164 replies to this topic

[s123]

Interestingly, n-3 PUFAs are more susceptible to peroxidation than n-6 PUFAs (Hulbert, 2005), suggesting a case of ‘‘antagonistic pleiotropy’’ on the metabolic rather than genetic level: the protective role of n-3 PUFAs (Calder, 2006; Fritsche, 2006; Lombardo and Chicco, 2006) during most of life span may be partially offset by accelerated aging due to increased lipid peroxidation.

Source: Piotr Zimniak, Detoxification reactions: Relevance to aging, Ageing Research Reviews 7 (2008) 281–300.

Longer lived species also tend to have less unsaturated fats in their membranes (e.g. naked mol rat versus mice).

[suspire]

Human milk contains DPA (also found in seal oil), a rare omega-3 that may play a role in developing brains, and breast-feeding was commonly done for 3-4 years by paleolithic moms.

Are you still taking DPA? I remember you were big on Seal Oil at one point--not sure why/what benefits you were getting from it/expected from it and whether you still take it.

[HaloTeK]

Wow, good thread! It was only a few days ago that I was thinking about bringing up the same topic. It seems that the optimal dosage of polyunsaturates are really one of the last parts of the health equation that really hasn't been solved yet. We are back to the Udo Erasmus camp vs the Weston A. Price camp again. First off, there is no doubt that you have to be very, very careful about using polyunsaturates that have not become rancid in any way. We have to consider that if there are benefits to polyunsaturates, they are from some kind of plasticity that occurs "if" they make it to the point of being incorporated into our membranes (or that they get partially oxidized for heat energy without causing much cellular damage, as for ALA). Secondly, I'd like to think of the difference in the beta oxidation of fats vs peroxisome oxidation of fats. It's well known that polyunsaturates use peroxisome oxidation(that is correct, right?) and in some ways, less free radical junk gets thrown out of cells in comparison to beta oxidation (maybe this is why fish oil seems to lower damage in cells in some studies). There seems to be much ancedotal evidence of faster wound healing and increased athletic performance out of the high intake ALA peoples (Udo Erasmus camp, Seth Roberts (Shangri-La Diet) <---- people would benefit from looking at his hands on human studies!!). There also seems to be some evidance of increased metabolic metabolism when deprived of polyunsaturates (like a heavy beating human heart <------ don't remember where I read this--- (Ray peat has studies on increased metabolic performance of rats)). I just wonder if there might even be some type of beneficial hormetic reaction going on with low dose polyunsaturates because of how unstable they are. My position is that I think there actually might be a trade-off here for function vs longevity (more polyunsaturates ='s increased resistance to things, but lessened lifespan as dosage increases). If the ancedotal evidence is true that higher dose polyunsaturates speeds wound healing, is there a way we could eat or dose on other pills that can pull off the same effect? Is it possible that by protecting our membranes with fat soluble antioxidants (like Astaxanthin) that we can deal with a higher level of polyunsaturates in our tissues without the worry of oxidation?


Sorry for all the non-scientific reasoning, but there are still so many questions here that are interesting.http://rds.yahoo.com...sp-qrw-corr-top

[mitkat]

I have nothing more to add than saying excellent conversation and I'm enjoying reading it this busy time of year.

I'm definitely moving my diet toward more saturated fat intake, including animal fats,

Something to keep in mind, apparently grass-fed or free-range animals has a different lipid profile than grain-fed battery animals.

and two tropical oils, palm oil...

...extremely harmful to the environment (a major cause of tropical deforestation). Be sure to check whence it is sourced.

This has been a concern of mine also, I just was thinking about it yesterday when I saw huge drums of coconut oil being advertised in a local Canadian health food mag. That's an enormous footprint, and I see little talk of farming economics on most brand name coconut oils (although I am impressed that "organic" varieties are plentiful, take that with a grain or two). Ironic, me a vegetarian who pigs out on coconut oil is not doing the planet the favour he thinks he is. I need to research a guilt free brand.

