all posts post new thread

Nutrition The omega 3 (w3) / omega 3 vs omega 6 (w6) discussion

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Marc

Marc

Level 6 Valued Member
Hello everybody,

there has been quite some buzz surrounding omega 3 lately.
Specifically a meta analysis that found little to no effect in terms of protection from cardiovascular disease (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003177.pub3/full).
That led to all kind of uproar and claims that w3 is basically useless.
However, personally I remain skeptical.
It might not prevent from cardiovascular disease but given its crucial role in metabolisms I am not ready to throw away all my fishoil capsules.
w3 plays a vital role in hormone synthesis, neural developement and anti-inflammatory processes.
To clarify: by w3 I mean EPA/DHA which are the key player w3 fatty acids.
ALA has to be converted first and has an efficiency of only 10% at best (max 10% in females, lower in males).


Personally I take 2.1 g of EPA/DHA daily (1.2 g EPA; 900mg DHA; 3 capsules of my fish oil poduct, derived from wild caught sardines).
I take the triglyceride form.
Any thoughts on the optimal dose and on free form fatty acids vs triglycerides?

Also: here in Germany flaxseed oil and canola oil get heavyly promoted due to their high w3 and polyunsaturated fatty acids content.
But: the w3 found in there is the ALA form which is a lot less useful to humans due to its low conversion rate to EPA/DHA (max 10%).
And as far as I understand it a high intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids will shift the w3 to w6 ratio to the direction of w6 which might rather promote innflamation.
My take therefore would be to eat mostly monounsaturated and saturated fatty acids and supplement with EPA/DHA to balance the w3:w6 ratio and rather avoid polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Am I missing something?

Whar are your thoughts on all that?

Would be really nice if the nutrition heavy weights could chime in on that
@mprevost @kennycro@@aol.com @Brain Ignition
 
Marc said:
Also: here in Germany flaxseed oil and canola oil get heavyly promoted due to their high w3 and polyunsaturated fatty acids content.
But: the w3 found in there is the ALA form which is a lot less useful to humans due to its low conversion rate to EPA/DHA (max 10%).
And as far as I understand it a high intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids will shift the w3 to w6 ratio to the direction of w6 which might rather promote innflamation.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty significant point that I think some people miss. It's essentially impossible to get adequate EPA/DHA from any plant source besides algae.

Marc said:
Any thoughts on the optimal dose and on free form fatty acids vs triglycerides?
Click to expand...
I haven't looked at the research regarding dose, but my understanding is that you really just want to look at how much EPA/DHA you get. Your body will break it down and put it back together as needed, so I don't think it makes much difference between FFAs or Trigs, unless you have some sort of absorption issue in your gut, then maybe go with FFAs.

My own, somewhat un-scientific opinion is that you should predominantly use supplements that cause a noticeable change in function, and use just enough of the supplement to reliably get the change you want. In regard to O3 oil, I know some people who take it because when they don't take it for a few days, they get more aches and pains, and then after a few days of taking it those aches and pains go away. I used to take fish oil, but I realized that I couldn't tell any difference on or off of it. When I'm older and more beat up, I'll probably give it another try and see if it does anything then.
 
Yes, I think people really get it wrong when recommending plant oil as an w3 source (besides algea which never gets recommended simply because it is less known). Plus: all those polyunsaturated fatty acids and their w6 content will shift the w3:w6 too much towards w6.

In terms of triglyceride: I haven't looked into the reaearch myself I have to admit but since it is the form naturally found in food I suspect it might have a better bioaviability.

What's your guys take on polyunsaturated fats in general?
As I understand it they are not as great as people think because:
-high w6 content
-high probability to get oxidized in the body and thereby releasing potentially harmful free radicals
 
I think one thing worth considering is that any kind of fat generally has around 3 purposes: As source of energy, a chemical building block, and in some cases, a signalling molecule.
I think the benefit we see (and I do think there is a benefit) with w3's such as EPA and DHA is when they're used to build cellular membranes, and from there they can down-regulate certain inflammatory signals. Which is usually good.

Generally speaking, when polyunsaturated fats (w3 or w6) are just floating around in the blood stream, they tend to be be chemically unstable and prone to causing free radical damage. Which is usually not good.

In my mind, the "perfect" level of w3 consumption would be enough that w3 fatty acids are incorporated into cellular membranes, but not so much that you have excess w3 (or the w6 that it often comes with) floating around in the blood, causing issues. To be fair, we didn't see inflammatory issues in northern coastal tribes that subsisted entirely on high PUFA marine life, so obviously I'm missing something.
The amount of w3 needed to hit this sweet spot is going to vary wildly based on what else is being eaten. If you eat a lot of polyunsaturated fat, you'll need more w3 to out-compete the high levels of w6 you're consuming, even if the increased volume of PUFA isn't ideal. If you eat more saturated/monounsaturated fat, you probably won't need as much. For example, a seafood based diet will be relatively high in PUFA (again, this seems like it should be a problem, but obviously it isn't), but it will have enough w3 to out-compete the w6. There are other diets that tend to work equally well with regard to health, performance, longevity, etc, that have less w3, but also have way less w6, so the smaller amounts of w3 can be easily picked up for cell membrane construction.

