Read on Twitter
DHA is not essential. Agreed as deficiency diseases are not evident. However, does that mean that a dietary intake sufficient to maintain a RBC concentration (and availability to other cells/organs) is not beneficial? 2/n https://twitter.com/mimcburney/status/1381276253651664896
Consider vitamin D. Until 2011, DRI was set to obtain 25(OH)D levels to prevent deficiency (rickets) when they were updated to ‘maintain skeletal health’. 3/n
Based on 25(OH)D concentrations vs bone mineral density, time-to-stand, walk speed, it became obvious higher 25(OH)D levels (>50 nmol/L) were beneficial 4/n
Thus the DRI was increased to levels where 97.5% of the population should have 25(OH)D >50 nmol/L. This DRI is to optimize health (cellular structure/function) NOT deficiency 5/n
Similarly, although DHA deficiency has not been demonstrated, does that mean most 
and 
wouldn’t benefit from higher RBC EPA+DHA levels? 6/n
and wouldn’t benefit from higher RBC EPA+DHA levels? 6/n
We need more data correlating nutritional status, in this case RBC EPA+DHA, with outcomes to answer this question. As nutrition scientists, our role is to test hypotheses and interpret the observations. The answer will become evident.....
