• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Highest affordable dose/quality of fish oil?

omega3 dha epa

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 dvstr

  • Member
  • 43 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Tokyo
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:03 AM


I'm looking to restock on fish oil and am searching for something that can give me ~2-3g easily without costing a fortune. 

 

I'm currently using Nordic Naturals Ultimate Omega in the 1g version which costs me roughly $60 for 90 servings (650 EPA, 450 DHA) where I live. Then a cheap flax oil from jarrows on top of that. 

 

I want to increase my omega-3 intake to 2-3g a day, which would mean I'd pay $60 a month with the current brand. Is there something more cost efficient? 



#2 Dorian Grey

  • Registered User
  • 771 posts
  • 140
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 04 October 2017 - 05:35 AM

Here ya go!

 

https://labdoor.com/rankings/fish-oil

 

Be sure to check out the "Value" tab next to the "Quality" near the top of the page; and scroll down to the bottom for the testing summary for important additional information.

 

I would also focus on freshness...  I expect all products for testing were submitted fresh off the production line, but not all products you might order may be this fresh.  

 

A well known company that moves a lot of product (NOW, Vitamin Shoppe, Sam's Club) might have a lot fresher product than a fringe company, that may sit on a hot shelf in some warehouse half way to expiration.  Freshness counts with fish oil!  

 

Finding a company that offers a good deal on purchase of several small quantity bottles might also be wise, as you want to avoid giant/bulk purchase bottles.  Once you open a bottle, oxygen starts to affect the product, & by the time you get to the bottom of a big bottle, you may be taking rancid oil.  Best to buy bottles that will be consumed less than a month (better yet, a week or so) of opening them. 

 

Hope this helps.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 04 October 2017 - 06:00 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 dvstr

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 43 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Tokyo
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2017 - 06:03 AM

Here ya go!

https://labdoor.com/rankings/fish-oil

Be sure to check out the "Value" tab next to the "Quality" near the top of the page; and scroll down to the bottom for the testing summary for important additional information.

I would also focus on freshness... I expect all products for testing were submitted fresh off the production line, but not all products you might order may be this fresh.

A well known company that moves a lot of product (NOW, Vitamin Shoppe, Sam's Club) might have a lot fresher product than a fringe company, that may sit on a hot shelf in some warehouse half way to expiration. Freshness count with fish oil!

Finding a company that offers a good deal on purchase of several small quantity bottles might also be wise, as you want to avoid giant/bulk purchase bottles. Once you open a bottle, oxygen starts to affect the product, & by the time you get to the bottom of a big bottle, you may be taking rancid oil. Best to buy bottles that will be consumed within a month (better yet, a week) of opening them.

Hope this helps.


Fantastic information, that’s exactly what I was looking for, huge thank you! Just by sweeping over it I found already better deals than what I currently have

If you are currently supplementing fish oil, what’s your go to brand out of the list?


Edited by dvstr, 04 October 2017 - 06:11 AM.


#4 Dorian Grey

  • Registered User
  • 771 posts
  • 140
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 04 October 2017 - 06:59 AM

I can't take fish oil because I am rather fond of beer, & fish oil & alcohol are a bad mix.  The alcohol causes oxidation of omega-3's in the liver.  

 

Be careful about overdoing it with the omega-3's.  Combining fish oil and flax is a thumping big dose.  More isn't always better.  

 

Moderation in all things!  



#5 aconita

  • Registered User
  • 1,389 posts
  • 218
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2017 - 09:01 PM

Gel caps are much better than bottles because of better protection from oxidation, storing in the fridge is a smart choice.

 

This is one of the best, if not the best, product on the market:

 

http://www.anne-marie.ca/

 

I would avoid flax oil.



#6 Daniel Cooper

  • Member
  • 448 posts
  • 48
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 October 2017 - 10:15 PM

I'm somewhat skeptical of taking daily multi-gram doses of fish oil.  That's just such a larger dose than even humans that live predominately on fish ever receive.  I don't have any evidence that that dose is harmful, yet most things in this world have U shaped dose/mortality curves.

 

 

 


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 October 2017 - 10:16 PM.


#7 Oakman

  • Member
  • 341 posts
  • 197
  • Location:CO

Posted 04 October 2017 - 10:23 PM

The best price/deal and product I've found is OMEGA-3 FISH OIL 1500 MG - LEMON (16.9 FLUID OUNCES LIQUID)Comes in a few other flavors too. It has almost no taste except the very light favor itself. 1 tsp suggested serving gives 100 servings per. I've used it for years and never got a bad batch. Of course, keep it in the frig. If you buy with coupons and/or auto delivery (-10%), it's very reasonable, reg $26.99 or $.27 /serving.  Also has 46 reviews 4.6/5 total, also LabDoor analyzed the pil version.



