Sensei Talks  

Outstanding! I couldn't agree more with your point that people need to understand the differences between the types of omega-3s (ALA, DHA, and EPA) and not fall into trap of the latest marketing trends.

That said, I try (but often fail) to eat a healthy well-balanced diet being sure to include marine AND plant sources.

Plant sources of omega-3s (like flax and chia seeds) are needed in our diets because they include other healthy elements (ie - fiber and lignans).

But that's still not good enough! We also need to reduce our omega-6 consumption. If you read nutrional labels, you will be shocked to see how many foods include corn syrup and vegetable oils, which are high in omega-6s.

If you want to learn more about the need for better balance between omega-3s and omega-6s, I highly recommend Susan Allport's book The Queen of Fats.

 

There are actually many researchers who feel the nutritional value of ALA is underestimated and incorrectly labeled as of lesser health-related value than DHA or EPA.

They do, in fact, suggest that many of the apparent benefits of ALA are a direct result of the human body's internal production of DHA and EPA.

Aliza H. Stark, Ram Reifen (of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Michael A. Crawford (of the London Metropolitan University) worked together on research specifically focused on this topic. They suggest that although ALA does not posses the "same" health benefits as DHA and EPA, it does not mean that there are "lesser" health benefits of ALA. Their review states: "It is important to remember that of the omega-3 fatty acids, ALA is the parent molecule, and greater attention should be paid to its independent physiological function."

They further state that benefits such as improved vascular tone, heart rate, blood lipid levels, inflammatory responses, blood pressure, and reduced hardening of the arteries, have been associated specifically with ALA consumption.

They theorize that the conversion processes of ALA to its DHA and EPA "children" not only contributes to the body's pool of PUFAs, but also represents a health advantage that has not yet been properly recognized nor researched.

In other words we need to be cautious about discounting the value of ALA. In the end it may prove to be as valuable, if not more valuable than fish oil supplementation.

 

Thank you for your input, which is very interesting. The point I was trying to make is that consumers are getting bombarded with “functional foods” these days. Food manufacturers are adding specific food ingredients to make their products “better” or “healthier” compared to competitor’s products. In doing so, they are often misleading the consumer, as the “promotional” statement may not be well understood or may be a stretch from the actual benefits.

Take for example when the new margarines with added plant sterols came out. They were supposed to reduce blood cholesterol, but if you really researched it, you would find that in order to reduce cholesterol one had to take 2 Tablespoons on a daily basis to have that desired effect. There we are trying to get people to eat less added fats but the manufactures didn’t really say that you needed that much to get the benefit.

But the consumer believes the label and consequently believes that they will get the stated benefits. Same thing goes with the labels that say “Omega-3 added”, when it is really ALA (which is also good), and not DHA or EPA; but people expect the same benefits as they would from fatty fish for example. And although the conversion from ALA to DHA and EPA varies between sex and age, it is still less than 25%. So the consumer gets tricked by manufacturers stretching the facts. That’s the main point I was trying to get across, and this is why I always recommend people to eat a variety of foods that are closest to their natural state. If they eat the real thing, they don’t need the colorful package with “marketing” on it.

- Josee

 

I completely agree. Those relying upon marketing labels to guide their nutritional decisions are stopping far short of the personal research in which they should engage. The magical "Poof" in the PUFA marketing schemes is that what you read on the labels is what the magicians want you to see. It's an intentionally deceptive, well-crafted illusion.

This was a great post, by the way. If I were to take it a step further I'd suggest that people take the time to seriously look into whole foods (as opposed to supplements and/or "component foods" such as "healthy" margarin) to increase their well-being.

A properly enhanced whole-food diet can provide not only EFA's, but critical amino acids that contribute to proper metabolism. Sadly it's not as difficult as people think. It's simply too easy to read a label, buy "healthy" Omega-3 mayo, then stop at BK on the way home to fill the belly with an overdose of Omega-6's.

Ick.

Anyway, I fully agree with your point that a big corporation's marketing exec shouldn't double as your nutritionist.