![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 38. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by h on July 7, 2004, at 13:33:01
In reply to Re: GLA » traveler, posted by Larry Hoover on July 2, 2004, at 13:49:05
> > Which is better for the joint pain borage oil or evening primrose oil? Are there any drawbacks to either?
> > thank you
>
> Any 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
>
I go to an alternative healthcare dr. who is very good at telling me what NOT to take. Certain oils have estrogenic properties and are pretty strong. I have a history of breast cancer so I can't take Evening Primrose oil, just as I can't take any kind of prescription estrogen replacements. If anybody has been told to avoid estrogens, please, please don't take EPO.
h
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 10, 2004, at 6:20:40
In reply to Re: GLA-beware. EPO has estrogenic properties, posted by h on July 7, 2004, at 13:33:01
> I go to an alternative healthcare dr. who is very good at telling me what NOT to take. Certain oils have estrogenic properties and are pretty strong. I have a history of breast cancer so I can't take Evening Primrose oil, just as I can't take any kind of prescription estrogen replacements. If anybody has been told to avoid estrogens, please, please don't take EPO.
> hThanks for the heads-up.
Lar
Posted by Tendency on August 6, 2004, at 18:18:38
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Glydin, posted by Larry Hoover on June 27, 2004, at 10:13:21
> EPA decreases inflammatory response.
If this assertion is not anecdotal please site sources.
> DHA has more of a direct effect on neuronal behaviour.
Again, sources please?
> 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)
..perhaps that linkage can be established in *rats*..
> There is substantial evidence that man evolved on a diet that provided an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of about 1:1.
Such as?
> 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.
Source?? I see many claims here but nothing to back them up. Are these claims based upon clinical observation? Scientific study? Mars conjuct Venus? Thanks for clarification.
Posted by Glydin on August 6, 2004, at 18:26:51
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by Tendency on August 6, 2004, at 18:18:38
I have seen folks nailed to the wall for asking for sources.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 7, 2004, at 12:33:40
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by Tendency on August 6, 2004, at 18:18:38
>
>
> > EPA decreases inflammatory response.
>
> If this assertion is not anecdotal please site (sic) sources.It is apparent by your conditional invocation of anecdote that you do not have a background in biochemistry. Perhaps it would be best if I linked to a site with a reasonable overview of the relevant eicosanoid/prostaglandin chemistry, so that you can get a grounding for subsequent discussion.
BTW, one cites references.
> > DHA has more of a direct effect on neuronal behaviour.
>
> Again, sources please?That was a summary introductory statement, not intended to be interpreted literally. In the subsequent list of DHA-mediated processes, the statement was given its relevance. I do not cite all things I write, as much of it is simple biochemistry. I tend to reserve citations for novel and/or controversial findings.
> > 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)
>
> ..perhaps that linkage can be established in *rats*..Perhaps? It has *clearly* been established in rats. The very same genes are operant in other mammals, including our own selves. It is unethical to perform similar experiments on humans, and is seldom even permitted in other primates, any more. Again, I suspect that unfamiliarity with the subject matter is what leads you to suggest that the relevance in Homo sapiens is conditional.
> > There is substantial evidence that man evolved on a diet that provided an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of about 1:1.
>
> Such as?Once again, I believe it best to provide a background information source, rather than a series of technical citations. The diet of pre-agricultural man is the issue, as compared to the highly distorted diet resulting from dependency on grain crops, and meat derived from grain-fed animals. Here is a decent review of the evidence: http://faculty.smu.edu/jowillia/berardi_paleonutrition/williams_paleonutrition.htm
> > 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.
>
> Source??I have posted the references to this data many times already.
> I see many claims here but nothing to back them up. Are these claims based upon clinical observation? Scientific study?
I can back up my scientific presentations, be certain of that. I seldom do so, for the reasons I have elucidated above.
> Mars conjuct (sic) Venus?
I don't appreciate sarcasm, particularly when I have not had the opportunity to clarify earlier remarks. I will refer this comment to Dr. Bob for assessment of its civility.
> Thanks for clarification.
When you have done some relevant reading, I welcome further discourse.
Lar
Back to <vacation mode>
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 7, 2004, at 14:55:14
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Tendency, posted by Larry Hoover on August 7, 2004, at 12:33:40
> It is apparent by your conditional invocation of anecdote that you do not have a background in biochemistry. Perhaps it would be best if I linked to a site with a reasonable overview of the relevant eicosanoid/prostaglandin chemistry, so that you can get a grounding for subsequent discussion.
Sorry. I had the link in there, and I don't know what happened to it. Doh!
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Prostaglandin.html
Posted by gabbix2 on August 9, 2004, at 13:17:29
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Tendency, posted by Larry Hoover on August 7, 2004, at 12:33:40
Gee it's awfully quiet over here all of a sudden. ;)
Posted by MB1 on August 9, 2004, at 18:40:45
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » sooshi, posted by Larry Hoover on June 29, 2004, at 12:15:43
> > 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.
>
> LarUdo Erasmus claims that the fishy smell is due to rancidity and claims (as I recall) to avoid all fish oils for this reason. Among other things (again, as I recall) he states that due to the extreme sensitivity of these oils to light, heat, O2 that only "specially" processed oils (like his) should be used for supplementation. Comments? Thanks.
Posted by tendency on August 11, 2004, at 16:37:06
In reply to Re: Fish Oil » Tendency, posted by Larry Hoover on August 7, 2004, at 12:33:40
> It is apparent by your conditional invocation of anecdote that you do not have a background in biochemistry. Perhaps it would be best if I linked to a site with a reasonable overview of the relevant eicosanoid/prostaglandin chemistry, so that you can get a grounding for subsequent discussion.
