19 replies to this topic

[Jay]

There's a new study that shows that DHA, found in fish oil, gets converted into resolvin D2, a chemical that reduces inflammation. See article here.

I had been taking high EPA (and consequently low DHA) fish oil on the theory that EPA competes directly with arachidonic acid for incorporation into tissue and that a better balance of the two fatty acids would mean a better balance of omega 3 and omega 6 derived eicosanoids.

Although, the body can convert EPA into DHA, given DHA's direct anti-inflammatory benefit, I wonder if it's better to just take regular fish oil rather than high EPA fish oil. It is indeed more natural...

[FunkOdyssey]

The body converts approximately 5% of dietary ALA to EPA and 1-2% ALA to DHA. So for the human body, you could argue that a high EPA fish oil is more "natural" if it provides a 5:1 or 5:2 EPA:DHA ratio.

[Jay]

The body converts approximately 5% of dietary ALA to EPA and 1-2% ALA to DHA. So for the human body, you could argue that a high EPA fish oil is more "natural" if it provides a 5:1 or 5:2 EPA:DHA ratio.

Good point.

[rwac]

The body converts approximately 5% of dietary ALA to EPA and 1-2% ALA to DHA. So for the human body, you could argue that a high EPA fish oil is more "natural" if it provides a 5:1 or 5:2 EPA:DHA ratio.

On the flip side, it may simply mean that conversion to DHA is harder.
Perhaps the "natural" human diet does not contain significant quantities of ALA, and so this conversion is not required.

[nameless]

Usually fish, or at least fish considered heart healthy, such as salmon, have higher amounts of DHA than EPA. So if looking at what's natural, or at least what is obtained from diet naturally, a decent amount of DHA would be included too.

[Jay]

Usually fish, or at least fish considered heart healthy, such as salmon, have higher amounts of DHA than EPA. So if looking at what's natural, or at least what is obtained from diet naturally, a decent amount of DHA would be included too.

Also, early humans likely ate brains of animals (because why wouldn't they?), which I think are primarily DHA. Since fishing likely came later in our evolutionary past than did hunting, early intake of omega 3s might have tilted towards DHA. That said, high EPA fish oil might be a good place to start since replacing tissue fatty acids takes a lot of time (something like a 2 year half life for average tissue). After you've cut on 6s for long enough and replaced enough tissue arachidonic acid with EPA, you might be in a better position to start raising the DHA content of your fish oil, if that is even desired.

Edited by Jay, 02 November 2009 - 06:41 PM.

[shazam]

There's a new study that shows that DHA, found in fish oil, gets converted into resolvin D2, a chemical that reduces inflammation. See article here.

I had been taking high EPA (and consequently low DHA) fish oil on the theory that EPA competes directly with arachidonic acid for incorporation into tissue and that a better balance of the two fatty acids would mean a better balance of omega 3 and omega 6 derived eicosanoids.

Although, the body can convert EPA into DHA, given DHA's direct anti-inflammatory benefit, I wonder if it's better to just take regular fish oil rather than high EPA fish oil. It is indeed more natural...

No, no it CAN'T. Find ONE study that says otherwise. They don't exist. The body does not convert EPA into DHA, particularly in men. Women can get a little DHA from ALA, but from EPA all people will get is DPA, which is a third less researched omega three with a similarly long chain to DHA but different properties that are not well documented.

However, the body CAN convert DHA into EPA. Just not the other way around. I'd cite a few studies, but really they're pretty easy to find.

[Jay]

From Wikipedia:

In the human body, DHA is either present in the diet or it is derived from eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20:5, ω-3) via docosapentaenoic acid (DPA, 22:5 ω-3) as an intermediate. This had been thought to occur through an elongation step followed by the action of Δ4-desaturase. It is now more likely that DHA is biosynthesized via a C24 intermediate followed by beta oxidation in peroxisomes. Thus EPA is twice elongated yielding 24:5 ω-3, then desaturated to 24:6 ω-3, then shortened to DHA (22:6 ω-3) via beta oxidation. This pathway is known as Sprecher's shunt.

