Originally Posted by mravg
I have an "AHA Scientific Statement" paper (on paper so I can’t link it), published in the Journal Circulation Nov 19, 2002, which says:
http://www.svd. se/nyheter/inri … ikel_899951.svd
This is an explanation of how they did a comparison between ALA and EPA/DHA in foodstuffs. (1) tells why they reason that about 1% of ALA is tranformed to DHA - based on "interviews with Swedish and international experts, a number of studies published in leading research journals and on numerous reports from international expert panels. At the bottom of the page is a link to a few studies.
Originally Posted by mravg
From this, I conclude that either:
1. The conversion overall is enough to have health benefits, or
2. ALA has health benefits on its own, even without the conversion, or
3. Most likely, both the above.
If you read the article I linked earlier, ALA consumption (through flax or other), has health benefits, so it would make sense that the same benefits could be gained from Chia, if it is just a different, or richer source of ALA.
note: The article I linked earlier also explains that conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA is dependent on how much Omega 6 fatty acid is in the system (specifically linoleic acid), because the enzyme that converts ALA to EPA also converts LA to Arachidonic acid. (hence the wide variation in study results).
This is interesting because it explains why Omega 3’s reduce inflammation. Arachidonic acid is used to produce prostaglandin, and ALA would reduce this synthesis.)
There was some discussion about this to in the series of articles in SvD - one hypothesis as to why vegetarians, who rely mostly on ALA (unless they down lots of avocado and nuts, of course) have less heart problems even though they had a lower average of EPA traced in the blood, was that they also consume less Omega 6.
Originally Posted by mravg
That’s an interesting study mgus. I never new that salmon Omega 3’s were so dependent on their diet. However, looking at your second link the salmon were fed a mix of marine oil and Rapeseed oil, not flax (linseed) oil! That is an important difference. Rapeseed oil = canola oil which has about 1.3 g omega 3’s per tablespoon vs. flax which has 8.5 g/tbspn. So the study basically says that fish fed more omega 3’s have more omega 3. It isn’t really a comparison of ALA fed fish vs. EPA/DHA fed fish.
I always get rapeseed mixued up with flax - it’s rapsfrö and linfrö in Swedish.
Anyway - not quite. I think it’s safe to say that it shows that salmon transforms ALA at a shitty rate.
I checked Livsmedelsverket database - rapeseed oil contains 10,7% ALA. I’m not sure of what the marine oil contains, but anchovies are commonly used for fish fodder. 100 grams of anchovies (in a can) contain 13,1 grams fat and of these 1,9 grams are EPA/DHA and 0,2 are ALA. EPA/DHA is about 14,5 % of the total amount of fat.
If the fish that eat marine oil containing 14,5% EPA/DHA wind up with roughly three times the amount of EPA/DHA than the fish that eat 11% ALA, then I think it’s fair to say that it is a comparison of ALA-fed fish vs. EPA/DHA fed fish.
The fodder usually used contains a mix of rapeseed and soy, and this guy quoted in the article said that the test-fodder used is pretty representative of the commonly available fodders. Sure it’s possible that if you fed the salmon a super-duper ALA diet, that they would yield decent amounts of EPA/DHA. But once again, equalling ALA to EPA/DHA is misinformed, if not direct false advertising.
regards, mgus Taped onto the dashboard of a car at a junkyard, I once found the following: "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." The car was crashed.
Primary goal: To have an EQ above average (i.e. streetsmart, compassionate about life and happy) Secondary goal: to make an anagram of my signature denoting how I feel about my gains