Posted by Larry Hoover on March 21, 2007, at 13:35:45
In reply to Re: omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 13, 2007, at 16:37:32
> Those Norwegians.
>
> Well. I suppose its a good study? The thing is, the Norwegian salmon industry is huge here in Europe, so of course they're going to come out with eating the fish is better than taking the fish oil. I *think* fish oil is produced more from sardines than salmon. Do they have a study comparing the omega 3 content of farmed vs wild fish?There are substantial regional differences in the omega-3 content of farmed salmon. American products have tested higher in omega-3 than their respective wild-caught fellows, whereas northern European farmed salmon generally test lower. It has to do with different diets; European salmon get more grain than do American fishes.
Fish oils also show regional differences. Menhadden oil and salmon oil predominate in North America. Sardine and herring oils do have significant market share, world wide. The Norwegian fish oil I sometimes purchase is from salmon.
> Anyway, I guess eating the fish is more natural than taking the fish oil supplements.
And, you get other brain-healthy nutrients, e.g. DMAE. Also, there are differences in the physiological effects of different proteins, despite "standard nutritional wisdom" that protein is protein. Here are a couple samples:
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/E62
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17010226> Don't you always advise taking the oil with your fattiest meal of the day? Sounds sensible to me.
Yes, to best stimulate bile release from the gallbladder. I have also learned that protein also causes gallbladder contractions, so either one would do.
> Well only a couple of days ago I ate a nice piece of Norweigian salmon in the student cafeteria, whilst trying not to panic about the possible mercury content....going 'this is good for me, this is good for me'.... hehehe.
>
> Kind regards
>
> MeriI know I've said this before, but I'll say it again. All fish is contaminated, but so is all food. Fish eaters are healthier than fish avoiders, despite contaminants, except if the fish comes from particularly polluted waters.
Mercury is made completely inert by selenium. Unfortunately, much of the EU has soils deficient in this mineral, so foods grown there are similarly deficient. It's good insurance to take a selenium supp.
BTW, the most commonly used tests for mercury content in fish do not distinguish between free mercury, and bound mercury. The latter would include the selenium-mercury compound that neutralizes the reactivity of mercury. The test itself destroys the bonds between mercury and whatever it was found associated with, so the mercury risks are not really as high as they are said to be. Fish are a good source of selenium, and I can guarantee that the fish stay healthy because of it. As do the polar bears and seals et al that subsist on the fishes.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:740664
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20070320/msgs/742852.html