Fish Oil
krillin 21 Oct 2007
that list is missing a lot of the top brands.
Do the other brands post test results on a different site?
theta 21 Oct 2007
No idea on the brands, but would also really like to know. I wouldn't think some would be more effective. Yet, maybe some have less mercury? Not sure...
Pick one of these five-star brands. I use LEF's myself.
http://www.nutrasour.....ating Reports
that list is missing a lot of the top brands.
Yeah but they have a ridiculous high standard most all fish oil is
around 30% combined EPA & DHA. Though I do accept that the concentrated oils are likely less contaminated.
Star 2 - Product Tests Show Minimum 60 per cent EPA plus DHA combined concentration
Oh I decided I'm increasing my dose of fish oil to 18 grams daily in
a short term test. To see if extra EPA really offers additional functional benfits.
graatch 22 Oct 2007
Oh I decided I'm increasing my dose of fish oil to 18 grams daily in
a short term test. To see if extra EPA really offers additional functional benfits.
That = not a good test of whether the right amount of EPA offers functional benefits.
theta 22 Oct 2007
Oh I decided I'm increasing my dose of fish oil to 18 grams daily in
a short term test. To see if extra EPA really offers additional functional benefits.
That = not a good test of whether the right amount of EPA offers functional benefits.
A good test would be more like 100 people with blood testing and
random assignment of either pure EPA or olive oil capsules taken
for 6 months with a battery of psychological test before and after.
So rather than spending that $50,000 I will just use the fish oil
gelcaps I already got. There have been studies with high doses of fish oil providing good results and studies with lower doses providing good results.
awarren 22 Oct 2007
You are not going to see benefits that quickly, and it will probably hurt you more than help (in the case of the red wine) or just cloud your mind (in the case of piracetam).
I suggest taking a normal healthy dose for a month or two and see what happens. There's no reason for you need functional benefits that quickly, and if it's due to some kind of medical problem, you should probably be seeing a doctor instead of mega-dosing on fish oil.
graatch 22 Oct 2007
A good test would be more like 100 people with blood testing
Not what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia....al_distribution
18 g fish oil might very well give you negative effects, and it wouldn't say anything at all about the possible positive effects from lower doses.
ortcloud 22 Oct 2007
BTW, Do you get fish burps from your brand ?
drmz 22 Oct 2007
theta 22 Oct 2007
Ghostrider 27 Oct 2007
BTW, Do you get fish burps from your brand ?
I can get 2,000 grams of EPA with 6.3 grams of the fish oil that I take. (I only take about 4 grams for about 1200, 800 EPA/DHA daily). It's 300/200 EPA/DHA per capsule. Yes, I do get fish burps on an empty stomach which is usually after I take it first thing after waking. Good news it covers up my bad breath which probably smells worse. On a full stomach, no.
theta 29 Oct 2007
I only settle for pure EPA.
www.mind1st.co.uk
Then why are your capsules contanimated with 100 mg Borage oil?
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
theta 29 Oct 2007
I'd hardly call it contamination. They provide the GLA. The point is that they're not contaminated with DHA.
Other than a few studies paid for by the makers of EPA enriched oils is there any objective evidence that DHA is counterproductive? I accept that EPA is likely superior for adults for the simple reason that EPA can be converted to DHA in the body. But other than a few
studies that tried to explain inconsistent results with fish oil in treating ADHD there is no evidence to suggest DHA is harmful. Its
merely a marketing scam. Regardless what people take that has been
labeled cognitive aids (excluding CNS stimulants) the results people
have will at best follow this pattern, a few will have great results,
alot minimum results and the rest no good results or negative results.
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
The other half? Molecular distillation.
theta 29 Oct 2007
Sorry mate, I'm not biting on that hook. I know the EPA vs EPA/DHA all too well, and that's only half of the equation.
The other half? Molecular distillation.
Thats the same argument that impurities in fish oil explain the mix results in studies. The reality is a person can take ultra pure EPA dropped from the heavens from the hand of God or take common
average contaminated natural oil and get the same benefits. You may
find high purity highly efficay for the simple reason you read the same marketing hype and had a placebo effect.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=27793
Is objective reality behide high purity EPA or is it merely indirect
stimulation of the nucleus accumbens?