[meursault]

As far as ancient meat-eating habits go - I have seen quite a few papers like this describing the hunting strategies of early humans. One hunting tactic was to drive a whole herd of grazing animals off of a cliff. The whole tribe would then eat meat for a couple weeks with not much else in the diet. During certain times of the year, some native American tribes' diet would consist primarily of bison meat/fat and only small amounts of seeds/greens. I am not saying a high meat/fat diet is the super-duper-number-one-fantastic diet available, just that some groups of humans did live primarily on meat/fat for significant periods of time. Nowadays we have the option to eat less meat and still get the proper nutrients.

Very true. Also in Africa, Australia, and other inland population areas, fish was rare or absent for dozens of generations, perhaps 100+ generations. So clearly, eating fish isn't necessary to human survival. Human milk contains DPA (also found in seal oil), a rare omega-3 that may play a role in developing brains, and breast-feeding was commonly done for 3-4 years by paleolithic moms.

I've done quite a bit of recent research and I cannot find evidence that ANY omega-3 fats are necessary for humans. I'm wondering if anyone can reveal something I could not find on my own.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=22773
This paper posted by zoolander mentions the link between the evolution of the brain with consumption of omega 3 fatty acids. I think it's a valuable overview of the role of omega 3 in our diet that deserves consideration in this debate.

Edited by czukles, 21 December 2008 - 05:38 AM.

[Spiral Architect]

What exactly is a "mega-dose" of Fish Oil?

Can you guys who take it specify how much you do when you comment on it?

[DukeNukem]

As far as ancient meat-eating habits go - I have seen quite a few papers like this describing the hunting strategies of early humans. One hunting tactic was to drive a whole herd of grazing animals off of a cliff. The whole tribe would then eat meat for a couple weeks with not much else in the diet. During certain times of the year, some native American tribes' diet would consist primarily of bison meat/fat and only small amounts of seeds/greens. I am not saying a high meat/fat diet is the super-duper-number-one-fantastic diet available, just that some groups of humans did live primarily on meat/fat for significant periods of time. Nowadays we have the option to eat less meat and still get the proper nutrients.

Very true. Also in Africa, Australia, and other inland population areas, fish was rare or absent for dozens of generations, perhaps 100+ generations. So clearly, eating fish isn't necessary to human survival. Human milk contains DPA (also found in seal oil), a rare omega-3 that may play a role in developing brains, and breast-feeding was commonly done for 3-4 years by paleolithic moms.

I've done quite a bit of recent research and I cannot find evidence that ANY omega-3 fats are necessary for humans. I'm wondering if anyone can reveal something I could not find on my own.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=22773
This paper posted by zoolander mentions the link between the evolution of the brain with consumption of omega 3 fatty acids. I think it's a valuable overview of the role of omega 3 in our diet that deserves consideration in this debate.

Thanks. Good article, lots of references showing benefit from EPA/DHA supplementation. But, given the PUFAs have a long half-life in our body (about two years), it's quite possible that we need very little omega-3 on a daily or weekly basis to satisfy our needs.

It's also interesting to think about the fact that most omega-3 rich species live in colder environments, where PUFA degradation is likely slowed, and where saturated fats are ill-suited because they harden under cold conditions. Humans maintain a near 100-degree internal temp which is a much better suited biological environment for the more stable saturated fats. I wonder, too, if the role of astaxanthin in fish and krill,etc. plays the special role of greatly reducing oxidation of omega-3s, since these species don't have the option of using saturated fats. I have to wonder just how useful astaxanthin is in humans for this same purpose. Certainly the tocopherols are proven to play this role in humans.

Edited by DukeNukem, 21 December 2008 - 03:45 PM.

[DukeNukem]

What exactly is a "mega-dose" of Fish Oil?

Can you guys who take it specify how much you do when you comment on it?

Well, the Inuit, at times, at substantially diets than included marine lipids, including seals. I'm only guessing that during these periods they ate 5-10 grams of fish oil daily, maybe a lot more. However, one researcher who lived with the Inuit for an extended period early last century, noted that those who were 25 looked 40 or 50. I see this too whenever I've looked at pictures of these people. I just always assumed it was due to their harsh environment. Maybe it's partly due to their low-saturated fat, high PUFA diet?

