![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jamal Spelling on August 24, 2007, at 8:41:17
Friends
Can one derive the same benefit from taking LHA supplements rather than EPA and DHA supplements?
Jamal
Posted by Jamal Spelling on August 25, 2007, at 14:18:35
In reply to LHA vs EPA and DHA, posted by Jamal Spelling on August 24, 2007, at 8:41:17
Hee-hee. I think LHA should be ALA there, cowboy. Maybe that's why nobody has responded yet. They don't know what I'm talking about. They're thinking:
"What on earth is Jamal talking about? What's 'LHA'?"
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 25, 2007, at 15:11:38
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA, posted by Jamal Spelling on August 25, 2007, at 14:18:35
Well I think its better than not taking any.... but apparently it depends on how efficent your body is at converting the AHA...and whether you have the right vits/minerals to go ahead with this conversion...so you need to eat more AHA than you would of the EPA nad DHA to get the same amount of omega 3 in your system...
I can't really remember, I'm tired at the mo, and I've left my nutri-books in another country.
I don't have any clue which one is 'better' through.
M
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 25, 2007, at 17:07:25
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA, posted by Jamal Spelling on August 25, 2007, at 14:18:35
> Hee-hee. I think LHA should be ALA there, cowboy. Maybe that's why nobody has responded yet. They don't know what I'm talking about. They're thinking:
>
> "What on earth is Jamal talking about? What's 'LHA'?"What's LHA? They're my initials, eh?
Chances are you actually meant ALNA. Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA) is omega-6. Alpha-linolenic acid (ALNA) is omega-3. (Those abbreviations, ALA/ALNA are not universally used, but they are becoming more common because they are not ambiguous.)
The answer is no. There is no appreciable DHA formed from ALNA, and little EPA. Humans need to recieve their DHA preformed.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 25, 2007, at 17:08:23
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA, posted by Jamal Spelling on August 25, 2007, at 14:18:35
I meant to include this reference:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jun;83(6 Suppl):1467S-1476S.
Distribution, interconversion, and dose response of n-3 fatty acids in humans.
Arterburn LM, Hall EB, Oken H.
Martek Biosciences Corporation, Columbia, MD, USA. larterburn@martekbio.comn-3 Fatty acids have important visual, mental, and cardiovascular health benefits throughout the life cycle. Biodistribution, interconversion, and dose response data are reviewed herein to provide a basis for more rational n-3 dose selections. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is the principal n-3 fatty acid in tissues and is particularly abundant in neural and retinal tissue. Limited storage of the n-3 fatty acids in adipose tissue suggests that a continued dietary supply is needed. A large proportion of dietary alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) is oxidized, and because of limited interconversion of n-3 fatty acids in humans, ALA supplementation does not result in appreciable accumulation of long-chain n-3 fatty acids in plasma. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) but not DHA concentrations in plasma increase in response to dietary EPA. Dietary DHA results in a dose-dependent, saturable increase in plasma DHA concentrations and modest increases in EPA concentrations. Plasma DHA concentrations equilibrate in approximately 1 mo and then remain at steady state throughout supplementation. DHA doses of approximately 2 g/d result in a near maximal plasma response. Both dietary DHA and EPA reduce plasma arachidonic acid concentrations. Tissue contents of DHA and EPA also increase in response to supplementation with these fatty acids. Human milk contents of DHA are dependent on diet, and infant DHA concentrations are determined by their dietary intake of this fatty acid. We conclude that the most predictable way to increase a specific long-chain n-3 fatty acid in plasma, tissues, or human milk is to supplement with the fatty acid of interest.
PMID: 16841856
Lar
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 26, 2007, at 2:09:58
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA » Jamal Spelling, posted by Larry Hoover on August 25, 2007, at 17:08:23
Oh wow, so I was wrong.
We really do need to eat EPA/DHA then........
So. Obviously this means cold water carnivorous fish.
But I've always wondered.... I've met people who have never eaten fish in their whole life. I've met several in fact. How come they're not dead or something equally tragic? Is it just more subtle than that, as in, they are just slightly less healthy or something?
And, what about all those moms who don't eat fish but are breastfeeding? Clearly, their infants aren't going to be getting any omega 3's in their diet whatsoever. Now I know that kids which have had omega 3 whatever, are more healthy etc. But why are the kids still alright when they haven't had any?
Do you see what I'm saying?
