Through INSPIRE, researchers identified 987 patients who underwent their first documented coronary angiographic study at Intermountain Healthcare between 1994 and 2012. From those blood samples, the circulating levels of EPA and DHA in their blood was measured. Researchers then tracked those patients for 10 years, looking for major cardiac adverse events, which included heart attack, stroke, heart failure requiring hospitalization or death.

They found that patients with the highest levels of EPA had reduced risk of major heart events. When evaluating how EPA and DHA affect one another, they found that higher DHA blunts the benefit of EPA. In particular, they also found that those patients with higher levels of DHA than EPA, were more at risk for heart problems.
Sci-tech-daily article

Studies online recommend 60% EPA to 40% DHA for heart benefits.

The studying isn't showing that DHA is bad, it's showing that a lack
of EPA is bad.

NOTE: The quantity matters. Saying that they had more of one than
the other is meaningless without actual levels given. For example,
no study recommended less than 500mg per day, some as high as
2000mg per day and most recommend about 1,000. Short of these
numbers, any percentage/ratio is virtually meaningless.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/651379284350550016

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Studies online recommend 60% EPA to 40% DHA for heart benefits.
>
> The studying isn't showing that DHA is bad, it's showing that a lack
> of EPA is bad.
>
>
> NOTE: The quantity matters. Saying that they had more of one than
> the other is meaningless without actual levels given. For example,
> no study recommended less than 500mg per day, some as high as
> 2000mg per day and most recommend about 1,000. Short of these
> numbers, any percentage/ratio is virtually meaningless.
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/651379284350550016

" higher DHA blunts the benefit of EPA"

Not good.

But go ahead, drink your cod liver oil anyway, you heartless bass-turd, its harmless to trolls.
--
DD ~ David ~ Da'ud ~ Diode ~ ∆^¥°∆

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> " higher DHA

Again, nothing you quoted can support your claims.

Omega-3 benefits are always described in terms of raw quantities -- a
minimum of 500mg with some stating as high as 2,000mg -- and
absolutely NOTHING you quoted hinted at quantities.

Out side the context of actual levels, there are no conclusions. It's all
just nonsense.

You need to learn the difference between "Findings" and claims.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/651379284350550016