Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Fish Oil - "Natural Triglyceride" vs 'Ethyl Ester


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#1 kevink

  • Registered User
  • 184 posts
  • 1

Posted 20 January 2006 - 08:13 PM


I've seen this type of "natural triglyceride form" statement on only a couple of fish oil brands - one of them being the top notch Nordic Naturals brand.

http://www.nordicnat...tryglceride.asp

Triglycerides contain a glycerol backbone stabilizing the oil molecules in their natural form. Fish oils in ethyl ester form are highly unstable and rapidly break down during storage. They are prohibited in Sweden and Denmark, and soon in Norway and the UK.

Additionally, when fish oils are digested they are converted into free fatty acids. After absorption through the epithelial cells, free fatty acids are immediately converted into triglycerides. If the glycerol backbone is missing (as they are with ethyl esters), and no other glycerol backbones are available, the oil cannot be converted back to triglyceride form. Fatty acids not converted to triglycerides pose an oxidation burden in the form of free radical formation.


One thing I recall reading a few months ago was that most fish oil supps are "ethyl ester" because it's easier and cheaper to not worry about maintaining the natural structure of the fish oil during processing.

So, my question is...is this an important issue? What types of oil do they use in most studies (if they even specify such a detail)?
  • 0

#2 brizel

  • Registered User
  • 14 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boca Raton, Fl

Posted 21 January 2006 - 01:50 AM

Fish oil is available as triglyceride based form or as a methyl or ethyl ester form. Clinical trials have not shown one particular form better at rising serum EPA/DHA levels. (1) In fact most clinical studies are using the ethyl ester form. In one of the largest studies to date using omega 3's - GISSI prevention study- the ethyl ester form was used.

Omega 3 in the methyl or ethyl ester form are more concentrated thus requiring the use of less capsules for higher dosing. The first prescription requiring fish oil has just been FDA approved called Omacor. Omacor is 900mg EPA/DHA per 1000mg and it is a ethyl ester form. (2)

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

2) http://www.solvay-omacor.com/

I personally use and prescribe the ethyl ester form do to the ablity to obtain high dose with less quantity of gel capsules.
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 Brainbox

  • Registered User, Moderator
  • 2,860 posts
  • 744
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 21 January 2006 - 04:39 AM

The question might be if in these studies, including the FDA approval, sufficient attention was paid to this oxidation issue?
  • 0

#4 superpooper

  • Registered User
  • 190 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 January 2006 - 11:17 AM

What would this supplement be? They don't seem to say.

http://www.vitacost....EFAOmega3EPADHA
  • 0

#5 kevink

  • Registered User
  • 184 posts
  • 1

Posted 23 January 2006 - 04:00 PM

What would this supplement be?  They don't seem to say.

http://www.vitacost....EFAOmega3EPADHA


I believe if they don't explicitly state it - it's ethyl ester. As far as I can see, 95% of the oil on the market is ethyl ester, but what exactly that means (good or bad) is what I was trying to find out.
  • 0

#6 Paul Idol

  • Registered User Paul Idol
  • 126 posts
  • 1
  • Location:New York City

Posted 23 January 2006 - 07:06 PM

Clinical trials have not shown one particular form better at rising serum EPA/DHA levels. (1) In fact most clinical studies are using the ethyl ester form. In one of the largest studies to date using omega 3's - GISSI prevention study- the ethyl ester form was used.

There's no reason to suppose that this wouldn't be so, but the effect of supplementation on serum levels of EPA and DHA has precious little to do with the question of whether methyl and ethyl ester forms of fish oil pose a greater oxidative burden than plain fish oil.

It's true that fatty acids stored in triglycerides are much less vulnerable to peroxidation, so if taking fish oils as ethyl (or methyl) esters rather than in their native triglyceride form (IOW without accompanying glycerol) impairs the body's ability to store their fatty acids safely, then ester forms could in fact lead to greater lipid peroxidation in the body. That depends on several factors, though, including the rates at which fish oil fatty acids (e.g. DHA and EPA) are ordinarily used before storage versus stored before use upon intake (both of which are almost certainly partly dose dependant) and the degree to which glycerol is available from other sources for triglyceride esterification and storage of free fish oil fatty acids.