It's worth noting that this is a theoretical discussion based on an incomplete understanding of molecules that serve a variety of functions in the human body. If supplementing w3 allows me to work harder and recover better, then obviously that's something my body needs, even if I'm not sure why. If it doesn't make a difference, maybe I'm better off spending my money on a new kettlebell o_O
 
I just eat fish 3/4 times a week. The time of year is approaching that involves a daily spoonful of cod liver oil. My unscientific reason for this is solely based on my childhood and my mother's insistence that I should 'because I'm telling you to'. I would enjoy passing on this family pastime but my kids are vegetarian.
Cod liver oil has got the oily stuff and vitamin D for these dark days ahead. I have no idea of what is considered the optimum amount but they are considered 'essential' so I get a random amount essentially from fish and my mum knows best research.
Under rated sources of omega 3 are mackerel and sardines. Cheap as chips. And very nice with chips for that matter. Chips being fries here in uk.
Is it not part of the problem with all this stuff that the ratios are skewed due to overdosing on omega 6 oils?
 
mprevost said:
Did you see the short video I did on omega-3 FA?
Omega 6 to Omega 3 fat Ratio and Inflammation – Mike Prevost, PhD
Click to expand...

I watched it when you first posted it but rewatched it right now.
Thanks for that! Very informative!

So, w6 do indeed have some useful properties.
But: it still annoys me that flaxseed and canola oil is so heavyly promoted due to their w3 content which is all ALA and basically useless in terms of the effects desired when when talking about w3.
Personally I am, just like you, not concerned about w6 in nuts (I love nuts and have them muliple times per week).
But being conservative about the w3:w6 ratio I do not see any reason to buy all that PUFA-are-good-for-you-hype because they deliver basically zero w3 while shifting the ratio heavyly towards w6. w6 do have some interesting properties but might also be pro-inflammatory.
So in coclusion:
-Supplement with EPA/DHA (300-500 mg)
-For oil/fats use saturated and/or monounsaturated like ghee and/or olive oil
-Don't be afraid of PUFA that occur naturally (nuts, meat etc.)
-Avoid oil high in PUFA and processes/industrial oils

Do I miss anything?
 
Marc said:
I watched it when you first posted it but rewatched it right now.
Thanks for that! Very informative!

So, w6 do indeed have some useful properties.
But: it still annoys me that flaxseed and canola oil is so heavyly promoted due to their w3 content which is all ALA and basically useless in terms of the effects desired when when talking about w3.
Personally I am, just like you, not concerned about w6 in nuts (I love nuts and have them muliple times per week).
But being conservative about the w3:w6 ratio I do not see any reason to buy all that PUFA-are-good-for-you-hype because they deliver basically zero w3 while shifting the ratio heavyly towards w6. w6 do have some interesting properties but might also be pro-inflammatory.
So in coclusion:
-Supplement with EPA/DHA (300-500 mg)
-For oil/fats use saturated and/or monounsaturated like ghee and/or olive oil
-Don't be afraid of PUFA that occur naturally (nuts, meat etc.)
-Avoid oil high in PUFA and processes/industrial oils

Do I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Marc

That is a good summary. It captures my current thinking about the issue. The body has many complex, multi-layered feedback mechanisms. It is very unlikely that a single imbalance will tilt a homeostatic setpoint dramatically. In the case of Omega 3/6 ratio and inflammation, the body has mechanisms to compensate for a less than ideal ratio. But these mechanisms must certainly have limitations. I don't know at what value those limitations lie but I currently believe, based on my reading of the science, that your summary above will put you squarely in the range where the body can compensate adequately and manage inflammation appropriately. Of course, other unhealthy habits may limit what the body can compensate for (i.e., smoking, lack of sleep, lots of sugar etc...)
 
I just finished listening to a very long lipid lecture via Peter Attia's podcast with Tom Dayspring, a leader in lipidology. He's a very big advocate of fish oils for multiple reasons and was emphasizing DHA for cardiovascular benefits, which surprised me. But I think it comes down to dose. Most studies have such a minimal amount of fish oils to be laughable in the protective nature. Dayspring was suggesting the medical fish oil dose around 4 grams. If you go back to what Barry Sears published in Toxic Fat, 3 grams of fish oils was the MINIMUM that was needed by healthy individuals, more for those who are overweight or in chronic health. While I haven't had blood work done recently, I know that when I was doing 3 Tbsp (pushing 10 grams of EPA/DHA combined) I could tolerate the dose, and in about 3 months I was down to a better ratio. I'll have to go back and watch Mike's video when I get a chance, see if he has more to add to my knowledge base.
 
Yes, the dosage is probably too low.
I don't know about the study design but I suspect that most of the studies don't watch for the w6:w3 ratio. I.e. if fishoil is taken in low dosages and therefore fails to shift the ratio towards w3 it is to be suspectes that the benefits don't show. I suspect that a beneficial w3:w6 ratio will probably correlate with all kind of health benefits especially in the long term.
Actually I think you'd have to check for your individual w3:w6 ratio and then adjust your w3 intake in order to achieve an optimal ratio.
And then again, even w6 might have anti-inflammatory effects.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom