How Much Omega-3s Do You Need?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Omega-3 Deficiency, Omega-3 Fish Oil Supplements, Omega-3 Supplementation, Omega-3s

Can You Get The Omega-3s You Need From Diet Alone?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

how much omega-3s do you need prevent heart attackTwo recent studies have provided strong evidence that omega-3s reduce the risk of heart attacks. However, both studies used high doses of omega-3s and did not do a dose-response analysis. That leaves you with several unanswered questions:

  • How much omega-3s do you need to significantly reduce your risk of heart attack?
  • Will that amount of omega-3s provide other health benefits?
  • Can you get that amount of omega-3s from diet alone?
  • Can you get that amount of omega-3s from supplementation alone?

Fortunately, a recent study (KH Jackson et al, Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Amino Acids, 142: 4-10, 2019) has answered those questions. But, before we consider that article, we should look at a biomarker called “Omega-3 Index.”

 

What Is Omega-3 Index And Why Is It Important?

how much omega-3s do you need fish oilThe Omega-3 Index is a measure of the ratio between the heart-healthy omega-3 fats (EPA + DHA) and all the other fats in red blood cell membranes. It is considered an excellent measure of our omega-3 status.

Dr. William S Harris, one of the top experts in the omega-3 field, first proposed the Omega-3 Index as a biomarker for cardiac health back in 2007. Based on multiple clinical and population studies, he proposed that an Omega 3 Index of 4% was associated with high heart attack risk, and an Omega-3 Index of 8% was associated with low heart attack risk. This has been supported by a recent meta-analysis of 10 clinical studies showing that an Omega-3 Index of 8% was associated with a 35% reduction in cardiovascular death compared to an Omega-3 Index of 4%.

Other studies suggest that an Omega-3 Index of 8% is associated with:

  • A slower rate of telomere shortening.
  • A lower risk of death from any cause.
  • Reduction in symptoms of depression.
  • Improved recovery from a heart attack.
  • Reduction in arthritis symptoms.
  • Reduced age-related brain shrinkage in B-vitamin treated subjects. (I have written about the synergistic relationship between omega-3s and B vitamins with respect to brain health in a previous issue  of “Health Tips From the Professor.”

(Note: You will find references to these studies in the paper I have cited.)

For reference, most Americans have an Omega-3 Index between 4 and 6%. In contrast, in Japan, where the incidence of heart disease is much lower, the Omega-3 Index ranges from 6.8% to 9%.

How Was The Study Designed?

how much omega-3s do you need studyThe data for this study were derived from 3458 individuals who 1) sent in a dried blood spot to a commercial laboratory for determination of Omega-3 Index between March 30, 2017 and January 15, 2018, 2) filled out a short questionnaire about fish intake and omega-3 supplement use, and 3) were older than 18.

With respect to fish intake, the possible responses were “none per week,” “every other week,” “every week,” “2 times per week,” and “3 or more times per week.”

With respect to omega-3 supplement use, those who reported taking an omega-3 supplement were asked what kind of omega-3 supplement they were taking. Those who said they were taking a flaxseed oil supplement were excluded from the analysis because flaxseed oil contains no EPA or DHA.

The characteristics of the population studied were as follows:

  • 84% came from the United States. The remaining 16% came from 27 other countries.
  • The average age was 51 years and 40% of the respondents were male.
  • 62% ate little or no fish. The exact breakdown of fish consumption was:
    • 5% ate no fish.
    • 9% ate fish every other week.
    • 6% ate fish weekly.
    • 2% ate fish twice a week.
    • 8% ate fish three or more times a week.
  • 52% took omega-3 supplements. Of those taking omega-3 supplements, 84% were taking fish oil supplements.

