Alpha-Linolenic Acid: An Omega-3 Fatty Acid With Neuroprotective Properties

[Agent207]

I found this interesting study looking evaluating some aspects of this fatty acid that seems to conclude just tiny amounts of it has beneficial properties. I see the key with ALA fatty acid theres a trade-off and a shaped curve of positives/negatives that depends on the dose. All the research I found till now seems to place that dose around 1gr. Even all the research about the general damage of pufas can't negate the evidence of the benefits in some amounts, discarding the facto and in an absolute way the posisible benefit/harm relation without considering the dose.

"This review highlights how chronic administration of ALA protects against rodent models of hypoxic-ischemic injury and exerts an anti-depressant-like activity, effects that likely involve multiple mechanisms in brain, and may be applied in stroke prevention. One major effect may be through an increase in mature brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a widely expressed protein in brain that plays critical roles in neuronal maintenance, and learning and memory."

Attention at this one:

"ALA activates a neuronal background rectifying potassium channel [65] leading to membrane hyperpolarization which in turn increases the magnesium block of the calcium channel associated with NMDA receptors which play a predominant role in mediating glutamate-mediated excitotoxic neuronal cell death"

And it comes out that the study concludes to have best impact are doses around just 1gr of ALA!!

"In common with several others groups, we have demonstrated the broad neuroprotective and neuroplastic potential of omega-3 injection in animal models of neurodegenerative conditions, including acute neurological injuries such as stroke and spinal cord injury (for review, see [1, 3, 97]"

"Therefore, we believe that, in light of the currently available data, the conventional recommendations of omega-3 at a dose of 1 g/day of ALA, or 0.750–1 g/day of EPA + DHA, may offer therapeutic benefit in patients at risk of cardiovascular diseases. It is also noteworthy that these doses are without adverse effects."

"Choosing healthy foods may be a challenge, underlying the importance of identifying natural products with health benefit, like ALA that is a nonproprietary, naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acid contained in foodstuffs. ALA has anti-inflammatory and other potential beneficial properties and, based on the weight of available data, may reduce stroke risk, size, and/or consequences."


Alpha-Linolenic Acid: An Omega-3 Fatty Acid with Neuroprotective Properties—Ready for Use in the Stroke Clinic?



We know pufas in general specially in the way they're abused in modern diets are detrimental; in fact this is actually known -not for the average joe yet- by well knowledgable sectors beyond Peat lands. But is not all that black and white, and it seems the key a balancing dose in overall context.

I have yet to see from all the ton of studies posted by haidut, ANY that states any detrimental effects at these doses. Because it looks like theres evidence for beneficial ones, and the trade-off appears to be dose dependant.

Please note this is only about alpha-linolenic-acid, not fish oil or supplements of any type.

 

[Drareg]

I found this interesting study looking evaluating some aspects of this fatty acid that seems to conclude just tiny amounts of it has beneficial properties. I see the key with ALA fatty acid theres a trade-off and a shaped curve of positives/negatives that depends on the dose. All the research I found till now seems to place that dose around 1gr. Even all the research about the general damage of pufas can't negate the evidence of the benefits in some amounts, discarding the facto and in an absolute way the posisible benefit/harm relation without considering the dose.

"This review highlights how chronic administration of ALA protects against rodent models of hypoxic-ischemic injury and exerts an anti-depressant-like activity, effects that likely involve multiple mechanisms in brain, and may be applied in stroke prevention. One major effect may be through an increase in mature brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a widely expressed protein in brain that plays critical roles in neuronal maintenance, and learning and memory."

Attention at this one:

"ALA activates a neuronal background rectifying potassium channel [65] leading to membrane hyperpolarization which in turn increases the magnesium block of the calcium channel associated with NMDA receptors which play a predominant role in mediating glutamate-mediated excitotoxic neuronal cell death"

And it comes out that the study concludes to have best impact are doses around just 1gr of ALA!!

"In common with several others groups, we have demonstrated the broad neuroprotective and neuroplastic potential of omega-3 injection in animal models of neurodegenerative conditions, including acute neurological injuries such as stroke and spinal cord injury (for review, see [1, 3, 97]"

"Therefore, we believe that, in light of the currently available data, the conventional recommendations of omega-3 at a dose of 1 g/day of ALA, or 0.750–1 g/day of EPA + DHA, may offer therapeutic benefit in patients at risk of cardiovascular diseases. It is also noteworthy that these doses are without adverse effects."

