Talk:Γ-Linolenic acid

Broken Link

The citation after the statement "It has a number of side-effects, including a reduction in hemoglobin, hematuria, gastrointestinal disturbance, fatigue, and headache" in the health effects section is broken due to a change in the linked website.

Brackets in 'Dietary' section

Change of bracketing reverted because the phrase within the brackets refers to the case where efficiency of conversion is impaired; the remainder of the sentence deals with the case where efficiency is not impaired but there is excessive consumption - it therefore belongs outside the brackets. Beechnut (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, as I misread it from that context. However, I also noticed that the source that is cited at the end of the sentence doesn't seem to refer to the examples in parentheses, but only the part after them that it is adjacent to. Do you have sources for the examples that are in parentheses? mmortal03 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As I understand the reference, Horrobin gives two examples (Atopic Eczema and Diabetes) where there is impairment of the production of GLA, but none where there is an excessive consumption of GLA - it is mentioned only in the abstract. However he does cover the subject more thoroughly in Horrobin D.F. (1990) Gamma Linolenic-Acid. Reviews in Contemporary Pharmacotherapy 1(1):1-41 and gives three situations where it may arise. 1) Where there are high rates of cell division (e.g. regenerating tissue or cancer). 2) Excessive fatty acid oxidation (e.g. During inflammation, alcoholism or malignancy). 3) Excessive mobilisation of arachidonic acid (e.g. During anti-inflammatory or antiviral responses). We could use this reference instead of the one currently cited as it gives a wider treatment of the subject, but it's not available online and so is less accessible. I'm easy either way. Beechnut (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Depression

I believe that the use of EPO for depression should be mentioned. This use is highly speculative, but it is a use of the oil. 67.168.59.171 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up article

This article contains a lot of unsourced and hard to believe claims. Unless some high quality sources can be brought to back them up, I'm going to remove all of the dubious claims to talk so they are not stated as fact in the article. I thought I'd note that here in order to give a chance to fix up the article instead of yanking it all out right now and/or adding a {{disputed}} tag to the article. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 21:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I added the {{disputed}} tag, because as a casual reader this would not have been clear to me had I not read the talk page, and I think it's important to note. 67.168.59.171 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are responding to a two year old dispute. Unless there are some disputable facts in the current article that you can point to, there is no need for the {{disputed}} tag. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

EPO

please explain what is meant by EPO

EPO = Evening Primrose Oil

Unsourced Statement

Moved these here as they had a 'fact' tag on for months with no response:

It is strongly advised that people should not take GLA together with anticonvulsant medication. It is also discouraged to take GLA over any sort of long term due to studies showing that it can lead to inflammation and other problems.

David.Throop 19:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch link

I restored the quackwatch link. The remover claimed it was spam. But there was no advertising on the link page, and the citations there seem to be in good order. Looking at User:I'clast recent history, he seems to be on a mission to stamp out Quackwatch links. I didn't introduce the quackwatch link here, but I wrote the Horrobin paragraph in its current form. The Quackwatch link buttresses the claim in the article that Horrobin's work was controversial. David.Throop 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:I'clast has again removed the link

• Primrose Oil and Eczema: How Research Was Promoted and Suppressed Critical summary on Quackwatch of research on and marketing for evening primrose oil.

I believe the link should remain. Text at the quackwatch (written by Barrett) site goes far beyond the other BMJ references in detail about the Horrobin and GLA controversy. I'clast, you mention in the note on your edit revert that you are doing this because of another editor's concern. Who is the other editor? I notice that there is currently a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal that concerns an edit war around other statements by and about Stephen Barrett. Should this disagreement be added to that arbitration?

In your comment, you indicate that the quackwatch site is per se an ad. Could you extend that idea? I don't get it.David.Throop 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a *lengthy* discussion (see their archives) around the QW, SB, NCAHF articles. The nature of this qroup of ~20 websites, and their presence at Wikipedia, has been explored, and continues to be explored, at length. Basically the QW articles are not peer reviewed, QW & co suffer known, self-admitted, severe bias that, on review, is thinly disguised POV with some stark examples. Most current is the dawning realization of how frequently QW & co are used as WP:RS for technically related statements, where WP seems to be a spamlink farm for QW etc and where QW has been repeatedly shown to be technically unreliable. Even a number of JD, PhD, DO, MD, MD-PhD types yield to one degree or another on this point (discussed across even more articles). The QW articles seem to find limited WP:RS as very restrained uses for opinion and sentiment about *broad* fields (GLA is not broad, naturopathy would be broad).