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
On the EPA vs EPA/DHA argument, I'm happy to side with the former, as it's a fairly uncontested argument that EPA can be converted into DHA, but not the other way around. There are studies that say that DHA interferes with EPA, not that it's bad for you.
It's therefore a fairly good choice siding with the Pure EPA supplement choice over a run of the mill natural fish oil.
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
"The researchers concluded that , These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that this system is involved in the encoding of the , incentive value, of the placebo, possibly acting as a gate or permissive system for the formation of placebo effects."
eternaltraveler 29 Oct 2007
It's pretty trite to link placebo effect write ups on this forum by the way. They can be used to debunk (or explain in the same breath) almost every single supplement featured in any of these forums. Noone is going to argue with "indirect stimulation of the nucleus accumbens" being a factor in anything you pop into your mouth (or any other orifice or vein), it's a given on every single aspect of every single discussion in this forum.
It's anything but trite if a supplement's positive effects can be explained away via the placebo effect. It means you're wasting your money on that supplement.
That's what double blind placebo control trials are for.
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
It's trite. We know what double blind placebo trials are for. Would you like me to quote all of the double blind placebo trials currently underway? That would be trite, wouldn't it? It's all of them.
eternaltraveler 29 Oct 2007
and I really don't think everyone knows and accepts that all supplemental benefits can be explained away using the placebo effect. If that is what you truly believe then I hope you don't actually take any supplements. Because if you "know" all the benefits of a substance come from the placebo effect, the placebo effect has a tendency of not working any more.
The fact is the placebo effect can not explain away every effect of every supplement. Just most of the fad of the week supplements.
Folate supplementation for women of child bearing age prevents spina bifida, Vitamin D seems to lower all cause mortality, whey supplementation helps build muscle, and so on.
eternaltraveler 29 Oct 2007
We should even reevaluate things like folate from time to time. There was one study I saw that demonstrated folate certainly does reduce neural tube defects, yes, but babies were apparently less intelligent. Now was this because the folate made them less intelligent, or because babies that wouldn't have otherwise survived at all to be tested for intelligence were now part of the sample? I don't know. It is important to be constantly reminded of these things so that we think critically.
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
Why are we talking about folate? You really like that word don't you.
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
I could go into every single supplement thread on this forum and remind them of the fact that it's very important to always take the placebo effect into account, and to reevaluate if what you are putting in your body is actually doing anything good.
I would have thought that this forum is well informed enough to know what it is, and to always take it into account.
theta 29 Oct 2007
Why don't you post that in every single thread on any kind of supplement. Everyone knows about. Everyone accepts it.
Usually there is someone skeptical in every thread of most the products reported to have cognitive benefits. When I see someone
very confident in a product it triggers a light bulb in my head thats says they are promoting their own commercial interest and/or their
own placebo effect.
hamishm00 29 Oct 2007
Keep hijacking threads with your skepticism, and show what a winner you are.
[thumb]
eternaltraveler 30 Oct 2007
If anything supplement discussion could use a lot more skepticism.
If you believe something works; great. Prove it. If someone presents an alternative explanation, present further evidence backing up your own assertion, or explain how their alternative doesn't apply in this particular case, or do nothing. Chiding someone for being skeptical of anything is only insulting towards ones self. It indicates that one doesn't understand that it was skepticism that made man stop believing in ridiculous superstitions that you and I would laugh at today, like dancing makes it rain, and saying "god bless you" after someone sneezes is supposed to prevent the spread of disease. Indeed we see through the work of B. F. Skinner that superstition is not strictly a human invention at all, and ultimately is usually well explained through confirmation bias.
It's not enough for someone to open their mouth and say something is good. What are they the Pope speaking a divine revelation? We need evidence.
If an idea can withstand the fire of doubt, objections, and other explanations for the perceived effect because the evidence upholding it is stronger; then and only then should anyone even think of assigning it any merit at all.