Linda Palmer wrote:
> It's thought that many people don't convert ALA optimally. Fish or algae 
> (vegan) sources are much more reliable and potent sources and in 
> studies that measure various health benefits of increasing doses of 
> such, only true DHA/EPA supplements or "hihg" fish diets provide the 
> measurable differences.
>   
We only convert a small percentage of ingested ALA to DHA.  That's part 
of my point, that we're designed to eat far more plant matter than we 
do.  In order to ingest sufficient ALA, we need to take in a lot of it 
via food sources.  Hence going for premium cold pressed oils in the 
modern context.  My concern is that too much emphasis may be going on 
DHA, when we still are not clear on the exact relationship between 
maternal ALA based production of DHA and baby's brain development.  
We've found to our cost on many an issue, that substituting secondary 
source of nutrition, isn't the same as adding in the primary sources.  
ALA is far more expensive, and fragile, but it the prime source.  
There's nothing wrong with taking in DHA, but there is space in the 
issues to point out that ALA is actually the /essential fatty acid/, not 
DHA.   Combined with the evidence that ALA from plant sources has 
significant effects on female depressions etc - far more than the 
equivalent DHA amounts - continues to suggest there is an essential 
element to ALA, that may be missed on concentrating on the cheaper DHA.  
Allowing the body to synthesize DHA from ALA, may provide benefits that 
are not there from just transferring the DHA over whole.  Flaxseed oil, 
for instance, also contains estrogen and who knows how the combination 
of ALA conversion, with estrogen present, may alter how the subsequenty 
produced DHA works in terms of the baby's brain development?

Given ALA is the essential fatty acid, and given that the innate biology 
is to process DHA from ALA, I'd prefer to see ALA higher up on the 
agenda.  In a perfect world, we would be eating enough plant material 
for it not to be an issue.  But in an imperfect world, where people eat 
unbalanced diets and use suplements to top up on basic nutrition - such 
as Omega capsules - it's important to point out the difference between 
ingesting cheaper DHA fish oil based supplements and ingesting pure ALA 
oils.

If we are designed to produce DHA from ALA (and we are) there may be a 
lot of merit on sticking with the programming.  :-)
> I believe that humans had to always live near fresh water up to say 
> 100+ years ago, and hence fish were a simple and obvious dietary 
> source that's now gone by the wayside.
>   

But not fish containing DHA, and not in lots of quanitites.  Fish stocks 
near living areas were mostly about protein being added to a restricted 
diet - especially in winter when game was scarce.  Go to rural China 
today, and the fish in the village carp pond are there to supply protein 
in the winter, not keep a comunity in adequate DHA.  Fish does not equal 
DHA.  It has to be the right fish, and in the right quantities - and 
that is a modern fishing phenominon.  Fish has been so scarce in recent 
European diets, that religious rules have been brought into play to make 
it acceptable.  'Fish on a Friday', for instance, a staple of Catholic 
upbringing, was brought in to make people eat fish, when given the 
choice, they'd always eat meat.  Brought in by fish traders!

> BTW, studies in Seychelles trying to demonstrate damages to babies 
> from mercury levels in moms consuming high fish diets during 
> pregnancy and nursing found only that the more fish mom consumed, 
> the brighter (more neurologically developed) the babies.
>
> Best, linda
>   
In depends on where you are and where you buy your fish!  And what sort 
of fish!  Mercury contamination in the North Sea, for instance, is far 
higher than in the very oily cold water fish we are talking about as 
excellent DHA sources.  During my pregnancy, when I craved Smoked 
Salmon, a food I normally detest, I was careful to only buy Alaskan 
sourced salmon, as they're lot 'cleaner' than can be found in heavily 
farmed UK salmon - and not just for mercury - the nitrate levels are 
shocking!  (I wish I'd twigged about linseed/flax then - I really do 
hate smoked salmon.) And mercury contamination during pregnancy is more 
likely to result in a lost pregnancy, than a live baby to then 
breastfeed.  So looking at surviving infants isn't the best test base.  
And given the Seychelles fishing profile you'd neet to eat a lot of such 
warm water fish, to harvest a lot of DHA to begin with!  Studies into 
mussels ingestion would be more use in the Seychelles.

Also, eating a lot of fish, is different from taking omega 3 capsules.  
Food is the better nutrition - every damn time.  :-)

Returning it to the main point, adding fish oils to formula is better 
than having no DHA in the formula at all.  Lactating mums eating fish, 
are going to be producing more DHA than those not doing so.  Lactating 
mum eating not a lot of fish, but taking in DHA from capsules, are going 
to be producing more DHA than those not doing so.  But taking in 
sufficient quantitites of high quality, plant based ALA, may be the 
optimum scenario for breastfeeding - a point worth acknowledging. 

:-)

Morgan

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]