 

How Much Omega-3s Do You Need?

how much omega-3s do you need supplementsThe correlation between omega-3 intake and Omega-3 Index in these individuals was:

  • No fish = 4.5%.
    • No fish + supplementation = 6.6%.
  • Bi-weekly = 4.8%
    • Bi-weekly + supplementation = 6.9%
  • Weekly = 5.1%
    • Weekly + supplementation = 7.3%
  • Twice weekly = 5.7%
    • Twice weekly + supplementation = 7.8%
  • 3+ times per week = 6.5%
    • 3+ times per week + supplementation = 8.6%

The authors said: “We found that those with the best chance of achieving a desirable Omega-3 Index were reporting the consumption of at least 3 fish meals per week and were taking an EPA + DHA-containing omega-3 supplement.”

The authors further concluded that an EPA + DHA intake of around 835 mg per day or higher would be required to achieve an average Omega-3 Index of 8%. This was based on two assumptions:

  • A 4 once serving of oily fish provides around 1,200 mg of EPA + DHA.
  • The average omega-3 supplement provides around 300 mg of EPA + DHA.

 

What Are The Limitations Of The Study?

The two biggest limitations of the study are the assumptions that a serving of fish provides 1,200 mg of EPA + DHA and a fish oil supplement provides 300 mg of EPA + DHA.

  • Their dietary survey did not ask what kind of fish the respondents were consuming. Some fish provide much less than 1,200 mg of EPA + DHA per serving. This could have caused the authors to overestimate the contribution that fish intake made to the Omega-3 Index in their study.
  • Some omega-3 supplements provide more than 300 mg EPA + DHA, and some people take more than the recommended number of omega-3 capsules. This could have caused the authors to underestimate the contribution of omega-3 supplements to the Omega-3 Index in their study.

The major implication of these limitations comes when we look at the standard deviation of the correlations between omega-3 intake and Omega-3 Index.

  • Some people consuming 3 or more servings of fish per week had an Omega-3 Index of well above 8%. This suggests that diet alone can allow you to reach an optimal Omega-3 Index. This conclusion is also supported by dietary studies in Japan (see below).
  • Some people taking omega-3 supplements had an omega-3 index of above 8% even in the group consuming no fish. This suggests that supplementation alone can allow you to reach an optimal Omega-3 Index as long as your total EPA + DHA intake is 835 mg/day or greater.

These limitations may also affect the calculation of how much EPA + DHA we need to reach an optimal Omega-3 Index. For example, the most widely used omega-3 calculator estimates that you would need 950 mg of EPA + DHA to increase your Omega-3 Index from 4% to 8%.

 

What Does This Study Mean For You?

how much omega-3s do you needAt the beginning of this article I said that this study answered 4 questions:

  • How much omega-3s do you need to significantly reduce your risk of heart attack?
    • This study estimated that around 835 mg/day of EPA + DHA is needed to reach an Omega-3 Index of 8%, which previous studies have shown to be associated with low heart disease risk.
    • This is similar to the 950 mg/day estimate from a widely used omega-3 calculator.
    • There is considerable individual variability, but 835 – 950 mg/day is a good target for most people. If in doubt, I recommend that you get your Omega-3 Index tested.
  • Will that amount of omega-3s provide other health benefits?
    • The evidence is strongest for heart health, but this paper lists other studies suggesting that a high Omega-3 Index is associated with reduced risk of depression, arthritis, age-related brain shrinkage & cognitive decline, and death from all causes.
  • Can you get that amount of omega-3s from diet alone?
    • In this study an optimal Omega-3 Index was achieved only in the group that consumed 3 or more servings of fish per week and took an omega-3 supplement. However, not all those fish were rich in EPA + DHA.
    • Previous studies have shown that Japanese who consume 3 or more servings per week of oily fish, rich in EPA + DHA, have an Omega-3 Index of 6.8% to 9%. This shows us it is possible to reach an optimal Omega-3 Index from diet alone.
  • Can you get that amount of omega-3s from supplementation alone?
    • Here the answer is clearly yes. Based on this and other studies, it would require in the range of 835-950 mg/day from supplementation to reach an optimal Omega-3 Index for most people.

