![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin on June 14, 2004, at 8:03:50
Can someone tell me what is the actually action of Fish Oil in the brain? As in, how does it work with mood & emotional states for improvement?
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 15, 2004, at 8:48:36
In reply to Fish Oil, posted by Glydin on June 14, 2004, at 8:03:50
> Can someone tell me what is the actually action of Fish Oil in the brain? As in, how does it work with mood & emotional states for improvement?
I could give you some very detailed information, or the more general "evening news" version. Which are you looking for?
Lar
Posted by cherylann on June 17, 2004, at 23:05:52
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 15, 2004, at 8:48:36
From my understanding, fish oil makes the brain cell walls more receptive to seratonin or anything that increases seratonin. I'm sure there's a better way to explain the process, but that my laymen's understanding.
Posted by woolav on June 24, 2004, at 15:22:14
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by cherylann on June 17, 2004, at 23:05:52
Larry, I am trying to find out the same thing. I heard it helps ppl lose weight who have gained from anti-dep meds and also that it acts as a mood stablizer. If you find out post it please.
Posted by Stryker88 on June 27, 2004, at 5:53:20
In reply to Re: Fish Oil-----we need help!!!!!!!!!!!, posted by woolav on June 24, 2004, at 15:22:14
I take supplements like fish oil but i sneak in a couple sodas per day because of my effexor drowsiness, do soda cans flush out all this good stuff and ruin the effects of these supplements
Posted by paulbwell on June 27, 2004, at 6:10:53
In reply to Re: Fish Oil-----we need help!!!!!!!!!!!, posted by Stryker88 on June 27, 2004, at 5:53:20
> I take supplements like fish oil but i sneak in a couple sodas per day because of my effexor drowsiness, do soda cans flush out all this good stuff and ruin the effects of these supplements
>I take 10 caps a day. Is it worth it?
Tegretol makes me depressed and I dnt take it cos of this, unless im feelin a manic episode comin on. Drugs control and damage, nutrients rebuild and improve I think?
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
In reply to Fish Oil, posted by Glydin on June 14, 2004, at 8:03:50
> Can someone tell me what is the actually action of Fish Oil in the brain? As in, how does it work with mood & emotional states for improvement?
There are a whole lot of reasons, and I am a little concerned that I will overwhelm with detail....I'll try to keep it simple.
There are two particular fatty acids in fish oil that are linked with beneficial brain effects. They are both omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. One is EPA, and the other, its slightly longer, slightly more unsaturated partner, DHA. They have radically different, but complimentary, effects in the brain.
EPA decreases inflammatory response. What has that to do with mood? We know that depression is associated with disruptions in the immune system, especially increases in immune reactivity. Whether that is cause or effect, we do know that if you get the immune response more normalized, mood tends to go with it. EPA counteracts the effects of another fatty acid that has the same length, but which is an omega-6 fatty acid with one less unsaturated bond (arichidonic acid, AA). The predominant effect of EPA is believed to lie in its dampening of the adverse effect of AA. We get far too much AA in diet, and not enough EPA. In this regard, we are malnourished in EPA.
DHA has more of a direct effect on neuronal behaviour. DHA is a structural component of neuronal membranes. When it is deficient in diet, it is replaced by AA, and the membranes become less fluid. That inhibits receptors from working properly. The brain undergoes general stress from this, having to work harder to accomplish the "desired" response from neurotransmitter release. DHA is also cleaved from membranes under certain events, and it too counteracts the adverse effects of AA release via the same mechanism. If you don't have the DHA to release, you only get the AA effect.
DHA is also linked to changes in genetic regulation of neuron behaviour. There are substantial changes in genes which regulate energy metabolism, membrane protein expression, neuronal plasticity, and other beneficial changes. (See: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=122397, Table 5)
There is substantial evidence that man evolved on a diet that provided an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of about 1:1. Current western-type diets provide an imbalanced ratio of between 30:1 and 200:1. Culturally, we are all omega-3 deficient. This may alone be responsible for the increase in mood disorders in western society.
There is some controversy over whether supplementing with the shorter omega-3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic (e.g. flax oil) is sufficient to overcome the imbalance from diet, as there are five chemical reactions required to convert it to DHA. The yield, the efficiency of that process, has been estimated to be close to zero in men, and no more than 7% in women. Therefore, it is best, IMHO, to use fish oil, as it contains the fatty acids already formed. (There are exceptions, of course. I have a bipolar friend who goes manic on fish oil, but who is stabilized by flax oil. I make no promises.)
There are no concerns about heavy metal contamination of fish oil. Heavy metals segregate out with proteins in the purification process. There is no protein in the purified product (what you buy), so there are no heavy metals, either.