The wikipedia article cites this and this.

Edited by Jay, 02 November 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[Pike]

afaik, conversion rates for the o-3 acids in men are so marginal that they are largely inconsequential.

also, in the EPA or DHA argument, one may be important than the other depending on what result you're looking for. in terms of efficacy for the treatment of ADHD, DHA is almost ineffective, whilst EPA is. on the flipside, i believe DHA is favored over EPA for lowering blood triglycerides.

[shazam]

afaik, conversion rates for the o-3 acids in men are so marginal that they are largely inconsequential.

also, in the EPA or DHA argument, one may be important than the other depending on what result you're looking for. in terms of efficacy for the treatment of ADHD, DHA is almost ineffective, whilst EPA is. on the flipside, i believe DHA is favored over EPA for lowering blood triglycerides.

This is true. Perhaps I was a little too direct in my statement. However, I still have a few studies that contradict the "EPA converts to DHA" theory out there. They're all cited in this thread. http://forum.bodybui...php?t=119628671

Don't let the name fool ya, I laid down some solid research in this thread.

I may have to look at yours too, but the main point I extracted from my research is that to get significant amounts, you should supplement DHA to get DHA and EPA to get EPA, and that the ratio may or may not alter the effects of the fish oil.

[e Volution]

Hey guys, I was browsing some nutritional information when I came across this table:

Now what stands out to me is most fish species have a higher DHA to EPA, some quite substantially. This is opposite to the fish oil I am consuming daily where it is approximately 1:2 ratio DHA:EPA. Combined with some of the evolutionary reasoning in the posts above such as bone marrow and brain being more concentrated source of DHA, I certainly want to try reversing the ratio I am consuming to a 2:1 DHA:EPA.

Has anyone else tried this? Why if most fish is ~2:1 DHA:EPA do all fish oils have the opposite ratios? Lastly is there any stand out scientific evidence that negates/trumps a higher DHA to EPA ratio plausibly being ideal (I don't have any cognitive issues) considering the evidence in favour of fish/seafood consumption? Thanks

Edited by e Volution, 05 July 2010 - 03:01 AM.

[Thorsten3]

Sorry it's not my intention to digress from the subject at hand but my two cents on DHA/EPA:

EPA has solved a lot of my issues ....

Ok, so DHA has its part to play (as cited already in this thread) but to be perfectly honest from my perspective why would I waste money on a pharmaceutical drug for mental wellbeing when I can take high concentration EPA which is achieving more for my mental health? (plus no issues with tolerance).
I would rather take something that makes me feel great (without the need for pharmaceutical man made drugs) and EPA achieves this in such a modest but noticeable way...Life is so much 'smoother' and balanced...OCD gone and a more happier, productive state of mind. The only drawback has been the way it has killed my libido (usually very high)...Even a high GHB session cannot restore my sexual functioning (it's like the EPA has killed my sexual desire at 'the spot')
Maybe this would be an extremely potent anti-depressant combo in conjunction with low dose selligine (itself a very potent mood booster but working on DA so would hopefully revive lost libido)

note: I would choose deprenyl based on its reported life extention effects

So all of this in conjunction with a good diet and lots of exercise would equal a pretty good starting point to a hopefully happier life. Now I just need some good people to share the good times with :-)

I appreciate high dose EPA wouldn't neccessarily work for most who have attention/OCD issues but it's definitely worth a shot for those who are looking for a natural approach

Edited by Thorsten, 05 July 2010 - 06:11 PM.

[OneScrewLoose]

Sorry it's not my intention to digress from the subject at hand but my two cents on DHA/EPA:

EPA has solved a lot of my issues ....

