Dietary DHA and Dosing Considerations

"Moderate steady supply" needs to be defined if possible (and I think it is define-able). I only gave this a short treatment in my article, under the section 'Dietary Dosing' -- http://tanyewwei.com/blog/dha/#dietary-dosing:be30353b6977b7107e48806b5457b119

(Please read that section in full. It's only 10 paragraphs long)

And BTW, when you say:

Some others here were using your journal and experiences as an opportunity to again question any role of seafood and DHA in humans in favor of the Peatatarian position, which is why I made the observations I did. ​

I have to state as objective fact that there are populations who thrive on little to no seafood. @bio-fractal-soul-self has gone into deep detail about this. Also consider my short set of notes in the 'Dietary Dosing' section I just linked to regarding sources of DHA.

Seafood isn't the only source of DHA and other nutrients found in seafood; I am perfectly comfortable in saying that enough DHA and other nutrients are available from terrestrial sources for anyone other than pregnant mothers and infants (who should be drinking breast milk).

I am not saying that "seafood is bad". It is nutrient dense, and I fucking love seafood, and would eat it if I could just because of the taste. But I will be objective and say that it is not required to meet nutrient requirements.

Bio-fracal, and anyone supposedly holding the "Peat-arian position" never said "no seafood". The recommendation is specifically for limited PUFAs.

DHA is like any other PUFA, except that it has 6-double bonds, which allow it to be "the most powerful" PUFA. The fact that 24:6n-3 performs almost the same as 22:6n-3 (DHA) again shows that the function of DHA lies specifically in its 6 C=C double bond characteristic. (Both 22:6n-3 and 24:6n-3 seem to show similar positioning of double bonds, and thus would form the same spatial arrangement of those double bonds. Crawford would call this a dual-planar structure where the pi-orbitals are aligned)

----

Newbies

As for "Newbies", I think anything I say is properly qualified, and any recommendations with regard to avoiding harm are clearly spelled out.

I have also said multiple times that what I do is not advice for what other people should do.

Even then, whatever recommendations that I make are very clear. A statement like "Avoid PUFAs" is simple enough to understand. If you want elaboration on why I say that, my method of laying out that elaboration is not more difficult that what is laid out on the main blog. I can't see how it is unfair for me to post what I have posted, and have it mis-construed as "confusing for Newbies".

I repeat, if anyone wants to take my writings into consideration, you do so at your risk, to your benefit. Quoting myself (http://tanyewwei.com/geyan/20150421-advice/)

My Advice is Mine. Your Successes are Yours
I like to give unsolicted advice. That advice is my own. People can choose to take my advice or not. Their successes and their failures are their own.​

----

Being Specific

I eschew statements like:

But as a clinican who uses PET scans routinely, I have a hard time accepting that study you quote as the final-word on DHA metabolism for a number of technical reasons. But nonetheless, there has to be some limit per unit time. Agreed.

There is evidence of DHA facilitating the speed of neural firing in the biology literature from people who have never heard of and likely can't spell "QED," for what its worth. The value of DHA in basic neuroscience has substantial support.​

If there is evidence, show me that evidence, and then we can begin a discussion about what that evidence means in detail, and whether or not it falsifies the mechanisms that I have put forth.

We all agree that DHA is absolutely needed in the brain (or at least some equivalent PUFA, but I doubt there is any other practical option outside of DHA).

The question is what exactly does DHA do, and to that, we have to speculate, but we can still make informed speculations.

Does DHA facilitate the speed of neural firing? We can definitely say that DHA helps in cholesterol and protein transport, and thus help put in place all the melanin, the myelin, etc ... so that neurons have the conditions needed for proper function. That DHA needs to be constantly around likely because there is constant turnover of these other components.

But is DHA a site of energy transfer? No, because it will clearly become oxidised and harmful if it was. I speculate that this is exactly the case in diseases like Alzhiemer's disease, whereby we do see increases in DHA-breakdown products, along side the reduction of DHA in particular brain regions.

Note however the study, 'Decreases in Phospholipids Containing Adrenic and Arachidonic Acids Occur in the Human Hippocampus over the Adult Lifespan' (Hancock et. al., 2015) -- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-015-4030-z

Quote:

Increases with age were seen in the hippocampus for mitochondrial phosphatidylserine 18:0_22:6. This is the first report of changes to molecular phospholipids of the human hippocampus over the adult lifespan, with this study also providing a comprehensive profile of the phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidylserine phospholipids of the human hippocampus.​

That's increased mitochondrial DHA in the mitochondria of the hippocampus with aging. Not good, and it's a sign of dys-regulation happening with age, likely due to poorer brain energetics.

