164 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

More and more, I'm questioning whether EPA and DHA are truly essential fatty acids. These are unstable, easily oxidized long-chain lipids, that may cause more problems than they solve.

Over at The Whole Health Source blog, there are two recent entries on polyunsaturated fats that, while focused on omega-6 oils, is further convincing me that fish oils, too, are more problematic than beneficial:

Read first: http://wholehealthso...eight-gain.html
And second: http://wholehealthso...suppresses.html

I'm definitely moving my diet toward more saturated fat intake, including animal fats, and two tropical oils, palm oil and coconut oil, both primarily saturated fat. Saturated fat is extremely stable and hardly capable of oxidation. (For example, coconut oil can be left out for a year with no noticeable degradation.)

Omega-9 oils are far more stable than o-3's and o-6's, so these are still worthwhile for diet and health. But, I'm eliminating omega-6's as much as possible, and for now reducing marine lipid supplementation to jut two krill oil's per day.

More reading:
http://raypeat.com/a...conut-oil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/a...s/fishoil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/a...tablefats.shtml

[brokenportal]

I was just looking at getting my first bottle of fish oil the other day. Every time I turn around though theres a new article and expert saying that what is supposed to be so great is bad. Ive been taking vitamin B, now I hear that that is supposed to rot my brain. Eggs were supposed to be the plague, but now you can eat them, and ultra health experts at gyms that I know scoff at me for not drinking them every day.

I dont know what to think. My grandpa always said dont take pills. He eats fresh vegetables, patatoes and meat every single day and hes like 85 and still farming. Maybe thats the way to go.

[Shepard]

Supplementation has to be based on the individual level. Certainly, there are problems with polyunsaturates as a whole and individual ones. See MR's argument from years back. But, questioning the validity of high dose fish oil supplementation is different from questioning the validity of the bodily requirement for certain polyunsaturates.

And, a ketogenic diet based on animal-based foods should lower the relative requirements and may not need any supplementation (depending on food sources). And, I'm sure you didn't mean that they aren't required, but such powerful statements can mislead some people.

Edited by shepard, 20 December 2008 - 06:26 PM.

[nowayout]

I'm definitely moving my diet toward more saturated fat intake, including animal fats,

Something to keep in mind, apparently grass-fed or free-range animals has a different lipid profile than grain-fed battery animals.

and two tropical oils, palm oil...

...extremely harmful to the environment (a major cause of tropical deforestation). Be sure to check whence it is sourced.

[FunkOdyssey]

I think he meant that DHA and EPA are not essential or required, in the sense that they can be made from ALA in the body.

[DreemWeaver]

More and more, I'm questioning whether EPA and DHA are truly essential fatty acids. These are unstable, easily oxidized long-chain lipids, that may cause more problems than they solve.

Over at The Whole Health Source blog, there are two recent entries on polyunsaturated fats that, while focused on omega-6 oils, is further convincing me that fish oils, too, are more problematic than beneficial:

Read first: http://wholehealthso...eight-gain.html
And second: http://wholehealthso...suppresses.html

I'm definitely moving my diet toward more saturated fat intake, including animal fats, and two tropical oils, palm oil and coconut oil, both primarily saturated fat. Saturated fat is extremely stable and hardly capable of oxidation. (For example, coconut oil can be left out for a year with no noticeable degradation.)

Omega-9 oils are far more stable than o-3's and o-6's, so these are still worthwhile for diet and health. But, I'm eliminating omega-6's as much as possible, and for now reducing marine lipid supplementation to jut two krill oil's per day.

More reading:
http://raypeat.com/a...conut-oil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/a...s/fishoil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/a...tablefats.shtml

I am more confused than ever after subscribing to all the "good" blogs.. But I like anything which says that coconut oil is good.. the name of my state is Kerala which means land of coconut :-)

[DukeNukem]

I think he meant that DHA and EPA are not essential or required, in the sense that they can be made from ALA in the body.

