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]