22 replies to this topic

[John2009]

I was at Iherb and I ran across the Coromega, "Omega3 Squeeze" product. Regarding the product, It says that "In a clinical study, the omega-3 in Coromega was shown to enter the bloodstream faster, at 3 times the levels of a fish oil product in softgel form. Source: AOCS Press, Coromega Bioavailability Study".

Does anyone have a link to the full study or an abstract, I'm not sure which study they are referring to.

I'm curious, is the main reason for the increased bioavailability due to the fact that the product is in liquid non-encapsulated form, or is there something that Coromega does or adds to the product to increase bioavailability ? Would any quality liquid non-encapsulated fish oil be absorbed quicker and be about 3 times more bioavailable than in capsule form ?

The coromega product has 350 Mg EPA and 230 Mg of DHA per packet. Regarding the label EPA & DHA amounts, it also says "GC by area %". What does that mean ? If bioavailability is 3 times better, then does that mean that this product really is equivalent to a capsule form of fish oil containing 1050 mg of EPA and and 690 Mg of DHA, i.e., 350 X 3 and 230 X 3 ?

Along with Coremega, I ran across several brands of fish oil at iherb that look decent, LEF, Ascenta NutraSea, Natural Factors, & Natures Answer, to name a few. Some of these are touted as being "Pharmaceutical Quality". Does the term Pharmaceutical Quality have real meaning when applied to fish oil and supplements, or is this just a marketing ploy ? If it does have meaning, what does it really mean ? Is Pharmaceutical Quality as good as the products carrying the IFOS or USP seals ?

Right now I'm just using the naturemade brand of fish oil I get at the grocery store, but it does have the USP seal. Naturemade has the 2 for 1 deals that make it cost effective, but I'm thinking of going to a liquid bottled brand, preferably in a dark glass bottle.

I ran across a site at the link directly below that says if the fish contains more selenium than mercury, then it is safe to eat. Is this true ?

http://chriskresser....not-eating-fish

At the link directly below, it suggests that the same amount of DHA from eating fish is 9 times more bioavailable than compared to taking supplements.

http://chriskresser....h-oil-smackdown

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12848287

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12848287

What do you guys think of all of this in general, what does the overall body of evidence tell us with respect to the benefits of eating fish versus taking fish oil supplements ?

Thanks
John

[niner]

Here is the bioavailability study, as provided by Coromega. Their product is an emulsion of fish oil and water. It looks like it's significantly more bioavailable than regular fish oil, at least when taken the way they did in the study. I don't have the full text, but the study was probably done in a fasted condition with no other foods. If you took fish oil along with a fat-containing meal, the absorption might be improved, maybe a lot. I don't know what emulsification would do to the stability of fish oil. Fish oil is pretty unstable stuff. It needs to be protected from oxygen. That's why I don't like liquid fish oil; too prone to oxidation.

It's true that selenium helps to protect against mercury. I don't see a real big downside to getting omega 3 from supplements instead of fish. It's a lot cheaper and easier to take the pills. They are distilled, and have very low contaminant levels, while fish might be clean, might be dirty. The bioavailability probably is better from fish, but again, how was the supplemental fish oil taken? In a lipid vacuum? If you're able to cut down your omega 6 consumption sufficiently, then you really don't need very much omega 3. You're actually better off without (or with very little of) the highly oxidation-prone fish oil, providing your omega 6 level is low enough. It does look like fish oil is more bioavailable when obtained from salmon, but how much fish can you eat, and how much fish oil do you really need?

[nameless]

Barlean's also has an emulsified fish oil line with a study (perhaps the same one) claiming increased bioavailabilty.

http://blog.barleans...ndard-fish-oil/

But also keep in mind manufacturer studies like that shouldn't be taken as gospel. I expect they did a similar study as some companies have done with dry coq10... no fats taken with competing product.

I got a bunch of barlean swirls around a year or so ago, for free from the manufactuer (got into an omega 3 discussion with their fish person and they just sent me a bunch to try out). It's probably great for kids, but way too sweet for me. Although one oddity I noticed, is that my Lp(a) plummeted while taking it... I think it came back as 1 (it's normally 3-5). So if anyone out there has Lp(a) issues, I guess emulsified oil is worth a shot.

And Pharmaceutical Grade is just marketing-speak. It doesn't mean their fish oil isn't good, but don't buy something just because of that phrase. I'm not so fond of NatureMade, but something like Nordic naturals, Carlson, Barlean, etc. are considered decent brands. Coromega uses Epax oil, if you want to look up their source, or want it in non-emulsified form. I personally don't like the sodium benzoate in Coromega myself, but I may just be over cautious there.