Flax oil (ALA) does not seem to increase DHA, and it only increases EPA slightly:
http://www.ajcn.org/...stract/88/3/801

Note that most carnivores have a omega-3-free diet (very little is found in the meat of prey). Humans are very close to being a carnivore -- we're pretty much identical to dogs in this respect (we can live our entire life on animal proteins and fats).

One thing is 100% certain to me: omega-6 fats are a net-negative, and should be avoided if in an way processed.

The jury is still out on omega-3's -- IMO it's not a clear case that we should be supplementing with them anymore.

[DukeNukem]

Supplementation has to be based on the individual level. Certainly, there are problems with polyunsaturates as a whole and individual ones. See MR's argument from years back. But, questioning the validity of high dose fish oil supplementation is different from questioning the validity of the bodily requirement for certain polyunsaturates.

Is there an evidence that PUFAs are required in our bodies? Versus, say, saturated fats? I'd love to find a study or two on this. And is there any evidence that omega-3's are absolutely required?

[Brainbox]

I find myself posting "antagonistic" contributions in the "fat topics" which seem to be ignored, perhaps while being "to mainstream". But here I go again.

In the coconut oil link, I cannot help noticing some remarks that, for me, on first sight, seem a bit unscientific. I might miss something, but for the sake of an open discussion I would like to present my concerns.

this[/url] study, which has been discussed here, the following conclusion regarding weight development is made:

Hoewel zowel kokosolie als olijfolie een positief effect op de testes hadden, hadden de twee dieettypes een verschillend effect op het lichaamsgewicht. De ratten die kokosolie werden beduidend snel zwaarder, en waren aan het einde van de proef het zwaarst. De ratten die olijfolie kregen werden juist minder snel zwaarder.

In English:

Although coconut oil and olive oil did have a positive effect on the testes, both types of diets did have different effects on bodyweight. The rats on coconut oil gained weight much faster and were heaviest at the end of the test as compared to the rats on olive oil.

So, my point is that this coconut article might be a bit biased and certainly misses a certain level of science.


I'm aware that it's easy to shoot holes in diet discussions this way since proof for any point of view cannot be obtained easily. But this shoot is just to easy I'm afraid. I'm not going to bore you with all the positive studies regarding fish oil, the latest insight being it's positive effect on prostate issues.

My view on the matter is as follows. Like so many questions, it's not a matter of OR/OR, but AND/AND in a balanced context. I'm trying to limit my amount of O-6, get enough O-3 and O-9 through diet and fairly moderate supplementation. And I recently added vierge coconut oil as well because of the promising research. I'm still limiting fat in meat since there's a lot of research against it.

Edited by Brainbox, 20 December 2008 - 08:33 PM.

[nameless]

More and more, I'm questioning whether EPA and DHA are truly essential fatty acids. These are unstable, easily oxidized long-chain lipids, that may cause more problems than they solve.

The jury is still out on omega-3's -- IMO it's not a clear case that we should be supplementing with them anymore.

Is the issue you have with omega 3s solely related to oxidation, or other factors? And is oxidation from refrigerated fish oil (with antioxidants) really a major problem?

Some interesting articles:

Do We Go Rancid after Eating Fish?
http://oregonstate.e...cts/wander.html

And same article, in a forum post, with study links. I think only one study showed a minor oxidation issue, while others showed reduced oxidation.

http://sci.tech-arch...8/msg00092.html

One issue with fish oil that does concern me is immune suppression. However, I believe EPA is mostly responsible for this. And DHA, not EPA (as most supplements state) may have greater cardiovascular benefits --

Purified eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids have differential effects on serum lipids and lipoproteins, LDL particle size, glucose, and insulin in mildly hyperlipidemic men

http://www.ajcn.org/...1/5/1085?ck=nck


So perhaps supplementing with DHA alone, or a fish oil with more DHA than EPA, with some antioxidants (E, etc) would be the healthiest? Algae derived DHA is another option, but very expensive.

