Omega-3 to Omega-6 Ratio Experiment

[mccoy]

Ron, Simon Hill recently published this podcast which maybe you have already listened to, maybe not, in which case I suggest it. Maybe the most clear and lucid analysis of many issues surrounding this topic. The basic concept which convinced me to order algae omega-3 and take a moderate daily supplementation of it is the competition between conversion of ALA into n-3s and LA into n-6s, which may suggest, in lieu of regular blood analyses, to err on the side of prudence. I eat a lot of ALAs with walnuts but I also eat lots of LA with PUFAs, where am I with the conversion from ALAs to n-3s? Which side pre-empts the enzymes that are the same for either family of fats? I'm not a fan of regular blood draws so I presently I decided to throw some money into supplements.

They also discuss DPA, the fact is that, it has not been studied much. They also discuss the LDL -elevating effect, and the story that it is the large, innocuous particles that are increased. I have no way to judge this.

This podcast has rapidly become one of my favorites, Simon Hill is able to share the doubts of many listeners, to make out the criticalities, and to put the right questions that try to elucidate the unclear aspects. The fact that he's not an MD is maybe a benefit.

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by mccoy

[Kenton]

"Specifically, we discuss: 00:00 - Introduction 02:00 - Philip Calder's Passion for Fatty Acids and His Background 05:53 - Debunking Major Fatty Acid Myths in Academia & Social Media 11:14 - Altering Cell Membrane Health Through Diet 13:57 - Understanding Essential Fats: Why are They Vital? 18:08 - Low Conversion Rates: From ALA to EPA & DHA Explained 23:31 - The Importance of Monitoring Omega 6 Intake 27:28 - The Link Between Omega 6 Fatty Acids and Inflammation 35:23 - Does Dietary Linoleic Acid Impact Arachidonic Acid? 45:58 - Major Omega 6 Food Sources and Their Alternatives 48:57 - Balancing Omega 3 & Omega 6: Impact on Inflammation 52:04 - Plant-Based EPA & DHA 59:24 - The Health Implications of Replacing Saturated Fat with Linoleic Acid 1:03:55 - Polyunsaturated Fats and Cardiometabolic Health 1:07:17 - How Omega 3 & Omega 6 Influence Insulin Resistance and Blood Pressure 1:12:05 - The Long-Term Impact of Consuming Polyunsaturated Fats 1:15:40 - EPA & DHA Research Variance: Doses, Types, and Outcomes 1:27:55 - Benefits of Plant-Based EPA & DHA Supplements 1:34:28 - The Science Behind Omega 3 Testing 1:36:36 - Algae Oil vs Fish Oil: Which is Superior? 1:38:33 - DPA Supplementation and Its Benefits 1:40:34 - Does DHA & EPA Supplementation Impact Cholesterol Levels? 1:42:03 - Potential Side Effects of DHA & EPA Supplements 1:45:44 - Conclusion"

[Ron Put]

On 9/21/2023 at 8:13 AM, mccoy said:

Ron, Simon Hill recently published this podcast which maybe you have already listened to, maybe not, in which case I suggest it.

Thanks, mccoy. I listened to him and he made the same arguments as all the others and cited the same industry studies.  Calder does a lot of consulting for industry, and when asked about increases in cholesterol due to Omega-3 supplementation, he predictably first went on listing all the alleged virtues of EPA and DHA, before dismissing the question with "they raise LDL cholesterol by a small amount."

Well, the amount I've seen for DHA is 15%-20%, which is often the amount by which LDL-c is reduced by statins...

Also, he fudged DPA by stating that it's in Omega-3 supplements and that it has "no superiority" over EPA and DPA.  Not exactly true, as there is very little DPA in fish, or in fish oil, and it's not possible to commercialize with current technology. You can get it from stuff like flax though. And DPA has significantly greater anti-inflammatory properties than either EPA or DHA. And DPA doesn't jack up LDL-c to my knowledge.