[John2009]

Thanks guys,

I take fish oil because I like how it improves my mood and mental outlook, along with all the supposed health benefits. I am concerned about the possible pro-oxidant quality of fish oil and it's stability issues, but I'm not sure how much of a concern it is if you use a quality product.

Would oxidation and/or free radical production be an issue for Eskimo fish diets as well and if so, has there been any observations related to Eskimos that would indicate excessive free radical production ? Do Eskimos generally live as long as everyone else and do they seem to have any health problems that my be attributed to free radicals or oxidation of fish oil ?

What makes the non-encapsulated liquid fish oil more prone to oxidation than in capsule form ? It seems to me if you put the fish oil in a dark glass bottle and vacuum seal it, that's about as good as it gets, along with perhaps adding the proper anti-oxidants to the fish oil in generous amounts. As an added bonus, I figured at least with the liquid you could easily tell if it went bad, whereas with the capsules it would not be as noticeable. I don't like biting into each and every capsule to test them.

What's the best way to cut down on omega-6 ? I'm sure this can have health benefits, I just wonder if it would also provide the mood improvements and reduced anxiety I noticed with fish oil at about 1400 Mg of omega-3 per day.

Salmon does seem to have a good nutritional profile and I do eat it sometimes. I always thought sardines had a great nutritional profile as well, but I had some concerns about PCB's with sardines so I stopped eating them, I don't know if that's overly cautious or not.

[nameless]

Wouldn't PCBs be lower in sardines, since they are small fish? The larger fish are the ones with mercury, pcbs, etc. Well, more than smaller fish, that is. I dislike sardines and salmon, so my taste buds sort of limit how much I ever eat them.

I think the idea of oxidation with liquids is due to the fact that the liquid is exposed to oxygen every time you open the bottle. The capsules do protect the fish oil somewhat, so they are better protected. As for tasting them, just taste the first capsule or two. You don't have to taste tons of them, unless you keep fish oil around for months and months. But I wouldn't suggest that anyway. Keep it refrigerated, regardless.

Interesting question about eskimos... I honestly don't recall their avg. lifespan. But their harsh environment may play a role in that too. Antioxidants (astaxanthin) from salmon may also help prevent oxidation from occurring.

[nupi]

If you are worried about PCBs, heavy metals etc go for non-carnivorous fish (so all that tasty tuna and salmon is out) or, gold standard, properly distilled fish oil.

That liquid fish oil would be absorbed much more rapidly than enteric coated one is obvious - that is sort of the point of the enteric coating :P

[John2009]

I guess once you open the bottle, it is exposed to oxygen even if you keep it refrigerated. I'm not sure a regular gelatin capsule is all that impermeable to air, but I guess it's better than an opened bottle of the stuff. Still, I wonder if the difference is significant or not. I always keep my fish oil in the refrigerator, and I generally buy 360 capsules at a time (180 in each bottle).

I ran across something interesting here http://www.aapsj.org...2009-001972.PDF regarding a Nitrogen flush system that seems to go a long way towards keeping the fish oil fresh in capsules. The capsules are called Licaps. I did a search on iherb for "licaps" and a few products came up but not many. Only one fish oil product which was Cod liver oil by garden of life.

http://www.omegabrite.com/ is supposed to package it's fish oil in individual blisters that are nitrogen flushed to keep the air out. I think nordic naturals also uses some type of nitrogen process for some of it's oils.

Sardines are supposed to be low in mercury, but I had read that they are high in PCB's for some reason, depending on where they are caught. Here is an older article http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932670

The monterey bay seafood-watch "Super green list" lists wild caught "Pacific" sardines as a good choice...

http://www.montereyb...sfw_health.aspx

[nupi]

Gelatin is said to be a fairly decent air seal so capsules definitely beat bottles... Nitrogen flush blister packages would probably be the gold standard but only if the turn over is high enough (which may not be the case due to the higher prices) so that you dont end up buying old stuff.

Personally I keep mine in the freezer.

[MrSpud]

FYI - "GC by area %". means that the analytical test method is gas chromatography by area percent. It is the older cheaper test method where they sort of get an estimate of the potency with a GC by using a calculation to come up with the potency number without accurate quantitative standards being used for each of the Omega 3's. The more accurate way is HPLC with standards. Not that that means much to the consumer, but more often than not the area percent method gives a higher number than when the more accurate HPLC tests are used.

