![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2007, at 9:37:56
Did I post this one already? Maybe inside one other post....I can't remember.
Lipids. 2006 Dec;41(12):1109-14.
Enhanced incorporation of n-3 fatty acids from fish compared with fish oils.
Elvevoll EO, Barstad H, Breimo ES, Brox J, Eilertsen KE, Lund T, Olsen JO, Osterud B.
Norwegian College of Fishery Science, Department of Marine Biotechnology, University of Tromso, Norway. edel.elvevoll@nfh.uit.noThis work was undertaken to study the impact of the source of n-3 FA on their incorporation in serum, on blood lipid composition, and on cellular activation. A clinical trial comprising 71 volunteers, divided into five groups, was performed. Three groups were given 400 g smoked salmon (n = 14), cooked salmon (n = 15), or cooked cod (n = 13) per week for 8 wk. A fourth group was given 15 mL/d of cod liver oil (CLO) (n = 15), and a fifth group served as control (n = 14) without supplementation. The serum content of EPA and DHA before and after intervention revealed a higher rise in EPA and DHA in the cooked salmon group (129% rise in EPA and 45% rise in DHA) as compared with CLO (106 and 25%, respectively) despite an intake of EPA and DHA in the CLO group of 3.0 g/d compared with 1.2 g/d in the cooked salmon group. No significant changes were observed in blood lipids, fibrinogen, fibrinolysis, or lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tissue factor (TF) activity, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha), interleukin-8 (IL-8), leukotriene B4 (LTB4), and thromboxane B2 (TxB2) in whole blood. EPA and DHA were negatively correlated with LPS-induced TNFalpha, IL-8, LTB4, TxB2, and TF in whole blood. In conclusion, fish consumption is more effective in increasing serum EPA and DHA than supplementing the diet with fish oil. Since the n-3 FA are predominantly in TAG in fish as well as CLO, it is suggested that the larger uptake from fish than CLO is due to differences in physiochemical structure of the lipids.
PMID: 17269556
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 13, 2007, at 16:37:32
In reply to omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2007, at 9:37:56
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?
Anyway, I guess eating the fish is more natural than taking the fish oil supplements. Don't you always advise taking the oil with your fattiest meal of the day? Sounds sensible to me.
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
Meri
Posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2007, at 20:25:10
In reply to omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2007, at 9:37:56
so, i'm okay then with my five servings of fish a week????? it's all the correct fish. :-)
Posted by Mistermindmasta on March 15, 2007, at 0:06:34
In reply to Re: omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 13, 2007, at 16:37:32
What they should do is do this study again, but have the fish oil group take the 3 grams of oil per day with some food item, like a piece of chicken.
Vitamins tend to be absorbed better with food, with some of the foods they might have been found in and so yes, it makes sense that oils would be absorbed better with some sort of meat product or whatever.
So the question is, is it the fish specifically that helps absorption and metabolism of the fats or is it just food in general that helps the absorption of the fats?
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
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 21, 2007, at 13:36:22
In reply to Re: omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish » Larry Hoover, posted by fayeroe on March 14, 2007, at 20:25:10
> so, i'm okay then with my five servings of fish a week????? it's all the correct fish. :-)
Oh yeah. You're golden. :-)
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 21, 2007, at 13:38:55
In reply to Re: omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish, posted by Mistermindmasta on March 15, 2007, at 0:06:34
> What they should do is do this study again, but have the fish oil group take the 3 grams of oil per day with some food item, like a piece of chicken.
>
> Vitamins tend to be absorbed better with food, with some of the foods they might have been found in and so yes, it makes sense that oils would be absorbed better with some sort of meat product or whatever.
>
> So the question is, is it the fish specifically that helps absorption and metabolism of the fats or is it just food in general that helps the absorption of the fats?You're bang on with your questioning. The study is silent on how the cod liver oil was taken. Perhaps the full-text gets into that, but I don't have access to it.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 21, 2007, at 13:56:29
In reply to omega-3 more readily absorbed from whole fish, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2007, at 9:37:56
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uops-obg030607.php
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1251482.0.startling_results_in_fish_oil_tests.php
Posted by Joe Bloe on March 21, 2007, at 18:24:50
In reply to more omega-3 news, posted by Larry Hoover on March 21, 2007, at 13:56:29
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.