Frankly, though, I think the entire issue should be considered moot from a supplementation perspective, because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation in all scenarios whereas cod liver oil supplementation (in which the PUFA in fish oil is accompanied by the physiologically relevant antioxidants vitamins A and D) either has no effect on peroxidation or actually decreases it.

In light of that, I think it's unwise to supplement with ANY kind of plain fish oil without at least taking adequate supplemental real A and perhaps also real D*, and in most cases it's almost certainly best to simply take a quality cod liver oil for both vitamin and omega 3 supplementation purposes.

-Paul

* There's a lot of fear-mongering going on about preformed vitamin A supposedly causing fractures, but in fact this is only a danger in cases of vitamin D deficiency — which sadly are nearly universal nowadays. A friend of mine is working on a long article on that subject even as we speak; I look forward to being able to link to it here.
  • 0

#7 scottl

  • Registered User
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 24 January 2006 - 12:58 PM

Frankly, though, I think the entire issue should be considered moot from a supplementation perspective, because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation in all scenarios whereas cod liver oil supplementation (in which the PUFA in fish oil is accompanied by the physiologically relevant antioxidants vitamins A and D) either has no effect on peroxidation or actually decreases it.

In light of that, I think it's unwise to supplement with ANY kind of plain fish oil without at least taking adequate supplemental real A and perhaps also real D*, and in most cases it's almost certainly best to simply take a quality cod liver oil for both vitamin and omega 3 supplementation purposes.

-Paul
.


Huh?

"because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation"

Ya because fish oil easily oxidizes. Thus the importance of antioxidants e.g. vit e for people who take fish oil.
  • 0

#8 Paul Idol

  • Registered User Paul Idol
  • 126 posts
  • 1
  • Location:New York City

Posted 24 January 2006 - 02:36 PM

Ya because fish oil easily oxidizes. Thus the importance of antioxidants e.g. vit e for people who take fish oil.

Scott, even in the presence of sufficient vitamin E, dietary PUFA raises lipid peroxide levels. E is not enough. A is required. I posted references on this in the nutrition forum within the last couple weeks.

-Paul
  • 0

#9 superpooper

  • Registered User
  • 190 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 January 2006 - 06:52 AM

I remember something about Green Tea increasing the effectiveness of fish oil. It could be unrelated, I can't remember.
  • 0

#10 Bhullar

  • Registered User
  • 1 posts
  • 1

Posted 08 July 2008 - 10:52 AM

What would this supplement be? They don't seem to say.

http://www.vitacost....EFAOmega3EPADHA


I believe if they don't explicitly state it - it's ethyl ester. As far as I can see, 95% of the oil on the market is ethyl ester, but what exactly that means (good or bad) is what I was trying to find out.


What you must also note is the high dose of fish oils that is now been advocated especially by Dr Barry Sears in his Omega Rx Zone.
So in the quest of producing higher concentration of EPA/DHA, most companies subject their fish oil to ethylation to form ethyl esters before reconstituting it to triglycerides. Then they label it as natural. IIn fact it is far from natural. It is definitely more processed oil. Secondly in the reconstitution process the glycerol molecule is added back to fix the fatty acids. The three fatty acids can be differently positioned now on the glecerol backbone an may not represent the original position. Also note that during reconstitution polymerization may occur causing the formation of molecular sludges which may damage the oil.
Almost all trials that has shown positive results were in the ethyl esters form. I believe that should be the only reason one should take the ethyl esters form(putting aside all the other arguments for or against it) as clinically it has proven itself in the GISSI-P and the JELIS trials involving almost 30000 patient base.
The fact about the glycerol not being present in the cells for the action of ethyl esters to be reformulated, it is too shallow an argument. We take enough fats in the form of triglycerides for glycerol to be present and render its action within the cells
  • 1

#11 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 08 July 2008 - 11:30 AM

Frankly, though, I think the entire issue should be considered moot from a supplementation perspective, because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation in all scenarios whereas cod liver oil supplementation (in which the PUFA in fish oil is accompanied by the physiologically relevant antioxidants vitamins A and D) either has no effect on peroxidation or actually decreases it.