Fish oil confers other major health benefits, such as enhanced cardiovascular health, resistance to the development of Alzheimer's, resistance to certain causes of blindness, resistance to diabetes, reduction of blood pressure, beneficial changes in HDL/LDL cholesterol ratios, and so on.
I will pause here, but I welcome further questions.
Lar
Posted by Glydin on June 27, 2004, at 23:07:41
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
Great explanation. I appreciate your time and knowledge to write that.
Posted by tampagirl70 on June 28, 2004, at 11:29:04
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
so in other words, its beneficial to take fish oil? how do you determine how much to take?
also, what about CLA (conjugated linoliac (sp?) acid)? does that have any antidepressant benefits?
i was taking both fish oil and CLA on a daily basis, along with a multi-vitamin, but i've taken a short break from them all.
Posted by Questionmark on June 28, 2004, at 14:37:19
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
> There are two particular fatty acids in fish oil that are linked with beneficial brain effects. They are both omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. One is EPA, and the other, its slightly longer, slightly more unsaturated partner, DHA. They have radically different, but complimentary, effects in the brain.
>
> EPA decreases inflammatory response. What has that to do with mood? We know that depression is associated with disruptions in the immune system, especially increases in immune reactivity. Whether that is cause or effect, we do know that if you get the immune response more normalized, mood tends to go with it. EPA counteracts the effects of another fatty acid that has the same length, but which is an omega-6 fatty acid with one less unsaturated bond (arichidonic acid, AA). The predominant effect of EPA is believed to lie in its dampening of the adverse effect of AA. We get far too much AA in diet, and not enough EPA. In this regard, we are malnourished in EPA.
>
> DHA has more of a direct effect on neuronal behaviour. DHA is a structural component of neuronal membranes. When it is deficient in diet, it is replaced by AA, and the membranes become less fluid. That inhibits receptors from working properly. The brain undergoes general stress from this, having to work harder to accomplish the "desired" response from neurotransmitter release. DHA is also cleaved from membranes under certain events, and it too counteracts the adverse effects of AA release via the same mechanism. If you don't have the DHA to release, you only get the AA effect.
>
> DHA is also linked to changes in genetic regulation of neuron behaviour. There are substantial changes in genes which regulate energy metabolism, membrane protein expression, neuronal plasticity, and other beneficial changes. (See: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=122397, Table 5)
>
> There is substantial evidence that man evolved on a diet that provided an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of about 1:1. Current western-type diets provide an imbalanced ratio of between 30:1 and 200:1. Culturally, we are all omega-3 deficient. This may alone be responsible for the increase in mood disorders in western society.
>
> There is some controversy over whether supplementing with the shorter omega-3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic (e.g. flax oil) is sufficient to overcome the imbalance from diet, as there are five chemical reactions required to convert it to DHA. The yield, the efficiency of that process, has been estimated to be close to zero in men, and no more than 7% in women. Therefore, it is best, IMHO, to use fish oil, as it contains the fatty acids already formed. (There are exceptions, of course. I have a bipolar friend who goes manic on fish oil, but who is stabilized by flax oil. I make no promises.)
>
> There are no concerns about heavy metal contamination of fish oil. Heavy metals segregate out with proteins in the purification process. There is no protein in the purified product (what you buy), so there are no heavy metals, either.
>
> Fish oil confers other major health benefits, such as enhanced cardiovascular health, resistance to the development of Alzheimer's, resistance to certain causes of blindness, resistance to diabetes, reduction of blood pressure, beneficial changes in HDL/LDL cholesterol ratios, and so on.
>
> I will pause here, but I welcome further questions.
>
> Lar
i'm almost positive i've read in at least one place before (one place in particular being a health pamphlet called Nutrition Action, with one of its issues having a section on fish farming and contamination) that a number of potentially harmful contaminants are lipid-soluble and therefore found in the oils of fish. i wish i could remember some examples, but i cannot. i thought that even mercury was one, but maybe not. In any case, i'm almost sure that there were some that are. i could be wrong, of course, but i don't think i am. Thoughts/comments on this?
Thanks.
Posted by traveler on June 28, 2004, at 21:42:52
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
Are there any negatives to taking fish oil? Any interactions with anything?
Posted by sooshi on June 28, 2004, at 22:25:52
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
Thanx for the explanation. I still don't know whether to buy the cheap stuff or the expensive stuff...cheap or expensive, cheap or expensive??? Is there really a big difference between brands?? Do I really have to take so MUCH of it? This is so confusing....I just don't have the money to be wasting my time on something that's going to waste my time...
