43 replies to this topic

[guyledouche]

I take the omega-3 fish oil stuff and its kinda expensive for me. Is taking flax seeds the same since they contain omega-3's as well? Flax seeds are cheaper right?

[bgwowk]

I always thought fish oil was one of the cheapest supplements you could take. The Costco brand is very affordable

http://www.costco.co...av=&browse=&s=1

---BrianW

[superpooper]

Flaxseed oil has those phytoestrogen compounds. I'm to big of a fan of this.

Fish oils better IMO.

[guyledouche]

wow bqwowk, I didnt know that I could get it that cheap. Forget the flax seed, Im gonna get some of that costco fish oil. thanks dude

[syr_]

Fish oil is better. I take a concentrate EPA/DHA lemon flavoured for tastes reason.

[ajnast4r]

Flaxseed oil has those phytoestrogen compounds.  I'm to big of a fan of this.

Fish oils better IMO.

the liganans in flaxseed have almost NO estrogenic effects in the human body. there are 'phytoestrogens' in nearly every plant you eat.

flax lignans have a beneficial effect on estrogen metabolism, they help you metabolize estrogen 'correctly'... very beneficial for males and females


i suggest anyone taking fishoil search the supplement forums and read the discussoins there. the quality of fishoil VERY important. there are VERY few brands that have acceptable levels of toxins, and ide be willing to bet costco is NOT one of them

[guyledouche]

darn.............ajnast, what are some good brands that dont cost a lot of money? I need something thats good yet cheap price.

[bgwowk]

the quality of fishoil VERY important. there are VERY few brands that have acceptable levels of toxins, and ide be willing to bet costco is NOT one of them

You may be willing to bet your money on higher cost supplements, but in absence of actual data and cost-benefit analysis, higher cost is not necessarily better. On physician's advice, I consume 3 kilograms a year of Costco fish oil, and other than this damn fin on my back, have suffered no ill effects.

---BrianW

[xanadu]

And I'll bet you have an urge to swim every day.

I would like more objective info on the purity of fish oil than just a blanket statement that cheap sources are no good. Where can we get testing data done by a third party?

[opales]

Micheal Rae has hypothesized DHA in fish oil might accelerate aging, so he suggests one might want to avoid fish oil and take hefty dose of flax seed oil instead.

http://health.groups...y/message/12674

NB I do not necessarily agree and anyway take fish oil myself for its anti-inflammatory properties, but it is still something to consider.

[scottl]

Micheal Rae has hypothesized DHA in fish oil might accelerate aging, so he suggests one might want to avoid fish oil and take hefty dose of flax seed oil instead.

http://health.groups...y/message/12674

NB I do not necessarily agree and anyway take fish oil myself for its anti-inflammatory properties, but it is still something to consider.

Ya but that leaves the fact that:

1. The conversion rate to EPA is uncertain i.e. varies from study to study, quite possibly varies from person to person and may not provide adequate EPA at all in some people (see things which block that pathway).

2. THough I'm not sure I believe it, there is the issue of flax and increased risk of prostate cancer.

[xanadu]

scotl wrote:

"1. The conversion rate to EPA is uncertain i.e. varies from study to study, quite possibly varies from person to person and may not provide adequate EPA at all in some people (see things which block that pathway)."

I don't follow you here. What is it that converts to EPA and from what source?

Opales, a theory is always nice but there have been so many studies showing benefits from fish oil that it's hard to believe fish oil accellerates aging. I'm more concerned about contaminates. Ajnast raised a good point. It would be good if there was independent testing of the various brands.

[ajnast4r]

You may be willing to bet your money on higher cost supplements, but in absence of actual data and cost-benefit analysis, higher cost is not necessarily better.  On physician's advice, I consume 3 kilograms a year of Costco fish oil, and other than this damn fin on my back, have suffered no ill effects.  

you go ahead an consume all the mercury/pcb you want. give cost-co a call and try to get a COA from them, i have COA's from all the brands i recomend. just read the other threads, its been covered a million times.

1. The conversion rate to EPA is uncertain i.e. varies from study to study, quite possibly varies from person to person and may not provide adequate EPA at all in some people (see things which block that pathway).

conversion of ALA -> EPA/DHA is fine as long as there are no nutritional deficiencies, and no excess consumtion of LA or transfat. these things are almost always overlooked when studies about ala->epa/dha conversion are done.

2. THough I'm not sure I believe it, there is the issue of flax and increased risk of prostate cancer.

its ALA and prostate cancer... and those studies refer to ALA from beef, not flax. also when ALA is the sole dietary source of fat it becomes a problem, but thats very unlikely to happen for most people.

