Speaker 1
it begins with the observation that the brain and the retina, which is really just an extension of the brain, are very rich in DHA. Virtually no EPA in the brain. Beginning with that, the logical conclusion is DHA is important in the brain and the eye because they're there. People have then tried to jump to the conclusion that therefore, if you give more DHA, you're going to get better brain health and better eye health. Well, that's not necessarily panned out, particularly like in depression studies. That's the most clear area at the moment where folks have tried to give high DHA products to try to affect depressive symptoms and they don't really work. The products that seem to work to actually have an effect on depressive symptoms are ones that are richer in EPA than DHA. And, you know, when, so you look at a meta-analysis, like a compilation of lots of different studies, the positive ones are the ones that are richer in EPA, but there's no EPA in the brain. The logic was that if the meat of the brain has got DHA in it, the actual physical flesh of the brain is DHA, then DHA should be given and it would be beneficial, but that's not a logical assumption. I think what's happening is EPA is probably providing some unique anti-inflammatory effects in the brain circulation that's affecting, because we don't understand depression at all, but it's somehow affecting the expression of depressive symptoms like DHA doesn't. I can't say that DHA is the brain omega-3 and EPA is the heart omega-3. I don't think that's true. I don't think we can at this point say one of them is better than the other for any given system. They