Cited by 168Fatty Acid Research and HealthNutritional Studies and DietAquaculture Nutrition and Growth

How relevant is the ratio of dietary n-6 to n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids to cardiovascular disease risk? Evidence from the OPTILIP study

Griffin, Bruce A·2008·Current Opinion in Lipidology

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been much debate over the practical utility of the dietary ratio of n-6 to n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in optimizing the benefits of n-3 fatty acids (C18-C22) on cardiovascular health. This review examines the supporting evidence from the OPTILIP study within the context of the emerging consensus on the value of this dietary metric. RECENT FINDINGS: The question of whether the ratio of n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids or total amounts of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids is of more importance to cardiovascular health has been addressed recently in a randomly controlled trial (OPTILIP) and in a stable isotope tracer study. These two studies were independently unanimous in concluding that the ratio of n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids is of no value in modifying cardiovascular disease risk. The latter study also showed that the absolute amounts of dietary linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid are of relevance to the efficiency of conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid. SUMMARY: This review should help to settle any outstanding controversy over the dietary ratio of n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. It reinforces current recommendations to increase the consumption of preformed eicosapentaenoic acid/docosahexaenoic acid in fish, and supports dietary measures to increase and decrease intakes alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid, respectively, to promote the endogenous synthesis of these longer chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mol.0b013e3282f2e2a8

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Griffin, B. A.
Affiliations
University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Griffin, Bruce A
Venue
Current Opinion in Lipidology
Published
2008-02
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
57-62
ISSN
0957-9672 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972408356
Cited by
168
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 20
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Lipidology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Keywords
n-6/n-3 ratio, cardiovascular risk, dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids, alpha-linolenic acid, linoleic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, fish consumption, stable isotope tracer studies
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Dietary Fats, Unsaturated, Humans, Risk Factors, Fatty Acids, Omega-3, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Fatty Acids, Omega-6

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review