Transcription
But it sounds like you're pretty convinced that omega-3s are beneficial for heart health.
Unfortunately, nutrition normal doesn't necessarily mean optimal. Have you seen a ceiling on benefits? Do people who have high blood levels of omega-3 have any different health outcomes?
How these different fats are processed into what really is a universe unto itself. Matrix of life as a human is a much more complicated thing. And so we need to follow all those people that you've convinced to go on this sardine diet and we can do some studies on No, sign my uh emails now. M PGP for professional guinea pig.
All right, everybody. I'm back with another exciting conversation and I want to frame this one up with I have been really astonished by how fascinated people are on this broad topic that is encapsulated in the idea of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Everything from sardine diet, seed oils to just best forms of omega-3 for your brain. So, I decided to get a world expert here to talk with me, Professor William Harris. If you don't know him already, he's a leading expert on omega-3 fatty acids and omega sixes, particularly as relates to cardiovascular disease and neurological health. His resume is extensive. I'm not going to go through all of it, but it includes publishing hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, developing the widely used omega-3 index. And in this two-part conversation, we're going to cover all things omega-3 and omega sixes. So, with that, I'm just going to jump into it. Professor Harris, welcome.
Thank you, Nick. Great to be here. Well, I want to start with some information that people might know, but to get everybody up to speed, can you review for us what are these omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and why are they important to human physiology?
Great question. So, omega6 and omega-3, these are are fatty acids. Fatty acids are parts of of fats and oils that we eat every day in our diets. Butter, vegetable oil, you know, beef towel, whatever, those are all fundamentally fatty acids. The omega part um has to do with from a chemical point of view, the omega 6 and omega-3 fatty acids have multiple double bonds in the most saturated fatty acids have just chemically single bonds, no double bonds. Going to assume I'm not going to explain what double bonds are, but we'll leave it leave it at that. Chemically, they're double bonds because they're called polyunsaturated. And when you have unsaturation, you have double bonds in molecules. Uh the omega3s are a family of fatty acids that have the first double bond three positions from the end from the what we call the omega carbon not the alpha carbon which is the front end. The back end is the caboose is the is the omega carbon and the omega-3s all have the first double bond there. Omega sixes have their first double bond six positions in uh we can't mammals cannot convert one to the other. So they're separate families. um have you have to consume them in your diet because we can't make them and they're essential fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids are typically we call um there's three of them ALA which comes from plants and EPA and DHA which come from uh seafood primarily. Uh on the omega6 side the ones there's two that we care about. One, leninoleic acid, which is a is the by far the predominant omega-6 fatty acid in our diets and in our in our bodies, in our tissues, and arachidonic acid, which is a a longer chained version of of linoleic acid that's very bioactive as well. So, the again, the omega-3s are primarily from fish. The omega sixes are primarily from seed oils, vegetable oils. Um, and um, they're very interesting. You're right. That's all over the place these days.
It's a great summary. I think one thing people often overlook and I certainly did early on in my my medical education is the profound consequence of you know we're talking about these like chemical structures and I can go over people's heads like okay where why does it matter where a double bond is but it doesn't just impact the like let's say physical properties of say how closely you compact fats but how these different fats are processed into what really is a universe unto itself of signaling molecules. So these things just aren't fuel. They can be turned into like a potent suite of hormones. And how they do so depends on what fatty acids you're intaking and interactions with the host. Which is why someone like you can build the whole career on it because it truly is an area of nutritional physiology where I feel like we have barely even seen the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah. Yeah. You make a good point. Um it does seem like, you know, who cares where this double bond is? Well, your body cares a lot uh because the shapes of molecules are determined by the bonds that are in the molecules and that the shapes are what uh fit into receptors and as you say signaling molecules. These are of course uh things that that come from outside of cells and tell cells what to do. And if there's nobody home, if the cells are can't hear the signal, they're not going to do what they're supposed to do. And this the shape of these fatty acids and the hormones that are made from them uh are very important for human physiology.
Well, we'll get into a lot of specifics in a bit, but I I want to remain high level for a moment and your expertise are omega fats and cardiovascular and neurosychological health. So to start with the cardiovascular health, I was interested. There's my understanding um discrepancies in the literature and some people pointing towards certain short-term trials and saying omega-3s don't have benefits for cardiovascular health. What do you think of that?