Although a number specific and severe technical flaws have been discussed, I will also invite your own examination of the content of the discussed articles, e.g. put on the science end of your ChemE specs for a bit. There are things that emerge[1], and there's still more, too. As for this specific article, the GLA history ends in a rather blatant personal attack on Horrobin that seems to find its home in BMJ editorials rather than being technically sourced material, inappropriate for such a subject article. I would rather not have a discussion on GLA, desaturase pathways, adjuvants, testing problems, in vivo, in vitro, species differences, industrial-academic subreption, and specific applications on an obviously unsettled subject. I have made another attempt to improve that last passage just toning it down. On Horrobin, when I say ghastly ad hom, read this.--I'clast 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF do you mean by WP:RS?? Sep 12 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPedia : Reliable Sources – WP:RS

It's a guideline, not a policy

David.Throop (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Chapped lips

I suffered from exfoilative cheilitis and GLA cured me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueyjoo (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Linoleic vs Linolenic

(Ref recent edits by 216.221.35.153) Linoleic acid and linolenic acid are two different substances. Both have 18 carbon atoms but linoleic acid has 2 double bonds and linolenic acid has three double bonds. There are two common forms of linolenic acid which differ by the positions of the double bonds in the chain: alpha-linolenic acid is an omega-3 and gamma-linolenic acid is an omega-6. See Essential fatty acid for the full story. Beechnut (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

The article starts by saying "γ-Linolenic acid (GLA) ... is an essential fatty acid" then it later says "The human body produces GLA from linoleic acid (LA)" surly this contradicts the first statement that its an "Essential" fatty acid. I always though the term essential meant the body needs it and cannot reproduce it itself? The wiki definition is "Essential fatty acids, or EFAs, are fatty acids that cannot be constructed within an organism (generally all references are to humans) from other components" But in the GLA article it says it can be made from Linoic acid, it also later explains that some people (elderly) cant reproduce it, so for them it is essential. But it seems this may need to be clarified. Or maybe I'm just getting confused for no reason. Lancswingchun (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable to be confused :-) GLA can be made in the body from linoleic acid (LA) and so, by one definition, it can't be an EFA. On the other hand, if you make an organism EFA-deficient by depriving it of LA, GLA will relieve all the symptoms so, by that criterion, it is an EFA. In other words, LA achieves its major EFA actions through its conversion to GLA, so GLA can effectively replace it. The same is true for stearidonic acid for the omega-3 pathway. There is indeed an inconsistency between this article and the one on EFAs but IMHO it is the EFA one which needs to be modified. Hope this helps. Beechnut (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oats and advertisements

I have removed the sentence

"Additionally, steel-cut oats which are slow-cooked are a source of GLA, but only if they have not been toasted or steamed."

from the section "dietary sources." The supporting reference is an advertisement for a specific brand of steel-cut oats which does not even support the claim about toasting or steaming. The only mention of gamma-linolenic acid in this advertising page is:

"Oatmeal is the only food that naturally contains GLA (gamma linolenic acid) an essential fatty acid critical to the body's production of the favorable eicosanoids (PGE1 - prostaglandins). Eating steel-cut oats (very slow cooking) four times a week will provide you with a good supply of GLA."

Jay L09 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

what qualifies as "considerable"?

spirulina ia listed a a food source that has considerable quantities of GLA. However spirulina is bacteria, it is ~70% protein by raw weight. It is only 7.1 to 7.4% TOTAL fats, of which GLA is by far the largest share. But ~6% is not what I would call a "considerable quantity"... spirulina oil is not sold commercially because spirulina's low lipid content makes it considered unsuitable as a lipid source (it would cost a small fortune). although I don't know, whole milk is ~4% lipid so maybe for food sources it counts. I would rephrase with "the lipid content of spirulina". --— robbie ^{page talk} 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The anti-cancer claims don't seem to be adequately supported by the footnotes.

The cancer information is interesting, and should be kept, but conformed to state no more than the underlying sources.

The study

J Nutr. 1998 Sep;128(9):1411-4.

Importance of dietary gamma-linolenic acid in human health and nutrition.

seems at most to suggest a theoretical possibility perhaps worth investigating, not any clinical or even population outcomes.

The BBC article concludes:

"However, there is no evidence to suggest that taking GLA supplements can help prevent cancer. The best ways to reduce the risk of cancer are to avoid smoking and keep a healthy body weight."

Dr Sarah Rawlings of Breakthrough Breast Cancer said: "These early findings are interesting, however, this research does not suggest that women with breast cancer should routinely take evening primrose oil and any woman with questions about treatment should discuss them with her doctor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

David Horrobin's papers are very dubious in nature.

David Horrobin's papers were not peer reviewed, lacked scientific method, and were largely self-published. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/David_Horrobin They should be removed or at the minimum corroborated with other evidence that isn't referencing this dubious paper. I am not aware of any in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.39.210 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Γ-Linolenic acid/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This is still a 'Start' quality article. Good so far: First isolation, characterization, synthesis (who, when, where). Chembox, with picture A fair amount of reasonably readable text. Manhy solid scientific references. Appropriate picture The references have been brought into a common format; using Template:cite and <ref> tags ToDo: Diet section is too brief Do people get a significant amount of GLA from a normal (unsupplemented) diet? Is it found in meat? With what efficiency is GLA absorbed? How efficient is the conversion to DGLA? Notwithstanding the cites given here, the claim about 'no leuokotrienes from DGLA' is disputed in the literature; see the cites at Talk:Leukotriene#Nomenclature and series. The health section is a mess of unverified claims. The Horribin controversy needs to be covered here. Maintaining NPOV will be dicey. Although its covered elsewhere, needs to be a discussion of why this ω-6 fat is anti-inflammatory. Need section on the commercial trade of GLA as a supplement, food additive. David.Throop (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamma-Linolenic acid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112160125/http://www.adoniskish.com/PDF/Super%20Mix/gla.pdf to http://www.adoniskish.com/PDF/Super%20Mix/gla.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)