> Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything It's correlated with being a human, but the significance of very

> Inefficient conversion of dietary ALA to DHA is neither correlated nor causative to anything It's correlated with being a human, but the significance of very inefficient conversion versus trivial conversion is simply that it prevents us from claiming they are metabolically identical goods. >Which is it, inefficient or non-existent in humans? Inefficient. 'ALA->DHA' shorthand was meant to token the previous idea of "efficient endogenous ALA to DHA conversion" and not initialize a new false one. >no evidence to suggest inadequate DHA I think you're missing the point by intentionally or unintentionally rephrasing this in terms of avoiding a negative. Let me requote the initial context by jeremymims: > Just for the record, fish consumption is linked to increased IQ in children because of the presence of Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Did you know though that both Flaxseed and Walnuts are both better, cheaper, and less environmentally damaging sources of Omega 3s than fish? My primary point is that one cannot rationally assert that the numerous positive IQ benefits scientific literature attributes to consumption of fish and fish oil are somehow equally or better attributable to walnut and flax consumption. The evidence indicates differing methods of action and a need to consider their health benefits independently.