Bipolar D/O, Heart Disease and high cholesterol, and arthritis all run heavily in my family, so I REALLY want to find out about this stuff!
Thanks (to any and all) in advance,
Sooshi
Posted by Glydin on June 28, 2004, at 23:04:53
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Larry Hoover, posted by sooshi on June 28, 2004, at 22:25:52
I've done cheap and expensive (high EPA) and find no difference. I've also dosed high and low and find I'm fine to use the recommended dosing on an extra strength Walmart brand. That being said, I'm not a BP diagnosis. I believe the research Dr. Stoll conducted targeted BP specifically and the recommendation for high EPA is accomplished by alot of softgels or an expensive EPA formulation. You might try the cheap and lower dosing and see what happens?
The only contraindications on meds that I've found is if you are on an anticoag med (blood thinners) or high dose aspirin. This is somewhat debated, the blood thinning properties of using fish oil - but if you do take those meds, it's best to check with your doctor.
I think fish oil does make a difference, to the good, for me --- it's one of the few (of the many) suppliments I've tried that really did seem to make a difference and I've stuck with.
Good Luck.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 29, 2004, at 12:10:37
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by Questionmark on June 28, 2004, at 14:37:19
> i'm almost positive i've read in at least one place before (one place in particular being a health pamphlet called Nutrition Action, with one of its issues having a section on fish farming and contamination) that a number of potentially harmful contaminants are lipid-soluble and therefore found in the oils of fish. i wish i could remember some examples, but i cannot. i thought that even mercury was one, but maybe not. In any case, i'm almost sure that there were some that are. i could be wrong, of course, but i don't think i am. Thoughts/comments on this?
> Thanks.Okay. This issue is right up my alley. It's my core competency, as an environmental toxicologist. I hope I don't talk *too* much about the issues.
First, with respect to the report you recall....there is a political activist group in the United States which is trying to prevent the continued captive-fish farming activities on the west coast of North America. It was quite deceptive for that group to fund a study which assessed the contaminant burden in both farmed and wild-caught salmon without revealing the motive behind their attack. Their real motives involve habitat destruction due to intensive nutrient fallout from the fish pens, risk of fish disease, impact on aboriginal peoples, and the risk of genetic dilution or displacement of native fish stocks (Atlantic salmon are being raised on the Pacific coast). They'll do anything to create doubt about the safety of farmed fish, so they raise the POP flag.
POPs are persistent organic pollutants. (These things are 'persistent' because bacteria don't know what to do with them (they haven't evolved to eat them, i.e. they don't have enzymes that fit), and because UV light from the sun doesn't blow them apart.) As a class, POPs are generally fat soluble (e.g. PCBs, dioxins, pesticides). As a result, they are not easily excreted (in urine or feces), and instead accumulate in fat-storage tissue. That also leads to increased concentrations in predators eating contaminated prey, via a mechanism called biomagnification. The higher up the food chain you eat, the more likely you are to face increased POP burdens.
In the study released this spring (I'm sure that's the one that caught your eye), farmed salmon was associated with a PCB burden of 36 parts per billion. The FDA upper limit is 2,000 ppb. One reviewer of the study data applied the carcinogenesis risk estimate (using accepted mathematical models of actual risk from PCB exposure) to the salmon in question, and derived an increase in cancer incidence of 1 case per 100,000 consumers eating the fish for 70 years (one entire lifetime). It strains credulity to perceive that increase as a palpable risk. I'm also sure that the headline "Farmed fish are a cancer risk" gets a lot more publicity than one that says "Farmed salmon increase cancer risk by 1 case in 100,000 lifetimes of exposure". For perspective, there is a far far higher cancer risk from drinking chlorinated drinking water. (But again, for perpective, there is a far far greater risk, yet again, from drinking untreated water.)
Back to POPs. One of the most important aspects to interpreting data as reported in that fish study is to consider the context in which they are collected. For example, dietary exposure to PCBs and dioxins is continuously falling (in general terms), and has been falling for at least two decades. It is revealing to find that eggs and grain in 1982 (Britain) had similar levels of PCBs and dioxins as do fish today, and that historically, daily intake via different foods was quite similar between e.g. meat, fish, milk, eggs, and grain. See: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fsis38_2003.pdf, and refer to the tables at the end of the article. (The British government seems to be a tad more diligent in analyzing and publishing data than are North American administrations. For more, see: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/surveillance/) The take-home points are: a) *all* food is contaminated by POPs ; and, b) contamination levels are falling over time.