[nowayout]

Note that most carnivores have a omega-3-free diet (very little is found in the meat of prey). Humans are very close to being a carnivore -- we're pretty much identical to dogs in this respect (we can live our entire life on animal proteins and fats).

Not entirely. Your statement ignores a few things. First, you forget fish-eating carnivores. Many human populations traditionally ate lots of fish, and presumably evolved to deal with the omega-3 in fish. Second, there is a huge difference between wild game meat, which we presumably evolved to cope with, and domesticated meats. For example, wild and grass-fed animals contain higher amounts of omega-3 fatty acids than domesticated grain-fed animals. They are also generally much leaner. Third, it is highly doubtful that meat was available daily during human evolution. Paleo diets likely contained lots of nuts, seeds or grains, berries, greens, etc., and meat on an occasional basis, if modern hunter-gatherer diets are taken as an indication.

Also, whatever diet we evolved to deal with, evolution was blind to whatever this diet did to us after child-bearing and -rearing, so it is not necessarily the best diet to grow old with.

Having said all this, I agree with you to the extend that megadosing with fish oils is ridiculous in the absence of any studies supporting it.

Edited by andre, 20 December 2008 - 09:04 PM.

[Mixter]

First, I agree of course EPA/DHA are not essential, but Omega3's are. Just like no phytonutrients can be essential, but still very important

Re: immune suppression, it's more immune modulation, no? Your IG's and other parameters do not go down but up. Cytokine and other acute inflammatory answers is what are suppressed, while the more targeted aspects of the immune system supported, no? Even DHEA does similar things.

All the concerns sound worth a thought... but what about the tons of good studies, with very little bad studies against them? Personally, I'm going to cycle Flaxseed with EPA/DHA next year. The exclusive effects from EPA/DHA are the neurological benefits. Unless there's a substitute for this, there's a very good reason to keep using them, no...?

Nevertheless, all supplement producers have an expiry date of 2 years in the future on their Oils. Ok, they are in airtight softgels, but I still often wondered whether they won't oxidize a lot within weeks to few months, even with some Vit E added? Any data on this would be VERY interesting.

[DreemWeaver]

The jury is still out on omega-3's -- IMO it's not a clear case that we should be supplementing with them anymore.

I have very little knowledge about all these things. But I have ready many times that a Paleo diet suggests a "free range" chicken, "Grass fed" beef etc because of certain things which includes a good omega 3 to omega 6 ratio. It says that a game meat has five times the omega 3 than a grain fed animal (I don't know if its right or wrong).

[Shepard]

Is there an evidence that PUFAs are required in our bodies? Versus, say, saturated fats? I'd love to find a study or two on this. And is there any evidence that omega-3's are absolutely required?

Here is a recent journal issue that has some good stuff regarding the importance of the AA:DHA ratio, specifically in the immune system and brain. I'm aware of one in vitro paper examining the effects of membrane composition in immune cells, with mono- and saturated fats having no effect, and the AA:DHA ratio being the only variable that brought about effects. Considering how important fluidity is in certain types of cells (which seem to be the ones where n-3 fats produce the most beneficial effects in low doses), it's hard to make an argument against their necessity for health.

As for if they are absolutely necessary for life, there are plenty of n-3 and n-6 deprivation studies, but I don't think I've ever come across one that would satisfy the requirements you're asking about.

Also, from the last issue of that journal, here is a paper looking at the membrane composition of ADHD patients. The ADHD patients showed higher amounts of saturates in the membranes and lower PUFAs than control. And, to counter this somewhat and be thorough, I remember a paper from a couple years back on the longevity of a subset of birds, with increased membrane saturation corellated with increased longevity. I don't remember if it was specific tissues or an overall increase. Also, I'm not convinced as to the extent dietary modifications can influence membrane composition across the entire organism. I've seen suggestions that it's mostly genetically-related, but several of the n-3 papers show non-insignificant increases with supplementation.

