Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid/Archive 1

Anticonvulsant effects?
Many Fatty acids have anticonvulsant properties and have been used to make anticonvulsant drugs. Does Omega 3 have the same properties? I suppose it could explain why it can help in depression, both unipolar and bipolar as a mood stabliiser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

IFOS inactive
The International Fish Oil Standards website has been inactive for some time now. Are there other independent fish oil testing services the article could list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.68.82 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratio clarification
"Simopoulos, et al[17] recommend daily intakes of three omega-3 forms: 650 mg of EPA and DHA, and 2.22 g of ALA, and one omega-6 form: 4.44 g of LA. This translates to a 3:2 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. (i.e. 1.5:1)"

Is this to be taken at 650 mg of EPA in addition to 650 mg of DHA? (In addition to the 2.22 g of ALA and 4.44 g of LA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.68.82 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Optimum Ratio?
any word on the optimum ratio of epa to dha? whether they are best taken together or separately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.68.82 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous ratio listed
Sorry, I don't have your level of experience with Wiki editing and I don't even know if I'm allowed to do this, but the following may help editors so I'm jumping in. The following is important information to note in the article because the article suggests what could be a dangerous omega 6 (pro-inflammatory) to omega 3 ratio which is at odds with the following research.

Summary
My understanding of the above research is ... if the Omega 3 fatty acid intake is increased it has a much greater chance of cancelling out the negative (pro-inflammatory) effect of the Omega 6s we consume - because 3 and 6 compete with each other for conversion.

Consumption of Omega 6 is typically very high in the western diet. This gives Omega 6s a competitive advantage and may be why Omega 6 has a free rein to cause inflammation, damage, and consequently pain. Therefore the purpose of increasing Omega 3 consumption is to dilute the Omega 6 advantage.

We need a balanced diet, including Omega 6, but by gaining a higher ratio of Omega 3s we improve their chances of cancelling out the pro-inflammatory effects of the Omega 6s.

Most research indicates fish oil supplementation is safe. The biggest safety issue appears to be capacity for blood thinning. This demands caution in terms of supplementation levels, especially if the diet's been modified to reduce cholesterol or the patient is on a medication that intentionally or unintentionally thins the blood.

The other safety issue (and the jury is still out on this one), is mercury contamination of the most popular source of Omega 3 supplementation, fish oil - so a reputable brand with exceptional quality process control should be the first choice.

Some research indicates 3g daily of Fish Oil may be the maximum upper safety level where there are no health or medical contraindications, with medical monitoring recommended above this level, however; medical monitoring is advisable for all when upper limits are being tested simply because the information available on upper limits is still not definitive.

Hope it helps,

Cris (casehealth.com.au) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.240.127 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fish_high_in_omega-3.jpg
Do we really need this in the article?



It's basically just something someone should be able to read as text within the article, but not view as a picture. I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.87.25 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup strategy
This article is definitely a mess. At this point the optimal organization of the article is unclear to me, though we can definitely do without these massive lists. For sources, I say we should stick to journal-published "overview"-type articles, like this 2002 American Heart Association statement. (A newer one would be good too, if one exists.) A single study does not a proof make.

This article is now a terrible mess. It has problems with NPOV, writing style, formatting, and an immense number of references at the end which are not referenced in the text. Major cleanup work is needed. -- Karada 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As the article stands, many of the various links and citations go to sites which have vested interests in the health-food industry. I think the best approach right now is to go through and do a plain fact-check. - mako 23:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it needs an organizational structure before any cleanup can take place. A good structure informs the editorial process. The St Johns Wort article is good in both it's brevity and objectivity. Here's a possible structure based on that: (01:19, 7 August 2005 MarkTAW)
 * What is Omega 3 What are EFAs, chemical structure, where does it come from (fish, flax, etc.).
 * How people are using it Covering both historical (fish?) and modern uses. This is where some of the spurious claims can be made. This and the preceding section form a good overview and set up the rest of the article as supporting evidence and practical information.
 * Clinical Evidence Both for & against. Focus on legitimate studies rather than anecdotal evidence.
 * Pharmacology what it does in the body. This section could, perhaps, be moved up or incorporated into the earlier sections.
 * Dose/Formulations This and the next two sections are all the stuff you need to know if you want to take it. This might be a good place to talk about the Omega 3/Omega 6 balance.
 * Adverse effects
 * Drug interactions
 * References
 * See Also Fatty Acids, EFAs, Omega 6, etc.
 * External Links