I do believe that some omega-3 is necessary, because it does serve positive functions in our bodies. But, I think there's a right level that's probably a lot less than what many people take via supplements. My currently program is being reduced to two small krill oils and one LEF Super EPA/DHA daily. Plus, I take an astaxanthin and mixed tocopherol (focused more on gamma than the others).

My current belief is that anything over 2 grams daily is too much, assuming you're taking every reasonable measure to eliminate processed omega-6's, too.

[Mariusz]

More and more, I'm questioning whether EPA and DHA are truly essential fatty acids. These are unstable, easily oxidized long-chain lipids, that may cause more problems than they solve.

It just seems that we really don't know much about what we should or shouldn't be eating.
Our knowledge about nutrition is more based on statistics then on real science.
Really, we don't even know what is required by our body to function, and in what amounts.
And we truly have no way of knowing if our body are getting enough of those "essential" compounds anyway.

I think if the current situation does not change within next few years, we have no chance of living more then 80-90 years.
It's like we are putting diesel in your car instead of a regular gas. It will drive for a while but for how long?


Mariusz

[Kutta]

I just always assumed it was due to their harsh environment. Maybe it's partly due to their low-saturated fat, high PUFA diet?

Well, we can't find out by studying the Inuits general health whether their issues are due to chronically low intake of vitamins and phytonutritients (which is well-researched and trivially harmful) or the PUFAs (which is not so researched).

[nameless]

Which form of fish oil is the least likely to oxidize, ethyl ester or triglyceride? I don't recall which form was used in most oxidation studies.

And would low potency fish oil be less likely to have oxidation problems, as compared to higher potency capsules? I assume it would, but since you have to take more of it to get to the same Omega 3 dose, I imagine it comes out even.

[DukeNukem]

Well, we can't find out by studying the Inuits general health whether their issues are due to chronically low intake of vitamins and phytonutritients (which is well-researched and trivially harmful) or the PUFAs (which is not so researched).

I'm pretty sure the fatty organ meats they ate were packed with vitamins, especially the fat-soluble ones like A, D, E and K, and B's come from eggs and animal tissues, too. This is why carb sources for vitamins are basically unnecessary. Also, there's evidence that on a very low carb (or no carb diet), vit C is practically unnecessary. Perhaps this is why we genetically lost the ability to self-create vit C -- for paleolithic humans on a lifelong low carb diet vit C becomes unessential.

[HaloTeK]

I think it's important to think of what temperature krill and other fish with astaxanthin operate at. Much lower than the internal temperature of humans. We know that when we refrigerate polyunsaturate fats, they will last longer. The addition of astaxanthin would make the polys last even longer (but might only work really well at lower temperatures- and who knows at human temperatures). Also, because my biochemistry is kinda fuzzy, what exactly keeps our brains from oxidizing (vitamin e, and what else??)? We know that in comparison to just about all other tropical species, we have way more polyunsaturates in our brains (we probably need to comsume more than other species, even if it's a little-- if it is proven that we can't actually produce the little DHA we need anyway from minute quantities of ALA- which i think we can, if our brains need it for something like repair or growth). I also remember reading that our brain doesn't really like incorporating polys into itself (that things like DHA would even up desaturating other tissues in our body and not actually make it to our brain, while EPA would just have its anti-inflammatory function). Also, our tissues usually don't like to change their ratio of saturated and mono-unsaturated fats (this is one of the arguments MR has used to push monos because if actual tissue composition doesn't change, monos have benefical functions on insulin function in comparision to saturated fats, but u still want to have some saturates (which can come from the coversion of carbs, or the fats themselvles). I just worry that my mitochrondia will be too overactive at really low does of polys and have other negatives (like heavy heartbeat, slower wound healing). Small amounts of unoxidized polys seems warrented.