#8 dvstr

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 43 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Tokyo
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:16 PM

Thanks guys!

 

Given accessibility in Japan / shipping to Japan, price, test results and value, I went with NOW foods Ultra Omega in the 90 caps / bottle version for now. 

 

I'm somewhat skeptical of taking daily multi-gram doses of fish oil.  That's just such a larger dose than even humans that live predominately on fish ever receive.  I don't have any evidence that that dose is harmful, yet most things in this world have U shaped dose/mortality curves.

 

From what I read, the opinions seem to be very split on how much omega-3 is recommended and how much is too much. The institute of health lists the daily average recommended dose at 1.6g for men (https://ods.od.nih.g...ds-Consumer/#h2)

 

Then there are some studies that suggest higher doses of 3.5g might be beneficial for the general public:

 

With caveats inherent for ecologic, nutrient disap- pearance analyses, a healthy dietary allowance for n 3 LCFAs for current US diets was estimated at 3.5 g/d for a 2000-kcal diet. This allowance for n 3 LCFAs can likely be reduced to one-tenth of that amount by consuming fewer n 6 fats. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83(suppl):1483S–93S. 

(http://www.optimalhe... of Omega 3.pdf)

 

And then you have people like Rhonda Patrick who are supplementing more than 4g a day. 

 

Most suggest that dosages of up to 3g are deemed safe and higher dosages beneficial for more severe conditions (https://answers.webm...nded-dosage-for)

 

 

 

I personally am not eating any seafood so my normal daily intake of omega-3 is very low. My plan is to slowly increase from my current ~1g to 2g then 3g and keep it on that level for a while. 

Flax seed is going to get cut once the fish oil arrives. It was more a cheap way to add a bit of extra on top. 



#9 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,263 posts
  • 269
  • Location:Austria

Posted 05 October 2017 - 12:12 AM

I'm somewhat skeptical of taking daily multi-gram doses of fish oil.  That's just such a larger dose than even humans that live predominately on fish ever receive.  I don't have any evidence that that dose is harmful, yet most things in this world have U shaped dose/mortality curves.

 

Actually on a real fish diet its very easy to get really high amounts of EPA and DHA. For example this study:

Fish Intake, Independent of Apo(a) Size, Accounts for Lower Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Bantu Fishermen of Tanzania

Where they eat up to a pound of fish each day. And which was the incentive for Dr. Davis to recommend fish-oil with a pure EPA/DHA content of at least 5 g per day for patients with high Lp(a), as these Tanzanians would get from their fish-diet. And in his clinical experience this strategy seem to have worked after 2-3 years in 60% who tried, to drop Lp(a).



#10 Daniel Cooper

  • Member
  • 448 posts
  • 48
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 October 2017 - 12:36 AM

Indeed it is possible to get high serum levels of EPA/DHA from a high fish content diet.

 

A 100-gram serving of salmon may contain 400 milligrams to more than a gram of DHA, and from less than 200 milligrams of EPA to more than 800 milligrams.  Let's take the average and say 700 mg of DHA and 500 mg of EPA per 100g serving.  So if you ate 300g of salmon a day, that's 2100 mg DHA and 1500 mg of EPA.

 

Very very few human populations are eating that much fish day in and day out.  So, that would be your upper limit for natural DHA/EPA consumption.  Also, keep in mind that populations eating that much fish may have genetic differences that accommodate that sort of fish oil intake (such genetic differences have been found in Inuit populations for example).  As a plain garden variety European I personally don't think taking more than half those levels makes sense.  So for me, 1000mg DHA and 750mg of EPA and I'd still be getting more of those fatty acids than probably 95% of earth's population.

 

More at some point is not better.  These Omega 3 fatty acids are strong anti-inflammatories.  In general that's a good thing.  But inflammation is an immune response that is sometimes appropriate.  So, for instance we see that high Omega 3 consumption may increase the rate of prostate cancer.  That is possibly due to immune system suppression that would otherwise take out some nascent cases of prostrate cancer.

 

-Dan

 


  • Needs references x 1

#11 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,263 posts
  • 269
  • Location:Austria

Posted 05 October 2017 - 11:15 AM

As a plain garden variety European I personally don't think taking more than half those levels makes sense.  So for me, 1000mg DHA and 750mg of EPA and I'd still be getting more of those fatty acids than probably 95% of earth's population.