BTW, it appears that consuming DPA increases EPA and possibly DHA. If Blue Zones do not consume fish, it is likely that they rely on DPA and do better than their fish-eating coastal neighbors.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952327819301905

[mccoy]

7 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Well, the amount I've seen for DHA is 15%-20%, which is often the amount by which LDL-c is reduced by statins...

As far as I can say, it may be influenced by dose and individual variability. The amount of EPA-DHA suggested by Joel Fuhrman (in another of Hill's podcasts), who is probably without any conflicts and a vegan-anti-oils proponent, is about 500mg EPA+DHA per day, which sounds to me a moderate dose (for vegans and people who do not eat fish of course).

Fact is that, in your personal case you have evidence that an X amount of EPA+DHA increased LDL-C by an Y amount. That constitutes personal and possibly anecdotal evidence.

Some people like me, particularly averse to blood analyses, may not have first-line evidence, so they have to build up a strategy founded on logical reasoning, degree of belief, and discriminative analysis of the suggestions of other people.

By the way, a vegan EPA+DHA, 500 mg per day is not very costly, about 10 dollars per month, at least the one I'm taking. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by mccoy

[mccoy]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:51 AM, Ron Put said:

Calder does a lot of consulting for industry,

This may also be seen as adding credibility to the speaker. Is the funding cause of the scientific statements or the scientific statements cause of the funding? I believe mostly the latter, the companies tend to fund those they believe are more authoritative on the topics they are interested in.

Of course, industry funding may belie some inherent bias, which can be a bias a researcher has in his/her own research. That happens regularly in all camps, everyone likes their own creatures. The industry takes advantage of such inherent scientific bias and the researcher takes advantage of corporations funding. Is something like a symbiotic relationship. 

Last, human greed being what it is, sometimes things just go downhill. Our duty is to apply discrimination.

[Ron Put]

On 9/29/2023 at 5:05 AM, mccoy said:

This may also be seen as adding credibility to the speaker. Is the funding cause of the scientific statements or the scientific statements cause of the funding? I believe mostly the latter, the companies tend to fund those they believe are more authoritative on the topics they are interested in.

If a researcher/lab/university doesn't deliver the results that the funder needs to support their product, a study is far less likely to be published, and the team involved is far less likely to receive another grant. Calder, just like Dayspring, receives hundreds of thousands annually in direct and indirect industry payments and funding, and it is logical that it affects their research and their public statements.

While it doesn't invalidate all industry-funded or influenced studies, results should be evaluated with some security, and placed in context.

Again, the fact that Calder did a song and dance when asked about EPA/DHA increasing LDL-c and referred to an increase of 15-20% as "a small amount" should raise a large red flag. If this is a "small amount" then why is the world spending billions on statins to reduce LDL-c by a similar amount? This well-documented, but rarely mentioned increase in LDL-c is consistent with my own n=1 experiment, and the increase is dose-dependent. 

Similarly, his DPA "no superiority" dismissal is simply not true. DPA is not commercially viable and is found only in minute amounts in fish, but an impartial researcher would have cited the available evidence, including the DPA's rather superior anti-inflammatory properties, and its intermediary conversion properties that play a significant role in those who do not eat fish or supplement Omega-3s.

As to the broader subject of fish consumption and Omega-3 supplementation, I would again point out that:

1. All long-lived populations I am aware of consume very little fish and obviously do not supplement.

2. The Seventh Day Adventist studies include a very genetically diverse population, at different geographic locations, but with similar lifestyle habits. Vegans, who do not eat fish but generally have higher ALA, have lower overall mortality rates than pescatarians, and both have lower mortality rates than omnivores. This is a very significant observation, IMO, and it should give anyone who lives by their Omega-3 Index a pause.

Finally, here is another study that I recently came across:

Effect of High-Dose Omega-3 Fatty Acids vs Corn Oil on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk

Design, Setting, and Participants  A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial (enrollment October 30, 2014, to June 14, 2017; study termination January 8, 2020; last patient visit May 14, 2020) comparing omega-3 CA with corn oil in statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). A total of 13 078 patients were randomized at 675 academic and community hospitals in 22 countries in North America, Europe, South America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. ...