And also, if our tissue is something like ~55% monos, why comsume a higher percentage of that in saturated fats if they won't make our tissue concentration any different. (why have saturated fats floating around that might hurt insulin function?). I like my fats a 55% mono, 45% saturated ratio (why trying to minimize polys)

Edited by HaloTeK, 21 December 2008 - 07:27 PM.

[Shepard]

And also, if our tissue is something like ~55% monos, why comsume a higher percentage of that in saturated fats if they won't make our tissue concentration any different. (why have saturated fats floating around that might hurt insulin function?). I like some come my fats in like a 55% mono, 45% saturated ratio (why trying to minimize polys)

What tissues are you referring to?

[HaloTeK]

And also, if our tissue is something like ~55% monos, why comsume a higher percentage of that in saturated fats if they won't make our tissue concentration any different. (why have saturated fats floating around that might hurt insulin function?). I like my fats in a 55% mono, 45% saturated ratio (why trying to minimize polys)

What tissues are you referring to?

fat around our bodies that is not our brain or organs (most likely skin fat). sorry i forget where i read that, so i don't have the facts to back it up (looks around MR posts)

Edited by HaloTeK, 21 December 2008 - 07:28 PM.

[HaloTeK]

Well, we can't find out by studying the Inuits general health whether their issues are due to chronically low intake of vitamins and phytonutritients (which is well-researched and trivially harmful) or the PUFAs (which is not so researched).

I'm pretty sure the fatty organ meats they ate were packed with vitamins, especially the fat-soluble ones like A, D, E and K, and B's come from eggs and animal tissues, too. This is why carb sources for vitamins are basically unnecessary. Also, there's evidence that on a very low carb (or no carb diet), vit C is practically unnecessary. Perhaps this is why we genetically lost the ability to self-create vit C -- for paleolithic humans on a lifelong low carb diet vit C becomes unessential.

As an aside that goes along with what you are saying. I think we lost the ability to produce vitamin c because our brains are selfish. Glucose competes with vitamin c for entry into our cells. Our brains need lots of energy to run, it would make no sense to make it hard on the little of bit of glucose that we would have comsumed in a paleo diet to have to compete with vitamin c. Our bodies really wouldn't have to worry about oxidation because any bit of sugar we consumed would have been low glycemic, and packed with other anti-oxidants that would have rendered vitamin c useless.

[woly]

Also, there's evidence that on a very low carb (or no carb diet), vit C is practically unnecessary. Perhaps this is why we genetically lost the ability to self-create vit C -- for paleolithic humans on a lifelong low carb diet vit C becomes unessential.

Hey duke, could you point me to some studies on this? very interesting!

[shuffleup]

So now you're going to tell me I can't have my wine?

http://www.scienceda...81204133610.htm

A little wine boosts omega-3 in the body: Researchers find a novel mechanism for a healthier heart

Results from the European study IMMIDIET show that moderate wine intake is associated with higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids considered as protective against coronary heart disease

Moderate alcohol intake is associated with higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in plasma and red blood cells. This is the major finding of the European study IMMIDIET that will be published in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, an official publication of the American Society for Nutrition and is already available on line (www.ajcn.org ). The study suggests that wine does better than other alcoholic drinks. This effect could be ascribed to compounds other than alcohol itself, representing a key to understand the mechanism lying behind the heart protection observed in moderate wine drinkers.

The IMMIDIET study examined 1,604 citizens from three geographical areas: south-west London in England, Limburg in Belgium and Abruzzo in Italy. Thanks to a close cooperation with General Practitioners of these areas, all participants underwent a comprehensive medical examination, including a one year recall food frequency questionnaire to assess their dietary intake, alcohol consumption included.

Omega-3 fatty acids, mainly derived from fish, are considered as protective against coronary heart disease and sudden cardiac death, thus their high blood concentration is definitely good for our health.

Now European researchers found that moderate alcohol drinking acts like a 'trigger', boosting the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in our body.

