Posted by Jlx on September 15, 2006, at 12:13:51
In reply to Re: fish oils? - Thanks » Ed O`Flaherty » Jlx, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 10:27:27
There has been a lot of research on fish oil, but a lot of it is very specific and/or too scientific for me to comprehend. Some interesting sounding stuff is only available in subscription journals too.
I found the 2.7 gram EPA dose (not less) for inflammation as pertaining to arthritis to be especially interesting as depression is linked with inflammation. Yet it's hard to draw a firm conclusion from the varying amounts of EPA that have been used in the depression fish oil studies.
And it's apparently DHA that's linked with Alzheimer's, not EPA. (I tend to look at anything that seems related to "brain health" or the lack thereof as potentially relevant to mood disorders.)
http://www1.va.gov/resdev/news/press_releases/fish-oil-032505.cfm
http://www.supplementquality.com/efficacy/DHA_alzheimers.html (The
DHA is also essential for brain development. http://www.biopsychiatry.com/dha.htm
And is it DHA or EPA that's most important for depression?
"Geographic areas where consumption of DHA is high are associated with decreased rates of depression. DHA deficiency states, such as alcoholism and the postpartum period, also are linked with depression. Individuals with major depression have marked depletions in omega-3 FAs (especially DHA) in erythrocyte phospholipids compared with controls. These data suggest that DHA may be associated with depression, and the limited data available on supplementation with DHA or other omega-3 FAs seem to support the hypothesis that DHA may have psychotropic effects." http://www.biopsychiatry.com/dhaomega.htm
Most of the time, since there's both EPA and DHA in fish oil capsules, it's probably true that even if one is the most important factor to an individual, taking enough capsules will do the trick. But that's always the basic question -- how much to take? Why the discrepancy in the studies? IS there significance to EPA over DHA, vice versa and does this perhaps vary with the individual? Or some other unknown factor that may be interactive?
I read "The Omega Connection" by Andrew L. Stoll who then developed Omega-Brite fish oil capsules to have a very high EPA to DHA ratio, presumably because he thought that was the most efficacious. But his study was done on bipolar, so is higher EPA more desirable or necessary for bipolar? Is the same or opposite true for unipolar? Or does it make no difference?
Omega Brite has a 7:1 EPA to DHA ratio, each capsule is 350 mg EPA/50 mg DHA. At $21 per 60 capsules, that's 35 cents per capsule. If I wanted to take 2.7 EPA per day, that's about 8 capsules at $2.80 per day versus the Natural Factors I take now, which for an approx comparable amount of EPA, is 70 cents. http://www.omegabrite.com/products/gelcaps_brochure/
If there was that much benefit to the higher EPA/DHA ratio, $2 a day may not be prohibitive, but is there?
Country Life Omega 3 Mood, which has 500 mg EPA/100 mg DHA is, I believe, the next highest EPA/DHA ratio brand available. At 60 cents a capsule at this site, 2.5 gm of EPA per day is $3. http://www.vitacost.com/CountryLifeOmega3Mood
I tried this Omega 3 Mood brand, for a month though I don't remember how much I took. I didn't notice any upswing in mood from my regular fish oil at that time. But as usual, the question is did I take enough?
I've also tried a DHA only brand and had a vague, not definitive, sense that I felt worse. http://www.iherb.com/store/productdetails.aspx?c=Herbs&pid=JRW-16018
Besides the amount, the other consideration is the time factor. A month trial, such as I did with the Omega Mood, is probably not long enough. 6-8 months is probably a better trial, or even a year.
I think I may strive to up my current brand's dose to 7 capsules a day and stick with it for many months.
One reason why I write posts like this is to have a record I can refer back to. :)
JL
poster:Jlx
thread:685271
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20060817/msgs/686209.html