As for the Licaps nitrogen thing, they just like to talk about this because Licaps have a visible gas bubble in them because of the way they are made. If they didn't figure out a way to put nitrogen in the capsules then the gas bubble would be air and would be enough to oxidize something like fish oil. With softgels you don't get a big visible gas bubble in the capsules like the way you do with Licaps because the capsules are formed by injecting the oil in as the capsules are being formed whereas with licaps you basically fill the bottom of a premade capsule with oil and then the top part of the premade capsule is pushed on. The top of the capsule has either air or gas such as nitrogen in it so when it is pushed on you end up with a big bubble inside. Also, it is standard procedure at most, if not all, softgel companies to blanket the fish oil with nitrogen during encapsulation to keep oxygen away from the fish oil prior to encapsulation.

Edited by MrSpud, 05 December 2011 - 05:23 AM.

[nupi]

Interesting point - I never actually thought about that little bubble there.

I guess the other point is whether the caps need to be stored in a nitrogen atmosphere or whether they are sufficiently air-tight for the fish oil not to be exposed to any oxygen?

[Snoopy]

I'm really surprised to see this written by a member above: "You're actually better off without (or with very little of) the highly oxidation-prone fish oil, providing your omega 6 level is low enough"

Personally I think this comment is totally incorrect - omega 3 comes under "essential fatty acids". Essential for a good reason.

Japanese eat a lot of omega 3 rich fish and what do their studies tell us?

[Snoopy]

People need to come to terms with trade offs - for me I think the benefit of having a more 'elastic cell membrane' by being diligent on omega 3 outweigh the negatives of contaminants which we have see from people who eat a lot of fish - shows our bodies are excellent systems at dealing with these things, providing we give our systems the raw materials to do so. IE omega 3 being one of the core components!

[niner]

I'm really surprised to see this written by a member above: "You're actually better off without (or with very little of) the highly oxidation-prone fish oil, providing your omega 6 level is low enough"

Personally I think this comment is totally incorrect - omega 3 comes under "essential fatty acids". Essential for a good reason.

There's an idea afoot that fish oil is a totally benign substance and you can just eat all you want. That's not true. Our omega 3/6 balance has gotten really whacked out by our modern industrial diets, and correcting that ratio by the addition of more omega 3 can be good. There is another way to get omega 3 fatty acids besides fish; you can get it in the form of alpha linolenic acid from plant sources. From ALA, we can synthesize EPA, and to some extent DHA. There is some evidence that DHA synthesis can be upregulated in times of need, specifically in pregnant females. HOWEVER, in general humans are poor synthesizers of DHA, so I should qualify my statement above, as I didn't say anything about where else you might get DHA, like, say, from fish. So let's remove the word "without", to the extent that it implies you never eat any fish. I'm still OK with the rest of the statement. As long as you don't consume too much omega 6 and are getting enough DHA from synthesis, dietary and/or supplemental sources, more may not be better. The biggest negative of DHA is its extreme oxidizability. That doesn't stop being a problem the minute you swallow it; it continues to be a problem in your membranes. See for instance this or this, or, particularly, this. To add fuel to this fire, higher levels of DHA have been associated with a significantly increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

My advice is to reduce omega 6 intake to something closer to historical norms (i.e, prior to the 1900's). I recommend a little fish oil to everyone, but not a lot. I've found that 2 grams/d is enough for me to have an excellent HDL level and feel generally good. When I hear people talking about taking ten or fifteen grams a day, I think they are making a mistake.

[johnross47]

I guess once you open the bottle, it is exposed to oxygen even if you keep it refrigerated. I'm not sure a regular gelatin capsule is all that impermeable to air, but I guess it's better than an opened bottle of the stuff. Still, I wonder if the difference is significant or not. I always keep my fish oil in the refrigerator, and I generally buy 360 capsules at a time (180 in each bottle).

I ran across something interesting here http://www.aapsj.org...2009-001972.PDF regarding a Nitrogen flush system that seems to go a long way towards keeping the fish oil fresh in capsules. The capsules are called Licaps. I did a search on iherb for "licaps" and a few products came up but not many. Only one fish oil product which was Cod liver oil by garden of life.

http://www.omegabrite.com/ is supposed to package it's fish oil in individual blisters that are nitrogen flushed to keep the air out. I think nordic naturals also uses some type of nitrogen process for some of it's oils.