"Several studies have shown that moderate alcohol consumption, including wine, is associated with protection against coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke - says Romina di Giuseppe, lead author of the study, from the Research Laboratories at Catholic University of Campobasso - Although the mechanisms are not completely defined, there was some evidence that alcohol intake might influence the metabolism of essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, as omega-3. That is exactly what we found in our population study. People drinking moderate amounts of alcohol, one drink a day for women and two for men, had higher concentration of omega-3 fatty acids in plasma and red blood cells independently of their fish intake".

However important these results appear to be, the best is yet to come. Researchers from Catholic University of Campobasso, in Italy, and from University of Grenoble, in France, turned their attention on the variety of alcoholic beverages consumed in order to see whether the high levels of omega-3 fatty acids detected might be ascribed to alcohol itself or to other substances.

"From our previous studies we know that association between wine drinking and increased concentration of omega-3 fatty acids have been observed – says Michel de Lorgeril, from the University of Grenoble, partner of the IMMIDIET project and co-leader of the study - Nevertheless, it was not possible to separate the effects of wine from those of beer or spirits. Our study of 3 populations with different dietary habits and different consumption of alcoholic beverages types allowed us to explore this aspect.".

"Analysis carried out on different alcoholic beverages –argues Licia Iacoviello coordinator of the IMMIDIET study at Catholic University of Campobasso - showed that the association between alcohol and omega-3 fatty acids was present in both wine drinkers and beer or spirits drinkers. However, the association was stronger between wine drinking and omega-3 fatty acids levels. This suggests that components of wine other than alcohol is associated with omega-3 fatty acids concentration. We may guess this effect can be ascribed to polyphenols".

Polyphenols are naturally occurring compounds contained in a different variety of food and beverages, such as wine. Due to their strong antioxidant activity, they are able to reduce oxidation processes caused by free radicals.

"We consider these data to be a major finding - de Lorgeril concludes - opening a new window in the field of cardiovascular prevention. Beyond the alcohol issue, our results raise crucial questions regarding the effects of polyphenols on lipids (both in blood and cell membranes) and possibly of lipids on polyphenols".

The IMMIDIET study

Funded by the European Union under Key Action 1: Food, Nutrition and Health QLK1-CT-2000-00100, IMMIDIET aims to acquire fundamental knowledge in the field of cardiovascular disease, especially regarding the interaction between genetics and lifestyle.

At the core of the study there is an important episode of Italian migration: Belgium, a country that became the new home for thousands of Italians, mostly from the Abruzzo region, who came to work in the mines. Many of those emigrants didn't come back to Italy but remained in their new country. Some of them married a Belgian partner. Their genes remained the same, of course, but how much "Italy" is still there in their diet? And how much did they transmit it to their spouses? Moreover, how many Italian emigrants assimilate dietary habits of the country in which they were guests? In this framework, the role of genetic factors and lifestyle can be assessed to explore new ways in prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

To carry on the research, married couples have been recruited in three European areas: South-East London in England, Limburg in Belgium and Abruzzo in Italy. In the first phase of the study the couples involved were formed by people from the same area, Italians married with Italians (in the Abruzzo region), Belgians married with Belgians (in the Limburg area) and English married with English (in the South-East part of London)".

The second phase of IMMIDIET recruited mixed Italian–Belgian couples to understand if, acquiring dietary habits from Abruzzo, the Belgian partner changed his own risk regarding heart diseases.

[zoolander]

The paper attached below is well worth a read.

From the paper's conclusion

"Human beings are poor DHA synthesizers, possibly because of their LC(n-3)P-abundant ancient diet. Dietary changes in the past century have lowered the (n-3) status to a current state of subclinical deficiency that is epidemiologically related to CVD, inflammatory disorders, mental and psychiatric diseases and suboptimal neurodevelopment. The strongest evidence comes from randomized controlled trials with LC(n-3)P, showing reduced mortality from CVD, improved neonatal neurodevelopment, and lower blood pressure in later life. With these studies as evidence, we conclude that DHA is likely to be essential."

