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
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:778268
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20070816/msgs/778823.html