I think it's a almost a category error um in the sense that when just to back up, there are omega-3 drugs, which is kind of crazy because omega-3s are nutrients, but some pharmaceutical companies have purified them and and jammed a whole bunch of them into one capsule and give them to lower primarily to lower blood triglyceride levels, which is a medical treatment. And they do that. They lower triglyceride levels. So they're treated as drugs by some pharmaceutical companies. Um the reason the pharmaceutical companies want to make it into a drug is that they can get reimbursed for the uh being prescribed these products. You can't get a doctor can't get or rather the insurance company doesn't get reimbured for dietary supplements which are also omega-3 products encapsulated but they do for drugs. So there have been d drug trials and in order to get approval as a as a drug you have to do studies of course and some of these studies um over the last 1015 years have been what we'll call neutral have not been have not shown an effect. Omega-3 and reducing cardiovascular events uh whereas 25 30 years ago studies very similar studies were showing great benefit in reducing risk for heart disease. What happened? Uh partly what happened is medical science advances and treatments uh treatments for heart disease advance and people's when they tip nowadays when you have a heart attack you usually get to the hospital quick and they usually reopen the blood vessels to feed your heart blood right away. And that never used to happen in the 90s. So the heart attacks were more severe in those days and patients who got into studies, people who survived a heart attack and now we're going to do a study of can fish oil prevent a second heart attack for example. Uh they the omega-3s were very beneficial because these people's hearts uh were more damaged and the omega-3s had a bigger impact. Nowadays hearts are not so damaged. We have statin drugs, we have blood pressure drugs, we have all kinds of blood thinning drugs uh that can that people are on now and when you do a study nowadays and you give omega-3 on top of all those other drugs and you only do it for maybe four or five years and you pick people who are in their mid60s to do the study and you then expect this fairly small typically small doses of omega-3 with one exception uh small, you know, one oneish grams of omega-3 to um be beneficial and to prevent heart attacks in that context, it's very difficult to show it. And so the doctor doctors will say, "Oh, well, that study study X didn't show any benefit of omega-3. Therefore, omega-3s don't do anything." That's a that's a huge mistake because omega-3s are not intended to be drugs. They're intended to be nutrients that we take over our lifetime. And in in that context, omega-3s are very effective in terms of reducing risk for lots of diseases. Uh but it's very hard to show in the standard drug medical model of a short-term randomized control placebo trial. Um and you know I I mentioned an example of a there is one recent study that was gave four grams a day of of EPA only one of the two omega-3s and it it was very effective uh in reducing risk uh partly part partly because of very high dose a higher do highest dose has ever been tested uh so that's probably why that was helpful um but in in general I think the the fact that these are nutrient nutrients, not drugs. They shouldn't be tested like drugs and our assessment of whether they're beneficial or not should not be dependent on a randomized placebo control trial in old sick people.
Also, because of the limitations of just like the studies you can do. My favorite example is always Alzheimer's disease because I think we can speculate about like what nutritional interventions might be beneficial for Alzheimer's disease. Then people like, well, show me the double blind RCT. Well, first of all, you can't blind diet. Second of all, you're never going to do like the 20 to 30year study powered for outcome. So, it makes it difficult to make, you know, these strong claims based on nutrients for preventing what are decadesl long diseases. But it sounds like you're pretty convinced that omega-3s now just focusing on the heart and then we'll get to the brain are beneficial for heart health.
I am. I'm convinced. Yeah, absolutely. uh we've we've done studies what we primarily focus on nowadays is studies where we have we measure blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids in people. We don't necessarily do, you know, dietary frequent food frequency questionnaires or tell me what you ate yesterday studies.
Uh where people can't remember what they ate even for lunch today, you know, never mind yesterday or last week. So, we'd measure blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which is a much better marker of how much omega-3 you're eating.
Yeah, you can.
And then we asked the question, okay, over time, do people who have high blood levels of omega-3 compared to those who have low have any different health outcomes? I mean, most cardiovascular disease is one of them, but the thing we've studied most recently is is death for any cause. Just death. Very easy.
Before we get into the outcomes, I just want to define for people like what you're actually measuring. So, there's like an omega-3 index and omega 6 to3 ratio, I think, are the two big buckets. Can you distinguish what those are for us?
