New research in the FASEB Journal identifies the 'Goldilocks dose' of DHA that is 'just right' for preventing oxidative stress in men
A team of French scientists have found the dose of DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) that is "just right" for preventing cardiovascular disease in healthy men. In a research report appearing in the September 2009 print issue of The FASEB Journal, the scientists show that a 200 mg dose of DHA per day is enough to affect biochemical markers that reliably predict cardiovascular problems, such as those related to aging, atherosclerosis, and diabetes. This study is the first to identify how much DHA is necessary to promote optimal heart health.
"This study shows that regularly consuming small amounts of DHA is likely to improve the health status of people, especially in regards to cardiovascular function," said Michel Lagarde, co-author of the study.
To determine the optimal dose of DHA, Lagarde and colleagues examined the effects of increasing doses of DHA on 12 healthy male volunteers between ages of 53 and 65. These men consumed doses of DHA at 200, 400, 800, and 1600 mg per day for two weeks for each dose amount, with DHA being the only omega-3 fatty acid in their diet. Blood and urine samples were collected before and after each dose and at eight weeks after DHA supplementation stopped. The researchers then examined these samples for biochemical markers indicating the effects of each dose on the volunteers.
"Now that we have a very good idea about how much DHA is just right, the next step is to try it out in an expanded clinical trial that involves many more people," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "Until then, I'll stick with tasty foods that contain DHA, like fish, rather than getting a quick fatty-acid fix at the local vitamin store."
SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
Comment: If we read the article more closely, we will see that 200 mg of DHA a day is just enough to affect biochemical markers. That dose is by no means enough for optimal health as is implied elsewhere in the article. In fact, research has shown that we need a lot more Omega-3 fatty acids to balance the large amount of Omega-6 fatty acids that we consume everyday.
And as if the above is not misleading enough, the author felt compelled to add the last sentence, insinuating that people should eat fish, which are more likely than not contaminated with mercury than getting Omega-3 supplements. Why is that? Is it because getting Omega-3 supplements is a good and inexpensive way to improve your health and it is not in the interest of big pharma companies?