Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid

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


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

Clarification / elaboration of human conversion to DHA and EPA needed[edit]

Quote from the "plant sources" section: Flaxseed (or linseed) (Linum usitatissimum) and its oil are perhaps the most widely available botanical source of the omega-3 fatty acid ALA. Flaxseed oil consists of approximately 55% ALA, which makes it six times richer than most fish oils in omega-3 fatty acids.[126] A portion of this is converted by the body to EPA and DHA, though the actual converted percentage may differ between men and women.[127]

Can this section be expanded to mention the human body's efficiency of converting ALA to EPA and DHA? I heard the human body is extremely inefficient at this, and it's worth pointing out as a means of clarification. People reading this (as is) may get the impression that it's sufficient to consume ALA by itself and avoid DHA and EPA because the human body converts it. That potentially could lead to people making poor decisions. TheyreOntoMe (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See the text and references in Interconversion section. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Content Issues[edit]

Sometimes the fresh perspective of someone who hasn't been working on a page can be useful. For those devoted to working on improving quality of this page, please be advised that it current reads overall in a slightly slanted / non-neutral way. Sometimes too much reliance on JAMA as a source can be problematic and may be part of the issue. A more neutral presentation or expanding into pro/con would be better. Also, the last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph don't belong there --- it's out of place and thoughts abruptly change direction. It's also an example of a non-neutral stance. Uberveritas (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Stating the evidence from the best sources available is not-neutral . It is how NPOV is defined in WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph might be better off in a separate paragraph, but the content is definitely important enough to be in the lede. More detail is provided farther down in the article. As to the fact of those three refs being published in JAMA , authors of potentially important articles aim for high status journals (JAMA, NEJM...). The articles contain the facts and conclusions of the authors, not an anti-supplement bias by the journal. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Contamination section needs work[edit]

This section is woefully lacking in appropriate referencing, and needs input from someone knowledgeable in toxicology. David notMD (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)