Sure. Yeah. The omega-3 index is a blood test that we came up with about 20 years ago. That's the amount of EPA and DHA in red blood cell membranes. So, we isolate red blood cells from the from the blood. Of course, the omega-3s and the omega sixes uh live their lives uh do their stuff in membranes as a part of a membrane and membranes are far more complicated than we need. That's where the action is. So, we measure the amount of EPA and DHA in cell membranes. It's express it as a percent of the total fat fatty acids in the membrane. So somewhere between 3% and 12% is kind of the the range of possibilities for how much EPA and DHA is in a red cell. Um that's the omega-3 index. It's it's red blood cell focused and it's EPA and DHA focused specifically.
People are going to ask like what are the range targets? And they're going to want to know how they measure. So I'll just say for you, you do have a company that we're not here to plug, but you can get your omega-3 index measured all that via Omega Quant. We'll put the link below. That aside, what are target levels for this index that you think people should be trying to hit?
Yeah. Um, let's start with what we think is nor well normal, unfortunately in in nutrition, normal doesn't necessarily mean optimal. Normal omega-3 index levels in the US, for example, are around 5 a.5%. Um, we've seen low levels of omega-3 in vegans, for example, down around three and a half%. Which we think is pretty low. Uh, the optimal levels are over 8%. Um, and that we see in populations like Japan where uh that fish intake is very common and they have very high omega-3 levels and they coincidentally don't have much heart disease at all and they live about four years longer than Americans do. Um, I can't necessarily attribute all that to omega-3, but uh, their omega-3 index, 8 9% is kind of above that. 8 to 12 is what we think is a sweet spot uh, for omega-3 index.
Is that because there are harms above 12 or it's just really hard to get above 12? Another way to put that is, have you seen a ceiling on benefits that either plateau or you see a dip?
No. Well, we we don't say it's 8 to 12 because above 12 is harmful. We don't know that. There are so few people on this planet that have omega-3 index over 12 that we really can't study it. We can't really study the question. If you had a whole whole bunch of people who had a omega-3 index of 15 and another group that had an omega-3 index of 10 and you had a thousand people in each group and you could follow them over time, then you could ask answer the question, does having a 15 serve you better or worse than a 10? It's just a a fog bank out there really beyond 12 because we we really just don't know. We don't there is a little bit of evidence from Japan that even within Japan people with higher higher levels than the 8% um seem to have reduced risk for heart attacks. Um but that's the only place you'd ever be able to do a study like that. Um we don't see harm up there. I mean, we've known people that are up up in the 10, 12, 15% and we don't see any harm there.
Yeah, I might be able to source you some more. As I'll tease in our second discussion, I got my levels measured via Omega Quan and they came back around 16. Uh, and I know I tell people to do this, but as soon as I do something, people are going to want to replicate it. So, there's a bunch of people doing sardine dieting, and it's not just me. It's actually like a whole thing now. Anyway, we'll get into crazy diet fads later, but there might be a a natural experimental opportunity. We'll just leave it at that.
Yeah. Good. Good.
So, you need to follow all those people that you that you've convinced to go on this sardine diet and we can do some studies on
No, I know. Sign my uh emails now. M PhD uh PGP for professional guinea pig. So, everyone buy these samples or anything. I'm godly. That aside, we need to get to omega 6 to3 ratio. So omega3 index percent of EPA and DHA in red blood cells omega 6 to3 ratio
Um, kind of right and that has been another way of looking at omega-3 status or omega status I guess you would say um that uh basically takes as it says it's the ratio of all the omega 6 fatty acids divided by the sum of all the omega-3 fatty acids. Um it's a [clears throat] idea that grew up in the 80s uh that this was meaningful. Um and we could go into why uh but I think there are many reasons not to attend to that particular ratio. First of all, we it's completely unclear which fatty acids go. I mean, if you're measuring blood, there are at least four omega-3 fatty acids and there are at least seven omega6 fatty acids. and which ones you get put in those ratios make a difference and they never tell you which ones are in the in the ratio. Number two, it's it presumes that all the omega-6 fatty acids have the same physiologic effects as each other and all the omega-3s are equivalent, which is not true on both ends. Uh there's some omega sixes that are beneficial, some that are are linked with adverse outcomes. With omega-3s, the plant omega-3 level is not predictive of much in terms of health, but the EPA and DHA are. So, if you just say omega-3 and you don't say which omega-3s, you've got a problem. I think