In light of that, I think it's unwise to supplement with ANY kind of plain fish oil without at least taking adequate supplemental real A and perhaps also real D*, and in most cases it's almost certainly best to simply take a quality cod liver oil for both vitamin and omega 3 supplementation purposes.

-Paul
.


Huh?

"because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation"

Ya because fish oil easily oxidizes. Thus the importance of antioxidants e.g. vit e for people who take fish oil.




Sorry, layman here. Does that mean Fish Oils are pro-oxidants and defeating the whole purpose of taking anti-oxidant diet/supplements?

I'm taking OmegaRX EPA/DHA by The Zone (4,000 mg x 4 times daily)
  • 0

#12 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,264 posts
  • 133

Posted 08 July 2008 - 04:39 PM

So in the quest of producing higher concentration of EPA/DHA, most companies subject their fish oil to ethylation to form ethyl esters before reconstituting it to triglycerides. Then they label it as natural. IIn fact it is far from natural. It is definitely more processed oil. Secondly in the reconstitution process the glycerol molecule is added back to fix the fatty acids. The three fatty acids can be differently positioned now on the glecerol backbone an may not represent the original position. Also note that during reconstitution polymerization may occur causing the formation of molecular sludges which may damage the oil.
Almost all trials that has shown positive results were in the ethyl esters form. I believe that should be the only reason one should take the ethyl esters form(putting aside all the other arguments for or against it) as clinically it has proven itself in the GISSI-P and the JELIS trials involving almost 30000 patient base.



I've noticed that the higher EPA/DHA concentrates do that reconstitution thing, and always wondered how it could be considered natural -- seemed 'fishy' to me.

But would a low concentrate in triglyceride form, non-reconstituted, be better than a high concentrate Ethyl Ester? One could argue that the former is in a natural state, thereby better absorbed and less prone to oxidation. Although to get the same amount of Omega 3s, one would of course have to consume more of the low concentrate.

In this study, Ethyl Ester came out the worst regarding absorption:

Comparative bioavailability of eicosapentaenoic acid and docasahexaenoic acid from triglycerides, free fatty acids and ethyl esters in volunteers

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2144420

And the following study appears to show that Ethyl Ester is only fully absorbed if taken with a high fat meal. This could possibly be a reason why certain Omega 3 studies give different results.

Absorption of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid from fish oil triacylglycerols or fish oil ethyl esters co-ingested with a high-fat meal

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2847723

I personally use both forms (at least lately). Half of my daily dose is Carlson's, which is a triglyceride, low concentrate. The rest is Meg-3 Ethyl Ester. I'm not sure if one form is better than the other, but I needed some fish oil in capsule form (easier for traveling on vacation), and got a giant bottle, so have lots of extras to take.
  • 0

#13 ortcloud

  • Registered User
  • 241 posts
  • -2

Posted 08 July 2008 - 09:30 PM

"because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation"

Ya because fish oil easily oxidizes. Thus the importance of antioxidants e.g. vit e for people who take fish oil


Sorry, layman here. Does that mean Fish Oils are pro-oxidants and defeating the whole purpose of taking anti-oxidant diet/supplements?

I'm taking OmegaRX EPA/DHA by The Zone (4,000 mg x 4 times daily)



High dose fish oil can increase oxidative load, why do you take 16 grams of fish oil a day ?
  • 0

#14 krillin

  • Registered User
  • 1,426 posts
  • 38
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 July 2008 - 12:18 AM

Sorry, layman here. Does that mean Fish Oils are pro-oxidants and defeating the whole purpose of taking anti-oxidant diet/supplements?

