32 replies to this topic

[Solarclimax]

I'm a bit confused, after looking over different threads on here and other sites i see conflicting messages. 1 person will say how good fish oil is and that they don't take krill oil, another will say how krill oil is far superior, someone else will say how they just take flax seed and not flax oil. Then most recently i have seen someone who doesn't take any of the above and only takes R+ lipoic acid ?

So which oil(s) should i be taking ?

Edited by Solarclimax, 07 February 2010 - 04:56 PM.

[rws1023]

i recommend you take BOTH fish oil AND krill oil. i do.

[MrSpud]

Fish oil is a more economical source of EPA and DHA, Krill oil sometimes contains astaxanthin and phospholipids along with the EPA and DHA. The jury is out whether or not you could just take fish oil and a separate cheap source of phospholipids like lecithin (or more expensive but more beneficial ones like Phosphatidylserine) and taking carotenoids or even just astaxanthin separately. The better business bureau went after one of the Krill Oil marketers for claiming that Krill was 3X more beneficial than fish oil. The BBB said it was a false claim as it was just one test that performed 3X better in reducing a level of something in the body (C-reactive protein or something like that, can't remember) but that fish oil has so many beneficial actions relating to other things in the body and that the one thing tested for had little to do with what people take fish oil for.

Does that help

[niner]

Here's the analysis of Now Foods Krill Oil.

Neptune Krill Oil (NKO) 1.0 g (1,000 mg)
------------------------------------------------------
Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA)..........150 mg
Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA)..........90 mg
Other Omega-3 Fatty Acids.............60 mg
Omega-6 Fatty Acids......................20 mg
Omega-9 Fatty Acids....................100 mg
Phospholipids..............................400 mg
Esterified Astaxanthin.................1.25 mg
Choline........................................70 mg

The "Other Omega-3 Fatty Acids", n-6 and n-9 FAs are probably unimportant, or in the case of n-6, perhaps harmful. The phospholipids, astaxanthin, and choline are probably helpful, but as MrSpud suggests, can probably be obtained at less cost. Flax oil or seed is not a very good source of essential fatty acids because the biochemical transformations that the body has to apply to them are not particularly efficient. After looking at analyses of a large number of Fish oil samples conducted by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs, it appears that they are sufficiently similar (and, in particular, were found across the board to be free of mercury and PCBs) that it is sensible to shop by price. I use Costco Fish Oil and am happy with it. I don't see enough value in Krill Oil to use it myself, but if money is no object, then go for it.

[DukeNukem]

i recommend you take BOTH fish oil AND krill oil. i do.

Me too. Spread your bets.

[nameless]

I take a small dose of krill along with fish oil, primarily based off of the osteoarthritis (c-reactive) protein studies, although I can't say I notice much difference when taking krill or not.

I am curious though as to why krill would be necessarily be better, from a scientific standpoint, or have any benefits over simply taking fish oil, phospholipids, astaxanthin, and choline separately?

From one omega 3 absorption study I've seen, the omega 3s from krill may absorb a little better than fish oil, but not at the magnitude where it'd really make a difference.
-- http://www.nutraingr...tive-says-study

So what besides Omega 3s could provide a benefit? Esterified astaxanthin, something else?

Edited by nameless, 07 February 2010 - 10:24 PM.

[neogenic]

Yeah, I don't see the point of NKO unless its astaxanthin, and in that case buy fish oil and get astaxanthin. Money saved...more asta for the money, and less pills. I am failing to see the benefit of taking NKO.

[Ethan Snell]

I'm a bit confused, after looking over different threads on here and other sites i see conflicting messages. 1 person will say how good fish oil is and that they don't take krill oil, another will say how krill oil is far superior, someone else will say how they just take flax seed and not flax oil. Then most recently i have seen someone who doesn't take any of the above and only takes R+ lipoic acid ?

So which oil(s) should i be taking ?

Hi Solarclimax – I was like you. I had the same questions. I did some study on it. I found a review of krill oil done by the University of Massachusetts Medical School - http://www.umassmed....A/krilloil.aspx. Here’s an excerpt from it:

"So the evidence that Krill oil is of benefit can only be classified as interesting and needing confirmation. It is important to understand that none of these studies followed people for long periods of time, nor did any of the studies involve people who already have coronary disease or other cardiovascular illnesses. Studies of fish oil have involved many tens of thousands of people followed for years. The largest such study, the GISSI Italian trial of patients who had already suffered a heart attack, involved over 11,000 subjects followed for 3 1/2 years, and showed a 45% reduction in sudden death. So if you have a reason to be taking fish oil, the data in favor of it is overwhelming and taking Krill oil instead would be a huge leap of faith for no good reason."

