Is this a joke? The article specifically states:
>It is not enough to assume that ALA exerts effects through conversion to EPA and DHA, as the process is highly inefficient in humans.
>with higher levels of ALA, no net rise in the level of circulating DHA occurred [2,3]. For example, feeding 10.7 g/d of ALA from flaxseed oil for 4 weeks failed to increase low DHA levels in breast milk of lactating women [4]. Some estimate that only 5–10% and 2–5% of ALA in healthy adults is converted to EPA and DHA, respectively [5], while others suggest that humans convert less than 5% of ALA to EPA or DHA [6]. The International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) recently released an official statement on the conversion efficiency of ALA to DHA. They concluded that the conversion of ALA to DHA is on the order of 1% in infants"
Now let's examine the actual context of your quote:
>"While there is discrepancy in ALA conversion rates in rats, these studies imply that dietary ALA could sufficiently supply the brain with DHA in the absence of exogenous DHA intake. It is important to note that the hepatic DHA synthesis rates observed for rats do not extend to humans [44]. The higher rates reflect a more efficient ALA elongation process in mice and rats"
It specifically states that ALA->DHA is only a phenomena that occurs in rats and not humans.
>Studies on rats are far from conclusive... but then why claim it's a human-health fact?
Exactly my point. The human studies clearly state it is not reliably converted, and you are claiming it IS based on a rat study. The whole article I linked is based on the assumption it is NOT, and from the perspective that we should be examining the health benefits of ALA independently from the health benefits of fish oil.