Ok, so DHA has its part to play (as cited already in this thread) but to be perfectly honest from my perspective why would I waste money on a pharmaceutical drug for mental wellbeing when I can take high concentration EPA which is achieving more for my mental health? (plus no issues with tolerance).
I would rather take something that makes me feel great (without the need for pharmaceutical man made drugs) and EPA achieves this in such a modest but noticeable way...Life is so much 'smoother' and balanced...OCD gone and a more happier, productive state of mind. The only drawback has been the way it has killed my libido (usually very high)...Even a high GHB session cannot restore my sexual functioning (it's like the EPA has killed my sexual desire at 'the spot')
Maybe this would be an extremely potent anti-depressant combo in conjunction with low dose selligine (itself a very potent mood booster but working on DA so would hopefully revive lost libido)

note: I would choose deprenyl based on its reported life extention effects

So all of this in conjunction with a good diet and lots of exercise would equal a pretty good starting point to a hopefully happier life. Now I just need some good people to share the good times with :-)

I appreciate high dose EPA wouldn't neccessarily work for most who have attention/OCD issues but it's definitely worth a shot for those who are looking for a natural approach

Does an equal amount of EPA but with DHA not work as well for you as just the EPA?

[Thorsten3]

Sorry it's not my intention to digress from the subject at hand but my two cents on DHA/EPA:

EPA has solved a lot of my issues ....

Ok, so DHA has its part to play (as cited already in this thread) but to be perfectly honest from my perspective why would I waste money on a pharmaceutical drug for mental wellbeing when I can take high concentration EPA which is achieving more for my mental health? (plus no issues with tolerance).
I would rather take something that makes me feel great (without the need for pharmaceutical man made drugs) and EPA achieves this in such a modest but noticeable way...Life is so much 'smoother' and balanced...OCD gone and a more happier, productive state of mind. The only drawback has been the way it has killed my libido (usually very high)...Even a high GHB session cannot restore my sexual functioning (it's like the EPA has killed my sexual desire at 'the spot')
Maybe this would be an extremely potent anti-depressant combo in conjunction with low dose selligine (itself a very potent mood booster but working on DA so would hopefully revive lost libido)

note: I would choose deprenyl based on its reported life extention effects

So all of this in conjunction with a good diet and lots of exercise would equal a pretty good starting point to a hopefully happier life. Now I just need some good people to share the good times with :-)

I appreciate high dose EPA wouldn't neccessarily work for most who have attention/OCD issues but it's definitely worth a shot for those who are looking for a natural approach

Does an equal amount of EPA but with DHA not work as well for you as just the EPA?

No I personally only percieve benefits from the purer form of EPA but it's important to take at least 1000mg per day in conjunction with a healthy diet. I notice if I eat too much 'bad fats' the benefits from EPA are then pretty minimal

[OneScrewLoose]

Are you sure this isn't placebo? This is really interesting to me. I would have you and a friend do a double-blind study on yourself. Or at least single-blind.

[Thorsten3]

Are you sure this isn't placebo? This is really interesting to me. I would have you and a friend do a double-blind study on yourself. Or at least single-blind.

It's only noticable for me when taken with a certain kind of diet (all bad fats elimanated so proportion of EPA in my diet is increased). Seriously it's great stuff. The impact it has on libido though is a concern for me.

You could just give it a try mate....

I buy from this company:

http://www.mind1st.c...CFVeY2AodTBjmYw

[chrono]

Personally, I take a high-EPA oil for ADD/general brain support, and buy a 2:1 DHA product for my parents.

I feel like using the evolutionary paradigm to choose supplements is very, very problematic; especially if you're over 30 and/or have anything like a modern lifestyle. Evolution isn't a perfectly-tuned process which designed for us the best solution to any given problem. It seems entirely possible to me that the benefit of either DHA or EPA (in different situations) is something that evolution did not select for—assuming that composition of fish had any role in our evolutionary process at all.

So I guess I'm trying to say: "natural" ratios might be important to some, but I think the choice is better based on research into their specific benefits.

[e Volution]

I feel like using the evolutionary paradigm to choose supplements is very, very problematic; especially if you're over 30 and/or have anything like a modern lifestyle. Evolution isn't a perfectly-tuned process which designed for us the best solution to any given problem. It seems entirely possible to me that the benefit of either DHA or EPA (in different situations) is something that evolution did not select for—assuming that composition of fish had any role in our evolutionary process at all.