 

These Tanzanians are just fishermen, and as fishermen eat 300-500 g of fish each day. Don't think that is so uncommon, especially in former times with less availability of various foods, and fish being the only readily available for fishermen. Be that at the shores of Lake Tanganika, or the long coastline of Europe in times gone by.
 


  • Needs references x 1
  • Agree x 1

#12 Daniel Cooper

  • Member
  • 448 posts
  • 48
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:08 PM

 

As a plain garden variety European I personally don't think taking more than half those levels makes sense.  So for me, 1000mg DHA and 750mg of EPA and I'd still be getting more of those fatty acids than probably 95% of earth's population.

 

These Tanzanians are just fishermen, and as fishermen eat 300-500 g of fish each day. Don't think that is so uncommon, especially in former times with less availability of various foods, and fish being the only readily available for fishermen. Be that at the shores of Lake Tanganika, or the long coastline of Europe in times gone by.
 

 

 

 

Ok, so the Bantu tribesmen of Tanzania might eat as much as 500g of fish instead of just 300g of fish.  On the other hand, I gave you the EPA/DHA levels for salmon, a saltwater fish notably high in these fatty acids.  These guys are eating freshwater fish that I highly suspect have lower levels of omega 3s (almost all warm freshwater fish have significantly lower omega 3 content than cold saltwater fish).  I didn't see where they estimated the daily EPA/DHA consumption of these people but I may have overlooked it.  Does that paper estimate their daily omega 3 intake?  If not that's a glaring oversight.

 

But at the end of the day, this study looked at lipid profiles and gene expression and such things.  Unless I missed it I did not see any data on mortality rates, life spans, or causes of death so I don't yet see a compelling reason why I should eat like the Bantu tribesmen of Tanzania, and we aren't even talking about that because we are not talking about eating their diet, we're talking about taking a concentrated omega 3 supplement which they are definitely not consuming.

 

I just have a real issue with taking outlier populations that consume a very atypical diet and then copying or indeed exceeding some narrow aspect of that diet in the hope that you're doing some good.  And don't misunderstand me, I take an omega 3 supplement and think most Western diets are deficient in this nutrient. I just don't believe that if 1 gram is good, 4 or 5 grams is better.  I just don't see the evidence for it, even when presented by organizations like the American Heart Association.  

 

And you notably ignored the fact that we have some evidence that very high omega 3 consumption may increase your risk of prostrate cancer.  There's probably a middle ground in there somewhere where you've reduced your net overall mortality rate, but I suspect it is not at these very high doses.



#13 Daniel Cooper

  • Member
  • 448 posts
  • 48
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:13 PM

For the person that tagged my previous post as "need references".  Here you go:

 

 

Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial

 

 

 



#14 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,263 posts
  • 269
  • Location:Austria

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:48 PM

With the understanding that it's alright with me if you disagree, and no desire to convince you otherwise:

 

These guys are eating freshwater fish that I highly suspect have lower levels of omega 3s (almost all warm freshwater fish have significantly lower omega 3 content than cold saltwater fish).  I didn't see where they estimated the daily EPA/DHA consumption of these people but I may have overlooked it.  Does that paper estimate their daily omega 3 intake?  If not that's a glaring oversight.

 

From that paper:

 

This study was carried out in a population of Bantu fishermen of Tanzania consuming 300 to 500 g (3 to 5 g of n-3 PUFAs) of freshwater fish per day, similar to the amount of fish consumed by the Eskimos.

 

Also Table 1 is interesting, in it's breakdown of lipids and plasma fatty acids.


Edited by pamojja, 05 October 2017 - 02:59 PM.


#15 Daniel Cooper

  • Member
  • 448 posts
  • 48
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 October 2017 - 03:18 PM

Yeah, I got the quantity of fish they were eating, and their blood lipid profiles, but what I did not see what how much EPA/DHA was in their 300 to 500 grams of fish.  That would be highly important information for someone looking to supplement with a concentrated fish oil rather than trying to eat 300 to 500 gram of whatever freshwater fish these guys happen to be eating.

 

Also, I did not see anything along the lines of "they have an X% lower incidence of heart disease compared to the Bantu eating a vegetarian diet".  This is really a very narrow study on the effect on blood lipids of a fish based diet versus a vegetarian diet.