Anyway, I ate some nice norwegian salmon yesterday.....I'd like to try some arctic char - I saw it at a resaurant, but I went for the whitefish instead - I didn't realise it was a fish, i thought it was some form of chargriled reindeer.... I regretted it! I love fish!!! How can people not like it? Anyway I don't eat red meat, so perhaps thats why. And I try not to eat the farmed salmon stuff through. But the whitefish is pretty pure here. I hope it contains omega 3!! Do you have any links to species of fish vs omega content?
I need to start taking the fish oil capsules again, but....I have OCD and 'contaimination' fears, which (very unfortunately) extend to taking supplements as well.....boo hoo.
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Jamal Spelling on August 26, 2007, at 4:22:46
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA » Larry Hoover, posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 26, 2007, at 2:09:58
Thanks Meri and Larry.
Just the other day I was having a disagreement with my sister, whose dietician told her that ALNA was the 'best' of the three, and that she needn't worry about EPA and DHA.
Well, now I am armed with an actual reseach paper to show her...
Jamal
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 26, 2007, at 11:44:21
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA, posted by Jamal Spelling on August 26, 2007, at 4:22:46
> Thanks Meri and Larry.
>
> Just the other day I was having a disagreement with my sister, whose dietician told her that ALNA was the 'best' of the three, and that she needn't worry about EPA and DHA.Best for what? We cannot exclude physiological benefits of ALNA simply because it is a poor raw material for EPA or DHA. That said, it is not a substitute for pre-formed EPA and DHA.
> Well, now I am armed with an actual reseach paper to show her...
>
> JamalHere's a better one for that...
The most rigorous examination of the conversion of ALNA to DHA that I have ever reviewed is the following one. It was a long-term study of radio-labelled (carbon 13) ALNA, supplied as a minor component of diet over a period of time to 15 each of healthy men and women, and its fate. I'm going to quote from the full-text version (Results) of this study: "The average daily ALA intake equaled 1,129 mg or 4,056 µmol. Approximately 78.5 mg or 6.96% of dietary ALA was incorporated as ALA into plasma phospholipids. Of this ALA pool, 99.98% was converted to EPA, which corresponded to 6.95% (78.4 mg) of ALA intake. The remaining 0.18% of the ALA plasma phospholipid pool, which was equivalent to 0.013% (0.14 mg) of ALA in the diet, was converted directly to DHA in the liver, before it appeared in the plasma phospholipids as DHA. Only 1% of the EPA in plasma phospholipids, which was equivalent to 0.07% (0.80 mg) of ALA consumption, was converted to DPA. All DPA from the plasma phospholipid pool was converted to DHA. Thus, the total amount of ALA from the diet that was ultimately converted to DHA was 0.08% (0.94 mg)."
Summary: Averaged over 30 humans, ALNA conversion to EPA was less than 7%, and to DHA less than 0.1%. If you read the full-text, you'll find convincing arguments that earlier work had over-estimated ALNA conversion by factors of 2 to 4.
Full-text: http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/full/46/7/1474
Abstract:
J Lipid Res. 2005 Jul;46(7):1474-83. Epub 2005 Apr 16.
Compartmental modeling to quantify alpha-linolenic acid conversion after longer term intake of multiple tracer boluses.
Goyens PL, Spilker ME, Zock PL, Katan MB, Mensink RP.
Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.To estimate in vivo alpha-linolenic acid (ALA; C18:3n-3) conversion, 29 healthy subjects consumed for 28 days a diet providing 7% of energy from linoleic acid (C18:2n-6) and 0.4% from ALA. On day 19, subjects received a single bolus of 30 mg of uniformly labeled [(13)C]ALA and for the next 8 days 10 mg twice daily. Fasting plasma phospholipid concentrations of (12)C- and (13)C-labeled ALA, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; C20:5n-3), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA; C22:5n-3), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; C22:6n-3) were determined on days 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, and 28. To estimate hepatic conversion of n-3 fatty acids, a tracer model was developed based on the averaged (13)C data of the participants. A similar tracee model was solved using the averaged (12)C values, the kinetic parameters derived from the tracer model, and mean ALA consumption. ALA incorporation into plasma phospholipids was estimated by solving both models simultaneously. It was found that nearly 7% of dietary ALA was incorporated into plasma phospholipids. From this pool, 99.8% was converted into EPA and 1% was converted into DPA and subsequently into DHA. The limited incorporation of dietary ALA into the hepatic phospholipid pool contributes to the low hepatic conversion of ALA into EPA. A low conversion of ALA-derived EPA into DPA might be an additional obstacle for DHA synthesis.