"Choosing healthy foods may be a challenge, underlying the importance of identifying natural products with health benefit, like ALA that is a nonproprietary, naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acid contained in foodstuffs. ALA has anti-inflammatory and other potential beneficial properties and, based on the weight of available data, may reduce stroke risk, size, and/or consequences."


Alpha-Linolenic Acid: An Omega-3 Fatty Acid with Neuroprotective Properties—Ready for Use in the Stroke Clinic?



We know pufas in general specially in the way they're abused in modern diets are detrimental; in fact this is actually known -not for the average joe yet- by well knowledgable sectors beyond Peat lands. But is not all that black and white, and it seems the key a balancing dose in overall context.

I have yet to see from all the ton of studies posted by haidut, ANY that states any detrimental effects at these doses. Because it looks like theres evidence for beneficial ones, and the trade-off appears to be dose dependant.

Please note this is only about alpha-linolenic-acid, not fish oil or supplements of any type.

If they are metabolised and removed quickly it helps I'm sure,PUFA/ALA has been known to thin blood I believe,this can help with clotting just like many other poisonous substances can.
The anti depressant effect is probably mania and increasing bdnf does not equal good in all cases.
These effects could be from lowering of inflammation from metabolising ALA.

The problem with the omega/fish oil apologists on here is they never provide a conclusive argument against Peats articles,it's ends up being my studies against yours.
This is the least that could be done when posting about PUFA rather than the long winded way of saying here are some alternative studies,the entire book on longevity which is the memoirs of a fish oil apologists imo criticises PUFA in one aspect then recommends the use of fish oils,within this book they make big assumptions and pivotal points and create the narrative off of this.

The bigger problem is using studies making measurements around the the permeability of the cell mebrane when PUFA is involved,the testing methods for these measurements are questionable and open to the researches personal interpretation ,reminds me of the fancy names given to SSRI's like Peat mentioned,they were trying to sound like they knew what's was happening at that level.

 

[Agent207]

The problem with the omega/fish oil apologists on here is they never provide a conclusive argument against Peats articles,it's ends up being my studies against yours.
This is the least that could be done when posting about PUFA rather than the long winded way of saying here are some alternative studies,the entire book on longevity which is the memoirs of a fish oil apologists imo criticises PUFA in one aspect then recommends the use of fish oils,within this book they make big assumptions and pivotal points and create the narrative off of this.

The bigger problem is using studies making measurements around the the permeability of the cell mebrane when PUFA is involved,the testing methods for these measurements are questionable and open to the researches personal interpretation ,reminds me of the fancy names given to SSRI's like Peat mentioned,they were trying to sound like they knew what's was happening at that level.

The same kind or argument shown by you against this study? this effect is "probably" because...., that other "could be" from..., the method used is "questionable"... you mean rock-solid arguments like those?

I bolded this was not about fish oil, its about ALA. I'm not against Peat's main point so no need to argue against it, Im just suggesting the net effect of ala may be dose dependant. All the studies that Peats references are about higher doses of pufa, and there's evidence out there that doesn't support his personal conclusion that closer to 0 = better.

Are you comparing the SSRI's and other pharma drugs to some ALA containing foods like walnuts or hemp seeds? is the walnut industry you are concerned off?

I'm sure,PUFA/ALA has been known to thin blood I believe,this can help with clotting just like many other poisonous substances can.

Oh what a novelty argument, never seen here!! So, if "x" effect can be mediated by substances that are "poisonous" > anything that promotes that effect is de-facto discarded since it could be poison too. Great argument, I didn't expect to argue with such brilliantness.

Could you enlight me with any example of a poison of those, that is present in human breast milk? otherwise I would appreciate you'd avoid to turn this into a classical fallacy-fight.

 

[Giraffe]

And it comes out that the study concludes to have best impact are doses around just 1gr of ALA!!

You would have to try very hard to avoid PUFA, to not hit "just 1gr of ALA.." For example, one quart of whole milk (3.25 % fat) contains 732 mg ALA, this is almost 40% of the PUFA content of the milk.

Milk, whole, 3.25% milkfat Nutrition Facts & Calories
Bovine milk in human nutrition – a review

I have not read the whole review article, but I gather that the 1gr is referring to cardiovascular disease, and this is based on the flawed assumption that LDL is a risk factor for heart disease. They even write in that review that this "has been recently challenged by a meta-analysis concluding that increasing ALA intake may only produce modest cardioprotection [49]".
Also see this post.

Could you enlight me with any example of a poison of those, that is present in human breast milk? otherwise I would appreciate you'd avoid to turn this into a classical fallacy-fight.

The "human breast milk argument" is lame. The PUFA content of the milk is reflective of the mother's present and past diet. This was already discussed here, a thread you have started.

