Hi all!
How in the world is it possible to achieve a a better omega 3 - 6 ratio, while not exceeding the "dangerous" amount of EPA + DHA?
Also taking in consideration that alpha linolenic acid is more or less useless?
Posted 18 July 2014 - 11:32 PM
Hi all!
How in the world is it possible to achieve a a better omega 3 - 6 ratio, while not exceeding the "dangerous" amount of EPA + DHA?
Also taking in consideration that alpha linolenic acid is more or less useless?
Posted 19 July 2014 - 12:49 AM
Consume less of the industrial seed oils.
Posted 19 July 2014 - 12:53 AM
I see your point. However what i mean is, that it is impossible to aim for a a good ratio (1-1,1-3 etc.) without eating dangerous amounts of EPA + DHA? Or is EPA + DHA safe in very high amounts every day?
Posted 19 July 2014 - 05:11 AM
There are two routes to accomplish this, first is to become vegan and eat raw foods, this will greatly reduce intake of Omega 6, and thus enhance processing of AA to EPA/DHA. I go the second route, the non vegan route, avoid: fried foods, vegetable oils, grains, chicken; eat: cold water fish, 100% grass fed beef, lamb, pastured or Omega 3 enhanced eggs, Krill and Fish oil supplements to make up for those times I have to eat out and can't find the above.. Not sure where you are getting this 'dangerous amounts of EPA and DHA', I suspect you are getting misinformation, probably some vegan site nonsense, the body is going to burn excess Omega 3 PUFAs for fuel.
Edited by JohnD60, 19 July 2014 - 05:28 AM.
Posted 19 July 2014 - 03:39 PM
I see your point. However what i mean is, that it is impossible to aim for a a good ratio (1-1,1-3 etc.) without eating dangerous amounts of EPA + DHA? Or is EPA + DHA safe in very high amounts every day?
EPA and DHA are extremely oxidation-prone, due to their high level of unsaturation. (The likelihood of oxidation increases exponentially with the degree of unsaturation.) Basically, a little fish oil is good and a lot is bad. Here are some refs I posted a while back. The best way to get a low ratio is to eat less omega-6 fatty acids.
Posted 19 July 2014 - 03:43 PM
Edited by Dolph, 19 July 2014 - 03:44 PM.
Posted 19 July 2014 - 08:00 PM
the RDA for omega-3's here in the USA, is based on ALA...you only need mg's of DHA/EPA...so trying to get a 1:3 ratio using the already converted DHA/EPA is foolish....You only need to worry about a 1:3 ratio to compensate for the poor conversion of ALA to DHA/EPA...livestrong says the RDA for DHA/EPA is 500mg's, and that between 6-1.2 percent ALA is converted to DHA/EPA...I get about a 1:3 ratio of 3's 6's from flax and sunflower seeds, don't supplement with any oil's, been doing it for 5 or so years now haven't dropped dead yet. And my lipids are good.
Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:00 PM
Edited by Duchykins, 22 July 2014 - 06:15 PM.
Posted 30 July 2014 - 02:59 PM
There is no need for any oils.
There is no need for a lot of things, if one looks at the diet from a strictly nutritional perspective. But of course, diet is much more than just basic nutrition - at least if you are a human being. It is equally about pleasure, social relation and personal identity (eating is an act of relating oneself to other people, history and nature). This is why I reject radical approaches to diet stemming from a onesided nutritional perspective. Even if a ultra-low-fat vegan diet devoid of added fats would be nutritionally superior to any other dietary pattern (for which there is really not much evidence) it would still be a form of cultural vandalism and self-imposed social isolation and as such not supportive to human health.
For the bulk of humanity, the default position is that supplements will always be, in varying degrees, inferior to whole foods.
I agree, but as you imply in the adverbial clause, it is not a matter of black and white. For the bulk of people eating a western diet, a low dose EPA/DHA supplement will be beneficial. Of course, it would probably be more beneficial if they regularly ate fatty fish instead (and instead of meat) and decreased their intake of linoleic acid, but realistically, for most people popping pills is easier.
Then there is the issue of the fragility of these oils.