this is really, really important for people to understand because based on having my finger on the pulse of what people are talking about in the omega fat realm, the omega 63 ratio is what gets bandied about the most as like the marker to track. And as you pointed out, well, one, there's a problem with there's a lot of like opacity with respect to that. What is really the numerator and what's really the denominator? Um, and also you can get, I think, some pretty misleading outcomes. So, one thing I found very interesting is I was reading some of your work and work of colleagues looking at um omega-6 levels uh in the blood, but also in tissue um including like fat tissue. So, like stored in the body. Now, the common narrative, and I'll be honest, my understanding was I predicted higher omega 6 would be worse for you because higher omega 6 to3 ratio associates with worse outcomes. And what you tend to see, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I was finding when I looked at the data is there was this apparent paradox where higher omega6 levels and a higher higher omega 6 levels tended to correlate with better outcomes, but a lower omega 6 to3 ratio did. And what seems to explain that at a high level, and I realize we're lumping here a bit, is that both can be beneficial, but if omega-3 are more beneficial, say for cardiovascular outcomes, that the whole omega 63 ratio is going to be driven by the denominator, the omega-3, and you're going to end up with this skewed perception potentially, and this is what I see happening, people saying, try to drop your omega 6 as low as you can in your diet. like straight up avoid walnuts because it will increase your ratio and that's bad reaction.
That's exactly the problem. Um, by and large the omega 6 omega-3 ratio is driven by your omega-3 level. You as the omega-3 goes up, the ratio goes down. And if you want to fix a bad omega 6 omega-3 ratio, take EPA and DHA. That will do it. That will improve a ratio. But I I I think you pointed I mean there's a re recent paper I think you're thinking about where a higher level of omega6 linoleic acid was beneficial. Higher level of omega-3 epad was beneficial.
Yeah.
But you do the ratio and it's it's adverse. It goes the other way. So it's so confusing. You don't know what to do. And the idea of reducing your omega-6 intake in order to help your ratio is going to hurt your body because there lower levels of omega6 have consistently been associated with higher risk for death, higher risk for heart disease, higher risk for diabetes. So don't lower your omega-6 intake. I'm going to show a graph of omega 6 to3 ratio and outcomes. And what you'll see as the omega 6 to3 ratio goes down, outcomes improve. Now I'm going to show another graph which is a 3D bar graph and on two of the axes are omega 6 and omega 3 independently. And what you're going to see in this graph which is basically the same data just looking at it a little bit more finely is as omega-3 levels improve then outcomes improve. As omega 6 levels also go up outcomes improve and they compound. And this seems paradoxical, but understanding the distinction is huge because what it's saying is exactly what we just said. It's not that omega-6 are bad per se. It's that omega-3 are more good. So, if you just look at the ratio, you end up with a misleading picture when in fact the benefits probably compound. So, you know, like a meal of like walnuts for a snack, let's say raw walnuts, so they're not oxidized or anything. And like salmon is going to be better than just the salmon alone if you're translating into like realworld outcomes or
Yeah.
situations,
Right? Another problem is simply you can have a high level of omega-3 and a high level of omega 6 and have exactly the same ratio as if you have a low omega 6 and a low omega-3. So, the ratio doesn't tell you anything about what to do. Many organizations now are saying, "Ignore the ratio. That's not the way to look at it. Look at your actual blood levels of omega-3. That's where the problem is. We're low in omega-3. Don't worry about the omega sixes."
I would tend to agree with one caveat and and that is do you feel people can overconume like processed industrialized vegetable oils and seed oils? We'll get into this more, but do you think that can be over consumed?
Well, I would in principle, I suppose, anything could be over consumed. Um, that's true. Uh, and the whole seed oil thing is is a complicated story, as I'm sure we'll we'll get into, but I think I'm not advocating that people take tablespoons of of corn oil or soybean oil, per se. I'm saying that this effort to reduce omega6, I think, is what's what's harmful. Let's just not worry about the omega sixes. Let Don't spend your time worrying about them. Recognize that there's good data that higher levels blood levels of linoleic acid, the primary omega-6 in our diet and our blood are have been strongly linked to beneficial outcomes. Leave that aside. That's great. Uh and anti-inflammatory for that matter. Um, but recognize that in America, our problem is the lack of EPA and DHA. You raise that, get that one focused. That's why the omega-3 index focuses only on EPA and DHA. That's the problem.