Baby's are born with "EFA deficiency," indicated by the presence of Mead acid, 20:3(n-9). Go figure!

Regarding Mead acid:

Ordinarily, in biochemistry and physiology the inhibition of an enzyme is taken as a suggestion of toxicity, but when the point of reference is the idea of the goodness of PUFA, the activity of an intrinsic enzyme is taken to be evidence of harm, and its inhibition (by PUFA) is taken to be the proper, healthful situation. The enzyme that produces the Mead fatty acid is strongly inhibited by PUFA seed oils (less strongly by fish oils), and so the presence of the Mead acid in the tissues is taken as evidence that the animal is suffering damage resulting from the absence of PUFA. The Mead acid happens to have some valuable anti-inflammatory effects, and is associated with many biological advantages, but research in that direction is prevented by the lack of funding. -- RP

Suitable Fats, Unsuitable Fats: Issues in Nutrition

 

[bohogirl]

Flaxseed oil always seemed to help my skin and acne.

 

[Agent207]

You would have to try very hard to avoid PUFA, to not hit "just 1gr of ALA.." For example, one quart of whole milk (3.25 % fat) contains 732 mg ALA, this is almost 40% of the PUFA content of the milk.

Milk, whole, 3.25% milkfat Nutrition Facts & Calorieshe
Bovine milk in human nutrition – a review

Sure, if you account on pastured beef. Grain feed, you can see an average of 133mg ALA, calculated for a quart of 3.25% milkfat. (Not to mention not everyone drinks 1 quart of full fat milk daily).

"Table2 shows no significant change to the overall concentration of n-6 FAs between feeding regimens, although grass-fed beef consistently shows a higher concentrations of n-3 FAs as compared to grain-fed contemporaries, creating a more favorable n-6:n-3 ratio. There are a number of studies that report positive effects of improved n-3 intake on CVD and other health related issues discussed in more detail in the next section."
A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef

I bet for most Peat disciples, grass feed will be worse; same n-6, more n-3 = higher overall PUFA content = BAD. Am I right on this, Giraffe?

Also, you better get it raw; I guess you know what happens to O3 when food is processed at temperatures of 160 °F and higher.

The "human breast milk argument" is lame. The PUFA content of the milk is reflective of the mother's present and past diet. This was already discussed here, a thread you have started.

I know that thread very well, and don't think is a lame in that I reject anything in breast milk to be a "poison" for an adult, ever. Sure mothers diet reflects in their milk but with a limited margin. Theres will be always some ala, even in those who ate most saturated or little O3. The same theres always other ones, like lauric acid, even though the mother had consumed none.

Baby's are born with "EFA deficiency," indicated by the presence of Mead acid, 20:3(n-9). Go figure!

Regarding Mead acid:

Suitable Fats, Unsuitable Fats: Issues in Nutrition

Peat says there no exists such EFA deficiency in any person (baby is a person) and sees mead acid as antiinflamatory. Is a bit contradictory to look for pufa depletion and admit any EFA deficiency scenario. I personally don't think healthy babies from healthy mothers are born with deficiency of anything.

 

[Drareg]

The same kind or argument shown by you against this study? this effect is "probably" because...., that other "could be" from..., the method used is "questionable"... you mean rock-solid arguments like those?

I bolded this was not about fish oil, its about ALA. I'm not against Peat's main point so no need to argue against it, Im just suggesting the net effect of ala may be dose dependant. All the studies that Peats references are about higher doses of pufa, and there's evidence out there that doesn't support his personal conclusion that closer to 0 = better.

Are you comparing the SSRI's and other pharma drugs to some ALA containing foods like walnuts or hemp seeds? is the walnut industry you are concerned off?



Oh what a novelty argument, never seen here!! So, if "x" effect can be mediated by substances that are "poisonous" > anything that promotes that effect is de-facto discarded since it could be poison too. Great argument, I didn't expect to argue with such brilliantness.

Could you enlight me with any example of a poison of those, that is present in human breast milk? otherwise I would appreciate you'd avoid to turn this into a classical fallacy-fight.

You speak of many terms besides ALA several times in the original post with words like "omega 3 fatty acids" ,"EPA and DHA","PUFA.

The kind of argument I have is what I stated,you are creating an argument against Peats views without refuting anything,this is my point to you, I'm not wasting my time with random strung together studies to come to the conclusions we have many times on the forum about points of view. My questions are still relevant,it's clear as day that I can find many studies to support any viewpoint on PUFA or supplmentary ALA.