That that light, "brain energetics" is likely the most important factor here. You want prompt recycling of sub-optimal brain components, and high amounts of ATP for all sorts of functions, like CaMKII recycling (which requires ATP to "unfold" into its active state) and keeping all the Aquaporin channels working.

The brain is probably even more dependent on the highly energised, high ATP, high substrate-utilisation state, than any other organ out there. It's function is primarily a function of the amount of energy it can get, and NOT a function of the amount of DHA in the brain. It's the other way round -- high energy states allow for the use of DHA, and low energy states create the conditions where DHA is harmful (along with all sorts of other failures. I am not blaming DHA for the problems of low brain energy)

Sidenote: and yes, this is a whole other discussion involving glucose, lactate, and ketones. I fall into the "glucose or ketones" is best camp for now, as opposed to the "lactate is best" camp, but that's a whole other discussion.​

The manifestation of brain behaviour may be complex, but we can tear things apart and attempt to look at reliable ways to reproduce disease and health states. ie: I can specifically say "this compound is likely not needed", or "this behaviour is likely to break the system".


----

"n=1" Precautions -- What is harmful is harmful. What is health-ful is self-discovered

I also am wary of taking the "n=1" idea too far. We have to be specific with these statements.

Just like Arsenic is poisonous to cells, PUFAs are going to slow metabolism at any dose beyond essentiality.

PUFAs, DHA included (and sometimes, especially DHA), will hinder mitochondrial Complex 1 activity. The only exception seems to be the mitochondrial in cardiac myocytes, but those are in a unique organ (the heart oxidises fatty acids preferentially, and can do well with any fuel basically)

I am very specific in that last paragraph -- PUFAs in mitochondrial membranes are not good. This says nothing about PUFAs in eukaryotic cell membranes, where there is probably an optimal value.

However, in almost all tissues, mitochondrial DHA concentrations increase with increasing free PUFAs floating around the bloodstream. It is in the interest of good health to not have high levels of free floating PUFAs, DHA included.

NOTE: When well-regulated, DHA isn't floating around in free fatty acid form, and neither is it in chylomicrons. DHA in it's proper transport form is specifically bound to Lysophosphatidylcholine, which must be produced in the liver in regulated amounts, and which then binds to DHA in the liver for transport to the tissues which need it.

Now, where "n=1" will come into play is in answering a question like: Although PUFAs are harmful, how much can I tolerate without causing myself any significant harm?

Just like some people can tolerate a WiFi router in front of their face for 30 minutes without negative impact, and other people get a headache (or worse) in 5 mins, the same holds true for PUFA dosing. Doesn't change the fact that WiFi is harmful to your health, just like it doesn't change the fact that more than 1g of PUFA a day is unneeded, but the individual tolerance will vary.

----

I concern myself with failure cases, and being robust against failure cases. ie:

(a) What happens when you can't maintain the internal environment needed?
(b) How can you do your best to maintain a robust internal environment that is resistant to stressors?

I have already given an answer to (a) in the context of DHA -- dys-resgulation of systems favours net negative outcomes and degradation patterns of DHA. Isoprostanes, neuroprostanes, and other eicosanoids are formed, with very negative impacts on the body. This is what we see in brain diseases, and I fully endorse environmental causes such as nn-EMF and excessive blue light.

My personal quest for the answer to (b) has been the experiment with PUFA-depletion, whereby the real end goal is increased metabolism (more ability to process energetic substate). This has been very successful thus far

....

 

All the more that in a stressful condition like what you live in, that DHA cannot be handled well

I have different thoughts on Ubiquitination. The the idea of reducing protein turnover is not conducive to dealing with stressful environments.

It is precisely in stressful environments whereby you must do either one of 2 things:

(a) Conserve energy, reduce energy expenditure, and do not meet the stressors head on. This is "natural" way of dealing with the stressors of winter.
(b) Have enough energy to deal with the stressors.