Yeah. So, simple focus on the omega-3 index. Don't worry about your linoleic acid intake per se. Although, I will promise we will parse seed oils versus like omega6 linoleic acid because they are distinct. But from a practical point of view, what general dietary advice would you recommend for optimizing omega fatty acid balance? like if people aren't going to get their levels measured, what should they be targeting in terms of intake either from whole foods and or supplementation?
Yeah, I think a a good target intake for EPA and DHA particularly in America is somewhere in the,00 to,500 milligrams a day. uh that would be a uh so one one and a half grams of EPA DHA not not a fish oil u that can be achieved with fish and I'm I'm sure you're doing that with a with a sardine diet u completely uh and but most people will use supplements um to to get that to get that level then that should give you roughly a 18 about an 8% omega-3 index everybody's different need to need to test yourself uh but that would be the target. You don't need to go 2, three, four, seven grams a day of EPA, DHA. That's completely unphysiologic. Um, I don't think any population's really ever eaten that level of omega. Maybe some Eskimos.
And now I'm going to add in another layer, and this is going to sound esoteric, but I know there are a lot of people very interested. Can you imagine subops who would benefit from those higher levels, say four grams in particular? I'm thinking about say people with uh at high risk for Alzheimer's, Apple E4 carriers or homozygots. I happen to know I'm at high risk on apple e4 homozyg and I've looked at some of the literature and shows for example that my brain has higher turnover of DHA. Maybe there are other conditions but do you think people who are particularly concerned about say Alzheimer's risk family history there could be benefits to higher doses than 1.5 gram EBH?
Uh completely agree. I completely agree. Most people don't know their APOE genotype. Um, I'm sure Good to know you do. Sorry to hear it's a homozygous for [laughter] it is what it is, right? Yeah.
Work that gives me the power to act and there's a lot of point optimistic but me.
That's right. Right. So I I agree. Yeah. Higher doses probably twice what I was talking about would be if I if I was in your boat I would do the same thing. I'd take two or three grams a day of EPA DHA. We haven't got randomized trial evidence to prove that. But there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that supports it and it's safe and probably helpful variety of other things too.
Before we end this first part of the conversation, I want to we kind of touched on cardiovascular disease. We haven't really gotten into outcome data with respect to neurosychological health broadly. So we alluded to dementia, Alzheimer's, but can you give us a picture of what the data say for omega-3 and brain health? Be that mental health and or neurological health.
Again, the kinds of studies we do where we look at blood levels of omega-3 in populations and then look to see who gets what diseases. When we look at the question of dementia uh specifically Alzheimer's disease dementia uh we find that people who are at the highest levels of the omega-3 index have in one study we did with the Framingham research group uh we found that about 50% lower risk for developing Alzheimer's disease if you had highest the highest levels of omega-3
you remember what that number was that threshold I know it's usually broken up into like quartiles or something.
It's in cortile. Yeah. In in frame in Frammingham, the particular cohort that I'm sure you're well familiar with since you're in Boston, um in that cohort, the you people are not supp supplementing. It's all dietary. Uh so the highest quintile or the 20 20th percentile is somewhere 6 and a half 7%. Um so it's not over 8% on average, right?
So we were that compared to reference that
50% reduction. So 50% reduction is very achievable with pretty mild supplementation if we're assuming the supplementation translating into a change in blood levels is
It does.
Yeah.
It always does. I I think to be fair, we have to say that the the people that are having higher omega-3 levels without supplementation who are doing it fundamentally with fish
Yeah.
they're they're eating a lot of other good things in fish.
Yeah.
I mean, there's great quality protein. uh as you know, there's selenium important minerals in in fish uh iodine is in fish uh things that vitamin D is in fish uh we can in oily fish all those are good in oily fish and so we we can't with iron class certainty say it's the omega-3s because a high omega-3 level in a person who's not really eat taking supplements uh probably means more fish intake and so it may just be a a surrogate marker of fish intake and the fish is really what's doing the job. I mean, we have to be careful that we don't jump too far into cause and effect when we uh can't do these trials.