 

Keep in mind that it's cool water fish that have high EPA/DHA levels.  Fish you normally find in the deep oceans, glacial streams, or the very few deep freshwater lakes.  Freshwater fish from rivers and the vast majority of lakes have omega 3 levels significantly less than salmon.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 October 2017 - 03:40 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#16 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,263 posts
  • 269
  • Location:Austria

Posted 05 October 2017 - 05:31 PM

Keep in mind that it's cool water fish that have high EPA/DHA levels.

 

Better yet, enter your meals at least a few days into cron-o-meter. Was really surprised with the fish I eat the most - sardines, mackerels, cod and salmon - the EPA to DHA ratio was 1:2, while fish-oil capsules usually give me almost a 3:2 ratio of EPA/DHA.

 

 

This is really a very narrow study on the effect on blood lipids of a fish based diet versus a vegetarian diet.

 

Aware of the difficulty to find anything lowering high and dangerous Lp(a), I think this study is rather outstanding. Fish-oil in that respect didn't work for me, though.

 

 

And you notably ignored the fact that we have some evidence that very high omega 3 consumption may increase your risk of prostrate cancer.

 

I notably ignore studies which look at each nutrient in isolation. That isn't how I take them, and my examinations and labs tell me otherwise.


Edited by pamojja, 05 October 2017 - 05:40 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#17 Daniel Cooper

  • Member
  • 448 posts
  • 48
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 October 2017 - 06:03 PM

Wasn't aware of cron-o-meter, I'll have to look into that.

 

With respect to studying nutrients in isolation, unfortunately that's the only way we can do it.  There is a near infinite number of combinations of nutrients, it simply isn't practical to study even a small fraction of them.  And with all due respect, your labs are not telling you if you have nascent prostate cancer growing.  Some of these studies don't bother me that much.  They find weak signals and I can see potential issues with their methodology.  But that study found a very strong signal, on the order of a 70 ~ 80% increase.  That sort of thing gets my attention.  Now, perhaps you can mitigate some of that increase by taking other nutrients, but you'd need to know exactly why these omega 3 fatty acids are leading to such an increase in prostate cancer and try to address that path.

 

In any case, best of luck with your regimen.

 


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 October 2017 - 06:04 PM.


#18 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,263 posts
  • 269
  • Location:Austria

Posted 05 October 2017 - 07:09 PM

 

But that study found a very strong signal, on the order of a 70 ~ 80% increase.  That sort of thing gets my attention.  Now, perhaps you can mitigate some of that increase by taking other nutrients, but you'd need to know exactly why these omega 3 fatty acids are leading to such an increase in prostate cancer and try to address that path.

 

The SELECT trial actually set out to find the association of alpha-tocopherol and selenium on cancer. Interesting 13 minute review touching that trial by Dr. Ronda Patrick. In particular pertaining to potentially lowering cancer risk by the simple addition of gamma-tocopherol and/or selenium:

 

 

To me it seems a very serious flaw in this reanalysis of the SELECT trial, that they completely ignored all data about vitamin E and selenium, for which this study originally was designed. Merely analyzing plasma fatty acids and their association with cancer. And concluded:

 

 In conclusion, in this large, prospective study of plasma phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk, contrary to our expectations, we found that long-chain ω-3 PUFA overall, and DPA and DHA in particular, were associated with strong, linear increases in prostate cancer risk.

 

Association can't prove causation.

 

 ..you'd need to know exactly why these omega 3 fatty acids are leading to such an increase in prostate cancer and try to address that path.

 

While you already assume such causation as a proven fact. ..while that also could be a cancer driven process, or maybe simply because alpha-tocopherol depleted gamma-tocopherol, or no selenium has been taken? Will never know with that sort of junk-science, where even existing data-points for other nutrients are intentionally ignored.

 

By the way, my father already had prostrate-cancer surgery and radiation. Needless to say, he never took any supplements, no gamma-tocopherol or selenium, fish-oil neither.

 

 

 

 


Edited by pamojja, 05 October 2017 - 07:22 PM.


#19 joelcairo

  • Registered User
  • 465 posts
  • 127
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2017 - 07:10 PM

Interestingly the same authors also found that higher levels of trans fats confers about a 50% reduction in risk of high-grade prostate cancer.

 

All these results are sufficiently at variance with what has been generally learned about EPA and DHA that I'm left wondering if their impact on prostate cancer (assuming it is real) can be generalized to any other type of cancer. With prostate cancer there is some kind of important connection to testosterone, although I don't think it has been proven exactly what that connection is.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#20 joelcairo

  • Registered User
  • 465 posts
  • 127
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 06 October 2017 - 04:47 AM

...Forgot to include the link to the study on trans fats. https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3145396/

 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: omega3, dha, epa

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users