Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't think that PC is the only transport for DHA to the brain. PS is also a transport, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


Mayo Clinic[edit]

This might be helpful:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fish-oil/NS_patient-fishoil/DSECTION=evidence

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talkcontribs) 06:38, 20 September 2009‎

More sources in food[edit]

Prickly pears, radishes and raw broccoli have some according to http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/2039/2, if anyone cares to add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.68.241 (talkcontribs) 03:50, 10 May 2012

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Fish oil be merged into this article. The content there completely overlaps with, and is not in sync with, the content here. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose – fish oil is a legitimate topic in it's own right. The current version of the article has been developed with a focus on the relevance of fish oil to human health. Some of these concerns could be directed to the Omega-3 article. The fish oil article should be redeveloped to cover the relevance of fish oil to the fish that produce it. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • support due to overlap in articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Where are you going to put material that doesn't overlap? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
the point (made by an editor below) that the material about health effects of given substances should be mostly consolidated in one place and should not be self-contradictory is a valid one...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, no one is disputing that. But that is not your initial point Your initial point was that the article on fish oil should be merged somewhere else, and presumably cease to exist. The issues relating to human health should be treated as a separate issue and preferably removed as far as possible from the article to some other place. In that way the article can be freed from the crippling medical tyranny that is now being imposed on many zoology articles, and can be properly developed instead as an article on the role fish oil plays in the biology of fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Then do something concerning the overlap. Fish oil is NOT omega-3 fatty acid: it can contain many more polyunsaturated fatty acids and is in general a mixture. Omega-3 fatty acid could, in this sense, be considered a subtopic of fish oil but it makes more sense to give it its own article, just like other types of fatty acids are better described in independent articles. The acids are in fact a topic in the major group of chemistry, fish oil is a topic in foods or fishery products. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • comment - if folks want to oppose, that's great, but please keep in mind that we are going to have to fix the overlapping content - pretty much all the content about health effects of Fish oil is sourced to studies about omega-3. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fish oil is simply not the same as Omega-3 fatty acid. To be clear, though, I do support Jytdog's general point (as I understand it) that the material about health effects of given substances should be mostly consolidated in one place and should not be self-contradictory. We need a place for the stuff that doesn't overlap (thus oppose), but we also need to fix the overlap. I also think that if you were going to force one to be a subset of the other, then fish oil would be a subset of omega-3, rather than the other way around. Fish oil discussions usually mention EPA and DHA only, with little if any mention of ALA, which is an omega-3, with its own literature about health effects. To make things even tougher on us, alpha-Linolenic acid, Eicosapentaenoic acid, and Docosahexaenoic acid each have their own pages, which go into at least some detail on health effects. Other omega-3 pages are much shorter—the longest of the "forgotten" omega-3 pages is Docosapentaenoic acid (which by the way, discusses a molecule that is DPA but is not an omega-3). Cod liver oil, which contains DHA & EPA, has its own page, which is also as it should be, because it is equivalent to neither fish oil nor to omega-3 fatty acids. There are other issues with this page, and I'm going to start a new talk page section. I will let this merge discussion sit for a little while; if someone feels there is consensus, then it can be closed per WP:MERGECLOSE. --Officiallyover (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    When I stated omega-3 fatty acid is in fact a subset of fish-oil, I meant of course (and I also added that) that omega-3 fatty acids are only one component of all the substances that fish oil is made up of. Fish oil can thus never be a subset of the topic omega-3 fatty acids, because it contains so many more substances. If one would be treated as a subset of the other, it should logically be the other way around. In a marine environment, omega-3 fatty acids are quite ubiquitous, as they are produced by a majority of algal species. They end up in (amongst others) fish oil because fish eat algae or because they eat creatures that ate algae. But that doesn't make fish oil a subset of omega-3 fatty acids because it would ignore all the other components that it is made of. The two subjects are really quite different. The only common thing is that one chemical component. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Close That would be tempting if fish oil = n-3 oils, but it takes only a slight afterthought to realize that fish oil has components that go way beyond PUFA n-3 (e.g. MUFA's (20:1 n-9), PUFA's n-6,7,9, squalene et.c.). If I get time I will make the fish oil article reflect it. I don't think it is up for discussion not to have a fish oil article. Thanks for bringing it up, though, it has been interesting, and I agree with Jytdog that if the fish oil article overlap the omega-3, the fish oil article or both articles need attention, good point. I think the merger proposal can be closed. Carystus (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that you meant to vote "oppose" here. Also I moved your comment from above, to its place here in chron order. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Jytdog, thanks. Carystus (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Risk of deficiency[edit]

I've moved 'Risk of deficiency' to the Health Effects section. Not sure if this is the ideal location for it, but it's perhaps better there than in the Dietary Sources section, which is where I'd found it. Meticulo (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)