I would like more objective info on the purity of fish oil than just a blanket statement that cheap sources are no good. Where can we get testing data done by a third party?

3rd party testing should be done by the manufacturer, and be available upon request.

I don't follow you here. What is it that converts to EPA and from what source?

ALA(flax, walnuts) converts in the human body to EPA(fish) and DHA(fish, algae).

DHA also converts to EPA in the body, incase anyone was wondering.

[opales]

scotl wrote:

"1. The conversion rate to EPA is uncertain i.e. varies from study to study, quite possibly varies from person to person and may not provide adequate EPA at all in some people (see things which block that pathway)."

I don't follow you here. What is it that converts to EPA and from what source?

Opales, a theory is always nice but there have been so many studies showing benefits from fish oil that it's hard to believe fish oil accellerates aging. I'm more concerned about contaminates. Ajnast raised a good point. It would be good if there was independent testing of the various brands.

You really should read Michael's post. The studies showing benefits and current recommendations for fish oil are for fairly small amounts of EPA/DHA, and Michael's suggested dosage of flax seed oil would cover those dosages. If I had not such (genetically) strong inflammatory response I would seriously consider transferring to mere flax oil.

[guyledouche]

I didnt realize that fish oil needed a good COA. Now that I know, I will be considering the Reliance brand fish oil

[ajnast4r]

I didnt realize that fish oil needed a good COA. Now that I know, I will be considering the Reliance brand fish oil

reliance is cheap, and the quality is one of the best being produced today...

[bgwowk]

Can you provide a URL for Reliance brand? Thanks.

---BrianW

[syr_]

This is the product I take (2 tsp/day) and I consider it safe:
http://www.nowfoods....l&item_id=41371

[FunkOdyssey]

You really should read Michael's post. The studies showing benefits and current recommendations for fish oil are for fairly small amounts of EPA/DHA, and Michael's suggested dosage of flax seed oil would cover those dosages. If I had not such (genetically) strong inflammatory response I would seriously consider transferring to mere flax oil.

I would be curious to know if he has updated his opinion since then. That post is 4 or 5 years old.

[guyledouche]

You need to take 3,000 to 5,000 mg a day of EPA and DHA combined. Not 3,000 to 5,000 mg of fish oil, that would be too easy, but of its "active ingredients." If you get some decent capsules, that's eight to ten capsules a day. The bulk oil is cheaper. As for brands, I was all about Twinlab, being independently lab verified to have in the capsule what is on the label, but evidence from a variety of sources, including Consumers' Reports, indicates that the house brands of WalMart and Sam's Club are just as good.
^this is from www.crazymeds.org

Are they telling the truth?? Im afraid to take Walmart fish oil cause I think it could kill me.

[Live Forever]

I remember a post on here awhile back saying krill oil is just as good if not better than fish oil.

Anyone know anything about this, or am I hallucinating from too many impurities in my fish oil?


Edit: I saw this website that shows that fish oil could have some detremental effects apart from the levels of impurities. They pretty much say eating fish a few times a week is the way to go.

Edited by liveforever22, 11 March 2006 - 04:31 PM.

[guyledouche]

this website[/URL] that shows that fish oil could have some detremental effects apart from the levels of impurities. They pretty much say eating fish a few times a week is the way to go.

I think that website is total BS. Suggesting that someone should only take fish oil if they have had a heart attack is an insane way of thinking. Anyone can take fish oil and it has never killed anyone to my knowledge. It prevents people from dying, not the other way around.

[opales]

this website[/URL] that shows that fish oil could have some detremental effects apart from the levels of impurities. They pretty much say eating fish a few times a week is the way to go.

I think that website is total BS. Suggesting that someone should only take fish oil if they have had a heart attack is an insane way of thinking. Anyone can take fish oil and it has never killed anyone to my knowledge. It prevents people from dying, not the other way around.

Well the epidemiological studies say the benefits of EPA/DHA are received from fairly small amounts, ie. few servings of fish/week. There is just no way around it. I don't know how smart it is to go way beyond, especially as there are known negative side effects (listed in the link by liveforever22). Also consider my earlier post that from mechanistic point of view, DHA might actually accelerate aging. However, the are numerous special groups (for example autoimmune disorders, high triglycerides) for whom studies suggest higher amounts of EPA/DHA might be appropriate.