I'm taking OmegaRX EPA/DHA by The Zone (4,000 mg x 4 times daily)

In vivo, fish oil is less oxidative than you'd think. (But your dose does seem huge. Are you treating some inflammatory condition?)

Pharmacol Res. 2008 May 18. [Epub ahead of print]
Polyunsaturated fatty acids as antioxidants.
Richard D, Kefi K, Barbe U, Bausero P, Visioli F.
Laboratory of «Micronutrients and Cardiovascular Disease», UMR7079, UPMC Univ 06, Paris, France.

The susceptibility of fatty acids to oxidation is thought to be directly dependent on their degree of unsaturation. However, some in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that the relation between chemical structure and susceptibility to oxidation is not as straightforward as hypothesized from theoretical viewpoints. Indeed, long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs) might be less oxidizable than others under specific experimental conditions. We investigated the free radical-scavenging potential of PUFA and the production of reactive oxygen/nitrogen (ROS/RNS) species by human aortic endothelial cells (HAECs) supplemented with different fatty acids. Fatty acid micelles scavenged superoxide in an unsaturation-dependent manner, up to eicosapentaenoic acid, which was the most effective fatty acid. Supplementation of HAEC with polyunsaturated fatty acids of the omega 3 series resulted in lower formation of ROS, as compared with cells supplemented with saturates, monounsaturates, or polyunsaturates of the omega 6 series. This effect was maximal at concentrations of 10muM. The effects of omega 3 fatty acids on reactive species production appear to be stronger when ROS were evaluated, as a milder, albeit significant effect was observed on RNS generation. Based on in vivo data showing reduced excretion of lipid peroxidation products after omega 3 intake and our data on ROS production and direct superoxide scavenging by LC-PUFAs, notably those of the omega 3 series, we propose that this series of fatty acid might act as indirect anti- rather than pro-oxidant in vascular endothelial cells, hence diminishing inflammation and, in turn, the risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.

PMID: 18583147

J Lipid Res. 2001 Mar;42(3):407-18.
Supplementation of postmenopausal women with fish oil does not increase overall oxidation of LDL ex vivo compared to dietary oils rich in oleate and linoleate.
Higdon JV, Du SH, Lee YS, Wu T, Wander RC.
Department of Nutrition and Food Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.

Although replacement of dietary saturated fat with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids (MUFA and PUFA) has been advocated for the reduction of cardiovascular disease risk, diets high in PUFA could increase low density lipoprotein (LDL) susceptibility to oxidation, potentially contributing to the pathology of atherosclerosis. To investigate this possibility, 15 postmenopausal women in a blinded crossover trial consumed 15 g of sunflower oil (SU) providing 12.3 g/day of oleate, safflower oil (SA) providing 10.5 g/day of linoleate, and fish oil (FO) providing 2.0 g/day of eicosapentaenoate (EPA) and 1.4 g/day of docosahexaenoate (DHA). During CuSO(4)-mediated oxidation, LDL was depleted of alpha-tocopherol more rapidly after FO supplementation than after supplementation with SU (P = 0.0001) and SA (P = 0.05). In LDL phospholipid and cholesteryl ester fractions, loss of n-3 PUFA was greater and loss of n-6 PUFA less after FO supplementation than after SU and SA supplementation (P < 0.05 for all), but loss of total PUFA did not differ. The lag phase for phosphatidylcholine hydroperoxide (PCOOH) formation was shorter after FO supplementation than after supplementation with SU (P = 0.0001) and SA (P = 0.006), whereas the lag phase for cholesteryl linoleate hydroperoxide (CE18:2OOH) formation was shorter after FO supplementation than after SU (P = 0.03) but not SA. In contrast, maximal rates of PCOOH and CE18:2OOH formation were lower after FO supplementation than after SA (P = 0.02 and 0.0001, respectively) and maximal concentrations of PCOOH and CE18:2OOH were lower after FO supplementation than after SA (P = 0.03 and 0.0006, respectively). Taken together, our results suggest that FO supplementation does not increase the overall oxidation of LDL ex vivo, especially when compared with SA supplementation. Consequently, health benefits related to increased fish consumption may not be offset by increased LDL oxidative susceptibility.