That's a good framework to start with, thanks. - mako 02:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Found this database that has fairly objective information on vitamins, herbs, etc. It rates the validity of all of it's claims based on the number of studies that have been done. http://www.gnc.com/health_notes/healthnotes.aspx?ContentId=2843005&lang=en (Disclaimer: My girlfriend works for GNC) (MarkTAW 7:19, August 9, 2005)

This article need much work to improve it, I also believe that footnotes at the bottom, is better than to links. If no one has a problem, I will change webarticles with actual researchs. I'm planning to creat a section with the different conditions which are treated with Omega 3, and the relevant research, with graphics etc. Fadix 02:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I just went through this article and turned all the periodical citations in running into ref-note labels and did a bunch of other light copy editing and organizing. It might not be good yet, but it's less of a chaotic mess. jengod 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As of 22 Feb 06, the article seems much cleaner at the top (definition and chemistry) and bottom (sources), but still a mess in the middle (benefits/risks). I would suggest that those more competent in pharmacology and medicine clean up the benefits and risks section, firstly by segregating "known" from "suspected" from "possible". Perhaps a section below the Chemistry subsection which describes the metabolic pathway. Its looking a lot cleaner now! Istvan 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ending the NPOV dispute
npov has now been on this page for eight months. This is completely unacceptable. Please remember that npov is not something you just slap on a page and move on; you must join in trying to resolve the POV dispute. From this talk page, I can't see that there is any progress towards consensus-reaching going on. Will those of you who think this article violates NPOV please list your concerns here? Please do not dispute those concerns here yet (though feel free to edit the article to address them)—I just want to try to get everything aired out so we can get the NPOV tag removed. (I have no vested interest in this dispute, having never contributed to this article; I just want to see the POV dispute finished.) --TreyHarris 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Having garnered no response, I am removing the NPOV tag. If someone wishes to restore it, please state your specific objections to the neutrality of the article here. --TreyHarris 09:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof versus indication
This article uses 'prove' (or derivatives) an awful lot. That can't be right.
 * Yes, Please people to help clean this up. Generally it should be 'show' or 'illustrate' or 'imply' or 'indicate' or 'demonstrate' ... science is very careful about what it calls proof. - Shevek 14:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that during cleanup, we maintain two standards - 1. all "clinical evidence" to be referenced only from peer-reviewed publications (other evidence clearly labeled as such) and 2. all "sources" to give linaean (Genus species) names, and reference the source of analysis. The bar must be set a little higher here because of the often contentious commercial interest in the topic (e.g. fish v. flax, soy v. canola v. the world, vegan v. commercial fishing, fishermen v. the EU, etc.). I propose we give some finite amount of time - say until 1 May - for people to provide proper reference to their contributions, and then begin to peel away that which cannot be substantiated. The article will most likely be much cleaner as a result. Istvan 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reads like an advert
At the moment, the latter (now "former" - Shevek 14:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ) part of this article reads like an advert for omega-3s; there are lots of claims, and lots of cites, but the claims are not cited, and the cites are not linked to anything in the article. I'm not denying that omega-3s have benefits (I take them myself), but this part of the article is just embarrassingly unencyclopedic. -- The Anome 14:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The list of health effects of omega-3 contains a lot of duplication, and as mentioned no citations, so could do with some rewriting even without the POV issues. To avoid POV, it should be written so that there is not an assumption that all people are deficient in Omega-3. It also needs to reflect the fact that Omega-3 and Omega-6 need to be consumed in balanced proportions.


