Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2002, at 12:11:07
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, all right, all ready, I'll try it... » Ed O`Flaherty, posted by disney4 on November 3, 2002, at 9:17:41
> Hi Ed,
>
> My only concern is the blood glucose level, and the possibility of contamination. I only take 2 though, so I don't think it is affecting my glucose level too much, as I am not a diabetic, so I may stick with it for now.There are two different mechanisms by which fish oil might affect glucose regulation. One is an acute effect (immediate) and the other chronic (long-term). Neither one is any concern to someone who is not already insulin-resistant, as both improve the responsiveness of your body to insulin signalling. The DHA in fish oil upregulates the synthesis of insulin receptors in skeletal muscle, acting to prevent insulin resistance and the development of type-2 diabetes, or what is known as Syndrome X. For those already under treatment for glucose regulation problems, adding fish oil to the diet may temporarily affect the dose and timing of medication required, so medical supervision may be necessary. However, that effect diminishes over time.
The issue of contamination may be a red herring, if you'll pardon the horrible play on words. The British government agency MAFF has probably got the premier food-surveillance and analysis program in the world today, and their analyses of commercial fish oils does not show gross contamination, with the exception of some cod liver oils. Liver is where the toxicants accumulate most readily, but you shouldn't use liver oils daily in any case, because they are so full of fat-soluble vitamins. Commercial fish oils are a commodity, just like pork bellies. There probably isn't too much variability between brands, except perhaps those brands which are supposed to have been 'cleaned up', for which you pay a premium. I'm not so sure I'd take their word for it. The British studies don't seem to find much difference (although I may be misinterpreting that issue).
The reason I don't think contamination is too much of an issue arises from my studies of epidemiology. People who eat fish are healthier than those who don't, in a vast number of ways of measuring health. Those fish may or may not have been grossly contaminated, but except for some 'hot spots' of local contamination, there does not seem to be a link between fish consumption and negative outcomes. People are eating the same fish from which the oils originate, and are healthier because of it.
You might want to look at it the choice this way: Is it better to remain in a mental state for which I sought treatment (proven ill health), or take the risk that consuming fish products might make me sick down the line?
>Also the GNC rep told me if I was concerned about the possibility of contaminents in fish oil, than the Salmon is the way to go.Yes, salmon is a good choice, with respect to contaminant levels.
>I am considering buying the twinlab brand, but I am afraid that would be too high a dose for me at one time.
I don't understand the link between brand and dose. You want to take as much fish oil as is necessary to provide about 1 gram/day of EPA.
>The Eskimo 3 brand is another one I may try, since I like the way they purify the oil, but it seems cost prohibitive for me, when the Salmon Oil is clearly working. I am going to continue to research this.
I'm not convinced the extra cost is worth it, but some may decide that controlling as many variables as possible is a contributor to peace of mind.
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:125809
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20021101/msgs/126272.html