Posted by Larry Hoover on November 17, 2002, at 10:34:21
In reply to Re: DHA from fish oil is important, too!, posted by Darwin on November 17, 2002, at 9:57:07
> The article reads like an advertisement for DHA and it probably is since it was created by a company named "Docosa Foods Ltd".
Yes, I noticed the source. I posted it because it neatly summarizes the available science. I can provide references for each of the claims made.
It's one of my own unanswered questions, but could the current prevalence of mood disorders be linked to the absence of DHA from infant milk-replacement formulas? Even today, DHA is not required in North American formulations. And mother's milk wouldn't be too much better, if their own diets and bodies were deficient to begin with.
> Dr Stoll seems to believe that EPA is the important component of fish oil and recommends a ratio of EPA to DHA of 7 to 1. I've never read an expanation of how he arrived at this ratio ... Is is because DHA is largely irrelevant or is it because DHA may actually be harmful in large doses?
Maybe it's because the concentrate he made (or had made) naturally came out to that ratio, due to physico-chemical processes? I've never seen any rationale for limiting DHA intake.
> We know that DHA is important in developing babies and their mothers, but its role in adult maladies seems to be unclear.
>
> DarwinGiven that the brain would naturally tend towards 8-9% DHA by weight, one has to wonder where the body is to get that from, if not through diet.
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:128009
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20021116/msgs/128015.html