So I guess I'm trying to say: "natural" ratios might be important to some, but I think the choice is better based on research into their specific benefits.

I agree with your main point but I disagree that I am using evolution as a guide to 'choose' supplements. I using evolutionary reasoning as a guide in the face of uncertainty and as the best starting point to replicate 'natural' consumption (which is really what most supplementation is ie D3, K2, Magnesium, etc). Couldn't a good argument be made that we don't yet know the optimal dosage of fish-oil for health/longevity, nor do we know what the optimal ratio of EPA:DHA is, in fact there is still a debate going on longer vs shorter chains ALA and EPA/DHA, etc. In light of this wouldn't a smart position be to replicate best what would be consumed in a natural environment like any of our ancestors that found themselves deriving a large chunk of their food from seafood sources?

[chrono]

In light of this wouldn't a smart position be to replicate best what would be consumed in a natural environment like any of our ancestors that found themselves deriving a large chunk of their food from seafood sources?

I don't know if that's necessarily a bad criterion, no. But we have virtually no physical adaptations to catch and consume fish, so I don't think that they were consumed for enough of our evolutionary history for this natural ratio to have imprinted itself on our physiology, for good or bad. So I'm not sure what specific benefit replicating it would yield, beyond simulating eating more fish.

I think in the absence of a definitive answer, it would be better to have a) as closely balanced a ratio as possible, in a good amount, to cover all bases with potential conversions, or b) a ratio more in favor of a specific benefit (e.g. brain, cardiac, cholesterol).

But honestly, I think it will be hard to go wrong, unless you pick a ratio grossly imbalanced in favor of one, and conversion to the other doesn't take place.

[e Volution]

In light of this wouldn't a smart position be to replicate best what would be consumed in a natural environment like any of our ancestors that found themselves deriving a large chunk of their food from seafood sources?

I don't know if that's necessarily a bad criterion, no. But we have virtually no physical adaptations to catch and consume fish, so I don't think that they were consumed for enough of our evolutionary history for this natural ratio to have imprinted itself on our physiology, for good or bad. So I'm not sure what specific benefit replicating it would yield, beyond simulating eating more fish.

Well I read this just a few days ago: Eating Crocodile Helped Boost Early Human Brains?
"The real-life caveman diet included crocodiles, and eating the reptiles' fatty flesh may have helped early humans evolve bigger brains, a new study suggests... Stone tools and the butchered bones of turtles, crocodiles, and fish were found at the 1.95-million-year-old site in northern Kenya."

And then there is the Aquatic ape hypothesis which puts forward the hypothesis that we do have a number of aquatic adaptations including possibly Bipedalism, hairlessness, greater subcutaneous fat, hooded noses and voluntary breath control and a host of other things. I don't personally have an opinion on it as of yet but I find it very interesting.

I think in the absence of a definitive answer, it would be better to have a) as closely balanced a ratio as possible, in a good amount, to cover all bases with potential conversions, or b) a ratio more in favor of a specific benefit (e.g. brain, cardiac, cholesterol).

But honestly, I think it will be hard to go wrong, unless you pick a ratio grossly imbalanced in favor of one, and conversion to the other doesn't take place.

Well I guess this is just where it comes down to our personal opinions and risk/reward ratios. In my mind replicating natural intakes/ratios feels superior to your a) or b) and I don't mean that negatively in any way. I don't have any specific neurological or cardiovascular requirements behind my consumption, and I don't think having the ratio closely balanced is very strong argument either considering it is not found that way when you eat most fish!

I'm probably guilty of over simplifying these things but I have been on this forum for over 6 months and I haven't come across anything that would negate this statement: In an ideal world (if you lived on a pristine and unpolluted lake for example) it would be superior getting your EPA/DHA from varied fresh marine animals & fish than popping molecularly distilled fish oil tablets? If that was the case you would be getting a higher DHA to EPA ratio and simultaneously (as closely as possible) replicating our ancestors hypothesised intake? If someone could poke a hole in that logic that would be great