Attached Files

•  Is_DHA_essential.pdf   107.17KB   54 downloads

[david ellis]

Note that most carnivores have a omega-3-free diet (very little is found in the meat of prey). Humans are very close to being a carnivore -- we're pretty much identical to dogs in this respect (we can live our entire life on animal proteins and fats).

One thing is 100% certain to me: omega-6 fats are a net-negative, and should be avoided if in an way processed.

The jury is still out on omega-3's -- IMO it's not a clear case that we should be supplementing with them anymore.

There is speculation that our human ancestors specialized in eating the brains and marrow of prey killed by other animals. With tool using hands, they were able to open thick skulls and bones. At first, the prey was killed by others, but soon the evolutionary advantages powered the rise of skilled teams of hunters. So skilled that there is speculation that many species were hunted to extinction. Our brains are higher powered than other animals. The speculation is that Omega-3 fats found in brains and bone marrow were an evolutionary advantage because higher permeability of brain cell walls increased chemical signaling speeds. It is true that very little is found in the meat, but is also true that highest levels are in the brain and marrow of multi-stomached prey animals. (Omega3's are produced by bacteria in the stomachs of these animals).

I just remembered that brains and bone marrow used to be a big part of our diet. Maybe you have never sucked the marrow from a soup bone. It is good, almost sweet. Plenty of omega3 there in grass fed animals. With mad-cow disease, eating brains is rare now.

Edited by david ellis, 22 December 2008 - 09:40 PM.

[HaloTeK]

The paper attached below is well worth a read.

From the paper's conclusion

"Human beings are poor DHA synthesizers, possibly because of their LC(n-3)P-abundant ancient diet. Dietary changes in the past century have lowered the (n-3) status to a current state of subclinical deficiency that is epidemiologically related to CVD, inflammatory disorders, mental and psychiatric diseases and suboptimal neurodevelopment. The strongest evidence comes from randomized controlled trials with LC(n-3)P, showing reduced mortality from CVD, improved neonatal neurodevelopment, and lower blood pressure in later life. With these studies as evidence, we conclude that DHA is likely to be essential."

Sure! The question we have is how much? What is optimal? Will the question also look at amounts that might optimize functionality vs longevity?

[FunkOdyssey]

I have a feeling any DHA requirement that exists would be very low after the brain is fully developed, maybe 50-100mg daily as an uneducated guess.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 22 December 2008 - 06:22 PM.

[automita]

its not perfect but it is what we have in abundance now, find a way to refine it and then i will use it.

[david ellis]

I have a feeling any DHA requirement that exists would be very low after the brain is fully developed, maybe 50-100mg daily as an uneducated guess.

I have a feeling that the requirement is much higher, measured in grams, not milligrams. The very primitive ancestors of our tool using hunter-gather ancestors probably ate a lot of omega3's. The primitive progenitors of the hunter/gathers had tools and were able to eat the untouched brains and marrow of prey killed by other animals. Brains and marrow contain much higher levels of EPA/DHA than meat. These omega3's are found in the tissues of multi-stomached prey animals. Omega3's are produced by bacteria in the stomachs of these animals. At first, the prey was killed by others, but soon the evolutionary advantages powered the rise of skilled teams of hunter-gatherers. So skilled that there is speculation that many species were hunted to extinction. Our brains are higher powered than other animals. The Omega-3 fats found in brains and bone marrow were an evolutionary advantage because higher permeability of brain cell walls increased chemical signaling speeds.

So it is very likely that large amounts of Omega3's were eaten by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. And it is further very likely that our hunter-gatherer ancestors also ate large amounts of Omega3's. So the bottom line is that our need for omega3's is probably very large.

Changes in diet have dropped our consumption of omega3's to very low levels. When I was a kid, the best part of soup was getting a bone to suck the marrow out. I haven't had soup like that in years. And the consumption of brains is very low for mad cow reasons. These Omega3 rich foods have declined precipitously in recent years. Plus, beef is grain fed, not grass fed, preventing bacteria from making lots of Omega3's. So beef meat contains very little omega3.

