4.6 Article

Decreasing linoleic acid with constant alpha-linolenic acid in dietary fats increases (n-3) eicosapentaenoic acid in plasma phospholipids in healthy men

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 137, Issue 4, Pages 945-952

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/137.4.945

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High linoleic acid (LA) intakes have been suggested to reduce ce-linolenic acid [ALA, 18:3(n-3)] metabolism to eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA, 20:5(n-3)) and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA, 22:6(n-3)], and favor high arachiconic acid [ARA, 20:4(n-6)). We used a randomized cross-over study with men (n = 22) to compare the effect of replacing vegetable oils high in LA with oils low in LA in foods, while maintaining constant ALA, for 4 wk each, on plasma (n-3) fatty acids. Nonvegetable sources of fat, except fish and seafoods, were unrestricted. We determined plasma phospholipid fatty acids at wk 0 2, 4, 6, and 8, and triglycerides, cholesterol, serum CRP, and IL-6, and platelet aggregation at wk 0, 4, and 8. LA and ALA intakes were 3.8 +/- 0.12% and 1.0 +/- 0.05%, and 10.5 +/- 0.53% and 1.1 +/- 0.06% energy with LA:ALA ratios of 4:0 and 10:1 during the low and high LA diets, respectively. The plasma phospholipid LA was higher and EPA was lower during the high than during the low LA diet period (P < 0.001), but DHA declined over the 8-wk period (r = -0.425, P < 0.001). The plasma phospholipid ARA:EPA ratios were (mean +/- SEM) 20.7 +/- 1.52 and 12.9 +/- 1.01 after 4 wk consuming the high or low LA diets, respectively (P < 0.001), LA was inversely associated with EPA V = -0.729, P < 0.001) but positively associated with ARA:EPA (r = 0.432, P < 0.001). LA intake did not influence ALA, ARA, DPA, DHA, or total, LDL or HDL cholesterol, CRP or IL-6, or platelet aggregation. In conclusion, high LA intakes decrease plasma phospholipid EPA and increase the ARA:EPA ratio, but do not favor higher ARA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available