If you have the option for (a), great! But people today do not have the option of (a) any more, which is what @Josh (Paleo Osteo) is saying, and which is why strategies have to be tweaked. That means a reduction in PUFA load (including DHA), when under massive stress. Stress mitigation (nn-EMF, circadian rhythms, emotional turmoil, etc) must also be done.

-----

My disagreements with the Ubiquitination series lie in the fundamental assumption that the cell is controlled by itself, in a bottom-up fashion.

I talk about why the body does not work in this fashion in this post -- https://forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/take-it-slow.9428/page-51#post-185100

There is both bottom-up and top-down control in the body. Collections of cells are more intelligent than single cells, organs are more intelligent than collections of cells, and the body is a unified intelligence in some fashion. (and of course, this extends to groups of people, and some would say even the entire Universe , but that's a separate discussion altogether).

Regardless, Guenter Albretch-Buehler's work on Cell Intelligence clearly shows that cells are capable of collective intelligence (http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM)

"Colletive Intelligence" here means being able to use the inputs of all components to come to a good decision, and that includes decisions of how to replace a cell in the body perfectly (no defects). Therefore, provided enough energy (cells use red light from mitochondria to signal), these decisions become efficient, and preferred. ie: if you have enough energy, you can and will want to replace cells and turnover proteins, so that optimal function is achieved.

Once you understand that, then articles like this make logical sense, 'Don’t Be Conned By The Resveratrol Scam' -- http://doctorsaredangerous.com/articles/dont_be_conned_by_the_resveratrol_scam.htm

.....

 

PUFA Depletion Update [Fri-22-Jan-2016]

After about a month on PUFA depletion, the results have been very good

Meridian testing has showed up consistent positive in places where they used to be incoherent, energy levels are good, and stress resilience has been very good. I say this against the backdrop of having to work multiple full-time jobs. I'm a software developer, so that basically means much more computer time, and less activity. 12 hours of work a day in front of the computer isn't uncommon

Yet despite that, metabolic rate is improving drastically , which again, is the primary goal of this experiment. I have been eating between 2500-3000kcal a day, and have been losing fat . In mid December, I was around 75.5-76.0kg, with a 78cm waist measurement. Today I am 73.5kg, with a 76cm waist measurement.

Some pictures of current body composition from this morning:
- http://tanyewwei.com/pics/bodycomp/20160122-front.jpg
- http://tanyewwei.com/pics/bodycomp/20160122-side.jpg

Overall very satisfied. Good energy and maintenance of muscle mass while losing fat and doing little to no exercise outside of riding my bike to buy food (all I'm doing other than that are DNS movement drills to ensure proper neuro-muscular coordination and some flexibility training on the side).

The experiment continues .

....

 

Wow cool resveratrol article!

 

313 mg EPA
688 mg DHA

 

​

Looking quickly at the PET scan study you referenced to quantify rate of DHA incorporation into the brain:

1. The study referenced used synthesized, not natural DHA.

2. The DHA was nonspecific as far as sn-position.

3. The DHA was altered by the incorporation of a radioactive carbon atom (which is standard procedure in PET, of course, but could affect neural assimilation).

4. The DHA was administered intravenously (also standard for PET, but brings up issues related to normal gut processing that occurs when eating seafood).

5. Scans were taken one hour after a massive IV nuclear-labeled IV DHA bolus, which could be likened to “DHA-supplementation on speed,” a highly unnatural method of delivery, molecular formulation, rate of entry into bloodstream—all confounding variables.

6. Subjects were fasting 12h prior to the scan, which again may alter the subjects’ overall biochemical state. (In the natural state, a person eats to obtain DHA, which changes metabolism in multiple ways.)

7. Subjects were in a high-stress unnatural environment, (overnight in a hospital with venous and arterial catheters in place followed by an intimidating nuclear-medicine imaging study) which can also alter biochemistry through multiple mechanisms.

8. Results obtained over one hour were extrapolated to entire day, ignoring sleep, circadian and other factors that could be relevant to longer-term rates of absorption.

9. There is a significant amount of complex mathematical modeling and error correction calculation that was necessary to obtain results, introducing a significant possibility of error.

10. It was a small study of specially-selected "healthy people." (Maybe unhealthy people take up DHA faster (or slower) than healthy people--who knows?)

