Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 M. et al, I've read through the Burr & Burr studies and some other references on omega-3 requirements, and I'm convinced that the n-3 requirements for most people are very low (less than 1%) presuming they are following the WAPF diet. However, I wonder if those requirements change if the person is dealing with an inflammatory condition? I have Crohn's disease and I've read a lot of research which shows that n-3 FAs reduce Crohn's related information. However, it's likely that most of the people in this study were consuming high amounts of n-6 FAs, so there's not much way to tell if the n-3 benefit was simply due to offsetting the negative effect of the n-6 FAs or if there is some additional anti-inflammatory effect of the n-3 FAs. I believe you mentioned in a previous post that the n-3s aren't anti-inflammatory per se. More accurately, they interfere with the toxic effects of excessive n-6 metabolites. If someone's n-6 intake is very low, is there any reason to suspect that n-3 FAs would have an anti-inflammatory effect? It doesn't seem like it, but I just wanted to check in case there's a biochemical mechanism I'm not aware of. K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.