out?

[chipdouglas]

For those who have tried high DHA to EPA fish oil, have you experienced depression and confusion as a result ? I did.