 

Here are some other conclusions from the authors of the study:

  • “The average Omega3 Index in Japan ranges from 6.8 to 9.0%…So, yes, an Omega-3 Index of >8% is achievable by diet alone. But Japan is fairly unique…The average Omega-3 Index for Americans ranges from 4 to 6%. So, short of adopting the Japanese diet for a lifetime, it appears that taking an EPA + DHA supplement could be an important strategy for achieving a cardioprotective Omega-3 Index.”
  • They consider current recommendations for omega-3 intake to be inadequate. Their recommended intake of 835 mg of EPA + DHA per day is:
    • “>3 times the EPA + DHA recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (250 mg/day).”
    • “1.7 times the amount recommended by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (500 mg/day).”
    • “8 times higher than the typical EPA + DHA intake in the US (~100 mg/day).”
  • The American Heart Association currently recommends the consumption of 1-2 seafood meals per week.
  • The authors commented: “We do recognize that public health recommendations must balance what is ideal vs. what is practical for the public and must also take into consideration…potentially hazardous components of fish (mercury, PCBs) and the sustainability of the world’s fish supply.”
  • However, they considered the recommendation of the American Heart Association to be woefully inadequate. Based on their data, they concluded: “To achieve an Omega-3 Index of >8%, either adding an EPA + DHA supplement or increasing to 4-5 servings of fish/week would be necessary.”

Because of the high level of contamination of the world’s fish supply, my personal preference would be to add a high purity omega-3 supplement to my diet rather than consuming fish multiple times a week. I love salmon, but I try to limit myself to a salmon dinner no more than once a month.

 

The Bottom Line

 

A recent study looked at how much EPA + DHA you would need to achieve an optimal omega-3 status. The investigators used a measurement called Omega-3 Index, which has been shown to be an excellent measurement of omega-3 status. They asked how much EPA + DHA from diet plus supplementation was required to achieve an Omega-3 Index of 8%, which is associated with a low risk for heart disease. The key findings from this study were:

  • Around 835 mg/day of EPA + DHA is needed to reach an Omega-3 Index of 8%.
  • This is similar to the 950 mg/day estimate from a widely used omega-3 calculator.
  • There is considerable individual variability, but 835 – 950 mg/day is a good target for most people. If in doubt, I recommend that you get your Omega-3 Index tested.
  • The Japanese eat EPA + DHA-rich fish 3 or more times per week and have an Omega-3 Index of 6.9 to 9.0%, so it is clearly possible to achieve an optimal Omega-3 Index from diet alone. However, the American diet is so different from the Japanese diet that the authors concluded: “Short of adopting the Japanese diet for a lifetime, it appears that taking an EPA + DHA supplement could be an important strategy for achieving a cardioprotective Omega-3 Index.”
  • The American Heart Association currently recommends the consumption of 1-2 seafood meals/week. The authors consider this recommendation to be woefully inadequate. They said: “To achieve an Omega-3 Index of >8%, either adding an EPA + DHA supplement or increasing to 4-5 servings of fish/week would be necessary.”

Because of the high level of contamination of the world’s fish supply, my personal preference is to add a high purity omega-3 supplement to my diet rather than consuming fish multiple times a week. I love salmon, but I try to limit myself to a salmon dinner no more than once a month.

 

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

DHA During Pregnancy; Yes or No?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in DHA and Pregnancy, Omega-3 Fish Oil Supplements

Are Pregnant Women Deficient In Omega-3s?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

dha during pregnancyDo women need DHA during pregnancy?  Most experts agree that omega-3 fatty acids, especially DHA, are essential for fetal development during pregnancy and for brain development through at least the first two years of a child’s life. That’s because DHA is an important component of the myelin sheath that coats and protects our brain neurons.

During the last two trimesters of pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life, their brains are growing and maturing at a remarkable rate. The need for DHA during this critical period is huge, and most of that DHA comes from the mom. That’s why the mom’s intake of DHA during pregnancy and breastfeeding is so important.

For example, higher intakes of omega-3s during pregnancy and breastfeeding have been associated with:

  • Decreased maternal depression.
  • Increased birth weight.
  • Reduced risk of preterm birth.
  • Reduction in ADHD symptoms.
  • Reduction in allergies and asthma.
  • Improved developmental and cognitive outcomes such as:
    • Increased visual acuity.
    • Better problem-solving skills.