Conclusions and Relevance  Among statin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk, the addition of omega-3 CA, compared with corn oil, to usual background therapies resulted in no significant difference in a composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings do not support use of this omega-3 fatty acid formulation to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

[mccoy]

Ron, what made me decide to assume omega 3s was not just the podcast with Calder, but the opinion of one of the most rigorous vegan doctors, Dr. Joel Fuhrman. He may be wrong but my degree of belief in the usefulness of a moderate (500 mg) daily amount of EPa+DHA is presently strong enough. Of course, an increase in 10-20% in LDL would not be acceptable but again, is the evidence overwhelming and would the effect be dose-related? 

[Ron Put]

On 9/30/2023 at 1:26 PM, mccoy said:

Ron, what made me decide to assume omega 3s was not just the podcast with Calder, but the opinion of one of the most rigorous vegan doctors, Dr. Joel Fuhrman. He may be wrong but my degree of belief in the usefulness of a moderate (500 mg) daily amount of EPa+DHA is presently strong enough. Of course, an increase in 10-20% in LDL would not be acceptable but again, is the evidence overwhelming and would the effect be dose-related? 

Hi mccoy, I just saw this. There is pretty good evidence that LDL is increased by supplementation and my own (anecdotal) evidence confirms it, for me. For me, supplementation increased LDL (and Apo-B) in a dose-dependent manner.

My last blood panel was about a month ago and my values are roughly back in line, even though I've been hitting too many restaurants lately, so my fat intake is a bit higher than I'd like it to be. Both my LDL and Apo-B are a bit higher than I'd like, as this is a period during which I have to socialize with clients and friends. 🙂

This is where my lipids are:
C-Total: 156 mg/dl
HDL-C: 65 mg/dl
LDL-C: 81 mg/dl
VLD-C: 10 mg/dl
Apo B: 69 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 44 mg/dl

With Omega-3 supplementation, my insulin also shot up to 7.2 uIU/mL. Now it's back down to 3 uIU/mL Could this be a fluke? Possibly, but it is added fat, and virtually every study that promotes One-3s to improve insulin sensitivity is done in subjects with advanced metabolic disorders, so my sense is that these are likely substitution results, and it is also likely that supplementation for low-fat plant eaters may possibly be detrimental.

And the most comprehensive study of Omega-3 and diabetes I know of, found no improvement:

Omega-3 fats have little or no effect on type 2 diabetes

However, it noted: "There was a suggestion that high doses of long-chain omega-3 fats (more than 4.4g per day) may have negative effects on diabetes risk and glucose metabolism, but the researchers stress that this finding should be interpreted with caution. "

Edited December 11, 2023 by Ron Put

[Mike41]

Start at 20 minutes

Edited December 14, 2023 by Mike41

[Ron Put]

21 hours ago, Mike41 said:

Start at 20 minutes

Thanks Mike. I'd actually already heard this, but listened to much of it again, just in case. I fail to see how the Patrick interview addresses any of my concerns or observations.

She essentially rehashes all the studies favorable to Omega-3 supplementation, without even bringing up any research that either fails to replicate the purported benefits, or shows potential detrimental effects, such as increase in LDL cholesterol. She did disclose that she is also working for Bill Harris nowadays, who built a large business around Omega-3 testing and has a strong vested interest in creating a "crisis" of supposed Omega-3 insufficiency in the population.

Since most of the claims of benefits are not confirmed by large meta studies, some of which are linked above, I take them with a grain of salt.

In addition, virtually all of the claims of benefits are based on metabolically unhealthy populations -- The egg industry uses a similar trick to show that there is no significant cholesterol increase in populations who have already high plasma cholesterol saturation. Substitution of more harmful fats also appears to have a role in many of the Omega-3 studies (similar to many olive oil industry studies). And very importantly, I am not aware of any Blue Zone population that consumes high amounts of Omega-3s -- the Okinawans consumed far less Omega-3 that the rest of Japan, and vegan Seventh Day Adventists live longer than pescatarian ones.