 * This thing still reads like an advertisment. One of the most questionable claims is that the cheaper sources of fish oil are somehow dangerous.  The long list of toxic metals that 'may' be in fish oil seems very unlikely to me.  It's an oil!  Metal compounds are going to have very low solubility.  Even the claims of pesticides and PCBs seem dubious to me.  I've seen the claim in many published source &ndash sources published by groups that have an interest in selling expensive fish oil.  Does anyone have a ref or a cite to a peer-reviews source that documents harmful materials in any fish oil supplement? David.Throop 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right. I searched PubMed for "omega-3 mercury" and found this (the fulltext is available). They tested five over-the-counter brands of fish oil and found that "The mercury content of fish oil was similar to the basal concentration normally found in human blood." - mako 04:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Health effects of omega-3 fatty acids
I have moved the entire section below to talk. If people want to restore it, can they do so point by point, with the appropriate source citation? -- The Anome 08:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

There have been thousands of studies demonstrating benefits of increasing Omega-3 fatty acids in deficient diets, or corresponding detrimental effects for ongoing deficiencies of the nutrient. A list of some of these effects:


 * There are preliminary reports that supplementing the diet with large doses of omega-3 oils may act as a mood stabilizer, opening the possibility of their use as a treatment for depression and bipolar disorder. However, the reports relating to this state that care must be taken to avoid overdose.
 * Lower doses have also been reported as having possible beneficial cardiovascular effects.
 * This claim remains controversial. Here is an extract from a recent NewScientist article: "Back in April a team led by Lee Hooper at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, published a review of almost 100 separate studies into omega-3 fatty acids, found in abundance in oily fish. It concluded - contrary to the WHO report - that they do not have a significant protective effect against cardiovascular disease." (NewScientist, 23 September 2006, pp 42-49)


 * There are also reports that omega-3 fatty acids may lower the risk of dementia in old age.
 * General heart benefits: Heart disease is a widespread health problem in modern society. Fish oil, rich in omega-3 fatty acids (DHA and EPA) has been proven in many clinical studies to benefit heart health, also supported by the American Heart Association guidelines
 * Lowers Triglycerides: The effectiveness of Fish oil in lowering blood triglycerides (fats) known to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease has been well established in multiple clinical studies.
 * Benefits Hypertension (High blood pressure): Fish oil has been shown to lower mild hypertension when it is due to cardiovascular disease, specifically high cholesterol and atherosclerosis (hardening of the artery walls).
 * Anti-clotting: Fish oil helps avoid thrombosis (blood clots) as it prevents platelets (smallest cells in the blood) to stick together and form blood clots.
 * Reduces Heart Irregularities: Fish oil... especially the DHA content of it has been shown to lower heart rates and also prevent arrhythmias (disturbances of the normal rhythm in the heart's beating), thus decreasing the chance of sudden death by a heart attack.
 * Circulatory problems: Circulatory problems such as varicose veins and Raynaud's disease benefit from fish oil. Fish oil stimulates blood circulation and increases the breakdown of fibrin, a compound involved in clot and scar formation.
 * Depression: Persons with mood disorders such as depression benefit from fish oil supplementation. Lack of omega-3 fatty acids and in particular DHA has been linked by researchers to depression.
 * Aggression: A new study of teenagers has found that fish oil and DHA consumption relates to lower hostility rates in teenagers. Hostility has been shown to predict the development and manifestation of heart disease.
 * Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and dyspraxia: Like depression and other mood disorders, persons who suffer from ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia (absence of ability to perform coordinated skilled movements or clumsiness) benefit from fish oil supplementation.
 * Memory, learning and Alzheimer's Disease: Studies have proven that omega-3 fatty acids improve brain function and that intake of fish oil and DHA is linked to a lowered risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Studies suggest that fish oil and DHA may protect the nervous system.
 * Studies learn that omega-3 fatty acid-intake by mothers during pregnancy may protect babies against the development of allergies. Fish oil has been found to protect against symptoms of hay fever, sinus infections, asthma, food allergies and allergic skin conditions such as hives and eczema
 * Skin disorders such as psoriasis have been shown to improve from fish oils. In the skin of persons with psoriasis the amount of compounds causing inflammation is many times greater than normal. Fish oil inhibits the production of these inflammatory compounds. Fish oil improves the health of skin, nails and hair.
 * Fish oil supplements have been shown to benefit in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and other inflammatory forms of arthritis, such as occurs in some persons with psoriasis and gout. EPA and DHA in fish oil reduce the amount of compounds causing inflammation.
 * Diabetics suffering from non-insulin dependent diabetes or type II diabetes benefit from fish oil supplementation. Research show that persons who consume 5-10 percent of their dietary energy consumption in the form of fish or fish oil, have less insulin resistance.
 * The intake of fish oil has been proven to be beneficial for the body's immune function. Research has linked intake of fish oil to a lowered risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer.
 * The consumption of fish oil lowers the risk for cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. (Pre)Menstrual symptoms such as menstrual pain are often alleviated from the use of fish oil supplementation. Omega-3 fatty acids are converted into pain relieving substances (prostaglandins type-3) that control contractions of the uterus, which cause the cramping.
 * Research has shown that consumption of fish oil is linked to lowered risk of age related macular degeneration, an eye condition which is the leading cause of severe visual loss in people over age 50.
 * Fish oil has been proven to be beneficial in intestinal health. Fish oil has an anti-inflammatory effect in inflammatory bowel disease (Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease).