I do wish to acknowledge that there is still debate in the scientific literature about the strength of some of these associations. However, there is enough cumulative evidence for the beneficial effects of omega-3s especially DHA during pregnancy and breastfeeding that virtually all experts agree adequate maternal omega-3 intake is important during this crucial period in a child’s life.

 

How Much DHA During Pregnancy & Breastfeeding Is Needed?

fish oil dha during pregnancyThe National Academies of Science have not yet set a Daily Value for omega-3s. However, a group of experts met in 1999 to recommend adequate dietary intake of omega-3s (Simopoulos et al, Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes & Essential Fatty Acids, 63: 119-121, 2000 ). They concluded that an adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids in adults was at least 650 mg/day with at least 440 mg/day of that coming from EPA + DHA (220 mg/day each of EPA and DHA). They further recommended that DHA intake in pregnant and lactating women should be at least 300 mg/day.

However, because of concerns about seafood contamination with heavy metals and PCBs (both of which are neurotoxins), the FDA recommended in 2004 that pregnant and lactating women limit seafood consumption to two servings a week, which amounts to about 200 mg/day of DHA. This has been subsequently adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the European Union as the recommended amount of DHA during pregnancy and lactation (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010 ).

How Was The Study Done?

The authors of this study (Nordgren et al, Nutrients, 2017, 9, 197; doi:10.3390/nu9030197 ) utilized a nationwide database called NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey). NHANES data are based on an annual survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States, and to track changes over time.

Dietary intake of nutrients is based on two interviewer-administered, 24-hour dietary recalls conducted 3-10 days apart. Omega-3 intake was calculated based on the USDA database of nutrient composition of foods.

The investigators combined NHANES data from the years 2003 to 2012. This included 6478 women of childbearing years (14-45 years old), of which 788 were pregnant at the time of the survey.

Are Pregnant Women Deficient In Omega-3s?

omega3 deficiency in pregnant womenThe results of this study were alarming:

  • Mean EPA + DHA intake was only 89 mg/day with no difference between pregnant and non-pregnant women of childbearing age.
  • This contrasts to the expert committee’s recommendation of at least 440 mg/day for EPA + DHA (220 mg/day each from EPA and DHA).
  • Mean DHA intake was only 66 mg/day in pregnant and 58 mg/day in non-pregnant women of childbearing status.
  • This contrasts to the recommendations of 200 – 300 mg/day for pregnant women.
  • These intakes did not include dietary supplements, but only 1.8% of non-pregnant and 9% of pregnant women in this survey took supplements containing EPA and/or DHA.

The authors concluded “Our results demonstrate that omega-3 fatty acid intake is a concern in pregnant women and women of childbearing age…” They went on to say: ‘Strategies to increase omega-3 fatty acid intake in these populations could have the potential to improve maternal and infant health outcomes.”

What Do Other Studies Show?

This study is not an outlier. In a previous issue  Do Women Get Enough Omega-3 During Pregnancy of “Health Tips From the Professor” I reported on a study showing that 90% of Canadian women were not getting enough DHA in their diet. A similar study in Germany concluded that 97% of middle-aged women had suboptimal omega-3 status (Gellert et al, Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, doi: 10.1016/j.plefa.2017.01.009 ).

More importantly, these omega-3 deficiencies matter. In another issue DHA Supplements During Pregnancy of “Health Tips From the Professor” I reported on a study showing that DHA supplementation significantly reduced preterm births. Based on that effect alone, the authors concluded that DHA supplementation during pregnancy could save the US healthcare system close to $6 billion/year.

Women do need DHA during pregnancy.