Sardines are supposed to be low in mercury, but I had read that they are high in PCB's for some reason, depending on where they are caught. Here is an older article http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932670

The monterey bay seafood-watch "Super green list" lists wild caught "Pacific" sardines as a good choice...

http://www.montereyb...sfw_health.aspx

very unfortunate. I am very fond of fish and love sardines.....one or two tins a week. Looks like this may be a bad plan. If the alternative is to reduce the omega6 so as to get by on less omega3, how do we do it. What would be a good ratio?

[1thoughtMaze1]

I was at Iherb and I ran across the Coromega, "Omega3 Squeeze" product. Regarding the product, It says that "In a clinical study, the omega-3 in Coromega was shown to enter the bloodstream faster, at 3 times the levels of a fish oil product in softgel form. Source: AOCS Press, Coromega Bioavailability Study".I

Does anyone have a link to the full study or an abstract, I'm not sure which study they are referring to.

I'm curious, is the main reason for the increased bioavailability due to the fact that the product is in liquid non-encapsulated form, or is there something that Coromega does or adds to the product to increase bioavailability ? Would any quality liquid non-encapsulated fish oil be absorbed quicker and be about 3 times more bioavailable than in capsule form ?

The coromega product has 350 Mg EPA and 230 Mg of DHA per packet. Regarding the label EPA & DHA amounts, it also says "GC by area %". What does that mean ? If bioavailability is 3 times better, then does that mean that this product really is equivalent to a capsule form of fish oil containing 1050 mg of EPA and and 690 Mg of DHA, i.e., 350 X 3 and 230 X 3 ?

Along with Coremega, I ran across several brands of fish oil at iherb that look decent, LEF, Ascenta NutraSea, Natural Factors, & Natures Answer, to name a few. Some of these are touted as being "Pharmaceutical Quality". Does the term Pharmaceutical Quality have real meaning when applied to fish oil and supplements, or is this just a marketing ploy ? If it does have meaning, what does it really mean ? Is Pharmaceutical Quality as good as the products carrying the IFOS or USP seals ?

Right now I'm just using the naturemade brand of fish oil I get at the grocery store, but it does have the USP seal. Naturemade has the 2 for 1 deals that make it cost effective, but I'm thinking of going to a liquid bottled brand, preferably in a dark glass bottle.

I ran across a site at the link directly below that says if the fish contains more selenium than mercury, then it is safe to eat. Is this true ?

http://chriskresser....not-eating-fish

At the link directly below, it suggests that the same amount of DHA from eating fish is 9 times more bioavailable than compared to taking supplements.

http://chriskresser....h-oil-smackdown

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12848287

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12848287

What do you guys think of all of this in general, what does the overall body of evidence tell us with respect to the benefits of eating fish versus taking fish oil supplements ?

Thanks
John

Each capsul contains 350 Mg ehh? That's 350 000 kg, waw!! That's 350 tons. Haha I know you ment mg

Edited by 1thoughtMaze1, 06 March 2012 - 02:39 AM.

[nameless]

I've found that 2 grams/d is enough for me to have an excellent HDL level and feel generally good. When I hear people talking about taking ten or fifteen grams a day, I think they are making a mistake.

When you say 2 grams, is that 2 grams of EPA/DHA daily, or 2 grams of fish oil total (meaning 600-1g epa/dha daily)?

As for bioavailability, I noticed Jarrow just came out with a new

phospholipid fish oil, which I will assume be more bioavailable than EE or trig forms. Although at the price it's going for, it'll have to be a ton more bioavailable to make any sense. If I remember my krill studies right, it does absorb better, but not that much better. Probaby a better deal than krill oil though.

Edit: Excuse the weird text formatting above. I guess I made the mistake of trying to add an italic... messed it up a little. Then spent 5 min trying to fix it again... then gave up... *wonders why these forums never simply work like normal forums do everywhere else*

Edited by nameless, 06 March 2012 - 03:07 AM.

[MrSpud]

The Jarrow formula uses Enzymotec fish oil/phospholipid . Here's Enzymotec's website http://www.enzybioac...?Item=720&ln=en

[niner]

Sardines are supposed to be low in mercury, but I had read that they are high in PCB's for some reason, depending on where they are caught. Here is an older article http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932670

very unfortunate. I am very fond of fish and love sardines.....one or two tins a week. Looks like this may be a bad plan. If the alternative is to reduce the omega6 so as to get by on less omega3, how do we do it. What would be a good ratio?

