This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arachidonic acid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The study [1] linked for this assertion just says, that varying the linoleic acid precursor in a Western-type diet typically abundant in LA (and even lots of AA !), does not further increase AA blood levels and with extreme LA reduction AA may starts trending (sub-significantly) a little lower. This just indicates a tightly regulated control / feedback loop, besides possibly the effect of adipose fat tissue buffering over a long time, and potential chronic overload by excess preformed AA in the diet. This review study also is concerned with the opposite: "Elevated tissue AA levels are believed to be positively associated with eicosanoid formation and risk for a variety of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and inflammation. The literature expresses concern over the fact that increasing dietary LA can potentially enrich tissues with AA due to their metabolic link."
That LA to AA conversion takes places in humans is well established (many studies even show the detailed mechanisms) and there are many vegans from birth meanwhile not consuming AA.
So this assertion seems absurd, and super absurd to be drawn from that study, and should probably removed.? Kxroberto ( talk) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
That is illogical, If a creature required arachidonic acid and could not create it internally, yes they would need to eat SOME meat but they would not need to be obligate carnivores which are designed only to eat meat. They could be omnivores as well. Considering the explanation also says that humans are in this category (which the other talk point disputes), we are obviously omnivores and not obligate carnivores. So the explanation makes no sense as written, the author does not seem to understand the actual definition of 'obligate carnivore.' 70.166.33.7 ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arachidonic acid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The study [1] linked for this assertion just says, that varying the linoleic acid precursor in a Western-type diet typically abundant in LA (and even lots of AA !), does not further increase AA blood levels and with extreme LA reduction AA may starts trending (sub-significantly) a little lower. This just indicates a tightly regulated control / feedback loop, besides possibly the effect of adipose fat tissue buffering over a long time, and potential chronic overload by excess preformed AA in the diet. This review study also is concerned with the opposite: "Elevated tissue AA levels are believed to be positively associated with eicosanoid formation and risk for a variety of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and inflammation. The literature expresses concern over the fact that increasing dietary LA can potentially enrich tissues with AA due to their metabolic link."
That LA to AA conversion takes places in humans is well established (many studies even show the detailed mechanisms) and there are many vegans from birth meanwhile not consuming AA.
So this assertion seems absurd, and super absurd to be drawn from that study, and should probably removed.? Kxroberto ( talk) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
That is illogical, If a creature required arachidonic acid and could not create it internally, yes they would need to eat SOME meat but they would not need to be obligate carnivores which are designed only to eat meat. They could be omnivores as well. Considering the explanation also says that humans are in this category (which the other talk point disputes), we are obviously omnivores and not obligate carnivores. So the explanation makes no sense as written, the author does not seem to understand the actual definition of 'obligate carnivore.' 70.166.33.7 ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)