The Bottom Line

  • Optimal intake of omega-3s during pregnancy and breastfeeding is associated with:
    • Decreased maternal depression.
    • Increased birth weight.
    • Reduced risk of preterm birth.
    • Reduction in ADHD symptoms.
    • Reduction in allergies and asthma.
    • Improved developmental and cognitive outcomes such as:
      • Increased visual acuity.
      • Better problem-solving skills.
  • In 1999, a panel of experts met to set standards for omega-3 intake. They recommended:
    • At least 650 mg/day for adults with at least 440 mg/day coming from EPA + DHA (220 mg/day each of EPA and DHA).
    • At least 300 mg/day of DHA for pregnant and breastfeeding women.
  • Because of concerns about seafood contamination with heavy metals and PCBs (both of which are neurotoxins), the FDA reduced the recommendation for pregnant and breastfeeding women to 200 mg/day of DHA. That recommendation has been subsequently adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the European Union.
  • A recent study has found:
    • Mean EPA + DHA intake was only 89 mg/day with no difference between pregnant and non-pregnant women of childbearing age.
      • This contrasts to the expert committee’s recommendation of at least 440 mg/day (with 220 mg/day each from EPA and DHA).
    • Mean DHA intake was only 66 mg/day in pregnant and 58 mg/day in non-pregnant women of childbearing status.
      • This contrasts to the recommendations of 200 – 300 mg/day for pregnant and breastfeeding women.
    • These intakes did not include dietary supplements, but only 1.8% of non-pregnant and 9% of pregnant women in this survey took supplements containing EPA and/or DHA.
    • This study is in line with recent studies in Canada and Germany. Clearly pregnant and Breastfeeding women in developed countries like the US are getting suboptimal amounts of omega-3s in their diet.
    • This is alarming because these findings come amidst mounting evidence that optimal omega-3 intake during pregnancy and breastfeeding is important for the health of both mother and child.

     

    These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Are Some Omega-3 Fish Oil Supplements Better Than Others?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Omega-3 Fish Oil Supplements

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

truth about omega-3 fish oil supplementThe ethyl ester form of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil has been the industry standard for high purity omega-3 fish oil supplements for many years. It is very stable, easily purified, and well absorbed by the body. What’s not to like?

If you believe some recent advertisements, there is a lot not to like about the ethyl ester form of omega-3s. These ads each claim that their particular form of omega-3s is more natural, better absorbed, and more efficiently incorporated into cell membranes, or some combination of those features. They each cite clinical studies “proving” that their products are superior. These advertisements seem so plausible and so compelling.

However, most of these advertisements come from relatively new companies that are trying to make a name for themselves in a very profitable and competitive product niche. Are the advertisements true, or is it all just smoke and mirrors? Most of these advertisements rate at least one Pinocchio.

However, it is almost impossible to tell you why I consider these advertisements omega-3 fish oil supplements to be misleading without getting a little “techie”, so let’s start with some basic definitions. I call this section “Omega-3s 101.”

 

Omega-3s 101

 

Let’s start with some basic definitions:

  • Free fatty acids (FFA) are long chain hydrocarbons with a single acid group at the end. They are only slightly water soluble. They are important intermediates in metabolism, but they are almost always combined with something else in the body.
  • Saturated fatty acids contain no double bonds, monounsaturated fatty acids contain one double bond, and polyunsaturated fatty acids contain multiple double bonds. The number of double bonds primarily affects whether they are liquids (polyunsaturated) or solids (saturated) at room temperature.
  • omega-3 fatty acidsThere are two classes of polyunsaturated fatty acids that are essential because the body cannot make them. Those with a double bond 3 carbons from the end are called omega-3s(If you think about the Greek alphabet, omega is at the end). Those with a double bond 6 carbons from the end are called omega-6s.
  • When 3 fatty acids are combined with a single molecule of glycerol they form very water insoluble compounds commonly referred to as fats or triglycerides. The proper chemical name is triacylglycerol, which is abbreviated TAG.
  • If one of the fatty acids on the glycerol chain is replaced by a compound containing phosphate and other charged residues, the resulting complex is called a phospholipid (PL). Because these compounds have a hydrocarbon surface that is attracted to fats and a highly charged surface that is attracted to water, they are good at emulsifying fats and are an important part of membrane structure. One phospholipid that is a major component of membranes is called phosphatidylcholine (PC), also known as lecithin.