PMID: 11254753

Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Sep;72(3):714-22.
Supplementation of postmenopausal women with fish oil rich in eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid is not associated with greater in vivo lipid peroxidation compared with oils rich in oleate and linoleate as assessed by plasma malondialdehyde and F(2)-isoprostanes.
Higdon JV, Liu J, Du SH, Morrow JD, Ames BN, Wander RC.
Department of Nutrition and Food Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.

BACKGROUND: Although the replacement of dietary saturated fat with unsaturated fat has been advocated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, diets high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) could increase lipid peroxidation, potentially contributing to the pathology of atherosclerosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine indexes of in vivo lipid peroxidation, including free F(2)-isoprostanes, malondialdehyde (MDA), and thiobarbituric acid reacting substances (TBARS), in the plasma of postmenopausal women taking dietary oil supplements rich in oleate, linoleate, and both eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid. DESIGN: Fifteen postmenopausal women took 15 g sunflower oil/d, providing 12.3 g oleate/d; safflower oil, providing 10.5 g linoleate/d; and fish oil, providing 2.0 g EPA/d and 1.4 g DHA/d in a 3-treatment crossover trial. RESULTS: Plasma free F(2)-isoprostane concentrations were lower after fish-oil supplementation than after sunflower-oil supplementation (P: = 0.003). When plasma free F(2)-isoprostane concentrations were normalized to plasma arachidonic acid concentrations, significant differences among the supplements were eliminated. Plasma MDA concentrations were lower after fish-oil supplementation than after sunflower-oil supplementation (P: = 0.04), whereas plasma TBARS were higher after fish-oil supplementation than after sunflower oil (P: = 0.003) and safflower oil (P: = 0.001) supplementation. When plasma MDA concentrations were normalized to plasma PUFA concentrations, significant differences were eliminated, but TBARS remained higher after fish-oil supplementation than after sunflower oil (P: = 0.01) and safflower-oil (P: = 0.0003) supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: With fish-oil supplementation, there was no evidence of increased lipid peroxidation when assessed by plasma F(2)-isoprostanes and MDA, although plasma TBARS was higher than with sunflower-oil and safflower-oil supplementation.

PMID: 10966889

Redox Rep. 2004;9(4):193-7.
Effect of fish and fish oil-derived omega-3 fatty acids on lipid oxidation.
Mori TA.
School of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, Medical Research Foundation Building, Box X 2213 GPO, Perth, Western Australia 6847, Australia. tmori@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

There is evidence that omega-3 (omega3) fatty acids derived from fish and fish oils reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease via mechanisms underlying atherosclerosis, thrombosis and inflammation. Despite these benefits, there has been concern that these fatty acids may increase lipid peroxidation. However, the in vivo data to date are inconclusive, due in part to limitations in the methodologies. In this regard, our findings using the measurement of F(2)-isoprostanes, a reliable measure of in vivo lipid peroxidation and oxidant stress, do not support adverse effects of omega3 fatty acids on lipid peroxidation.

PMID: 15479562
  • 1

#15 stephen_b

  • Member
  • 1,615 posts
  • 183

Posted 09 July 2008 - 01:04 AM

Here is the ingredient list for Nordic naturals cod liver oil:

One Teaspoon Contains:
EPA: 410 mg
DHA: 625 mg
Other Omega-3s: 225 mg
Vitamin A: 650–1500 IU
Vitamin D: 1–20 IU
Vitamin E: 30 IU

I hope that the included vitamin A is enough to take care of peroxidation concerns.