I wouldn't worry that much about sardines. Do they really represent a significant contribution to your body burden of PCBs, or is this just more "toxics" paranoia? There was no mention of amounts or quantification of risk in the msnbc article. We know that fish that are high on the food chain may be trouble, but sardines? Show me the data...

You can reduce omega 6 by reducing the amount of seed oils (safflower, sunflower, cottonseed, peanut, etc) that you consume. Watch out for packaged foods. If the nutrition label shows any polyunsaturates, they are probably omega 6. It can be difficult to avoid omega 6 oils in the modern world. Chicken and beef have a higher 6/3 ratio now than in the past, particularly chicken. If you can find animals that are fed a natural diet instead of grain, they will have a better ratio. (good luck, bring a large checkbook) The easiest way to fix your ratio and avoid toxins all at the same time is to take fish oil capsules.

[niner]

When you say 2 grams, is that 2 grams of EPA/DHA daily, or 2 grams of fish oil total (meaning 600-1g epa/dha daily)?

2 grams of fish oil. It's the Costco house brand. Not particularly concentrated, but an unreal value. Huge turnover so it's always fresh. I've never had a rancidity problem with it.

As for bioavailability, I noticed Jarrow just came out with a new

phospholipid fish oil, which I will assume be more bioavailable than EE or trig forms. Although at the price it's going for, it'll have to be a ton more bioavailable to make any sense. If I remember my krill studies right, it does absorb better, but not that much better. Probaby a better deal than krill oil though.

The Jarrow formula uses Enzymotec fish oil/phospholipid . Here's Enzymotec's website http://www.enzybioac...?Item=720&ln=en

From what enzymotec says, it sounds like it's just a mixture of fish oil and fish-derived phospholipid, not a new molecular form. It may or may not have improved bioavailability. If I had to guess, I'd say a little better, but not a lot better. Just a guess, though. I think the idea is that the phospholipid is an important nutrient itself, rather than being there to improve bioavailability.

Edit: Excuse the weird text formatting above. I guess I made the mistake of trying to add an italic... messed it up a little. Then spent 5 min trying to fix it again... then gave up... *wonders why these forums never simply work like normal forums do everywhere else*

I hear ya. In the upper left hand corner of the editor, there is a tiny icon that is supposed to represent a toggle switch (or something...). It will put you into true text mode, where you can edit out all the formatting junk that's there.

[nameless]

The Jarrow formula uses Enzymotec fish oil/phospholipid . Here's Enzymotec's website http://www.enzybioac...?Item=720&ln=en

I see it's marketed as Omega Choline. I wonder how it does in regard to TMAO's?


@Niner

600mg or so daily sounds more reasonable. Whenever I see someone saying 2 grams, etc. I automatically think total EPA/DHA.

I did try the Costco brand way back when they sold a concentrated Meg-3 oil (and got a stomach ache from it), but never tried the cheap stuff. For some reason it just scares me. I'd feel better if they listed a source. I'm also a bit paranoid with eating up my fish oil quickly (no more than 2 months after opening a bottle), so in a weird way they include too many pills for my liking. It is a terrific deal though, price is fantastic.

Edited by nameless, 06 March 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[MrSpud]

I think enzymotec is chemically reacting the phospholipids and probably controlling tmao like they do with their krill. See www.google.com/patents/US8052992 and www.google.com/patents/US7968112
The other krill companies are complaining that enzymotec is making artificial krill because they enzymatic ally strip everything down to individual components and reconstitute. Enzymotec counters that their process allows greater purification of things lilt tmao and that they end up with nature identical with no oxidation products. It is a big battle right now

[MrSpud]

Here's the links to Enzymotecs patents http://www.google.co...tents/US8052992 http://www.google.co...tents/US7968112

The earlier post with typos and links that didn't work were because I attempted to post from my cellphone

Edited by MrSpud, 07 March 2012 - 04:06 AM.

[nickdino]

I think enzymotec is chemically reacting the phospholipids and probably controlling tmao like they do with their krill. See www.google.com/patents/US8052992 and www.google.com/patents/US7968112
The other krill companies are complaining that enzymotec is making artificial krill because they enzymatic ally strip everything down to individual components and reconstitute. Enzymotec counters that their process allows greater purification of things lilt tmao and that they end up with nature identical with no oxidation products. It is a big battle right now

Who won?

As of 2014 what is the best omega 3 supplement? Why?