As far as flax seed is concerned I read that flaxseeds contain alpha linoleic acid (ALA). The body needs to convert ALA into EPA and DHA. This conversion is between 6 to 25 percent for EPA and very poor for DHA. So fish oil is definitely better for the omega 3 health benefits

[Kutta]

I also vote for fish oil as it is the most EFA-bang for buck

This is my fish oil supp.

BTW I'm perplexed that no one else seems to take this. As far as I can discern this product kicks the ass of other fish oils. It's 350 mg DHA and 450 mg EPA per cap, for a rather low price.

Edited by Kutta, 09 February 2010 - 05:32 PM.

[VespeneGas]

Until recently, I've just taken fish oil. Krill is too expensive and not well enough researched, and flax has poor conversion to EPA/DHA in the body, somewhere on the order of 1-2%.

However, I've added a low dose of flax oil (~2g daily) to my smoothies in the form of freshly ground flax seeds since reading Michael Rae's arguments/cites showing reduced cardiovascular risk for dietary ALA. My hypothesis is that ALA works via its conversion to stearidonic acid, which then competes with DGLA for conversion via delta 5 desaturase. This would elevate DGLA somewhat, increasing the synthesis of PGE1 (antiinflammatory prostaglandins) and slightly decrease arachidonic acid synthesis, further reducing inflammation. Either that, or stearidonic acid is converted into a yet-to-be-discovered prostaglandin with antiinflammatory effects.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, all other things being equal, hedging one's bets is nice - I also take vitamins K1, K2-MK4, and K2-MK7

[Chicago Wine Geek]

I thought the main advantage of taking Krill Oil over fish oil was no mercury.

[e Volution]

I thought the main advantage of taking Krill Oil over fish oil was no mercury.

I believe all good fish oil supplements are tested to be Mercury free, etc. Like a few here I am hedging my bets and taking a small dose of all three (a fish+flax oil and a krill oil)...

Now this argument probably doesn't hold much weight in the context of a longevity forum, but an anti-aging doctor at the most recent Manhattan Beach Project said that Krill oil as a supplement is much more sustainable than using fish (more than enough Krill to go around), which was food for thought for this individual.

[niner]

I thought the main advantage of taking Krill Oil over fish oil was no mercury.

Both Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs have done analyses of a large number of different brands of fish oil. None of them had mercury. They all use a vacuum distilled version of the oil that apparently eliminates any mercury that was there. In the fish oil world, the marketing term for this process is "Molecular Distillation", which is meaningless. (But sounds high tech...)

[niner]

This is my fish oil supp.

BTW I'm perplexed that no one else seems to take this. As far as I can discern this product kicks the ass of other fish oils. It's 350 mg DHA and 450 mg EPA per cap, for a rather low price.

In terms of grams of omega-3 per dollar, this is hard to beat. It's something like 8 cents/gram. Yours looks like a fine product and it's very potent, but more than twice as expensive per gram.

[nameless]

One issue I have with the Kirkland fish oil is the fact you get so much. Which I know sounds weird as a complaint, but it'd take several months to use up the entire bottle, unless you take around 6-10 a day. Usually, I like to finish a bottle within a month of opening it, just to avoid excess oxidation.

The higher potency Kirkland may be a better choice, seeing as it's a Meg-3 oil. Although the enteric coating failed a consumer lab test, so that could be a negative.

And the mercury thing should be a non-issue for most, if not all, fish oils, as Niner mentioned. It seems the Lovaza people have been perpetuating the myth of mercury problems in OTC fish oils, as my cardiologist recently commented how Lovaza is the best fish oil due to no mercury. Then she also said Puritin's Pride (of all brands, no idea why she picked that one) also has no mercury. But she said everything else was iffy. I just nodded my head, then ignored her suggestions...

Edited by nameless, 10 February 2010 - 02:05 AM.

[niner]

One issue I have with the Kirkland fish oil is the fact you get so much. Which I know sounds weird as a complaint, but it'd take several months to use up the entire bottle, unless you take around 6-10 a day. Usually, I like to finish a bottle within a month of opening it, just to avoid excess oxidation.

Oxidation is a real problem with liquid fish oil, but when it's properly encapsulated, the shelf life is pretty good. Here is a knowledgeable formulator's view on it.

[wayside]

The Kirkland stuff has no breakdown between EPA/DHA, so what are you really getting?

