on August 14, 2014
at 12:14 AM
Yes, I do take fish oil, in the form of krill and some salmon oil (less than 2g/day), but I also eat wildcaught fish 1-2x a week (salmon or sardines), and the occasional cod liver with its oil. The big danger with fish oil in capsules is of course that its likely to be oxidized, in which case its detrimental rather than helpful.
Things like flax are nearly worthless as most people don't readily convert them into DHA and EPA and there are those that don't convert them at all, plus flax is highly estrogenic on top of that, and most flax seed has been heated, crushed or diced, so it's been oxidized. There is refrigerated flax oil out there, but again, the conversion to DHA/EPA is very poor, so its nearly worthless.
There is something interesting here:
It turns out that very large amounts of n3s can damage your heart:
"They found that saturated fats (palmitic and stearic acids) were protective against heart lesions but that high levels of omega-3 fatty acids correlated with high levels of lesions."
on August 12, 2014
at 04:01 PM
So this is probably on response to all the news items about how the assumptions made in the fish oil study have been found to be false. (I.e. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/08/does_fish_oil_prevent_heart_disease_original_danish_eskimo_diet_study_was.html)
To answer your question. Yes I take in fish oil, but I get it straight from the fish, not a pill.
As for the longer answer wrt the article (soapbox time):
1. We constantly quote scientific studies that have either (a) Not held up to scrutiny (b) been dis-proven (c) cannot be repeated. This is similar to teh Ancel Keys Seven Countries study where it is clear that his analysis was bias and does not hold up to scrutiny -- yet national policy is still based upon this.
2. I really need to start my "Scientific Journal of Null Results". The most important thing about science is that results are repeatable. But when a study comes out that refutes a popular study, it is difficult to get published
3. In this case, most of the follow on studies have shown that reducing your O6:O3 ration by moving fats from the numerator to the denominator is beneficial to health, especially cardiovascular disease. So just because the original study didn't measure directly, doesn't mean that it is wrong.
4. This author (and most) confuse two things: (a) There is a difference between the ratio and the magnitude -- I think both are important. There is a maximal amount of fat that is healthy, more than that is not healthy. So taking fish oil supplements is the wrong thing to do. The right thing is to reduce your total fat intake to a health level (something we do not have good science to determine) and then reduce the amount of O6 fats and increase the amount of O3s proportionally. But you cannot make a hyper-fat diet healthy by adding more fats just because they are O3 fats. (b) The diet of a fringe culture can say anything about the norm. The Inuits are a fringe culture -- whether it works for them or not is irrelevant. But we can look at cultures (like the Japanese and Mediterranean) and see that their higher intake of O3 fats at the expense of O6 fats reduces their risk of CVD.
5. It kills me that we still use observational studies to make causal relationships.....