Edited by shepard, 21 December 2008 - 12:36 AM.

[Brainbox]

As for if they are absolutely necessary for life, there are plenty of n-3 and n-6 deprivation studies, but I don't think I've ever come across one that would satisfy the requirements you're asking about.

This probably also applies to healthy lifestyle habits and supplementation in general.

Regarding the oxidation issue. Here it is stated that, after somewhat debunking the oxidative effects, the assertion is made that it could still be an issue at the longer term. Which is an interesting perspective indeed. On the other hand, isn't all we do in one way or another causative to some form of oxidation? Hence the need for diversity?

I'm feeling a bit of regret after posting my shooting contribution above, that, to be honest, originated from a more-than-healthy level of frustration, but it strikes me that the lack of in-depth insight seems to be compensated with unfounded opinions in most articles that can be found on the net.

Edited by Brainbox, 20 December 2008 - 10:04 PM.

[Lufega]

While saturated fats have always had a bad rep. I believe there is a big difference between plant based sat. and that from animals. I can attest to how awsome coconut oil is. I have been using it for years. When I first started, I would drink 4 tablespoons a day straight up. I lost 40 pounds in a matter of months, without changing my lifestyle much. If you've done this yourself, you'll know what amazing energy boost coconut oil gives you almost comparable to amphetamines.

Now, I only use it to cook with but I also eat half the meat of one virgin coconut everyday (this gives about 4 TBSP oil) and this keeps my weight very stable. The diarrhea problem with coconut oil subsides after a week or so.

I was born in the Dominican Republic and the only cooking oils used there were coconut and peanut oil. That was before Corn and soy oils dominated the market. Interestingly enough, before the introduction of corn and soy, BMI's were generally lowers and heart disease was almost non-existant. That's not the case anymore.

edit: I also want to add that since adding more GLA, EFA, DHA and coconut oil to my diet, my symptoms of depression have subsided. Maybe the key to using fish oil is to use less (1 teaspoon per day) instead of mega-dosing on it (4-6 tablespoons) , like I am doing now.

Edited by Lufega, 20 December 2008 - 10:27 PM.

[Brainbox]

If you've done this yourself, you'll know what amazing energy boost coconut oil gives you almost comparable to amphetamines.

I did it and did not experience that effect. I do not have any experience with amphetamines, so any comparison is beyond my imagination.

[Shepard]

Yeah, that's either some laced coconut oil or fake amphetamines.

[Brainbox]

Btw., also all of my friends didn't experience it, so it's not anecdotal.

[Mind]

Note that most carnivores have a omega-3-free diet (very little is found in the meat of prey). Humans are very close to being a carnivore -- we're pretty much identical to dogs in this respect (we can live our entire life on animal proteins and fats).

Not entirely. Your statement ignores a few things. First, you forget fish-eating carnivores. Many human populations traditionally ate lots of fish, and presumably evolved to deal with the omega-3 in fish. Second, there is a huge difference between wild game meat, which we presumably evolved to cope with, and domesticated meats. For example, wild and grass-fed animals contain higher amounts of omega-3 fatty acids than domesticated grain-fed animals. They are also generally much leaner. Third, it is highly doubtful that meat was available daily during human evolution. Paleo diets likely contained lots of nuts, seeds or grains, berries, greens, etc., and meat on an occasional basis, if modern hunter-gatherer diets are taken as an indication.

Also, whatever diet we evolved to deal with, evolution was blind to whatever this diet did to us after child-bearing and -rearing, so it is not necessarily the best diet to grow old with.

Having said all this, I agree with you to the extend that megadosing with fish oils is ridiculous in the absence of any studies supporting it.