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 09 July 2008 - 01:51 AM

"because fish oil supplementation has been demonstrated to increase lipid peroxidation"

Ya because fish oil easily oxidizes. Thus the importance of antioxidants e.g. vit e for people who take fish oil


Sorry, layman here. Does that mean Fish Oils are pro-oxidants and defeating the whole purpose of taking anti-oxidant diet/supplements?

I'm taking OmegaRX EPA/DHA by The Zone (4,000 mg x 4 times daily)



High dose fish oil can increase oxidative load, why do you take 16 grams of fish oil a day ?




that's what the suggested dosage is. i stopped taking it for now....
  • 0

#17 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 09 July 2008 - 01:56 AM

In vivo, fish oil is less oxidative than you'd think. (But your dose does seem huge. Are you treating some inflammatory condition?)



Thanks for sharing that. I am NOT treating anything. I'm very healthy. I just followed the suggested dosage. 4caps a day. I stopped taking it for now.
  • 0

#18 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 09 July 2008 - 02:04 AM

While taking the fish oil supplement (OmegaRX 4000mg, 4 caps a day) I was also taking Ortho-Core and Total E which has

Vitamin A - 500 IU
Alpha-carotene - 1332 IU
Beta-carotene - 9990 IU

Vitamin E - 445 mg

Do you think my high dose of fish oil in the past 10 days caused any harm? I stopped taking it for now.

Edited by Forever21, 09 July 2008 - 02:17 AM.

  • 0

#19 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,264 posts
  • 133

Posted 09 July 2008 - 02:57 AM

While taking the fish oil supplement (OmegaRX 4000mg, 4 caps a day) I was also taking Ortho-Core and Total E which has

Vitamin A - 500 IU
Alpha-carotene - 1332 IU
Beta-carotene - 9990 IU

Vitamin E - 445 mg

Do you think my high dose of fish oil in the past 10 days caused any harm? I stopped taking it for now.



Are you taking 4 grams/daily or 16 grams/daily of fish oil? If 4 caps a day, at 16 grams, I really wonder what size your capsules are. A 4 gram fish oil capsule is a tad large... like choking hazard large.
  • 0

#20 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 09 July 2008 - 04:15 AM

Here's the full details

http://www.zonediet....mp;CategoryID=3

This is exactly what I take

http://www.zonediet....-7-omegarx.aspx
  • 0

#21 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,264 posts
  • 133

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:12 AM

Here's the full details

http://www.zonediet....mp;CategoryID=3

This is exactly what I take

http://www.zonediet....-7-omegarx.aspx



4 grams of fish oil, 2400 mg Omega 3/daily. I'm not really sure what you are concerned about, as that's a perfectly reasonable dosage.

Pricing is a bit insane, but dosage is fine.
  • 0

#22 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:37 AM

But what about the peroxidation? Isn't that counterproductive to what I'm trying to achieve with anti-oxidant supplements?
  • 0

#23 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,264 posts
  • 133

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:52 AM

But what about the peroxidation? Isn't that counterproductive to what I'm trying to achieve with anti-oxidant supplements?


If there is vitamin E + antioxidants in the fish oil, I personally wouldn't worry about it. I would suggest a less expensive brand, but that's up to you.
  • 0

#24 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:00 AM

Well there isn't. I take Vit E + antioxidants seperately.
  • 0

#25 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,264 posts
  • 133

Posted 09 July 2008 - 05:20 PM

Well there isn't. I take Vit E + antioxidants seperately.



There is some vitamin E in the product, but it doesn't list how much : proprietary antioxidant blend (soybean oil, natural flavor, tocopherols, canola oil, citric acid). I also wouldn't exactly call canola oil an antioxidant...