Serotonin is present in bananas,chocolate etc,it's in food as well as much as PUFA in walnuts. The point however was about the researches interpretations and instruments for testing creating bias.

There is evidence that does support his conclusion,closer to zero,the closer word implies something here.

The other point I put to you which you ignore which is the norm with PUFA apologists is to clarify the technique and measuring of cell fluidity/permeability,Do you think this technique is infallible?

The dosages you speak of could involve metabolism and removal without storage with enzyme suppression for positive effects,this is also discussed many times.

Soon in this thread we will here the following-
" I like Peat but don't agree with everything he says"
"I can think for myself " (while quoting other people's work)
"Peat disciples" (already stated)

 

[Giraffe]

I know that thread very well, and don't think is a lame in that I reject anything in breast milk to be a "poison" for an adult, ever. Sure mothers diet reflects in their milk but with a limited margin. Theres will be always some ala, even in those who ate most saturated or little O3. The same theres always other ones, like lauric acid, even though the mother had consumed none.

ALA would not be considered to be essential, if the body could produce it. If the mother did not consume ALA, there can not be any ALA in her breast milk.

Peat says theres no exist such EFA deficiency in any person (baby is a person) and sees mead acid as antiinflamatory. Is a bit contradictory to look for pufa depletion and admit EFA deficiency.

Peat says that there is no such thing as an EFA deficiency because in his view the omega-3s and omega-6s PUFA are not essential in the sense that the body needs them. Mead acid, by definition is not essential; it is produced in the body when it is needed (provided that the enzyme is not inhibited by PUFA from seed oils).

I personally don't think healthy babies from healthy mothers are born with deficiency of anythin.

Neither do I.

 

[Agent207]

The kind of argument I have is what I stated,you are creating an argument against Peats views without refuting anything,this is my point to you, I'm not wasting my time with random strung together studies to come to the conclusions we have many times on the forum about points of view. My questions are still relevant,it's clear as day that I can find many studies to support any viewpoint on PUFA or supplmentary ALA.

I'm just pointing to evidence that, for a fixed pufa amount, suggests if part of that -like 15-20%- comes from ALA, it seems to be positive a outcome.

"The results indicate that omega-3 fatty acids are essential for normal accumulation of erythrocyte omega-6 acids. The dietary intake of long-chain omega-3 acids required to obtain midnormal concentrations of omega-3 acids in plasma and erythrocyte lipids was estimated to be 350-400 mg/d (0.4% of calories), whereas the corresponding mean intake of alpha-linolenic acid was 990 mg/d (1.0% of calories). It is suggested that essential fatty acid requirement should be stated as grams or milligrams per day, similarly to other essential nutrients."
alpha-Linolenic acid and long-chain omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in three patients with omega-3 fatty acid deficiency: effect on lymphocyte f... - PubMed - NCBI

If you want to argue, try to grab the former sentence and fixate on it, not beating around the bush with generic arguments. Forget about Peat for a moment and if you do not like the methodology of any study or think the result was because "the planets were aligned for it" or whatever... at least try to bring evidence that supports the opposite.

I expect sources from you, not hidding underneath Peats skirt.

 

[Drareg]

I'm just pointing to evidence that, for a fixed pufa amount, suggests if part of that -like 15-20%- comes from ALA, it seems to be positive a outcome.

"The results indicate that omega-3 fatty acids are essential for normal accumulation of erythrocyte omega-6 acids. The dietary intake of long-chain omega-3 acids required to obtain midnormal concentrations of omega-3 acids in plasma and erythrocyte lipids was estimated to be 350-400 mg/d (0.4% of calories), whereas the corresponding mean intake of alpha-linolenic acid was 990 mg/d (1.0% of calories). It is suggested that essential fatty acid requirement should be stated as grams or milligrams per day, similarly to other essential nutrients."
alpha-Linolenic acid and long-chain omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in three patients with omega-3 fatty acid deficiency: effect on lymphocyte f... - PubMed - NCBI

If you want to argue, try to grab the former sentence and fixate on it, not beating around the bush with generic arguments. Forget about Peat for a moment and if you do not like the methodology of any study or think the result was because "the planets were aligned for it" or whatever... at least try to bring evidence that supports the opposite.

I expect sources from you, not hidding underneath Peats skirt.

It's not a generic argument,if it was a generic argument you would have answered the questions put to you.
Please remember you started the thread to engage discussion and now get upset with questions or are you another blogger just posting your stream of consciousness? It's you who should be refuting Peat here article by article.
The reason I say blogger is that they rarely engage Peat with their ideas that contradict his,instead they post it on the Ray peat forum? This I don't get,if you feel he is wrong present your work to him ,I'm sure he will find it stimulating if it's worth reading.