So, in short, I don't know what to do with the information obtained in this study, so I prefer to just ignore it. The truth is quite elusive. Discovery of "full-context truth" is not even in the top 10-list of things to consider when people go about "doing science" nowadays. That, I have seen firsthand. So, I tend to make practical decisions based on my own rational full-context best-speculation considering everything I know, rather than focusing on meticulously orchestrated "scientific" myopic micro-analysis of isolated fragments. It works for me. If what you are doing is working for you, I am happy about it. I really am. I think there are many unknowns in all of this and we each must find our own path to health and happiness.

 

I read your blog last night Yew, top to bottom. Terrific and thought provoking stuff all around, but your posting on DHA is a real tour de force. I know you and Jack have only spoken of each other in the friendliest and most glowing terms of mutual admiration, yet it is clear to all that you have come to very divergent positions regarding the importance of DHA in sustaining and enhancing human health and longevity. I should say you are almost diametrically opposed. None familiar with Jack's work can doubt the centrality that this molecule plays within the framewok of his theory; once I believe, referring to it, alongside water, as "The only essential human nutrient"
I believe I speak for many here when I say that it is time now that Jack respond in detail to the meticulously researched and thoughtfully composed posting that Yew has given us. Silence will only breed discord. I acknowlege that differences of opinion along with critical and probing inquiries are inevitable, if not desireable in a healthy and thriving body of earnest and intelligent people, but the schism I see opening here threatens to divide, and thus invariably weaken the community. And I blieve we all know how precarious our position remains, how valuable the message we carry, how fleeting is our time, and how desirable, indespensable, is our unity.

 

Study Specific Critique

Good critique of this study. Some counterpoints .....

Point (1) about synthesised DHA with Carbon-11 is well taken. I was wondering if this lighter molecule would be more easily transported or harder to transport. I have some ideas, but the analysis needed brings up the methods of Miles Mathis (it's the only model right now that has a possible explanation), and the relevant channeling capacity of the so-called "pi-orbitals" when there is one less neutron present in Carbon. My hunch is less impeded charge channels, and thus a higher effectiveness of DHA's usual actions. What this means I do not know

Point (2) about glycerol backbone position is usually only relevant in dietary intake scenarios. Brain transport is largely controlled by MFSD2A taking up DHA in esterified form -- specifically, esterified to Lysophosphatidylcholine (LysoPC), to which the process is regulated by the liver and other organs. Most DHA in food sources (>80% of total fatty acids) is not bound to LysoPC, and thus allows free regulation by the body. In this sense, the un-specificity of the glycerol backbone position is likely a minor factor; in either case (this study or natural dietary route), DHA is subject to heavy endogenous regulation.

Point (4) about intravenous input usually increases availability of DHA, and reduces the amount of DHA breakdown products present.

Relatedly, point (6) about fasting would serve to increase available of non-oxidised DHA. (I have cited studies in my articles showing significant rates of DHA oxidation when eaten in mixed meals)

Point (5) regarding "a massive IV nuclear-labeled IV DHA bolus" is also true after a large single bout of dietary DHA, so there is utility in studying this case.

Agree with Point (7). But if it true that an unnatural environment effects DHA incorporation in any way, then this becomes realistic under the stressful conditions that most people face.

Regarding point (10), I have contended that "unhealthy" people will have dys-regulated control of DHA. There is an optimal rate of uptake into the brain, and both too much or too little are equally big problems. Whatever the case, having more free-floating DHA when it's regulation is compromised is a bigger problem than having too little IMO (this is due to the incredibly volatile nature of the Fatty Acid, for reasons I've already explained). I thus err on the side of caution -- lower dose (50-100mg at a time), more frequent bouts -- in a scenario where DHA is dys-regulated.

Agree with the rest of the points .

----
What to do?

I have already stated my holistic view of what to do under real-life scenarios. This is but one study, and one which has some merit given the commentary I just gave.

Even if this study was completely false, the rest of my concerns are yet to be disproved, and all hold practical concern preferring the dosing recommendations that I have made.

Thanks! And I hope so

.....

 

Jack has already spoken................It is crystal clear what nature prefers.........Yew has moved to the equator which lessens his need........so he now is enthralled with the idea to see how low he can go and follow the Peats of the world. Go for it. And when he is done I hope he goes back to Melbourne or to Japan with his brother and redoes the bio hack so he can see it is the UV/IR part of the story that varies DHA levels in tissues. That is the point no one seems to get........