! I've been working on the Bipolar article and I think that we may want to move the effects/nature of treatment with Omega-3 fatty acids over to this article. Would that be cool? Dark Nexus 16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Max dose?
Is there a "no observed adverse effects level" (NOAEL) established for omega-3? --LostLeviathan 02:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In addition, another potential risk is the possibility of vitamin poisoning from taking large doses of supplements which contain Omega-3 fatty acids in addition to other dietary substances.
 * I've deleted this sentence from the artilce because it's somewhat ambiguous; it makes it sound as if omega-3 fatty acids can contribute to vitamin poisoning, a term that's specific to vitamins. Maybe it could be rephrased.  --LostLeviathan 04:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cod Liver Oil, which is a good source of Omega-3 fatty acids, also contains large amounts of vitamin A and D. Using cod liver oil as supplyment for Omega-3 may cause overdosing of vitamin A and D. I think that is what [vitamin poisoning] is referred to.Afei 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Who Wrote This?
"As of March 2006, the FDA has not issued an official RDA for omega-3 or omega-6 fatty acids."

First off the FDA does not set RDA's and they have been replaced with DRI's and the Food and Nutrition Board composed of The Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes of the Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, the National Academies, in collaboration with Health Canada.

Second Fats are a macronutrient. Macronutriens have AI (Aceptable Intake) and AMDR (Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range) instead of RDAs. RDAs are not set for fats. To make maters worse there is a set AI and AMDR for n-3 indeed the AI for n-3 is 1.6 grams/day for men and 1.2 grams/day for women  while the AMDR is 0.6% to 1.2% of energy.

"A growing body of literature suggests that higher intakes of α-linolenic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) may afford some degree of protection against CHD. Because the physiological potency of EPA and DHA is much greater than that for α-linolenic acid, it is not possible to estimate one AMDR for all n-3 fatty acids. Approximately 10 percent of the AMDR can be consumed as EPA and/or DHA." 

Also from the same source- "There is insufficient evidence to set a UL for n-3 fatty acids."

Vitamin F?
These fatty acids were originally designated as "Vitamin F", until it was realized that they must be classified with the fats.

Who would be silly enough to classify a fatty acid as a vitamin? Surely anyone with a background in organic chemistry or medicine would not make this mistake. This sounds like something concocted by someone selling dietary suppliments. Is there a reliable reference for this?