I don't think that's too much of an issue if you a) buy fish oil only in caps, never in liquid form, b) make sure it has an GMP label and a date of expiry at room temperature at least two years from the date of purchase (this is only possible if the manufacturer has high standards and adds enough antioxidants) d) store them in the freezer. I gave some more detailed advice on this subject in another topic.
Last there is Dolph's point, this ratio thing is hypothetical. And what little we do know is blown out of proportion by -surprise- the food and supplement industries capitalizing on and simultaneously encouraging the omega 3 fad. If anything, there is more circumstantial evidence supporting small amounts of EPA and DHA in our natural omega balances than there is evidence supporting the benefits of regular consumption of omega oils for a combined total of EPA & DHA by the gram in healthy people. We also know very little about the other omegas and through that ignorance we could very well be doing more harm than good by focusing so much on n-3s or EPA/DHA in particular.
I agree that there is much speculation and "hearsay evidence" about the importance of the omega 6/3-ratio (driven to the most ridiculous extremes - of course - in the Paleosphere). But I think that there is mounting evidence (e.g. the recent meta-analysis by Ramsden et al. in the BMJ) that the omega 6/3 ratio in the diet is of importance. My point - and by the way that of the DGE (German Nutrition Society) - is that it is so easy to get that ratio right, that there is no reason not take care of it. This is why the DGE pragmatically recommends a ratio of 4:1 (the Japanese ratio) or higher, and I concur with that recommendation. This is what I would recommend to acchieve that goal - and much more:
Edited by timar, 30 July 2014 - 03:30 PM.
Posted 30 September 2014 - 03:30 PM
Posted 30 September 2014 - 05:01 PM
Timar, according to this study lignany are NOT associated with reducedmortality: http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/23881072/
That study is based on data from the Spanish EPIC cohort, while the study I linked above is based on the PREDIMED trial which provides superior data. Food intake and health endpoints were much more meticulously monitored in the PREDIMED trial than in the large-scale observational EPIC study (i.e. the EPIC study administered one food frequency questionnaire at recruitment - that is one FFQ for a mean follow up of 13.6 years, while the PREDIMED trial administered one FFQ per year!).
Anyway, what is the point of your reply? Both studies provide evidence for health benefits from a diet rich in polyphenols. Moreover, there is plenty of compelling evidence for beneficial effects of lignans and flax seed in particular not only from observational studies (1*,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) but also from animal studies and even some RCTs (e.g. in hypertensive patients).
*from the abstract of the study by Frankenfield:
High urinary enterolactone concentration was inversely associated with obesity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.66), abdominal obesity (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.87), high serum C-reactive protein (CRP; OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.74), high serum triglycerides (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.61), low serum HDL cholesterol (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.61), and metabolic syndrome (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.74).
Btw. while looking up the above PubMed links I also came across a study by Mumford et. al, with the intriguing title: Higher urinary lignan concentrations in women but not men are positively associated with shorter time to pregnancy.
So I guess men being affraid that consuming phytoestrogens will turn them female can finally put their minds at rest!
Edited by timar, 30 September 2014 - 05:21 PM.
Posted 30 September 2014 - 07:37 PM
Btw. while looking up the above PubMed links I also came across a study by Mumford et. al, with the intriguing title: Higher urinary lignan concentrations in women but not men are positively associated with shorter time to pregnancy.
Science & Health →
Brain Health →
Omega 3 + Phosphatidylserine Is making my memory insanely goodStarted by Mr Serendipity , 27 Sep 2022 phosphatidylserine, dha |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Supplements →
Alpha Lipoic Acid + DMSO TopicalStarted by Daniel Cooper , 20 Jul 2022 ala, alpha lipoic acid, dmso and 1 more... |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Supplements →
Why do some algae omega 3 supplements contain only DHA and not EPA?Started by osris , 12 Jul 2022 omega 3 |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Medicine & Diseases →
Cancer →
DHA in omega 3 oils kills cancer cells, says a June 2021 studyStarted by osris , 07 Jul 2022 cancer, fish oils, omega 3 |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Supplements →
What's new in R Alpha Lipoic Acid for anti-aging?Started by Forever21 , 02 Jun 2022 rala, ala, alpha lipoic acid |
|
|
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users