The first point bears great emphasis. All food is contaminated. For whatever reason, fish have drawn a greater-than-typical share of the examinations and analyses of contaminant burden. The second point has to do with the chemistry of the POPs as a class, and directly influences the first point.
Contamination of the environment by POPs begins with acute exposure. Someone spills a drum of chemical here, disposes of something there, incinerates waste some place else. These point-source releases are totally dispersed over time, via a mechanism which environmental toxicologists call fugacity, i.e. the ability of the chemical to flee (same root meaning as fugitive). Usually, that involves vapourization (volatility), and air movement is so random the whole Earth is readily exposed. The other major process is called partitioning, and is more of a solubility thing. That's what draws POPs into fatty tissues in animals exposed to them. So, you have these two counter-balancing influences. Volatility moves the chemicals around, but reduces concentration in an absolute sense, and partitioning, which increases the concentration all over again, but within an organism.
Once we realized how it was that e.g. DDT was found in huge concentrations in Arctic wildlife, where DDT had never been used (via volatility), manufacture and use of certain POPs has been drastically curtailed. In the environment, partitioning is constantly reducing the reservoir of POPs, leading to falling concentrations in the food chain. The predominant sink (where we say the contaminants disappear to) is marine sediment. The contaminants fall to the ocean floor partitioned into various forms of gunk, and get buried over time by other bits of debris. The Earth is "sweeping it all under the carpet", so to speak, and so long as the sediments remain undisturbed, those contaminants are no longer of concern to the living organisms in the rest of the environment.
Now, back to the risk/benefit consideration of fish consumption. I'm going to add some emphasis to certain terms in the following paragraph, and I want you to read it that way.
The fairly recent focus on promoting fish consumption has come from things like cohort dietary analyses correlated with health outcomes, and comparisons of regional dietary trends with disease incidence. You can be certain that the people upon whom those data depend were *not* eating pure and uncontaminated fish. Quite the contrary, fish consumed two decades ago were **more likely to be highly contaminated** than are fish of today. And yet, we attribute health benefits to a history of eating those **contaminated** fish. Let's not forget, this isn't a new problem. It's actually **a problem that is fading away**. I may well be a jaded old environmental toxicologist, but I eat farmed fish, without the slightest concern. Trust me, there are less publicized things that ought to worry you more.
Now, to fish oil specifically. I've found two government test documents that specifically refer to fish oil. The first one (it requires Adobe Acrobat to view it) deals with British fish oil supplements, but I don't think it matters much. Fish oil is a world commodity, just like wheat and pork bellies. You're eating the same stuff. Fish liver oils contain more toxic contaminants than do fish body oils, because the liver binds toxins to destroy them. You shouldn't use fish liver oils exclusively, anyway, because they contain such high concentrations of vitamins A and D that you can overdose. The take-home message is that fish oils contain less than the very conservative level of contaminants known as the TDI, or Tolerable Daily Intake, of POPs. Scientists know there is some intake, but it's not enough to raise concern.
The second report deals with fish meal and fish oil as used in aquaculture (farmed fish) in Canada. Fish oil sold for human consumption is purified from this crude oil used for fish feed supplements. So these contaminant loads are not representative of commercial fish oils sold for human consumption in North America, but you can get an idea of the scope of the world-wide pollution problem. You *are* being protected. Testing is being done.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/26diox.pdf
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/dioxe.shtml
Although it includes some exceedingly technical details, the following report completed by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, "Investigation of Dioxins, Furans and PCBs in Farmed Salmon, Wild Salmon, Farmed Trout and Fish Oil Capsules", reaches the following conclusion:
"At the levels of dioxin identified in this study, the FSAI is of the opinion that there is no risk of consumers exceeding tolerable levels of dioxin from either the consumption of farmed fish or wild salmon as part of a balanced diet or fish oil capsule supplements when taken in accordance with the manufacturers instructions."http://www.fsai.ie/surveillance/food/surveillance_food_summarydioxins.asp
With respect to heavy metal contamination of fish oils....Just as POPs partition into fatty tissues, heavy metals partition into protein. The most basic purification of fish oil involves complete removal of protein. That also completely removes the heavy metals. There is no mercury in fish oil.
There are specific brands of fish oil which are said to have been fully purged of POP contaminants. Less purified fish oils do not breach the safety threshold, at least with respect to how we currently understand the risks. In conclusion, I am willing to recommend the use of fish oils for health reasons, without reservation or concern. The benefits far far exceed the risks. In those whose health is already compromised, perhaps as a direct result of omega-3 deficiency, the benefit is even greater.