 * "About 40 different fatty acids occur naturally. Table 4 shows some of the most common. The most important essential fatty acids are linoleic, linolenic and arachidonic acids, collectively known as vitamin F (Figure 11). These are all polyunsaturated fatty acids that are needed by the body. " ©Heriot-Watt University 2001


 * "Essential unsaturated fatty acids have never been recognized as a vitamin although some in the health field have referred to them as "vitamin F"." Arthritis Trust pdf


 * "Like vitamins, EFAs are essential to health. Older literature, in fact, refers to them as vitamin F. " US Food And Drug Assoc. pdf


 * "The Marlin Perkins Papers document the career, activities, and passions of Dr. R. Marlin Perkins ... [name of a paper by him] "Unsaturated Fatty Acid (Vitamin F) Deficiency". 1935" UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ST. LOUIS


 * "It wasn't until the early 1900s that the first vitamins were discovered. Vitamins were given letters to go with their chemical names to simplify discussion about them. You have probably heard of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12 but not 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Similarly, there is no vitamin F. Several substances were given names which turned out not to be vitamins after all. " Indiana University of Pennsylvania


 * "these fatty acids were originally designated as "Vitamin F", until it was realized that they must be classified with the Fats" University of California ppt


 * Saint|swithin 20:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I still think it is a bit misleading to say this. It wasn't "realized that they must be classified with the fats."  It was dediced that referring to everything that is essential as Vitamin X is silly because there are so many thing that are essential to life.  It's kind of like saying, "I used to call oxygen gas 'Vitamin O' until I realized that it must be classified with the gases."  Anyway, I guess there's no need to remove it since it was plagiarized directly from the UCLA lecture notes.


 * It's probably not plagiarism: the UCLA notes are from "Spring 05" but that sentence has been there since August 2002. I presume whoever copied it at UCLA must have thought it was reasonable, though. If you have some other source of information, or are simply better informed feel free to improve the sentence of course! Saint|swithin 15:18, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I stuck my neck out and adjusted the syntax. Many substances were first detected by their effect on human nutrition and were tentatively called vitamins. In the case of "vitamin F" chemical analysis eventually revealed that they were fatty acids, and more than one type to boot, but that came long after the nutritional effects were observed.

This topic will not achieve agreement for many years to come cf. sci.med.nutrition JohnSankey 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to see people are investigating this, but that single statement is much more appropriate on essential fatty acid. Plus it's on that page already. Having it in the intro of this page is distracting. - mako 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I might add that according to the FDA's substantiated claims list, only alpha-linolenic acid is essential for ingestion. The other omega-3s can be synthesized by the body. --Koder 07:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

canola?!
canola is not really a source of omega-3's... or at least the claims are controversial
 * I thought so too, but the claims are widely made .. particularly by the Conola marketing body whose name I've temporarily forgotten, here. I added some qualifying info warning of other potential health effects of Canola, as it is a heavily processed oil afaik. I have no references though. Will add some if I get time. - Shevek 14:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your misspelling of "Canola" as "Conola" is some type of Freudian slip. Please understand that 90% of the information available through Google, etc. as regards to canola is false. Canola's fatty acid composition is available here. Notice the 18:2 undifferentiated (omega-6) content is roughly two to one when compared to 18:3 fatty acids (omega-3). This is the grounds for canola's supporters to claim it is a good source of omega-3. It's quite an accurate claim, when compared to other oils
 * There are probably better things than canola oil for getting omega-3 fatty acids, however, and they are mentioned in the article. There is an excellent collection of nonsense posted all over the internet about canola at this website (the yin and yang logos at the top, and various references to Dr Mercola, are dead give aways to the innaccuracy of the subsequent claims). A refute to much of these is on Snopes. 68.218.190.71 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Canola oil is not a healthy oil for several reasons, including a link between consumption and Vitamin E deficiency in pigs, a decrease in platelet count and an increase in platelet size in pigs, cardiac lesions when the diet is lacking in saturates in rats, a high level (4.7%) of trans-saturation brought about by commercial processing. This also reduces the level of omega-3 fats (they are converted to trans-fats) in the final product. This is a big problem with other highly poly-unsaturated, comercially processed oils and it is NOT reflected on the labels. Finally, and worst of all, is that all the above references are animal studies because no long term studies on canola oil consumption in humans exist at the time of this posting. 
 * How much of that omega-3 is still actually present in processed, "supermarket" Canola oil? Linonelic acid is easily destroyed. That is why such care must be taken when handling flax seed oil. Opaque bottles, refrigeration, timely use. There is no way that the pale, bleached, deodorized canola in clear bottles has any significant amount of omega-3. The 2:1 n-6:n-3 ratio is probably true of cold-pressed, raw canola.--154.5.38.40 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So terms like 'an omega-3 deficient diet has been shown to induce X syndrome ...' and 'a correct balance of Omega-3 and Omega-6 in the diet has been shown to produce healthier ...' or 'has been shown to reduce symptoms of .... against a diet high in Omega-6 and low in Omega-3'. - Shevek 06:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Shevek is trying to say.