How is Peat not a source? He's not reductionist enough for you?
read his articles on PUFA and please refute them,your hiding under the skirt of cherry picked research. This forum must contain hundreds of PUFA studies at this point,how much more evidence do you want?
I read what is posted on PUFA with no bias,I'm keen to see if anyone can conclusively refute Peats articles,instead what I see is mainly incoherent ramblings with studies attached.
It seems consistent with threads styled like this that they must give the impression of superiority to Peat all the while refuting nothing conclusively,all you have to do is make yours much longer with more studies to appear authoritive on the topic and you will get some "fans".

You are ignorant to the researchers bias on essential fatty acids,most research is searching for "good/positive" effects, most of the money is going to studies that search for good,this is classic reductionist as with the angle of your thread.
For example the study you posted,the researches start with the bias of "essential fatty acid deficiency".


Here are 2 more studies to add to your refutation of Peat,there cherry picked obviously.
Effect of fatty acids on rat liver nuclear T3-receptor binding. - PubMed - NCBI
[Malignant melanoma and its precursors (author's transl)]. - PubMed - NCBI

Sincerely yours,
Peat disciple Padre Drareg.

 

[Agent207]

I currently looking on research info for myself, rather than relying on opinions from no one.

But Im digging on a more specific detail here. Influence on n-6: n-3 ratio within a fixed moderate pufa intake. Is that hard to get? Your only defense is keeping on saying like a parrot "refute Peat, refute Peat, refute Peat..." you got stuck on that or you are unable to understand the SPECIFIC ISSUE I'm pointint here.

Again, can you bring me any evidence from Peat or whotever on this SPECIFIC subjetc? Anything that points out that for a fixed PUFA amount theres no difference or outcomes by LA:ALA ratio?

Im not coming here and happily telling you.. hey, I don't want to know about, refute Kruse, Asprey, the guy from 30bananasaday, [insert your favourite health guru here]. No, I just bring info on a specific subject, and if anyone has a source that points to different outcomes -on THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE remember, n6:n3 ratio- then welcome.

 

[Drareg]

I currently looking on research info for myself, rather than relying on opinions from no one.

But Im digging on a more specific detail here. Influence on n-6: n-3 ratio within a fixed moderate pufa intake. Is that hard to get? Your only defense is keeping on saying like a parrot "refute Peat, refute Peat, refute Peat..." you got stuck on that or you are unable to understand the SPECIFIC ISSUE I'm pointint here.

Again, can you bring me any evidence from Peat or whotever on this SPECIFIC subjetc? Anything that points out that for a fixed PUFA amount theres no difference or outcomes by LA:ALA ratio?

Im not coming here and happily telling you.. hey, I don't want to know about, refute Kruse, Asprey, the guy from 30bananasaday, [insert your favourite health guru here]. No, I just bring info on a specific subject, and if anyone has a source that points to different outcomes -on THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE remember, n6:n3 ratio- then welcome.

Opinions from no one? but research from others,essentially biased opinions in many cases like I mentioned. You jump through all the cliches hoops others do with comments like this.
Keep in mind you still answered none of my questions.
Clarify how I am stuck on saying refute Peat? This is what you and the other PUFA apologist try to do with cherry picked regurgitated studies and cherry picked anecdotes from this forum like claiming every body is obsessed with getting PUFA to zero? You try to sound more intellegible thanPeat with usual cliched responses and straw mans against Peat.
You and the other cliched PUFA apologist follow the same line of reasoning,you ignore the huge amount of anecdotes on here where people have recovered health by followind methods that reduce,resaturate and in some cases like haidut claim to have eliminated them and they still are in good health countering your study.
The obvious other studies posted by Peat you ignore and of course you don't see him as a source as he doesn't fit you bias.

The overall problem I am speaking of is the lack of research showing more negative outcomes of what you are posting,the lack of research is because nobody will fund it or do not have the interest,how can we provide more to refute it?
You prove nothing with the study you posted,none of you who claim they are essential have proved nothing conclusively,it's a study exchange.

If you do have a complete picture by all means post it,currently you have nothing,the point the of posting on this forum in particular is redundant until their is a sincere complete picture you understand instead of the cheap arguments that others don't understand.
This is the same for other PUFA apologists,get more together than an argument what can in the end be put down to cherry picked research in an area of research that is without question biased both financially and perceptually,then post IMO.
Stop trying to sound smarter than Peat,none of you currently are,you really aren't.