Omega 3 Supplements?

[Georg]

if you refuse, irrationally as you say, to eat fish oil then flax oil is your best bet. It has plenty of Omega 3 in it. But it's not EPA. It has ALA which is converted at about 15% efficiency so you have to take a lot more.

Why would it be better than the hemp oil mentioned above?

 

[Big Les]

Be aware that there is some woo attached to Omega 3, with regard to its supposedly intellect-expanding properties.

See also www.badscience.net

 

[fls]

In My Spare Time,

As a medical person, I would recommend making better use of your time than worrying about Omega-3. The evidence that it will make any sort of difference to your life is weak.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

Be aware that there is some woo attached to Omega 3, with regard to its supposedly intellect-expanding properties.

See also www.badscience.net

This, to me, looks much more like criticism of the methodology adopted by the school in Durham that carried out the 'research' rather then the alleged benefits of Omega-3, so, personally, I'd stop well short of labelling it 'woo'.

 

[Southwind17]

In My Spare Time,

As a medical person, I would recommend making better use of your time than worrying about Omega-3. The evidence that it will make any sort of difference to your life is weak.

Linda

I take Omega-3 capsules, but I can't claim to know or even believe that they are beneficial. I like to think that they could be, or I'd stop taking them tomorrow, obviously. What's the 'weak evidence' that you allude to Linda? I'd like to understand Omega-3 better before I 'invest' in my next replacement bottle!

 

[fls]

I take Omega-3 capsules, but I can't claim to know or even believe that they are beneficial. I like to think that they could be, or I'd stop taking them tomorrow, obviously. What's the 'weak evidence' that you allude to Linda? I'd like to understand Omega-3 better before I 'invest' in my next replacement bottle!

The evidence that they may be beneficial as a preventive measure is based on notoriously unreliable epidemiologic studies.* It has yet to be confirmed (i.e. the studies that have been done haven't shown a consistent significant difference) that supplements make a difference in meaningful outcomes in secondary prevention for specific disease states which means the idea of primary prevention is not supported by good evidence but by a string of 'ifs'.

Linda

*Epidemiologic studies are very good at dividing people into groups that have different outcomes. They are not so good at allowing you to determine what characteristics are relevant to those different outcomes.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, we know from veterinary experiments that Omega-3 to Omega-6 ratios have a measurable health effect in the animal models.

We also know that taking such supplements (if you avoid the products where the Mercury has not been depleted) is absolutely harmless to you.

Given those two factors it would be unwise not to take the supplements until it is actually PROVEN valueless in humans.

 

[fls]

Well, we know from veterinary experiments that Omega-3 to Omega-6 ratios have a measurable health effect in the animal models.

We also know that taking such supplements (if you avoid the products where the Mercury has not been depleted) is absolutely harmless to you.

Given those two factors it would be unwise not to take the supplements until it is actually PROVEN valueless in humans.

We don't actually know that it is harmless. But the evidence that it is harmless is almost as good as the evidence that it is helpful. And I'll certainly continue to promote the general idea that it's useful to eat a balanced diet which includes 2 servings of fish per week (or in the case of the vegetarian, other foods that contain omega-3 fatty acids).

I don't care if people have the money and inclination to take supplements (although I have an unproven impression that it only contributes to the pill-popping, quick-fix mentality), but it seems silly to say it is unwise to do so when they haven't been proven safe or effective for the proposed use. My main message is, if you don't want to be bothered worrying about them, you don't need to.

Linda

 

[NeilC]

Why would it be better than the hemp oil mentioned above?

AFAIK flax has more ALA which I believe is the one that is converted into EPA, which is the thing you take fish oil for. I think flax contains more than any other veg oil. Hence flax is recommended as a replacement for fish oil.

 

[BenBurch]

Given that fish is not harmful (or if it is you should be able to see that Catholics fare less well than Baptists) you'd have to show me a mechanism by which extracted oils of fishes differs from the oils contained within the fish. Personally I don't think there is even any value in studying whether it is safe unless such a mechanism is shown. It would also have to be a mechanism that does not effect the animal models, where the data for improved clinical scores in double-blind controlled studies is sound.

And the health effects in the animal models appear to be significant.

So, yes, if I have the chance to take an inexpensive and harmless food product that seems to be substantially good for all the mammals it has been studied in, and the only negative is the construction of the confirmatory human studies, then I stand by "unwise."

And I wouldn't say that about virtually any other supplement, but I've seen a number of the veterinary papers and read the abstracts of a number of others, and the evidence is compelling at this time.

 

[fls]

Given that fish is not harmful (or if it is you should be able to see that Catholics fare less well than Baptists) you'd have to show me a mechanism by which extracted oils of fishes differs from the oils contained within the fish. Personally I don't think there is even any value in studying whether it is safe unless such a mechanism is shown. It would also have to be a mechanism that does not effect the animal models, where the data for improved clinical scores in double-blind controlled studies is sound.