HEMP
Why isn't hemp seed listed as a source? Its got arguably the most balanced content of omega-3,6,9 fatty acids of any botanical food source? I've noticed most sites that discuss omega-3 sources leave this off. Does this have something to do with the plant's legal status?
 * ALA + SDA content is in the low 20% range, below the others on the table. I would suppose the legal status of hemp is precisely *why its so often discussed on many other sites. István 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the same. In any event, it should probably be mentioned; regardless of its legal status in certain countries. I would do it, but I'm quite a bit busy now... don't have the time for the research; anyone else that might be reading this that has the time fell free to go ahead and be bold. --Silver86 05:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I put an article about hemp, just below flax. It as been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.215.31 (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fatty Acid Information
Chow, Ching Kuang. Fatty Acids in Foods and Their Health Implications. Routledge Publishing. New York, New York. 2001.

You can probably find this book in a university level chemistry library or as an ebook online somewhere.

Staypuftman 18:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There's some more info on omega-3 fatty acids in The Economist. --Markspace 07:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

haha. did you revert that Pilotguy because I'm not registered at the moment, or because you really think such wholesale copying is fair use?

Oh well, it's on your head now, too, I guess. 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's available online you don't need to paste it here. Doing so is in no way "fair use", its copyvio. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 02:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

feedlot comment removed
when i made my first set of contributions to this article, adding pasture-finished livestock as an O3 source, i mentioned feedlots as the competing method. was the reference to the feedlot article removed by an agribusiness lobbyist? LOL

Flax ALA to DHA metabolism efficiency
The following was removed from the "Flax" section:
 * However, a study on how effectively the omega-3 in flax oil is converted and utilized in breast milk indicated that although a certain amount of flax omega-3 was transferred it was only in the form of ALA and no increase in the amount of DHA was found. www.mercola.com/2003/jan/8/flaxseed_oil.htm This may indicate that flax is not a useful source of the DHA form of the nutrient, and may indicate that it should not be relied on by lactating mothers, as omega-3 is essential to the formation of synapses (memory and learning) in the developing infant's brain. Also, the fetus, especially in the last trimester, undergoes major brain cell development and the primary building block of human brain cells is DHA, so supplementing with an omega-3 source rich in DHA is particularly critical for pregnant mothers. Post-partum depression (baby blues) has been linked in many studies to the mothers depleted reserves of DHA and these studies lend further support for the need for adequate DHA intake during and following pregnancy.
 * Source: Search under "omega-3, pregnancy". (Over 400 studies listed)
 * Although high in non-soluble fibre and lignans (which have been linked to certain health benefits including the prevention of certain forms of cancer), numerous other studies confirm that flaxseed and flaxseed oil convert their short-chain ALA (alpha-linolenic acid) into EPA (and DHA) rather poorly (in the ratio of 30:1) so supplementation with this source of omega-3 is now considered not as effective as was once thought.