Next, let’s look at how omega-3 fatty acids are metabolized:

  • The omega-3s in fish oil are primarily in the form of triglycerides, with small amounts of phospholipids. The omega-3s in most omega-3 supplements are in the form of ethyl esters for the reasons stated above.
  • Before the omega-3s leave the intestine they are hydrolyzed to free fatty acids.
  • In the cells that line the intestine the omega-3s are reconverted back into triglycerides and phospholipids and incorporated into special lipid-protein complexes for transport through the blood.
  • Once these lipid-protein complexes reach our cells, their contents are delivered to the cell where they can be stored as fat (TAG), used for energy (FFA), or incorporated into membranes (PL). It is primarily the omega-3s incorporated in cellular membranes that are thought to be responsible for the beneficial effects of omega-3s.

Finally, we should ask how one measures the bioavailability of the various forms of omega-3s:

While there are some nuances that I did not cover, the basic mechanisms of absorption and metabolism of omega-3s are remarkably similar regardless of whether they start out in the ethyl ester, triglyceride, phospholipid, or free fatty acid form. The questions then become, how does one test how efficiently the various forms are utilized by the body and how much do these individual test actually tell us?

  • When we look at what happens in the bloodstream, we need to be aware that we are looking at a combination of two effects – how rapidly the substance enters the bloodstream and how rapidly it leaves from the bloodstream. There are three important parameters we can measure when looking at delivery of omega-3s to the bloodstream:
    • The maximum concentration achieved (Cmax)
    • How rapidly that maximum concentration was achieved (Tmax)
    • The total amount in the bloodstream over time (AUC)
  • When you look at some of the ads touting specialized forms of omega-3s, they are usually based on studies looking at either the maximum levels of omega-3s in the bloodstream (Cmax) or how rapidly those maximum levels were achieved (Tmax). (One suspects the ads may have selectively featured whichever parameter made their product look best). However, the parameter that really matters is the total concentration of omega-3s achieved over time (AUC).
  • Finally, the most important question is how much of the omega-3 is actually incorporated into cellular membranes. Once again, there is more than one parameter that can be measured.
  • One can measure the level of omega-3s found in cellular membranes in a short term study (a few hours) or in a long term study following many weeks of supplementation.
  • The short term studies only measure the rate of incorporation. The long term studies measure the steady state levels attained over time, which is a much more relevant measure.
  • Once again, the ads touting specialized products are usually based on short term studies which are really measuring an initial rate of incorporation of omega-3s into cellular membranes, not on long term studies that measure the steady state level of omega-3s achieved over time.

 

Are Some Omega-3 Fish Oil Supplements Better Than Others?

omega-3 fish oil supplementThere has been a lot of confusion in the literature about whether the form of omega-3 supplements matters. Various studies have been published supporting the superiority of one form or another of omega-3s. Most of these studies have been supported by manufacturers who have a particular form of omega-3s they want to sell, and, as I mentioned above, the parameters tested seem to have been selected to make their supplement look good.  So, are some omega-3 fish oil supplements better than others?

 

Finally, someone has designed a comprehensive study to clear up all the confusion and provide answers that can be trusted (West et al, British Journal of Nutrition, 116: 788-797, 2016). Interestingly, this research was supported by a pharmaceutical company (Vifor Pharma) that does not appear to sell an omega-3 product currently. Perhaps they simply wanted to find out what worked best before designing their own product. What a novel concept!

The authors tested 4 different forms of omega-3 fish oil supplements:

  • Unmodified fish oil containing the omega-3s primarily in triglyceride form (uTAG).
  • An omega-3 supplement in which the omega-3s in the fish oil had been hydrolyzed to free fatty acids (FFA).
  • An omega-3 supplement in which the omega-3s in the fish oil had been hydrolyzed to free fatty acids and converted back to triglycerides (TAG)
  • An omega-3 supplement in which the omega-3s in the fish oil had been hydrolyzed to free fatty acids and converted to ethyl esters (EE)

All 4 supplements contained 1.1 grams of EPA and 0.37 grams of DHA.