For the geekier among you, here are a couple full-text articles on the health benefits of fish oils:
http://www.ijp-online.com/archives/1999/031/04/r0247-0264re.pdf
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~jls/msc/varenna.pdf
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 29, 2004, at 12:14:45
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Larry Hoover, posted by traveler on June 28, 2004, at 21:42:52
> Are there any negatives to taking fish oil? Any interactions with anything?
Yes. If you are on blood-thinners (e.g. warfarin), fish oil can have an additive effect on anticoagulation. In anyone under medical supervision for anything having to do with blood clotting, a retitration of medication dosing is required. Your doctor may resist this entirely, due to the extra work involved, but fish oil is not itself a risk factor for excess bleeding.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 29, 2004, at 12:15:43
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Larry Hoover, posted by sooshi on June 28, 2004, at 22:25:52
> Thanx for the explanation. I still don't know whether to buy the cheap stuff or the expensive stuff...cheap or expensive, cheap or expensive???
I use cheap fish oil, but I have a Scots heritage.
Lar
Posted by chicklet on June 29, 2004, at 16:16:29
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » sooshi, posted by Larry Hoover on June 29, 2004, at 12:15:43
>>>> I use cheap fish oil, but I have a Scots heritage.
Lar, you are a goofball
K
Posted by rockette on June 29, 2004, at 18:58:38
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Larry Hoover, posted by chicklet on June 29, 2004, at 16:16:29
Just FYI...
I had throat surgery last week and needed general anesthesia--in addition to stopping any aspirin products one week before surgery they had me stop taking Vitamin E and Fish Oil supplements also. Something about it interferring with the anesthesia. I was allowed to resume it the next day.
Posted by sooshi on June 30, 2004, at 23:25:21
In reply to Re: Fish Oil and surgery (fyi), posted by rockette on June 29, 2004, at 18:58:38
Thanks Larry and Glydin...I guess I'll go for the cheaper stuff and see how it goes. I'm mostly seeking benefit for my aching joints, high cholesterol and triglycerides at this point, since I'm pretty stable on my psych meds (although I expect "poop-out" at any minute now)
Posted by Glydin on July 1, 2004, at 7:41:55
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by sooshi on June 30, 2004, at 23:25:21
> Thanks Larry and Glydin...I guess I'll go for the cheaper stuff and see how it goes. I'm mostly seeking benefit for my aching joints, high cholesterol and triglycerides at this point, since I'm pretty stable on my psych meds
<<<Good for you on the meds thing. The fish oil a whirl, it's gradual, but I have arthritis and I think it helps the aches and creaks. Evidence has it good for the heart, too.
(although I expect "poop-out" at any minute now)<<<Ah now, don't go thinking that way. Doesn't happen to everyone everytime. I'm glad they're working for you.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 1, 2004, at 9:57:10
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by sooshi on June 30, 2004, at 23:25:21
> Thanks Larry and Glydin...I guess I'll go for the cheaper stuff and see how it goes. I'm mostly seeking benefit for my aching joints, high cholesterol and triglycerides at this point, since I'm pretty stable on my psych meds (although I expect "poop-out" at any minute now)
Good attitude. The fish oil will absolutely help with cholesterol and triglycerides. Mood benefits would simply be bonus effects. For joint pain, though, you should be taking a gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) supp, like borage or evening primrose oil. The fish oil will actually shunt this omega-6 fatty acid away from the elongation and desaturation pathways that lead to arichidonic acid, and instead, enhance the formation of anti-inflammatory prostaglandins.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 1, 2004, at 9:59:35
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » sooshi, posted by Glydin on July 1, 2004, at 7:41:55
> (although I expect "poop-out" at any minute now)I cannot imagine a mechanism by which fish oil could poop out. You might become accustomed to the health benefits, and no longer notice them in the same way, but fish oil will always confer health benefits.
Lar
Posted by traveler on July 1, 2004, at 12:01:05
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » sooshi, posted by Larry Hoover on July 1, 2004, at 9:57:10
Which is better for the joint pain borage oil or evening primrose oil? Are there any drawbacks to either?
thank you
Posted by Glydin on July 1, 2004, at 13:02:02
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on July 1, 2004, at 9:59:35
'twas referring to sooshi saying they were looking for med "poop out at any minute now". Fish oil seems to keep going strong, as far as I can tell.
I do take EPO, too.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 2, 2004, at 13:49:05
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by traveler on July 1, 2004, at 12:01:05
> Which is better for the joint pain borage oil or evening primrose oil? Are there any drawbacks to either?
> thank youAny oil supplement can upset the stomach, so always take with your largest meal (preferably also the fattiest meal). Borage oil has a higher percentage GLA than does EPO, but there may be something else in EPO that has beneficial effects.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.