[mccoy]

Nevertheless, Dr. Fuhrman, the doctor of vegans for decades now, anti-oils but pro-nuts and seeds, suggests moderate amounts of omega3s...

Presently I'm following his suggestions but if more specific individual cases arise, like Ron's, it's sensible to adjust to such specificity

[Mike41]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:44 AM, Ron Put said:

Thanks Mike. I'd actually already heard this, but listened to much of it again, just in case. I fail to see how the Patrick interview addresses any of my concerns or observations.

She essentially rehashes all the studies favorable to Omega-3 supplementation, without even bringing up any research that either fails to replicate the purported benefits, or shows potential detrimental effects, such as increase in LDL cholesterol. She did disclose that she is also working for Bill Harris nowadays, who built a large business around Omega-3 testing and has a strong vested interest in creating a "crisis" of supposed Omega-3 insufficiency in the population.

Since most of the claims of benefits are not confirmed by large meta studies, some of which are linked above, I take them with a grain of salt.

In addition, virtually all of the claims of benefits are based on metabolically unhealthy populations -- The egg industry uses a similar trick to show that there is no significant cholesterol increase in populations who have already high plasma cholesterol saturation. Substitution of more harmful fats also appears to have a role in many of the Omega-3 studies (similar to many olive oil industry studies). And very importantly, I am not aware of any Blue Zone population that consumes high amounts of Omega-3s -- the Okinawans consumed far less Omega-3 that the rest of Japan, and vegan Seventh Day Adventists live longer than pescatarian ones.

Ron I tend to agree that it’s hard to make sense of it all. It’s like vitamin D where you have all kinds of conflicting views on how much is enough and how much is too much. Same can be said for red wine. Although I figure 4 or 5 ounces with a meal would be a plus for most people. But of course the case against any alcohol in any form is certainly out there. My approach to omega 3 is going in the direction of a couple cans of sardines per week and some walnuts.

[Ron Put]

On 12/17/2023 at 12:01 AM, mccoy said:

Presently I'm following his suggestions but if more specific individual cases arise, like Ron's, it's sensible to adjust to such specificity

But without testing, how can we assume that supplementing with Omega-3 is beneficial to anyone who is not metabolically compromised? I tested myself after years of supplementing because I started reading the actual studies in support and against supplementation, I started to question the prevailing wisdom. There is such an avalanche of industry-sponsored studies that make the headlines, that I can completely understand both Fuhrman and Klapper being overwhelmed and succumbing to it.

There is ample evidence that LDL-C is increased by supplementation with Omega-3, especially in healthy subjects. This was my experience too, and it is dose-dependent. Yet when I mentioned this with a friend who is a cardiologist, he thought it was a fluke and claimed that it is the opposite and that the evidence is firm, and then suggested that it may be that my dose was low, since the prescription versions many of the studies he cares for are based on, are far stronger. My take is that these are done in metabolically ill patients who probably make other adjustments too, and there is a likely substitution factor in there as well.

Anyone, I'd be curious if someone here has, or plans to test supplementation vs no supplementation. I should also note that I eat 30g of flax or chia daily and walnuts on most days.

[Ron Put]

I just tested lipids again, after a period of a bit lower fat consumption, and months after I stopped Omega-3 supplementation.

Back to where I want to be:

C-Total: 143 mg/dl
HDL-C: 69 mg/dl
LDL-C: 64 mg/dl
VLD-C: 10 mg/dl

Apo B: 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 39 mg/dl

Based on my experiment of 1, the low-fat diet proponents appear to be on the right track, and dietary fat/cholesterol matters in those who have not reached a saturation point.

I consumed about 30g of flax daily and reduced nuts (walnuts or almonds) to about 12-14g per day. An avocado once every five days or so. Raw cacao powder of about 10g daily.

This confirms my guess, based on reading the published studies, that in healthy people, Omega-3 supplementation may be detrimental to what is currently considered an optimum lipid profile.

Edited April 15 by Ron Put