Agreed that mega-dosing seems to be a bad strategy for most supplements. It seems people are naturally prone to mega-dosing. "If a little is good - a lot must be GREAT!". Not the case when it comes to supplements as far as I have seen trends through the years (that is unless you are attempting to attack a certain disease/condition).

As far as ancient meat-eating habits go - I have seen quite a few papers like this describing the hunting strategies of early humans. One hunting tactic was to drive a whole herd of grazing animals off of a cliff. The whole tribe would then eat meat for a couple weeks with not much else in the diet. During certain times of the year, some native American tribes' diet would consist primarily of bison meat/fat and only small amounts of seeds/greens. I am not saying a high meat/fat diet is the super-duper-number-one-fantastic diet available, just that some groups of humans did live primarily on meat/fat for significant periods of time. Nowadays we have the option to eat less meat and still get the proper nutrients.

Good topic Duke, like usual. I am aware of the voluminous studies showing the benefits of fish oil, however, I think most of them are epidemiological in nature - which is a slight drawback. There has to be something good about it (fish oil), otherwise one would think the balance of studies would be negative.

[zoolander]

it is thought that n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA), while not essential, do serve a very valuable functional purpose in today's diet due to the dramatic changes that have resulted from industrialization. The n-3 PUFA seems to correct some of the negative outcomes that result from today's poor diet. For example, dylipidemia and insulin resistance. So for someone like you Duke (do you mind if I call you 'no sugar'?) may not need Fish but for someone on the average American diet....well fish oil will be of great benefit. The same applies for flouride. If it wasn't for the level of refined sugar in the diet and the subsequent increase in dental caries then water fluoridation would not be needed.

[Prometheus]

Worth considering are gene-environment interactions in the varied health benefits observed and that some populations may have evolved genes to be more efficient in the assimilation of saturated fats rather than PUFA's according to their geographic location (game vs fish-based diet). MUFA's (nuts and plant oils), also would have been variably abundant according to the geography. Useful to stratify by geographic origins/race/haplotype before drawing conclusions on dietary benefits.

[DukeNukem]

First, I agree of course EPA/DHA are not essential, but Omega3's are.

Why are you so certain?

[DukeNukem]

As far as ancient meat-eating habits go - I have seen quite a few papers like this describing the hunting strategies of early humans. One hunting tactic was to drive a whole herd of grazing animals off of a cliff. The whole tribe would then eat meat for a couple weeks with not much else in the diet. During certain times of the year, some native American tribes' diet would consist primarily of bison meat/fat and only small amounts of seeds/greens. I am not saying a high meat/fat diet is the super-duper-number-one-fantastic diet available, just that some groups of humans did live primarily on meat/fat for significant periods of time. Nowadays we have the option to eat less meat and still get the proper nutrients.

Very true. Also in Africa, Australia, and other inland population areas, fish was rare or absent for dozens of generations, perhaps 100+ generations. So clearly, eating fish isn't necessary to human survival. Human milk contains DPA (also found in seal oil), a rare omega-3 that may play a role in developing brains, and breast-feeding was commonly done for 3-4 years by paleolithic moms.

I've done quite a bit of recent research and I cannot find evidence that ANY omega-3 fats are necessary for humans. I'm wondering if anyone can reveal something I could not find on my own.

The studied anti-inflammatory effects of fish oil might be due to their balancing effects versus omega-6 derived arachidonic acid, which tend to produce inflammatory eicosanoids, versus anti-inflammatory eicosanoids derived from EPA and DHA. (Note that ALA, the plant version of omega-6, has practically no effect in fighting the inflammatory effects of arachidonic acid. ALA has a very poor conversion ratio to EPA and DHA, and often doesn't have measurable conversion.)

It seems to me that the practical elimination of omega-6 oils means that omega-3's can be eliminated, too. This is likely how paleolithic populations got by without marine lipids, in light of the fact that plant-based ALA doesn't seem to be a worthwhile replacement omega-3.

[wayside]

Fish oil makes my joints feel better.

