Talk:Arachidonic acid

"it is uncertain if humans can in fact convert linoleic acid to arachidonic acid.[*]"
The study linked for this assertion just says, that varying the linoleic acid precursor in a Western-type diet typically abundant in LA (and even lots of AA !), does not further increase AA blood levels and with extreme LA reduction AA may starts trending (sub-significantly) a little lower. This just indicates a tightly regulated control / feedback loop, besides possibly the effect of adipose fat tissue buffering over a long time, and potential chronic overload by excess preformed AA in the diet. This review study also is concerned with the opposite: "Elevated tissue AA levels are believed to be positively associated with eicosanoid formation and risk for a variety of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and inflammation. The literature expresses concern over the fact that increasing dietary LA can potentially enrich tissues with AA due to their metabolic link."

That LA to AA conversion takes places in humans is well established (many studies even show the detailed mechanisms) and there are many vegans from birth meanwhile not consuming AA.

So this assertion seems absurd, and super absurd to be drawn from that study, and should probably removed.? Kxroberto (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It never hurts to have a keen eye review how other editors have characterized studies. It certainly suggests revision for further clarity would be salutary. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Since little or no arachidonic acid is found in common plants, such animals are obligate carnivores???
That is illogical, If a creature required arachidonic acid and could not create it internally, yes they would need to eat SOME meat but they would not need to be obligate carnivores which are designed only to eat meat. They could be omnivores as well. Considering the explanation also says that humans are in this category (which the other talk point disputes), we are obviously omnivores and not obligate carnivores. So the explanation makes no sense as written, the author does not seem to understand the actual definition of 'obligate carnivore.' 70.166.33.7 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Obligate carnivore" means the organism requires some meat; it does not mean it eats only meat. Omnivores may be obligate carnivores, if they require the meat component of their diet. Organisms that only consume meat can also be obligate carnivores, or could simply be (for lack of knowledge of a proper term) "situational carnivores": that is, they are only eating meat, but they could survive just as well eating no meat. "Obligate carnivore" and "omnivore" are not mutually exclusive; "obligate carnivore" and "vegetarian" are mutually exclusive.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)