Plus I would have to take 8-12 per day to get the amount of O3 my doctor recommends.

Here's what I take: Fish oil

Doesn't give me fish burps, some others have.

[niner]

The Kirkland stuff has no breakdown between EPA/DHA, so what are you really getting?

Plus I would have to take 8-12 per day to get the amount of O3 my doctor recommends.

Yeah, I don't know why they did that. They just changed the label recently and stopped breaking it out. It was a reasonable mix before, but I'd like to know what's there.

I think your doctor meant for you to be taking 2-3g of Fish Oil, not get 2-3 grams of omega-3 EFAs specifically. 2-3 (or even 4) grams fish oil would be within current medical practice for lipid issues. Or is this more for brain function? That might make sense, but it's a hell of a lot of fish oil... That would be a good argument for the higher potency stuff.

[nameless]

One issue I have with the Kirkland fish oil is the fact you get so much. Which I know sounds weird as a complaint, but it'd take several months to use up the entire bottle, unless you take around 6-10 a day. Usually, I like to finish a bottle within a month of opening it, just to avoid excess oxidation.

Oxidation is a real problem with liquid fish oil, but when it's properly encapsulated, the shelf life is pretty good. Here is a knowledgeable formulator's view on it.

Thanks for that info. I'm probably just being overly conservative regarding eating up fish oil fast. I used to take the liquid form, so it was probably at least warranted then.

*wonders*

Have they ever done any oxidation studies on fish oil peroxide levels when first made, and say, towards the end of the expiration date? We see consumer lab reports on mercury, pcbs, etc. but it would be interesting to see which fish oils hold up best over time.

I'm currently trying an enteric fish oil, which seems to be protected in a rock hard shell... so I guess it should be protected from oxygen decently. Assuming I don't choke on what feels like a big pebble going down my throat, they could be a little better perhaps.

Edited by nameless, 10 February 2010 - 05:25 AM.

[Logan]

One issue I have with the Kirkland fish oil is the fact you get so much. Which I know sounds weird as a complaint, but it'd take several months to use up the entire bottle, unless you take around 6-10 a day. Usually, I like to finish a bottle within a month of opening it, just to avoid excess oxidation.

The higher potency Kirkland may be a better choice, seeing as it's a Meg-3 oil. Although the enteric coating failed a consumer lab test, so that could be a negative.

And the mercury thing should be a non-issue for most, if not all, fish oils, as Niner mentioned. It seems the Lovaza people have been perpetuating the myth of mercury problems in OTC fish oils, as my cardiologist recently commented how Lovaza is the best fish oil due to no mercury. Then she also said Puritin's Pride (of all brands, no idea why she picked that one) also has no mercury. But she said everything else was iffy. I just nodded my head, then ignored her suggestions...

How did the kirkland enteric coating fail? What exactly did it fail in?

[e Volution]

For those worried about oxidation, I can confirm when these fish oil pills are put into a glass jar (I bet you could leave them in the original container also-will try this next time) and stored in the fridge there is absolutely no problem with condensation or anything by pulling the jar out once/twice a day and taking a few pills out before putting back in the fridge. I haven't used this brand before so my comparison is potentially meaningless, but with my previous brand I would notice as time went by the pills would become 'softer' and more and more fishy smelling, and this does not appear to be happening with these new fish oils in the fridge.

[wayside]

I think your doctor meant for you to be taking 2-3g of Fish Oil, not get 2-3 grams of omega-3 EFAs specifically. 2-3 (or even 4) grams fish oil would be within current medical practice for lipid issues.

I take that much for its anti-inflammatory properties, not so much for lipid issues.

Current LEF recommendations (for what they are worth) are 1.4 gm EPA, 1.0 gm DHA per day, which works out to exactly 4 of their high concentration caps, go figure.

[nameless]

How did the kirkland enteric coating fail? What exactly did it fail in?

It released the fish oil too early, which sort of defeats the purpose of being in a enteric capsule.

http://www.supplemen...get-lab-tested/

The actual fish oil should be fine though, I expect. Meg-3 is decent, USP certified, etc. If the capsules actually worked, I might use that brand. I did try it at one time, like 1.5 years ago, but it gave me belly aches, so I never went back to it.

Edited by nameless, 10 February 2010 - 06:50 PM.

[Stephen Torres]

Fish oil supplements are real wonder pills – they’re good for just about every aspect of health. Of course, if it weren’t for the high mercury content, I’d rather get my omega 3s from fresh fish. I don’t think any supplement should substitute for fresh food and balanced meals, but in the case of omega 3s, supplementation is better!