>
> BTW, one cites references.lol whoa! you're way to hot a pistol for me to tangle with (as he slowly re-holsters..). ok, ok, that was on friday when i was feeling a tad manic (which often manifests as aggression). please forgive i was outta control there. :-)
>
> > > DHA has more of a direct effect on neuronal behaviour.
> >
> > Again, sources please?> > > 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)
> >
> > ..perhaps that linkage can be established in *rats*..
>
> Perhaps? It has *clearly* been established in rats. The very same genes are operant in other mammals, including our own selves. It is unethical to perform similar experiments on humans, and is seldom even permitted in other primates, any more. Again, I suspect that unfamiliarity with the subject matter is what leads you to suggest that the relevance in Homo sapiens is conditional.well, without trying to find some references (he he, i *am* lazy)..i would like to assert that there have been many a treatment that has worked wonderfully in lab animals only to 'go bust' in humans.. yeah, i know, kinda a week rebuttal there..sigh.
> > > There is substantial evidence that man evolved on a diet that provided an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of about 1:1.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> Once again, I believe it best to provide a background information source, rather than a series of technical citations. The diet of pre-agricultural man is the issue, as compared to the highly distorted diet resulting from dependency on grain crops, and meat derived from grain-fed animals. Here is a decent review of the evidence: http://faculty.smu.edu/jowillia/berardi_paleonutrition/williams_paleonutrition.htm
>that was an interesting article and ive seem similar before. also of interest was the gentleman who proposed that ADD/ADHD could possible be viewed as a left over trait(s) from our long distant past when we needed to constantly shift our attention to avoid predation (something along those lines anyhow).
> > > 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.
> >
> > Source??
>
> I have posted the references to this data many times already.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12323085
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12323090
>
I think it wise, perhaps, to be weary of findings that have such a small (6) study group. Talking about the first post. Of course I don't really know what I'm talking about but intuitively it makes sense. Can that reasonably be extrapolated to the population at large? No comment on the second reference.
> I can back up my scientific presentations, be certain of that. I seldom do so, for the reasons I have elucidated above.Of that I have no doubt, good sir!
>
> > Mars conjuct (sic) Venus?
>
> I don't appreciate sarcasm, particularly when I have not had the opportunity to clarify earlier remarks. I will refer this comment to Dr. Bob for assessment of its civility.Yeah, I thought it was funny at the time, course, I was kinda wiggin' too..if you know what i mean.
>
> > Thanks for clarification.
>
> When you have done some relevant reading, I welcome further discourse.
>
> Lar
>
> Back to <vacation mode>Enjoy vacation!
Posted by guttersnipe on August 13, 2004, at 5:04:28
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by tendency on August 11, 2004, at 16:37:06
> [...] ok, ok, that was on friday when i was feeling a tad manic (which often manifests as aggression). please forgive i was outta control there. :-)That's a very difficult thing for a lot of us to say; I commend you for fessing up to it. I'm trying to do the same when I can manage it. And thanks also to Larry for your always informative posts.
Salud,
g/s
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 14, 2004, at 11:58:01
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by MB1 on August 9, 2004, at 18:40:45
> > > 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
>
> Udo Erasmus claims that the fishy smell is due to rancidity and claims (as I recall) to avoid all fish oils for this reason.It is due to rancidity, but high quality fish oil products are not at all fishy. I don't have a problem with Walmart fish oil.
Avoiding fish oils because they are perishable is really the wrong way to look at the situation. Your body requires the reactivity of the polyunsaturated fatty acids in order to properly regulate a variety of systems. There is no biochemical substitute for that reactivity, but that same reactivity does make the oils perishable.
> Among other things (again, as I recall) he states that due to the extreme sensitivity of these oils to light, heat, O2 that only "specially" processed oils (like his) should be used for supplementation. Comments? Thanks.
>Well, Erasmus just happens to market a competitive product, doesn't he? I hardly think that makes him an unbiased commentator.
If you buy fish oil with natural antioxidants added (e.g. vitamin E, or tocopherol), and keep it in a cool environment, out of direct light, then you will protect it from rancidity. The gelcaps not only make the oil easy to take, but they also protect against atmospheric oxygen.
Once upon a time, I looked at the proportions of the fatty acids in Udo's oil, and I concluded that it was nothing more than a blend of three vegetable oils, one of them being flax oil, another being olive oil, and I can't clearly recall the third. In any case, I could exactly match his claimed proportions of polyunsaturates.
Erasmus claims that his oil is superior because it includes omega-9 and omega-6 fatty acids. In fact, that makes his oil inferior, as most people already get far too much of these two classes of fatty acids already.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 14, 2004, at 12:00:16
In reply to Re: Fish Oil, posted by tendency on August 11, 2004, at 16:37:06
> lol whoa! you're way to hot a pistol for me to tangle with (as he slowly re-holsters..). ok, ok, that was on friday when i was feeling a tad manic (which often manifests as aggression). please forgive i was outta control there. :-)
Not a problem. I really ought to collect the various descriptions I've had applied to me. Hot pistol is a new one. ;-)
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 14, 2004, at 12:01:43
In reply to Re: manic aggro » tendency, posted by guttersnipe on August 13, 2004, at 5:04:28
>
> > [...] ok, ok, that was on friday when i was feeling a tad manic (which often manifests as aggression). please forgive i was outta control there. :-)
>
> That's a very difficult thing for a lot of us to say; I commend you for fessing up to it. I'm trying to do the same when I can manage it.Indeed, a commendable act.
> And thanks also to Larry for your always informative posts.
>
> Salud,
> g/sYou're welcome.
Salad,
Lar
This is the end of the 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.