Toady I wanted to present a paper that I saw on Friday just coming out form the journal “Nutrients” [Nutrients 2017, 9, 240]. As we discussed before the aim of the Nutrigenomics is to reviled the genetic basis of why people are responding differently to same nutrients and/or food. In long-term the nutrigenomics is expected to give personal advise on what type of foods to eat in order to stay slim and healthy – that the reason why I am fascinated by this branch of the genomics.
The question is always if people knows about there genetic predisposition, are they really going to make the change and go for good toward healthier lifestyle. The few nutrigenetic intervention studies performed to date suggest that YES – individuals who receive personal genetic information may make more changes to their diet compared to controls.
The article I wanted to discuss today is focusing on the Omega-3 fatty acids (FAs), which represent an ideal nutrient to examines they has been shown to have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular, metabolic, developmental and cognitive health, but still the western diet is poor on it. Additionally, there is a variant (rs174537) of a gene called FADS1, which is responsible for lower levels of omega 3, so increased consumption of food rich of it is needed to keep healthy levels. The authors aimed to give information about this variant and see if this will make change on the diet. They had 2 groups of females age 18-25, which were monitored for a period of 12 weeks. Individuals who took omega-3 supplements or in had a diet including fish intake more then 2 times a week were excluded. The two groups are: (1) group 1 (genetic) knew there FADS1 variant and (2) group 2 (non-genetic) didn’t. All were given generic information on the omega-3 consumption and guidelines with the food recommendations.
The study found that both groups had an increase intake of omega-3 rich food by the end of the study and providing individuals with their personal FADS1 genetic information did not lead to significant differences in dietary intake. However, the results suggest that providing individuals with genetic information can increase awareness of omega-3 FA terminology, render generic omega-3 nutritional information more useful in the context of the genetic information, and minimize barriers to the consumption of omega-3 FAs. Consequently, providing individuals with their personal FADS1 genetic information may have an impact on longer-term omega-3 FA intake. One of the criticism for this article I have is that the subjects were only 54 in total, so may be more people need to be included and may be a bit longer period.
The nutrigenomics is relatively young -omics I would be interested in the results in long term, are the changes permanent or at least how long they lasted. Yesterday I saw an article (I don’t remember where, so if I didn’t cite you I am sorry) saying that the contestants in the “Biggest looser”, gain back there wight within 6 years, as slightly they slip back to there previous “unhealthy” regiment and one by one the healthy changes they made during the show, just failed. My personal experience, as I had a very unhealthy lifestyle before and 5 years ago I try to change it for good. I did make a lot of changes and I think as things in life happened I am more prone to go back to the easy high fat unhealthy diet with irregular high in calories meals and from time to time I have my wake up calls and put my self back on track, but is not always easy.
Please let me know your thoughts on the subject. Do you think if you new your genetic predisposition (ex. FADS1 and others) you will make the change for good?