The authors conducted two studies:

  • One was a cross-over study where healthy men consumed each of the supplements in random order on different days with 14 days between tests. Blood samples were collected over the next 6 hours and levels of EPA and DHA in the blood and cellular membranes was determined.
  • The other was a long term study in which a randomized group of healthy men and women consumed one of the supplements for 12-weeks and incorporation of the EPA and DHA into cellular membranes was measured.

The results were pretty clear cut:

  • In the short term study there were no significant differences between the various supplements in the rate of uptake, maximum concentration achieved, or the total concentration over time when uptake of omega-3s into plasma triglycerides and phospholipids was measured.
  • The ethyl ester form was less efficiently incorporated into plasma free fatty acids than the other forms as reported in some previous studies, but this is perhaps the least important parameter measured, and there was large variability from subject to subject.
  • In the long term study, no significant differences were seen between the various supplements in omega-3 incorporation into cellular membranes.

The authors concluded: “Together, these findings show that in healthy individuals neither the lipid structure nor the overall fatty acid composition of supplements influence their bioavailability during dietary supplementation, despite the apparent lower postprandial availability [in short term studies] of EPA + DHA ethyl esters compared with triglycerides or free fatty acids.”

What Do These Studies Mean For You?

You can forget all those ads hyping the newest, greatest form of omega-3 fish oil supplements. Objective research has shown there is not a dimes worth of difference between the various forms of omega-3 supplements.

A far more important question is the purity of the omega-3 supplement you are using. Purity of omega-3 supplements is a huge issue. You need to remember that the EPA + DHA supplements you purchase come from polluted fish. Unfortunately, many manufacturers have inadequate purification and quality control standards. In other words, neither you nor they know whether their omega-3 products are pure. You need to make sure that the omega-3 supplement you purchase is made by a manufacturer with stringent quality control standards.

Sustainability is also an issue, so you should choose manufacturers who source their omega-3s in a sustainable manner. There are two comments I will make about sustainability so you won’t be misled.

  • Krill oil is marketed as a more sustainable source of omega-3s. Krill reserves are quite large, but they are not infinite. Krill is also the very foundation of the food chain that supports a large percentage of our ocean’s fish. We need to be very cautious about depleting our krill reserves.
  • Omega-3s derived from algae are also marketed as a more sustainable source of omega-3s. Algae-derived omega-3s have purity issues of their own, but may become an important source of omega-3s once those issues have been resolved.

 

The Bottom Line

  • The ethyl ester form of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil has been the industry standard for high purity fish oil supplements for many years. It is very stable, easily purified, and well absorbed by the body.
  • However, in recent years, some manufacturers have been claiming that their omega-3 fish oil supplements were better utilized by the body because their supplements contained the omega-3s in triglyceride or free fatty acid forms.
  • Unfortunately, the clinical studies supporting those claims have been supported by the manufacturers making the products. There is reason to suspect that the data has been “cherry picked” to support the conclusions that support the manufacturer’s claims.
  • Finally, an independent and comprehensive study has compared the various forms of omega-3 fatty acids. It found that neither the lipid structure nor the overall fatty acid composition of omega-3 supplements influenced their bioavailability during long term dietary supplementation.
  • A far more important question is the purity of the omega-3 supplement you are using. Purity of omega-3 supplements is a huge issue. You need to remember that the EPA + DHA supplements you purchase come from polluted fish. Unfortunately, many manufacturers have inadequate purification and quality control standards. In other words, neither you nor they know whether their omega-3 products are pure. You need to make sure that the omega-3 supplement you purchase is made by a manufacturer with stringent quality control standards.

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

What Is The Planetary Diet?

Posted May 21, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Earth Day has come and gone, but you are still committed to saving the planet. You save energy. You recycle. You drive an electric car. But is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor,” What Is The Flexitarian Diet , but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.” It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The study (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

 

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

When they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
  • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
  • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
  • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
  • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
  • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

When they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
  • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pasture land required to raise cattle and sheep.
  • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2. The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.]
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.
  • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

What Is The Planetary Diet?

In the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes.”
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
  • Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
  • Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer-friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time.”  If you have read my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths,”  you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

 

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.”  It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

UA-43257393-1