[adrian_b]

The study linked by you has shown that the concentrations in blood of DHA and EPA for vegans were less than half of those for omnivores.

Therefore this study is also one of the many which have shown that the human body has only a limited capacity of converting ALA into DHA and EPA, so that the nutritional supplements with DHA and EPA are beneficial for vegans (e.g. from oil of Schizochytrium, a non-plant non-animal unicellular living being, which is falsely named as "algae" by vendors, to sound more like a vegetable to vegan ears, if the cheaper fish oil is deemed to be unacceptable).

This study certainly does not support your claim that "a completely vegan diet, which has no DHA, is completely sufficient to sustain the body".

Yes, it is enough to have ALA in your food to avoid a quick death, but ALA is not enough to ensure a good health and a long life.

[dTal]

>e.g. from oil of Schizochytrium, a non-plant non-animal unicellular living being, which is falsely named as "algae" by vendors, to sound more like a vegetable to vegan ears

You seem to be implying here that Schizochytrium is not a vegan product, even though "non-animal" is completely sufficient to meet that criterion.

[adrian_b]

I agree that, as you say, being non-animal is sufficient.

Nevertheless, I find it funny that the vendors have felt the need to use the word "algae" for marketing this product.

It is true however that while "algae" is incorrect, there is no appropriate word to name them that would be easily understood by the general public.

At most they might be called "protists", as in many biology manuals, which is a word that I strongly dislike as meaningless.

("Protists" means "the first", but among which and according to what ordering criterion? "Protist" is a word normally used with the meaning "unicellular eukaryote" a.k.a. "unicellular nucleate", but one should better use the words that are meant.)