If it was me, I'd just finish up that bottle you have, or return it for your money back (if you can do that). Then go out and get either Carlson liquid, Nordic Naturals or a Meg-3 brand (VS, Jarrow, Costco Enteric). All are cheaper than what you are taking and they are still of high quality.
  • 0

#26 Matt79

  • Registered User
  • 164 posts
  • 75
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 29 March 2011 - 11:13 PM

What would this supplement be? They don't seem to say.

http://www.vitacost....EFAOmega3EPADHA


I believe if they don't explicitly state it - it's ethyl ester. As far as I can see, 95% of the oil on the market is ethyl ester, but what exactly that means (good or bad) is what I was trying to find out.


What you must also note is the high dose of fish oils that is now been advocated especially by Dr Barry Sears in his Omega Rx Zone.
So in the quest of producing higher concentration of EPA/DHA, most companies subject their fish oil to ethylation to form ethyl esters before reconstituting it to triglycerides. Then they label it as natural. IIn fact it is far from natural. It is definitely more processed oil. Secondly in the reconstitution process the glycerol molecule is added back to fix the fatty acids. The three fatty acids can be differently positioned now on the glecerol backbone an may not represent the original position. Also note that during reconstitution polymerization may occur causing the formation of molecular sludges which may damage the oil.
Almost all trials that has shown positive results were in the ethyl esters form. I believe that should be the only reason one should take the ethyl esters form(putting aside all the other arguments for or against it) as clinically it has proven itself in the GISSI-P and the JELIS trials involving almost 30000 patient base.
The fact about the glycerol not being present in the cells for the action of ethyl esters to be reformulated, it is too shallow an argument. We take enough fats in the form of triglycerides for glycerol to be present and render its action within the cells


Any evidence hat reconstitution causes a different chirality to the naturally occuring TG? Maybe I should email EPAX and ask them?
  • 0

#27 Recortes

  • Registered User
  • 127 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Madrid, Spain

Posted 30 March 2011 - 09:17 AM

From Dr Williams site:

If you have a choice, the triglyceride form of fish oil is preferable. The triglyceride form, i.e., 3 omega-3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone," is the form found in the body of fish that protects them from cold temperatures (i.e., they remain liquid at low ambient temperatures).

Most fish oils on the market are the ethyl ester form. This means that the omega-3 fatty acids have been removed from the glycerol backbone; the fatty acids are then The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen. reacted with ethanol to form the ethyl ester.
If the form is not specified on your fish oil bottle, it is likely ethyl ester, since the triglyceride form is more costly to process and most manufacturers therefore boast about it
  • 0

#28 Matt79

  • Registered User
  • 164 posts
  • 75
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 30 March 2011 - 11:02 AM

My current supplier uses Epax (top quality manufacturer) 6000 EE form.

http://www.epax.com/...X_6000_TG_ _EE/

I'm looking for anyone that can do a good Enteric coated TG form (Softgel) from a reputable source. Any suggestions?
  • 0

#29 ajnast4r

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 3,922 posts
  • 152
  • Location:Sacramento, California

Posted 30 March 2011 - 05:13 PM

I think the only time a glycerol backbone wouldn't be available is if you consumed EE fish oil totally separate from any other fats which is not likely... Most positive studies have been done on EE and I don't think it really makes much difference.
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,264 posts
  • 133

Posted 30 March 2011 - 05:31 PM

Actually, it may make some difference:

http://www.nutraingr...forms-work-best

However, if looking an endpoints, health benefits, etc., the difference in absorption may not matter so much (need studies for that).

The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen. reacted with ethanol to form the ethyl ester.


I believe all Nordic products are in either triglyceride or reconstituted trig form, no ethyl ester. As for concentration, the ProOmega is a little over 50% EPA/DHA, which is certainly decent, but not the most concentrated.

I'm looking for anyone that can do a good Enteric coated TG form (Softgel) from a reputable source. Any suggestions?


Maybe Fisol? You'd need to check if they are TG though. One problem I have with enteric forms is it's a pain to open a cap to taste it (good way to do a quick check against rancidity).

Meg-3 used to put out an enteric coated TG, but not sure if they still do. I think the Costco Meg-3 enteric is now EE.

Edited by nameless, 30 March 2011 - 05:34 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users