 

I get it Jack and have experienced it as well.when the nnemf was high I felt the need to eat more Dha.now after 1 year of avoiding blue light and after 5 months of getting plenty of sun I don't feel the need to eat as much dha.
I live at a place where there is plenty of uv year round.
Presently the uv index is 8.

 

This is excellent point. Latitude (UV/IR ) makes big difference.

I meant to raise issue of relocation for Yew, to be back with family, even if that would mean that he would have to eat occasional can of sardines once a month or less frequently.
I sense that Yew is missing his family.
------------------------------------------------------
This discussion provides good opportunity to quantify person's need for seafood.
And acceptable method of testing.
From what I can gather, except in few rare cases, one can always expect excess of DHA at the cost of AA.
Deficiency of DHA is rare, deficiency of AA is raging.

That does not take away from everybody realizing that DHA is very important to our biology.

------------------------------------------------------
Cairns Australia latitude 16.9256° S
Melbourne, Australia latitude 37 47 S
Parsippany NJ latitude 40.8596° N
Virginia Beach VA latitude 36.8506° N
Nashville 36.1667° N
New Orleans 29.9500° N

...
Note;
Yesterday, on the radio I have heard musician from Iceland complaining about day length when she moved to Australia close to equator. Similar to my story when I moved to Brazil for a year.

/

 

Jan,
I though Arachidonic Acid is present in seafood and meat and eggs etc? Why would we get too little you think?
I sometimes get an urge to have lots of egg yolks.. and then I eat as many as I want.... maybe my body wants some AA?

 

Eating and getting it into your blood are to different actions.
Presence of excessive DHA and EPA causes suppression of AA.
It does not work the other way.
That is presence of excessive AA would not suppress DHA or EPA.

//

 

okay thanks for the clarification! Did not know that..
I just kinda eat... what I feel like eating...and what I get from my environment here around.. what I have at home.. which is mostly seafood.. and go on with life
I am trusting when I eat real food my body will sort it out somehow? I am not very clever I guess....

 

Maybe that is another reason why it is a bad idea to do fish oils......because they have no AA? Like real seafood has?
I think the nature have made the foods we find in our environment just perfect.... it has everything we need

 

great stuff. confusion in this thread is clearing out slowly
No wonder I am living well on mainly fatty seafood and I crave it... but I live and have always been living... like a ice bear..lol okay not really, but... far north anyways!

I have to say I kinda prefer cooler temps tho! Maybe because my ancestors lived like this and I am blue eyed and fair skinned and adapted to it so well

 

I'm cold adapted for the winter too and listening to my body and it tells me to eat a lot of DHA and that started late last fall, once it began to turn cooler. So, I went with it and now that's pretty much my main staple here. I'll take oysters over steak for now, as long as I'm living like a polar bear.

 

As a slight counter example, I noticed no difference when I massively increased DHA years ago. I have dropped it for now and will see if I notice any difference in a months time.

 

@Inger I noticed the same too! I usually eat lots of seafood and then at times will get a great craving for egg yolks! Yum! I didn't know they would have AA...

I have started to eat a lot of seaweed everyday now - 3 oz of kelp - and now I don't seem to want to eat salmon a lot the way I used to... instead I seem to be interested in more and other types of seaweed!

I also noticed I want lots of sulfury veggies like onions and asparagus.

On a day when it's very cloudy I tend to want blood sausage and feel totally turned off to carbs. When it's sunnier I'm way more open to having veggies or chocolate.

I tried out 100g carb by eating some dates on a day when it was cloudy did not feel good AT ALL... other sunny days I tried a date and it felt ok... I think I have a certain 'carb tolerance' and I can tell when I reach it because I start to feel a bit hot in my face in a subtle way.

 

Inger one last point for you to learn in this thread..........Scandinavians have a back door way to get more UVB and more particle effect of the PE effect........HOW? Live above 5000 ft sea level but make sure you are grounded. The Swiss have known this for 500 yrs. As you go higher and remain connected UVB exposure is increased. This is why Malbec grapes is loaded with the Fluorophore resveratrol which absorbs ideally at 312 nm which is deep into the UV spectrum. Most grapes in Mendoza are 12,000 -16,000 feet and this why Argentina is special. It is also why Northern Europe has ways to hack UV light.