Edited by david ellis, 22 December 2008 - 10:06 PM.

[paba]

I've also been a strong believer in omega-3 fatty acids and took fish and cod liver oil for many years, but completely stopped taking it after I realized that the human need for omega-3 is extremely low, as long as omega-6 is also low. Most studies, that have found positive effects from omega-3 were short-term. Longer-lasting studies often produced neutral or even negative results. I think, there's real possibility that omega-3 fatty acids can cause serious harm if they are taken for many years.

I highly recommend to read the PUFA-report from Chris Masterjohn. He has done an amazing job in reviewing all the old flawed studies, that led to the exaggerated PUFA-recommendations of today.

http://www.wolfriver...eports.htm#pufa

[HaloTeK]

There is no question we need some fatty acids:

http://wholehealthso...suppresses.html <---- a study somewhat correlating the ancedotal evidence (I can't seem to remember where) that humans on a really low EFA diet might have a heavy heartbeat (or other unwanted side effects), or slowed wound healing (if you trust that the rat study applies to us in some sort of way).

The need for omega 3's are lower if omega 6's are kept low -- I second what paba mentioned. I seem to recall that our immune system is optimized by a 1:4 ratio, and that a ratio of closer to 1:1 one is better if inflammation type problems are present.

Avoidance of omega 6's are next to immpossible without really contorting your diet. They are present in coconut oil, olive oil, nuts, chocolate fats, animals, and the list goes on.

We know that the skin and some organs need omega 6 fat in the form of LA (correct right? at least i know the skin does). Can we say the same of organs outside of the brain needing DHA? <---- if this was the case, we'd probably need a little DHA from time to time.

Also, do any tissues in the body actually need ALA? <---- if this was the case, only consuming the pre-formed long chain omega 3's may be a mistake.

[Shepard]

Can we say the same of organs outside of the brain needing DHA? <---- if this was the case, we'd probably need a little DHA from time to time.

See the journal issue I linked to in my second post in this thread.

[HaloTeK]

Shepard -- Can't believe I didn't look closer at your post. Lots of good info there!

What is going on here:
Too much linoleic acid promotes inflammation—doesn’t it?
Pages 173-175
Kevin L. Fritsche
http://www.sciencedi...23bfdd06c7f6547

If men have more of a problem converting ALA to DHA, we are going to need some-- but probably on the level of 100-200mg a day if that.

Seems like the most important thing is balancing DHA and AA : this is not as easy as it looks because genetic variance and diet will come into play here (as in ADHD).

It's funny how nature probably didn't even care much about this because most humans are healthy into their 20s and 30s no matter what they do. Prolonged heavy intake of LA and AA really seems to get us after those ages if not balance with some sort of omega 3 intake.

Edited by HaloTeK, 23 December 2008 - 02:29 AM.

[Shepard]

What is going on here:
Too much linoleic acid promotes inflammation—doesn’t it?
Pages 173-175
Kevin L. Fritsche
http://www.sciencedi...23bfdd06c7f6547

I can get you the full text, or I can go over it and post up any thoughts on it. It could be quality or rubbish, but it's not terribly surprising. People still hold onto these simplistic good/bad ideas, even after one after another is debunked and destroyed.

It's funny how nature probably didn't even care much about this because most humans are healthy into their 20s and 30s no matter what they do. Prolonged heavy intake of LA and AA really seems to get us after those ages if not balance with some sort of omega 3 intake.

You can abuse the hell out of the human body, and it will still go strong. The drive for reproduction is so profound that not much can kill us during that time period.

[DukeNukem]

Avoidance of omega 6's are next to immpossible without really contorting your diet. They are present in coconut oil, olive oil, nuts, chocolate fats, animals, and the list goes on.

The best we can do is avoid processed PUFAs, such as salad dressings, processed foods, snack foods, fast foods, and so called health foods like he Atkin's protein shakes (includes cheap soy oil). PUFAs that are within whole foods are minimal and of little concern.

Edited by DukeNukem, 23 December 2008 - 03:39 AM.