Response to commentary on a trial comparing krill oil versus fish oil
1 Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, University of Manitoba, 196 Innovation Drive, Winnipeg MB R3T 2N2, Canada
2 Department of Human Nutritional Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
3 Enzymotec Ltd., P.O.B 6 Migdal HaEmeq, Israel
Lipids in Health and Disease 2014, 13:17 doi:10.1186/1476-511X-13-17Published: 22 January 2014
Nichols et al. (Lipids Health Dis13:2, 2014) raised concern about the higher n-6 concentration in fish oil used in our recent study which is different from typical commercial fish oils (Ramprasath et al. Lipids Health Dis12:178, 2013). The aim of our study was to compare the effect of consumption of similar amount of n-3 PUFA from krill and fish oil with placebo on plasma and RBC fatty acids. As the concentration of n-3 PUFA in the fish oil utilised was higher than that in krill oil, we deemed it important to keep consistent the concentration of n-3 PUFA and volumes to be administered to participants between krill versus fish oils. As such, the fish oil used in the study was diluted with corn oil. Although the n-6 PUFA concentration in fish oil was higher compared to traditionally used fish oil, consumption of the fish oil used in our study actually reduced the total n-6 PUFA in plasma and RBC to a similar extent as did krill oil. Overall, our conclusion was that the increases in plasma and RBC concentrations of EPA and DHA along with improvement in the omega-3 index observed with consumption of krill oil compared with fish oil are due to differences in absorption and bioavailability based on the structural difference of the two oils rather than their n-6 PUFA content.