Hemp Food Product Consumption for 4 Weeks Raises Red Blood Cell Alpha Linolenic Acid, but not Total n‐3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Content, Compared to a Soybean and Sesame Control Product in Free Living Participants who are Overweight or Obese.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemp foods are an excellent source of omega‐6 (n‐6) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and omega‐3 (n‐3) PUFA. Hemp seeds and oil contain high amounts of linoleic acid (LA) and alpha linolenic acid (ALA) in approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. Consumption of ALA from other sources, such as flax, have been shown to increase the total n‐3 PUFA in red blood cells (RBC), which may be beneficial for cardiovascular health. Due to historical restrictions on the growing of hemp, the investigation of its health benefits has been limited. Thus, there is a need for nutritional interventions that investigate the potential health benefits of hemp consumption. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of hemp food products on RBC fatty acid profiles and serum lipids following 4 weeks of consumption. A free‐living, double‐blind, randomized, 2 period cross‐over feeding study (NCT02400203) was conducted in participants who were overweight or obese. Treatment products were hulled seeds and salad dressing which were given for 28 days. Participants were given hulled hemp seeds, and salad dressing containing 30 g/d of hemp oil (hemp treatment), or hulled sesame seeds, and salad dressing containing 30g/d of soybean oil (control). Participants were instructed by the research team to integrate the products (2 prepackaged sachets of seeds, 1 serving of salad dressing) into their daily meals and to avoid other dietary sources of n‐3 PUFA. RBC fatty acid content was measure by GC‐FID and serum lipids were measured by automated colorimetric assay. A total of 37 participants were enrolled and 30 participants completed the study protocol. No difference was seen in RBC n‐3 PUFA at the end of the hemp treatment compared to the control (8.07 % ± 0.22 % vs. 7.99 % ± 0.22 %, p=0.72). However, RBC ALA was increased at the end of the hemp treatment compared to control (0.36 % ± 0.02% vs. 0.25 % ± 0.02%, p=0.002). There was no difference in RBC n‐6 PUFA at the end of the hemp treatment compared to the control (32.7 % ± 0.35 % vs. 32.01 % ± 0.35 %, p=0.10), and no difference in RBC n‐6 to n‐3 ratio was seen at the end of the hemp treatment compared to the control (4.12 ± 0.11 vs. 4.10 ± 0.12, p=0.85). There was also no difference between treatments in RBC monounsaturated or saturated fatty acids percentages (p=0.28 and p=0.32, respectively). Total cholesterol was not different at the end of the hemp treatment compared to the control (p=0.53). LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were not different at the end of the hemp treatment compared to the control (p=0.22, p=0.11, and p=0.75, respectively). These results suggest that consumption of hulled hemp seeds and oil does not lead to increased RBC n‐3 PUFA, at least not within 4 weeks. Since ALA competes with LA for elongation, the high n‐6 content of hemp may limit the elongation of ALA to longer chain n‐3 PUFA. Therefore, the fatty acid composition of hemp may not be ideal for someone looking to increase their RBC n‐3 PUFA content. Support or Funding Information Governments of Manitoba and Canada through the Growing Forward 2, Growing Innovation – Agri‐Food Research and development Initiative. Matching funds were provided by Manitoba Harvest, Hempro Int. GmbH & Co. KG, and Hemp Oil Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".