Reasons: 1. there's a lot of stealth POV back-and-forth, perhaps the subject is better reintrodued more NPOV. 2. ALA>EPA>DHA conversion efficiency is not well measured. Two known aspects are: 1) it exists, even (in vitro) in the presence of an overabundance of DHA, and 2) it is variable (diminished by alcoholism, diabetes, trans-fats, et al, which reduce n3 metabolism by blocking esp. Δ-6 desaturase). There are now 460 hits on PubMed for "omega-3 pregnancy" but this is not a proper reference. Please be more specific and then repost the comment. There may be value in this text, but for now it's ambiguous and unreferenced. Istvan 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

the reference [7] did not contain reported information about the specific conversion percent ranges from ALA to EPA and DHA when checked

Omega-9
Omega 9 Fatty Acids are missing from the family of Omega Fatty Acids, unlike 3 and 6 fatty acids, Omega 9 Fatty Acids are synthesised by the Human body where there is a deficiency of both 3 and 6 types. --203.61.187.136 13:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the bit about vitamin poisoning is referring to the fat soluable vitamins that can be overdosed on, since they don't get flushed out of the body the way the water soluable vitamins do. However, one would think that caution about vitamin poisoning would then be applicable to ALL fats, not just omega 3's

Trans-fats from Olive Oil
Heating olive oil does not make trans-fats. It does make the oil oxidized, which is what makes the olive oil less healthy (but still healthy). To make trans-fats, you need a metal catalyst.

The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio
It is evident that this section is filled with factual inaccuracies. Source #16 states that the optimal ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 is 2:1 in favour of Omega-3 (probably a typographic error), and has apparently caused some confusion. In fact, according to a the Finnish National Institute of Health, the walnut contains a omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of approximately 4:1 (Source), which is generally considered an optimal ratio. I suggest someone who has time does through that section, and corrects it. ---Marcus- 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The optimal ratio is indeed controversial, but most sources set this at anywhere from 1:1 (Simopolous) to 3:2 (FDA) to 5:1 (Fish Oil Council). Actually, the source you cite  Holistic Birds deals with Avian, not human health.  The given ratio of 1:2 (n6:n3) may indeed be a typo but more likely applies to birds.  Furthermore, this very same holistic birds page incorrectly references Walnuts (Juglans regia) as having an Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio of 10:1  (table at the bottom of the page) the correct ratio being closer to 5:1 .  The Finnish source you cite is more accurate (4:1), but only means that, contrary to public perceptions, walnuts do not help rebalance the overall n6:n3 ratio in the Western diet.  I have changed the title in the main article to better convey the point.Istvan 17:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but one thing still eludes me. The typical western diet is often stated to have an n6:n3 ratio of 10:1 to even 30:1, so by adding walnuts with a ratio of 5:1 or 4:1, the ratio in the diet should be improved. For instance, a typical westerner has during one day eaten 10000mg of n6, and only 500mg of n3, hence having a ratio of 20:1. The westerner then eats 20 grams of walnuts, hence adding approximately 8000mg of n6 and 2000 mg of n3, making the total during the day 18000mg n6 and 2500mg n3, hence having a ratio of approximately 7:1. It does seem like an improvement to me. ---Marcus- 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point - perhaps "significantly improve" is better terminology for the section. Ingesting a 4:1 food source will never, by itself, bring someone back into the optimal range however, as you point out, they will indeed improve, and realistically, when choosing nuts at the supermarket, walnuts would be better than most others.  However one cannot eat walnuts as omega-3 therapy and expect to achieve the optimal n6:n3 ratio (as is often believed)Istvan 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for pointers to original research showing that the problem is the ratio between &omega;-3 and &omega;-6, rather than just a shortage of &omega;-3. I've seen the claim that the ratio is the problem in some reasonably reputable sources, such as Medline.  But they don't provide a cite for their claim.  On the other hand, I've seen cites like this, saying that &omega;-3 is cardioprotective irrespective of &omega;-6 status.  Further, what's called an excess of &omega;-6 seems to me to just be an excess of arachadoic acid.  If somebody's got some cites showing that dietary lineolate or GLA from vegetable sources (that is, arachadonic acid free sources) are inflammatory, then please post them.  David.Throop 02:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am posting two such references in the article section. Excess arachadonic acid (n6 metabolite) may indeed be a key factor.Istvan 17:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about Canola oil is odd. First, it should tell how much Omega-6 Canola oil contains (and the o6/o3 ratio). I have a bottle of Canola oil which states that it contains 9 % Omega-3 (just as the article says) and totally 30 % polyunsaturnated fat. Assuming that all polyunsaturnated other than Omega-3 is Omega-6, this gives an o6/o3 ratio of 2,3:1, which is better than walnuts. So Marcus comment about walnuts applies even more to Canola oil. I also wonder why oils without Omega-3 (such as Olive oil) is considered to improving the ratio more than Canola oil. If you currently have a ratio of >5:1, then Canola oil ought to be better than anything without Omega-3, right? Mikaelstaldal 21:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Some olive oil has a Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio of les than 3:1, which is good and if all your fat is olive oil (see meditteranean diet) 3 one gram flaxseed oil pills will bring you down to <5:1 omega-6 to omega-3 (being perfectly okay.)

