Psycho-Babble Alternative | about alternative treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Fish oil AGAIN.. » tealady

Posted by Larry Hoover on April 10, 2005, at 8:24:45

In reply to Fish oil AGAIN.., posted by tealady on April 9, 2005, at 0:13:25

> I've never been a great fan of high dose fish oil , but I figured up to 3 caps a day for typical male size (or tolerance if less) and salmon 2 times a week and some other fish was fine and now ..

Hi Jan. Hope you're doing well.

Great minds may differ, j, and this is one of those occasions. ;-)
> http://www.drugstore.com/qxa1072_333181_sespider-what_are_the_side_effects_of_fish_oil_supplements.htm

"The most commonly reported side effects of fish oil supplements include fishy odor on the breath, upset stomach, and greasy stools."

The former two are from poor quality fish oils, or taking them on an empty stomach, most of the time.

The latter one is news to me. I must have read hundreds of scientific reports about fish oil, and steatorrhea has never once been mentioned.

"A more serious side effect can be an increase in LDL cholesterol, a harmful form of cholesterol."

Now, this comment is so deceptive it needs to be stomped down and squashed until it no longer even squirms......

The small increase in LDL is always at the expense of VLDL particles. VLDL are associated with triglyceride levels. It is believed that LDL cholesterol increases because VLDL are no longer ferrying triglycerides around, and they can agglomerate into LDL. But that's a theory. The point is that overall cholesterol-related risk indices always improve with fish oil. Triglycerides go down, often by as much as 50%. VLDL go down by a similar amount. LDL go up, by 10-20%, but the total cholesterol:HDL ratio doesn't change. The net effect is always, and unequivocally, an improvement in CHD risk factors.

>Large doses of fish oil supplements may also cause weight gain

This may happen, certainly, but what other associated, but necessary, variables required to shift individuals into energy storage have not been determined. These cases stand as exceptions, where the rule is to the contrary.

> and decrease the absorption of vitamins A, E, D, and K from the stomach.

First off, it may be a pedantic quirk that I carry around with me, but when the statement itself contains an error, I'm ready to dismiss it outright. Not one of those nutrients is absorbed from the stomach.

Secondly, I looked for two hours last night, and I found nothing, nada, rien, zilch, that supported this statement. Nobody else has ever raised it, as far as I can tell.....except maybe in his lone two references, but I can't get access to full-text to verify. The abstracts say not a word against fish oil, other than noting the increase in LDL.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8738112
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8820475

The only way absorption of these fat soluble vitamins can be reduced is if there is fat in the gut that is not taken up. (And that's a pancreas/bile problem, or the effect of fat-restricted dieting.) The vitamins would then remain dissolved in the undigested/unabsorbed fat. If you take fish oil properly, with a meal that otherwise contains fat, that can't happen. And even if your meal did not contain any other fat, uptake is still about 50% (and would include all the vitamins from that 50%). Vitamin A, E, D, and K *require* fat to be absorbed, not the converse, as stated by this guy (a drug store pharmacist, by the way).

> If you have diabetes, use caution when taking fish oil supplements, they are reported to increase blood sugar.

No, that is not the case. The data are all over the place. Users should be aware that glucose regulation might change, but it is possible to predict neither the magnitude nor the direction of the change. We don't know why. Animal studies are absolutely unequivocal. Fish oil restores insulin sensitivity and reduces total insulin output in animal studies. People are different, somehow, or we have an uncontrolled environmental or diagnostic variable confounding the research. It is not yet possible to draw firm conclusions about what is happening.

> Taking large amounts of fish oils over a long period of time may increase the risk of mild bleeding resulting in nosebleeds and bruising.

No. False. Never reported. Exaggerated form of extrapolation. Fish oil normalizes two of seven clotting parameters. All five of the others are absolutely unaffected.

Bleeding *time* might increase, but never the tendency to bleed. And, given the profound increases in the rates of medical disease associated with hypercoagulability states (e.g. coronary thrombosis, occlusive stroke, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, atherosclerosis, etc.), the significant number of our populations requiring "blood thinners" (e.g. warfarin, a.k.a. rat poison), one might argue that a little blood thinning is a good thing. <weighing things in his hands.....fish oil...rat poison....fish oil....rat poison>

> http://forums.about.com/ab-lowcarbdiets/messages?msg=266.1
>
> tea

Sorry, jan, but she's saying something (unreferenced) which does not accord with what we know.

She said, with reference to fish oil raising insulin levels, " It affects insulin receptors....blocks them in higher doses such as in supplements.. ".

Fish oil enhances insulin receptor sensitivity, not blocking receptors in any possible sense of the word. The problem is you have to look at the specific class of tissue bearing the receptor to see the effect. Muscle insulin receptors become more sensitive, but they do not uptake glucose at increased rates. Adipocytes, fat storage cells, both are made more sensitive and display increased uptake. Red blood cells become more adept at taking up glucose. Brain uptake has not yet been measured, AFAIK.

Fish oil tends to increase post-prandial glucose release (after-meal effect). It does not, however, change *total* insulin release. It changes the pattern. In fact, that is more in accord with the pattern of glycemic load from a meal.

A key point to always keep in mind when considering research protocols is how "natural" the intervention is. Simply using fish oil intake as the independent variable, while maintaining all other variables stable, gives a false measurement of the effect of fish oil on physiology. For example, recent work has shown that the increases in LDL cholesterol levels associated with fish oil DO NOT OCCUR when fish oil is consumed with gamma-linolenic acid, in the proper proportions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12499320

I appreciate your bringing these links to our attention, jan. I don't think either of them stands up to scrutiny, though. Certainly, there are case reports that may suggest these adverse situations may be linked to fish oil, but the pattern is different.

Hope you're good, and all that.

Lar

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:481892
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050323/msgs/482288.html