Best,
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 26, 2007, at 12:01:13
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA » Larry Hoover, posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 26, 2007, at 2:09:58
> Oh wow, so I was wrong.
>
> We really do need to eat EPA/DHA then........Yes. I don't know any way around it.
> So. Obviously this means cold water carnivorous fish.
Not necessarily. The ultimate source of marine omega-3s is actually DHA produced in algae. Fish actually shorten it, and saturate it, to produce EPA. There are commercial algae-based DHA supps. Just google algae DHA.
> But I've always wondered.... I've met people who have never eaten fish in their whole life. I've met several in fact. How come they're not dead or something equally tragic? Is it just more subtle than that, as in, they are just slightly less healthy or something?
Your body is quite good at conserving and recycling omega-3 fats. Wild meat, or pastured meat, is full of omega-3 fats. It's grain-fed stuff that's not so good any more. I'm not totally dissing vegetarian sources. For some people, they may be enough.
In any population, there are people who get by quite nicely on low quality food. Others need better food to thrive. It's that whole statistical bell curve population data thing.....if you're one of the outliers (i.e. greater than two standard deviations from the mean), it really doesn't matter what other people get by with.
> And, what about all those moms who don't eat fish but are breastfeeding?
There is an upregulation of the ability to produce long-chain omega-3s during pregnancy, but it's still rather limited. If diet and conversion are insufficient, the mother mines her own reserves to try and satisfy the needs of the offspring. That's one of the contributory factors for post-partum depression.
> Clearly, their infants aren't going to be getting any omega 3's in their diet whatsoever.
Probably less than optimal, which is not a good start in life, but not zero.
> Now I know that kids which have had omega 3 whatever, are more healthy etc. But why are the kids still alright when they haven't had any?
>
> Do you see what I'm saying?It's just not as black and white as you conceive it to be. Our whole concept of adequacy is conditional upon what we've historically consumed. In other words, we've biased our interpretations based on the available data. One possible explanation for the increasing incidence of mood disorders is systematic omega-3 deficiency.
> Anyway, I ate some nice norwegian salmon yesterday.....I'd like to try some arctic char - I saw it at a resaurant, but I went for the whitefish instead - I didn't realise it was a fish, i thought it was some form of chargriled reindeer.... I regretted it! I love fish!!! How can people not like it? Anyway I don't eat red meat, so perhaps thats why. And I try not to eat the farmed salmon stuff through. But the whitefish is pretty pure here. I hope it contains omega 3!! Do you have any links to species of fish vs omega content?
My computer crash made things much more difficult for me. I'll see if I can find the old link I used. The data are older (80s) but species and habitats are rather constant entities.....
> I need to start taking the fish oil capsules again, but....I have OCD and 'contaimination' fears, which (very unfortunately) extend to taking supplements as well.....boo hoo.
>
> Kind regards
>
> MeriI hope its a comfort to know that risk/benefit analyses of fish intake consistently demonstrate that the benefits far exceed the risks, except for cases of known excessive contamination of source waters.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 27, 2007, at 12:03:48
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA » Larry Hoover, posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 26, 2007, at 2:09:58
> Do you have any links to species of fish vs omega content?
I found an archived version of the tables I like to use: http://www.truehaus.net/food/
Also at: http://web.archive.org/web/20030608045535/www.cs.princeton.edu/~ah/food/The lipid tables are organized in a rather haphazard way, and you'll need to know that EPA is 20:5, and DHA is 22:6. They're in different tables. This is the old USDA database, set up for easy comparison. The new USDA site contains less information.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2007, at 19:47:44
In reply to Re: LHA vs EPA and DHA » Jamal Spelling, posted by Larry Hoover on August 25, 2007, at 17:07:25
> Chances are you actually meant ALNA. Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA) is omega-6. Alpha-linolenic acid (ALNA) is omega-3. (Those abbreviations, ALA/ALNA are not universally used, but they are becoming more common because they are not ambiguous.)
Dear me, my poor brain is still somewhat foggy, though it seems to be improving the last couple of weeks. I made a mistake, above.
I meant to refer to alpha-lipoic acid (called ALA), not alpha-linoleic acid, which doesn't exist. By referring to linoleic acid, I did correctly relate that it is an omega-6, but there is no alpha isomer. I still prefer ALNA for alpha-linolenic acid, but because of confusion with alpha-lipoic. I hope that isn't confusing.
Lar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.