I take 6 gms of fish oil that is 60% omega-3 - is this a mega dose?

[zoolander]

I've done quite a bit of recent research and I cannot find evidence that ANY omega-3 fats are necessary for humans.

Define essential.

[ajnast4r]

i believe technically only linolenic acid and alpha lionlenic acid are the only dietary essential fatty acids... a healthy body can synthesize everything it needs from these.

The studied anti-inflammatory effects of fish oil might be due to their balancing effects versus omega-6 derived arachidonic acid,

agreed.. thats exactly how it was presented in my last class.

. (Note that ALA, the plant version of omega-6 ALA has a very poor conversion ratio to EPA and DHA, and often doesn't have measurable conversion.)

ALA = 3

its my understanding that variability of ala->epa/dha conversion is due to nutritional status & dietary habbits, or lack thereof, of the person ingesting them.

its worth noting that hemp seems to be a better source of omega-3 vs flax... in addition to ALA, it contains SDA (stearidonic acid) which converts readily to EPA & DPA, but minimally to DHA.

good paper comparing ALA/SDA/EPA:

Metabolism of stearidonic acid in human subjects: comparison withthe metabolism of other n3 fatty acids1–3

Results: Dietary SDA increased EPA and docosapentaenoic acid
concentrations but not DHA concentrations in erythrocyte and in
plasma phospholipids. The relative effectiveness of the tested
dietary fatty acids in increasing tissue EPA was 1:0.3:0.07 for
EPA:SDA:ALA.

Edited by ajnast4r, 21 December 2008 - 01:18 AM.

[DukeNukem]

I've done quite a bit of recent research and I cannot find evidence that ANY omega-3 fats are necessary for humans.

Define essential.

Required to live an entire, healthy lifetime.

[rwac]

I've done quite a bit of recent research and I cannot find evidence that ANY omega-3 fats are necessary for humans.

Define essential.

Required to live an entire, healthy lifetime.

Well, breast milk contains EPA, DHA, DPA.
It must be there for a reason.

[zoolander]

By that definition then omega-3 fats are essential for humans.

n-3 Fatty acids from fish or fish-oil supplements, but not alpha-linolenic acid, benefit cardiovascular disease outcomes in primary- and secondary-prevention studies: a systematic review.
Wang C, Harris WS, Chung M, Lichtenstein AH, Balk EM, Kupelnick B, Jordan HS, Lau J.

Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Studies on the relation between dietary n-3 fatty acids (FAs) and cardiovascular disease vary in quality, and the results are inconsistent. A systematic review of the literature on the effects of n-3 FAs (consumed as fish or fish oils rich in eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid or as alpha-linolenic acid) on cardiovascular disease outcomes and adverse events was conducted. Studies from MEDLINE and other sources that were of > or =1 y in duration and that reported estimates of fish or n-3 FA intakes and cardiovascular disease outcomes were included. Secondary prevention was addressed in 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fish-oil supplements or of diets high in n-3 FAs and in 1 prospective cohort study. Most trials reported that fish oil significantly reduced all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cardiac and sudden death, or stroke. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease was reported in 1 RCT, in 25 prospective cohort studies, and in 7 case-control studies. No significant effect on overall deaths was reported in 3 RCTs that evaluated the effects of fish oil in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Most cohort studies reported that fish consumption was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality and adverse cardiac outcomes. The effects on stroke were inconsistent. Evidence suggests that increased consumption of n-3 FAs from fish or fish-oil supplements, but not of alpha-linolenic acid, reduces the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac and sudden death, and possibly stroke. The evidence for the benefits of fish oil is stronger in secondary- than in primary-prevention settings. Adverse effects appear to be minor.

Attached Files

•  n3_fatty_acids_from_fish_oil_or_fish_oil_supplements_but_not_ALA_benefit_CVD_outcome.pdf   183.04KB   83 downloads