Many have said supplement with Cod Liver Oil. Some have said use just fish oil as CLO contains too much Vit A.
Some have said use Krill Oil as it is better than either CLO or Fish Oil. When I look at Krill Oil labels, the EPA plus DHA adds up to much less than either Fish Oil or CLO. I know I can just take more of the Krill gelcaps to get up to the level of 3000mg/day of EPA + DHA. And the Krill has Astaxanthin which I have read is very good for ones body..but I don't really know why. And neither fish oil or CLO has this ingredient.
Krill seems to cost more than double when comparing units of EPA + DHA. Is it worth the additional cost?
I did purchase Krill Oil once from Vitacost and right out of the bottle it tasted rancid.
Any direction would be appreciated.
asked byDexter (9958)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on February 16, 2010
at 07:04 AM
@ David Moss
"Krill oil doesn't have any significant extra benefits over fish oil to my knowledge and is normally more expensive, so unless you can find a better-priced version than fish oil, I'd not bother."
Don't agree with you on that one; this study showed a gigantic difference between krill oil and fish oil on LDL and HDL:
On 1g of krill oil per day, HDL increased 43% and LDL decreased 32%. On 3g of fish oil, LDL decreased 4.5% and HDL increased 4.2%.
That, in my mind, is an incredible difference. Also, after the initial 12 weeks, participants cut back to 500mg and maintained the lipid levels, so the cost effectiveness gets pretty good.
Dr. Eades also looked at a study of krill oil on inflammation (can't post the link because I'm a new user and only get one (wtf?), but you can google it). This one was krill oil against a placebo, but 300mg gave some impressive results.
I'm sticking with the krill oil.
on June 06, 2010
at 01:18 AM
Phospholipid cellular absorption
makes krill oil worth it.
If you can absorb almost all of A and only a small percentage of B...
Look at the cost per absorbable EPA/DHA not the cost per available
on June 06, 2010
at 12:52 AM
one thing to add aside from the effect of krill oil on lipid profiles (where it beats everythign else I've seen)
The forms of EPA/DHA in krill oil, natural fish oil, and the 2 types of molecularly distilled fish oil are all different and differently absorbed. krill oil is about 90% absortion rate natural fish oil tryglyride form is about 66-69% molecularly distilled (ethyl esther form) fish oil is about 20% synthetic tryglyeride is lower than 20%
so in other words assuming 120mg EPA, 90mg DHA per dose of each of the above what you actually get in your body as far as the omega 3's you care about is
krill oil:108mg DHA, 81mg DHA Natural Triglyceride fish oil: 79.2mg EPA, 59.4mg DHA Ethly Esther oil (molecularly distilled fish oil):24mg EPA, 18mg DHA synthetic = not even worth using
additionally with a high fat (44g of fat in the meal was used in the study on natural and ethyl ester fish oil) the absorption rate of natural fish oil went up to 90%, and the Ethyl ester oil went up to 60%. Which I'm assuming would = 100% rate on the krill in the same situation.
so its something to think about when figuring out the bang for your buck in omega 3 sources.
personally I use Krill, natural and ethyl ester (cheap stuff) all with high fat meals if possible, depends on whats on sale/available.
on February 15, 2010
at 05:16 PM
Whether you want CLO or fish oil depends on what you want it for...
CLO will give you rather modest amounts of vitamin D and good amounts of vitamin A. If you're not getting either from other sources, then you'd likely need more vitamin D anyway. Since you get relatively more vitamin A than D (and the ratio's important), you'd never be able to take enough CLO to meet your vitamin D needs. Getting adequate vitamin A without CLO would be as easy as having liver every week or two, which would give you a tonne of other nutrients.
Since vitamin A+D are so vital, it would be best to have CLO than have none at all, but if you have to get other sources of A+D anyway, then it's probably better to just get fish oil, you can get more omega 3 cheaper that way.
Krill oil doesn't have any significant extra benefits over fish oil to my knowledge and is normally more expensive, so unless you can find a better-priced version than fish oil, I'd not bother.
on October 24, 2010
at 08:59 PM
Krill oil has another benefit - the krill is very small, has a short life span and doesn't absorb the mercury and impurities from the ocean like bigger and older fish do, so it's cleaner and safer. You can buy the Walgreen brand for a fraction of the cost of the name brand krill oil. Same ingredients, but it has the fishy smell, whereas the expensive krill oil doesn't. I'll take the smell and save a bundle.
Wow, read this about the benefits of krill oil - http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/why-krill-oil/
on June 10, 2010
at 12:20 AM
The omega3 in krill has the same phospholipid structure that human cells do, making for easy adsorption with fewer metabolic steps.
Fish sources are structured differently than us, so the enzyme sets in our body have to convert it step by step... If you are the unlucky person who is short on some of those enzymes for fish oil conversion, you'll get even less benefit out of fish oil.
Krill oil seems the clear winner to me.
That aside, rancid is never a good thing.
on August 09, 2012
at 09:20 PM
I decided to take both. I see more mood support from the Xymogen CLO I'm taking than the krill caps I'm taking. JMHO.
on August 13, 2012
at 10:53 PM
I've ordered from Vitacost, too, but all my product has been fine. The alleged difference is that the structure of krill oil makes more bio-available than the other forms. The research, however, was all done in-house by the N. American distributor, Neptune, and has never been submitted for a peer-reviewed journal. So, while the theory that it's more bio-available is intuitively appealing, it hasn't passed the acid test of peer scrutiny or replication of experiment. Folks usually get suspicious of vendor-conducted research, and rightly so. I don't see why this situation should be any different.
I usually respect the opinion of Dr. Mike Eades highly, but in this case, he didn't cite any specific studies to back up the claims of KO's superiority. So, I'm siding with Chris Kresser, who remains skeptical of the bio-availability, until there's some reputable research on this issue.
on August 09, 2012
at 09:32 PM
on May 17, 2012
at 10:29 AM
How different are the the codliver oil and omega 3 atty acids?
Any idea from any one here on how frequently these can be taken..
Both seem to look alike.