I agree. I wouldn't study safety any differently than how it is usually recorded through clinical trials. My niggling concern is that in the US it is more difficult to discover and remove unsafe 'food supplements' from the market than it is for conventional drugs.

And the health effects in the animal models appear to be significant.

So, yes, if I have the chance to take an inexpensive and harmless food product that seems to be substantially good for all the mammals it has been studied in, and the only negative is the construction of the confirmatory human studies, then I stand by "unwise."

But that seems to be merely a difference in philosophy, rather than a position supported by evidence. When studies in humans fail to demonstrate differences in meaningful outcomes, couldn't it also be considered unwise to waste resources that could be spent elsewhere?

It seems to be a matter of personal preference. I don't think it's unreasonable or unwise for some people to find the taking of fish-oil supplements a good use of their resources. I also don't think it's unreasonable or unwise for other people to want a better (as a subjective assessment) use for their resources.

And I wouldn't say that about virtually any other supplement, but I've seen a number of the veterinary papers and read the abstracts of a number of others, and the evidence is compelling at this time.

Okay.

Linda

 

[Georg]

AFAIK flax has more ALA which I believe is the one that is converted into EPA, which is the thing you take fish oil for. I think flax contains more than any other veg oil. Hence flax is recommended as a replacement for fish oil.

Thanks, and you are right.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Given that fish is not harmful

This is a hard statement to rest an argument on. Sure fish is not highly harmful and does not seem to be very harmful. But extracting parts of a common food and then taking that can certainly be harmful. You can get much higher effective doses of the substances than you could get through eating them.

I think it is highly unlikely, but the relative merits of say butter vs margarine and such changing all the time I question such absolute statements.

 

[El Greco]

One word: Pubmed

 

[NeilC]

This is a hard statement to rest an argument on. Sure fish is not highly harmful and does not seem to be very harmful. But extracting parts of a common food and then taking that can certainly be harmful. You can get much higher effective doses of the substances than you could get through eating them.

I think it is highly unlikely, but the relative merits of say butter vs margarine and such changing all the time I question such absolute statements.

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

That is what consumer labs says. It has to do with the refining process.

 

[jon]

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Oily fish is potentially harmful - e.g. eating lots of seafood does very much appear to raise mercury levels in the body. However, whether this is is actually harmful - especially to adults who aren't, and won't be becoming, pregnant - is another issue. While I wouldn't deliberately raise my mercury levels, I'm quite relaxed about eating a few portions of fish a week (especially as, if I weren't eating the fish, I'd normally have something with more saturated fat etc instead...)

re. fish vs. fish oil supplements, the standard dietary advice is still generally to eat oily fish in moderation rather than take pills: fish is usually a healthy meal choice, which can replace less healthy alternatives (hence giving a double benefit). It also seems a better use of resources - e.g. I can buy a tin of sardines for the same price, or slightly less, than I'd pay for the equivalent amounts of omega 3 in pills. And the fish count as food that way, too

re. flax vs other oils with omega 3 - if people like eating flax, great. Tastes nasty to me, though, and lots seem to dislike it - so may also be worth looking at alternatives

 

[BenBurch]

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

That is not the fish per se but the fish raised in our horribly polluted oceans. It has been shown that Mercury concentrations in fish respond quickly to and track levels of industrial pollutants.

So, I stand my my contention. Before the Industrial Age there were many populations where Catholics and non-Catholics existed side-by side and ate exactly the same diet except that Catholics had "meatless days" on which only fish could be eaten. I am aware of no retrospective study, and I have looked, that shows that Catholics did less well because of this. If you can find one, I would be grateful for it!

And as you say, in most fish oil products, Mercury has been depleted. (I would not trust any coming from China, though - its more likely to be waste motor oil than fish oil given their record.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is not the fish per se but the fish raised in our horribly polluted oceans. It has been shown that Mercury concentrations in fish respond quickly to and track levels of industrial pollutants.

So, I stand my my contention. Before the Industrial Age there were many populations where Catholics and non-Catholics existed side-by side and ate exactly the same diet except that Catholics had "meatless days" on which only fish could be eaten. I am aware of no retrospective study, and I have looked, that shows that Catholics did less well because of this. If you can find one, I would be grateful for it!

And as you say, in most fish oil products, Mercury has been depleted. (I would not trust any coming from China, though - its more likely to be waste motor oil than fish oil given their record.)

Is one day of fish supposted to change anything? Also it is meatless, before the industrial age the extent that you could transport fish was rather limited.

 

[PetersCreek]

I realize this is purely anecdotal but...

I supplement my dog's already high-quality diet with oil from wild-caught Alaskan salmon. It has made an appreciable difference in his conditioning.

So, if you'd like a soft, shiny coat with less dander...