I’ve seen the argument put forth a number of times that the bioavailability of ALA and other fats from chia is rather low even if soaked, possible the same for other nutrients (instead they purport grinding). As I understand it, calorie estimates for foods don’t take into account bioavailability (please correct me). I’m wondering if ultimately this makes chia a very fibrous but low-cal food.
I had searched for studies on this topic in the past but did not come across anything persuasive.
“People often wonder if chia seeds should be eaten ground instead of whole. The surface of chia seeds is delicate and easily breaks apart when exposed to moisture, so they are typically prepared with liquid foods (as seen with the recipe ideas below). In this way, they are absorbed and digested well in their whole form, unlike flax seeds. If eating the seeds dry, choosing ground chia seeds may help to improve absorption.”
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-features/chia-seeds/
I have not seen any studies on this either - nor have I seen nutrition-educators who have shared studies. So I suspect there just aren’t any studies. Not enough money to be made?
I think your analysis is basically correct: if it’s true that ALA isn’t bioavailable from chia, then what you get is mostly the fiber (which is the binding effect of chia in many recipes) and low calories.
If you do get ALA from chia, that’s a nice bonus.
Seems all plant based Omega 3’s have a very low ALA conversion rate to EPA/DHA.And I bought in to the Flax,Chia, and Walnut regimen after becoming a vegetarian.Now, I wonder if the Algal derived DHA also has such limitations.
This study suggests that soaking does increase bioavailability but I had difficulty gleaning a “total” amount. Maybe it’s still not significant
Soaking does improve bioavailability because that’s how they are supposed to be consumed (in the “gel” form).
Grinding them would cause them to oxidize because they are mostly polyunsaturated fats, which are the most prone fats to oxidization.