Humans survive on quite a wide range of dietary fat sources and composition. I stopped supplementing with fish oil after realizing there’s lots of “science” and few facts.
Total O3: 10.2% -> 16.5%
DPA: 1.2% -> 3.2%
EPA: 3.4% -> 4.3%
DHA: 5.4% -> 9.2%
I don't have a "before" on the standard american diet, but IIRC the average american has an omega6:3 ratio of about 15-20:1.
I’m not trying to prove a point except this: People who have no regard to dietary DHA and consume no fish don’t exhibit any of the problems claimed in articles and by nutritionists. I’ve been vegan for 20 years for example and my skin is fine, I don’t supplement DHA, I don’t have dementia or other health problems.
This contrasts pretty strongly with homocysteine/B12 deficiency or iron deficiency. There’s no good evidence that a clinical syndrome of DHA deficiency even exists. Whenever I dig into studies serum levels are all over the place.
There’s quite a lot to be suspect of here. The conclusions drawn from our limited understanding of fatty acid metabolism just doesn’t match reality.
How/where did you get tested?
Going by this review, I would say that supplementation does work:
https://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/pdf/2005/05/r5505.p...
EDIT: I confused Omega 3 <> Omega 6, corrected.
Twice as much omega-3 means eliminating olive oil, soy, most nuts, and many other foods. Or, alternatively, downing a pint or so of flax seed every day.
> This finding suggests that when animal foods are wholly excluded from the diet, the endogenous production of EPA and DHA results in low but stable plasma concentrations of these fatty acids.
> Unfortunately, the body cannot produce DHA on its own, and it must be acquired through the diet.
So is Rhonda waaaaay behind the times re: that 14-year old paper? Or are the levels described in that paper negligible? Or did I misinterpret something, or what?