But I also want to emphasize, so I think my audience is pretty scientifically literate and they understand this idea that correlation doesn't equal causation and they can be confounders. But I think there's another layer of nuance that I really want to pull out. But we touched on it earlier which is that when you're trying to figure out what you should do and how you should act as a person in life, you need to know what data you can actually collect to make that determination. And as we mentioned, there are certain like we can't do randomized control trials for 30 years for Alzheimer's. So then it comes down to what data do you have? And what I like to think is well, you know, what are the associations and what is the biological plausibility, the pre-clinical models, all that do they come together and tell a story? And then I guess the key thing if there's a correlation what's the size and also what's the risk of intervention. So for example for some drugs you know you might see a tiny little benefit and then you have to weigh it off against cons. What I'm seeing here the way I think through this is even if I don't have the 30-year RCT showing fish oil prevents Alzheimer's disease. What do I know? a large effect size correlation, very solid biological plausibility, clear mechanistic evidence, and then what's the risk of say eating more fish or supplementing with fish oils basically nil with a lot of upside. So, just in determining how I make these decisions and and and probably you too, I wanted to add in that layer because I don't think it's fair to just say, you know, we don't have perfect causitive evidence, therefore don't have,
Right? I I completely agree with you. I I think that's exactly the way to think about this particular situation. You risks probably if there's any even a whisper of benefit and there's no risk, the risk benefit ratio is favorable.
Question or two for you is um people always love to know how the experts live, what they do. So, do you have any I'm just going to say broadly health staples, non-negotiables in your life, omega-3 or otherwise, that you're willing to share?
It's not not particularly exotic. Um, I do take about 1500 milligrams a day of EPA and DHA. Um, and make sure I do that routinely and I have a omega-3 index of around 10 and have been there for a long time and hope to keep it that way. Try to eat fish a couple times a week. Uh, but otherwise I just not overeat. My wife and I when we go out we always split a meal. You know that we it total calorie intake is a big deal and we try to keep that down. Uh, and so I don't really have any, you know, fancy or particularly uh clever uh health at least dietary patterns that I stick to. I exercise, you know, maybe five times a week. try to stay active. Um, I'll be 77 next month, so I'm happy with the way it's going and want to keep going that way. Yeah, it's funny when we're talking about longevity, if you'll indulge me in a quick mini rant, and then then we'll get on to part two, is um I love dorking out about metabolism, potential impacts on health span, longevity, looking at the survival curves in mice, done, all sorts of interesting interventions, but you get the human data, there's not really like a clear theme once you have a baseline level of metabolic health for what predicts longevity other than maybe. social connection. I just want to give the eye perspective point of view because I've been thinking a lot about it as a lot of longevity stuff's been coming out. And then
Yeah.
you know, you juxtapose that to like the human being living. You're talking about eating dinner with your wife. I recently did a a piece of short form content about making a particular sandwich which didn't appear particularly healthy for my girlfriend. This hot honey blueberry sandwich I'm about to make is a health hack. [music] Bear with me while I explain because this isn't going where you think. This is about like social connection and the neurobiological and hormonal systems that are being activated in my body by virtue of just interacting socially with someone doing a nice thing that goes beyond obsessing over very little you know numbers here or there not to say that it's not important I think we both think these things are important but always take a step back and just say this is fun to learn about it should be an exciting journey but at the same time not to get too obsessive so
Yeah great great advice great advice there Even the little topic we're talking about here of omega3, they're not a silver bullet by any means. There's a whole like the m matrix of life as a human is a much more complicated thing. And your social networking is you're right, that's a powerful predictor of longevity.
Well, before we get into part two, I'm going to cut part one here. Is there anything or anywhere you want to direct people to learn more about you, the work you do, anything like that?
Sure. Um about five years ago we started a thing called the fatty acid research institute uh far f a r i uh and we have a website and the the purpose of our institute really is to do the kind of research I've been talking about here um using largecale databases uh long-term outcome in human populations. We really don't do any animal work. I just have a I have a distrust of animal studies in the omega-3 space because it seems like investigators always feed them far more omega-3 than any human could ever eat. Um and then they draw a conclusion and I think oh wait a minute you know is that true in people too and in any event we study humans and we study uh important human diseases and at we can learn a lot about me at the fatty acid research institute our website and look at the you know about us type tab and all my publications are linked there.
We'll drop in the links below with that. Thank you so much Professor Harris and everybody should come back for part two.
Great. Thanks.
[music]