104 replies to this topic

[krillin]

that list is missing a lot of the top brands.

Do the other brands post test results on a different site?

[theta]

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]

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]

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]

That might be the best test, but that's like saying, oh, Resveratrol is supposed to improve health, let me drink 8 glasses of wine a day for a week and see what happens, or, piracetam? hmmm, let me take 12 grams a day and see what happens.

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]

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]

If you want to try higher epa levels you may want to get a concentrate. i posted in a diff thread that I take a 90% EPA only supplement. They are expensive would be much better to experiment with high levels. I take 4 caps a day, they are the small half size, instead of the 1 gram size most fish oil comes in. So these 4 tiny ones which is the equivalent of two of the larger 1 gram size yields 2,000mg epa a day.

BTW, Do you get fish burps from your brand ?

[drmz]

Can fish oil make you emotionally unstable as well ? I always get the feeling that fish oil makes me a bit "manic"

[theta]

18 grams of fish oil sounds insane but its below normal dietary intake for many groups of people. One study used twice that level.

[pound4pound]

I like Carlson's fish oil. It tastes great too!

[Ghostrider]

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.

[hamishm00]

I only settle for pure EPA.

www.mind1st.co.uk

[theta]

I only settle for pure EPA.

www.mind1st.co.uk

Then why are your capsules contanimated with 100 mg Borage oil?

[hamishm00]

I'd hardly call it contamination. They provide the GLA. The point is that they're not contaminated with DHA.

[theta]

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]

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.

[theta]

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]

On the contamination point, it's got nothing to do with efficacy linked with the purity, it's to do with getting heavy metal poisoning if you're taking 4+ grams of fish oil a day for years at a time.

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]

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.

[hamishm00]

The writer of that article should probably get on a nootropic programme or two - it might improve his/her use of commas, sentences and capital letters:

"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]

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]

Why don't you post that in every single thread on any kind of supplement. Everyone knows about. Everyone accepts it.

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]

you really like the word "trite" don't you?

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.

[hamishm00]

I totally agree with you. I was arguing the opposite.

[eternaltraveler]

However it's very very important to always take the placebo effect into account. Not just accept that it's there and ignore it. But continuously re evaluate if what you are putting in your body is actually doing anything good. Because if it it isn't doing something good it is not an acceptable risk (ie, any risk greater than zero for something with no benefits).

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]

I totally agree.

Why are we talking about folate? You really like that word don't you.

[hamishm00]

I think trite is a good word to use because it means (not saying that you don't know, I'm just extracting the definition here for ease of reference) 'lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition'.

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]

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]

My care factor??? Pretty much nil. I have enough experience in what works for me and doesn't and I know the science well enough behind all of it to say what I think, in my experience, is good. I'll happily tell you what I do for a living off-thread, if that eases your little unscratchable itch about conflicts of interests whenever people open their mouths and say what they think is good.

Keep hijacking threads with your skepticism, and show what a winner you are.

[thumb]

[eternaltraveler]

Science has skepticism at it's very core.

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.