(indentations removed before we push ourselves against the wall) - You are right in that (according to the SOFA ) Canola (Brassica napus) contains around 9% n3 and about 22% n6 (agricultrual items vary greatly) making it about 2.4:1 and therefore better than most alternative frying oils - clearly better than soy, corn, sunflower, etc. You know, the individual analyses on the SOFA database (there are 12) indicate Olive oil (Olea europaea) does indeed have from 8% to 20% Linolenic (omega-6) yet less than 1% omega-3. Therefore your point is well taken. I will update the article accordingly. Done.Istvan 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

However, it should be noted (generally - not in response to the above), that the optimal ratio refers specifically to the overall diet and thus we cannot simply eat some walnuts and canola and think the problem solved and then gobble a plate of chips. This "cheesecake and Diet Coke" syndrome will not serve anyone well. To actually bring your traditional western Diet into balance you are best advised to add foods which have an n6:n3 ratio which is skewed the other way around - of perhaps 1:3 (flax or chia) or fish oil (or both). Substituting walnuts for almonds, and canola oil for soybean (or corn, sunflower, etc.) oil will help some, but to a lesser degree.Istvan 20:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The following quote from this section doesn't seem to match up with a quote from the Daily Values section: "Simopoulos, et al recommend daily intakes of three omega-3 forms: 650 mg of EPA and DHA, and 2.22 g of ALA[...]" Quote from the Daily Values section: "As fats are macronutrients they are not assigned recommended daily allowances. Macronutrients have AI (Acceptable Intake) and AMDR (Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range) instead of RDAs. The AI for n-3 is 1.6 grams/day for men and 1.2 grams/day for women while the AMDR is 0.6% to 1.2% of total energy ." N-3 is the equivalent of omega 3, correct? Because (650mg + 2.22g) is significantly greater than 1.6g or 1.2g. I suppose it's not technically contradictory because the information was from different sources, but it's still confusing. 66.75.250.110 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence saying that 650 mg of EPA and DHA (is this 650 mg of EPA and another 650 mg of DHA?) needs to be taken daily, versus say eating a serving of oily fish every other day? In other words, if the omega-3 content of the fish were, say, double that of the recommended daily intake by Simopoulos (this is theoretical, I don't know if a serving of oily fish, say, salmon, is, in fact, double), would that EPA and DHA last in the body? Or even, is there other information stating that perhaps fish oil needs to be consumed every day for optimal health? If the benefits come from a historic human diet of fish oil and the brain being optimized for that diet, etc etc, I can't imagine humans would have been able to eat fish every day. - C