Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Warning for persons with CHF
Okay, I put a contradiction tag in this section because its two paragraphs seem to be in contradiction to each other. The first says that if you have CHF, don't use it, then the next one sounds like it could help a person with CHF. The combined message is, "Don't use it, but it is good for you." So which is it? 75.191.135.245 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've now restored the section to an older version since it was thoroughly damaged by apparently inexperienced Wikipedia editors. I've also removed the unsourced contradicting statement and moving it here: This advice has been updated in favour of ω−3 intake by UK's medical committee, NICE.[citation needed] Someone needs to look into this contradicting claim, and re-add it with details only if a source is available. --AB (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ω−3 or n−3
A while back I changed the article to consistently use "ω−3" and so on, but that was likely an unreasonable decision on my part. Almost all the references I've seen in this article use n−3 or some variant, so I'm thinking we should just consistently use that (since that's what the IUPAC recommendation I posted above actually says, contrary to how I misread it). I'm gonna change the article to use n terminology. I think that'll be less jarring. If anyone disagrees with me on any of these issues, feel free to completely override me; I won't argue. —Werson (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Academic or industry naming conventions should be followed. Thank you for all your edits. --AB (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Effect of supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids and micronutrients on learning and behavior problems associated with child ADHD.
'For the first fifteen weeks of this study, the children were given polyunsaturated fatty acids (n−3 and n−6, 3000 mg a day)' According to http://fatsoflife.com/pufa/article.asp?edition=arch&nid=1&id=460 's write-up on the study, 'Children were asked to consume 6 capsules/day, providing a total daily supplement of 558 mg EPA, 174 mg DHA and 60 mg GLA.' Does anyone have access to the full text to confirm/deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.175.18.122 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] removed fragment
I removed a sentence fragment and what followed it:
"recommend daily intakes of three n−3 forms: 650 mg of EPA and DHA, and 2.22 grams of ALA, and one n−6 form: 4.44 grams of LA. This translates to a 3:2 n−6 to n−3 ratio. (i.e. 1.5:1)"
It was unsourced and otherwise too unclear for me to complete, and the amts listed do not fit those at Dietary_Reference_Intake. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