[Ethan Snell]

I thought the main advantage of taking Krill Oil over fish oil was no mercury.

Both Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs have done analyses of a large number of different brands of fish oil. None of them had mercury. They all use a vacuum distilled version of the oil that apparently eliminates any mercury that was there. In the fish oil world, the marketing term for this process is "Molecular Distillation", which is meaningless. (But sounds high tech...)

I agree with both Chicago Wine Geek and icantgoforthat – most pharmaceutical grade fish oil is mercury-free. I saw another thread on fish oil today - "Fish Oil and Psychosis" ( http://www.imminst.o...sis-t38050.html ) – another benefit of fish oil! This is new to me and I won’t vouch for it.

I take a brand of Omega 3 that has EPA, DHA and omega 3 fatty acids.

Edited by Ethan Snell, 15 February 2010 - 02:57 PM.

[Kutta]

In terms of grams of omega-3 per dollar, this is hard to beat. It's something like 8 cents/gram. Yours looks like a fine product and it's very potent, but more than twice as expensive per gram.

That's a pretty cool product, I concede... There is, however, the usual issue that it's not shipped to Europe.

[Stephen Torres]

I have tried several brands of fish oil supplements, including Kirkland, but I did not like the fishy refluxes. I kept repeating it and it made me very uncomfortable. Can anyone suggest any fish oil supplement that does not cause this?

[e Volution]

I have tried several brands of fish oil supplements, including Kirkland, but I did not like the fishy refluxes. I kept repeating it and it made me very uncomfortable. Can anyone suggest any fish oil supplement that does not cause this?

Carlson Labs and Nature's Answer sell a liquid fish oil that is flavoured lemon/orange (no fish taste). Apparently the flavour isn't too bad, some even really like it. I heard it mentioned by a paleo blogger on his podcast and he typically has solid science based recommendations. I just did a quick look they seem OK; 'Molecularly distilled, pharmaceutical grade' etc but obviously haven't looked into them too deeply (im fine with the pills).

[Brain_Ischemia]

I take Krill Oil and a tbsp of ground flax seed daily (moderate additional n3 from other non-animal sources such as walnuts as well).

Despite what some have said, I *am* concerned about Mercury in Fish Oil as well as optimal absorption. Krill is low on the food chain and I figure it's a safer bet than fish oil.

Edited by Xanthus, 01 March 2010 - 04:47 PM.

[Ethan Snell]

One issue I have with the Kirkland fish oil is the fact you get so much. Which I know sounds weird as a complaint, but it'd take several months to use up the entire bottle, unless you take around 6-10 a day. Usually, I like to finish a bottle within a month of opening it, just to avoid excess oxidation.

The higher potency Kirkland may be a better choice, seeing as it's a Meg-3 oil. Although the enteric coating failed a consumer lab test, so that could be a negative.

And the mercury thing should be a non-issue for most, if not all, fish oils, as Niner mentioned. It seems the Lovaza people have been perpetuating the myth of mercury problems in OTC fish oils, as my cardiologist recently commented how Lovaza is the best fish oil due to no mercury. Then she also said Puritin's Pride (of all brands, no idea why she picked that one) also has no mercury. But she said everything else was iffy. I just nodded my head, then ignored her suggestions...

How did the kirkland enteric coating fail? What exactly did it fail in?

Hi Morganator. Yes Kirkland Signature Enteric Coated Fish Oil didn’t meet the Consumer Lab quality standards. Here’s an excerpt from HealthNews in case you’re interested.

“The results of the study were multi-fold. Most importantly, all of the products tested were found to have safe levels of mercury, lead, and PCB's (a type of carcinogen). In addition, all were found to have the amounts of EPA and DHA that their labels maintained, though those levels ranged from 16 milligrams to 1000 milligrams, depending on the product.”

“On the other side of the coin, it was discovered that one capsule-Kirkland Signature Enteric Coated Fish Oil-released its oil too early into the human body and thus failed its test, becoming the one of only two products not approved by ConsumerLab.com.”

You can find the full article at http://www.healthnew...nants-1553.html.

I take an enteric-coated fish oil supplement. I’ve had no problems with it – no fishy after burps. It contains pharmaceutical grade fish oil. Any pharmaceutical grade fish has a high potency of EPA and DHA and is free from contaminants. The one that I take has 2000 mg of total omega 3 fatty acids out of which 800 mg is EPA, and 400 is DHA.