[opales]

Regarding the original question, I suggest one goes through the earlier the link I provided in my first post in this thread. Michael Rae argues that high dietary alpha linoleic acid LNA content (from flax) provides more health benefits than merely EPA/DHA, suggesting perhaps LNA has benefits beyond its conversion to EPA/DHA.

Edited by opales, 12 March 2006 - 04:54 PM.

[Mind]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I have read other advice that says a person should not eat more than 2 servings of salmon a month or more than one can of tuna a week, or ....etc. because some fish have high levels of mercury and other contaminants.

[Live Forever]

While doing google searches, there are opinions out there all the way from you should rarely if ever have fish to you should eat lots of fish, from you should only eat fish because fish oil doesn't produce the same benefits to you should take fish oil only, from fish oil is best to flaxseed oil is best to krill oil is best, etc. and everything in between.

It is really hard to know what is best to do with so much conflicting information out there. I wish that there were some really clear studies on the subject done by some respected third parties, does anyone know of any?

[kevink]

The UC Berkeley "Wellness" group is extremely conservative. I think that makes them invaluable in this supplement crazy world. However, they do tend to have an "anti-supplement" spin because the way they word things is somewhat alarmist. It’s not just this article, I've seen it on many of there topics.

As for this specific issue, look at what they said...

If fish oil is so great, why shouldn’t everyone take supplements?

• The decreased ability of the blood to clot, which helps prevent heart attacks, has a negative side, notably an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. People with bleeding disorders, those taking anticoagulants, and those with uncontrolled hypertension should not take fish oil supplements.

A valid point. But how notable is this risk? They seem to focus more on the exception (bleeding disorders and uncontrolled hypertension), and not the majority of us (normal parameters).

• Large doses of fish oil may suppress the immune system. Thus, supplements may be risky for those with weakened immune systems. What’s a "large dose"? One definition is 3 grams or more a day, but no one really knows what the cutoff point is.

• Large doses can increase glucose levels in people with diabetes.

• Large doses can cause nausea, diarrhea, belching, and a bad taste in the mouth.

Large dose? I don't take anywhere near 3 grams a day, more like 500 mg to 1 G.

No one in my family has ever experienced any of these "side effects" and it would probably have more to do with "spoiled" or poor quality fish oil (belching and bad taste). We take Nordic Naturals, which are extremely high quality and spoilage is not an issue. Increase glucose levels in diabetics? Who cares unless you're a diabetic.

• The supplements may contain contaminants and may not contain the labeled dose. A recent test by Consumer Reports of top-selling supplements was reassuring on both counts, even for the least expensive brands, but that doesn’t mean that the next batches will be okay—or that other brands on the market are. Last year a test by ConsumerLab.com found no detectable levels of mercury in 20 fish-oil supplements, but did find that some brands didn’t contain the labeled amounts of omega-3s.

So they have no proof whatsoever that there are contaminants in fish oil supplements, but they simply can't resist making a scare tactic play of "maybe next time"? If you use a reputable brand which consistently tests for impurities and the like, then this statement is simply a waste of web space.

As for "research", have you seen AOR's analysis of a few sources?
http://www.aor.ca/re...h/epa_brite.php

And also - parts of England seem a lot more willing to run some real-world EPA (not DHA) studies on children than the US. Studies that, to my knowledge, have all come back with great results...
http://news.bbc.co.u...ees/4192205.stm
http://www.bupa.co.u...shoilbrain.html

I believe the Durham study was expanded to include "normal" children as well and the results were also impressive.

And since fish has confirmed mercury levels and the supplements have "none" -- I don't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that eating fish is "superior" at this point. If we had not polluted our oceans, fish would be a nearly "perfect" food. Even the FDA warns that pregnant women (or those wishing to be pregnant) should NOT eat more than X servings of fish because of the contaminants poisoning the fetus. For a hyper-conservative, big business serving organization as the FDA to make such a warning, the problem must be pretty bad and widespread.

edit #1: Sorry, I always forget to mention that I tend to focus on the "cognition and mood" aspects of EPA rather than the "heart health" aspects of "fish oil".
edit #2: I forgot that they mean 3 G of "fish oil" not EPA/DHA. So I revise my 500 mg - 1 G numbers to 1.5 - 2 G.

Edited by kevink, 12 March 2006 - 05:42 PM.

[biknut]

"and those with uncontrolled hypertension should not take fish oil supplements".

Uh oh! I never heard this before. I realize the threat must be small. Can someone please explain to me why they are saying this.

[kevink]

"and those with uncontrolled hypertension should not take fish oil supplements".

Uh oh! I never heard this before. I realize the threat must be small. Can someone please explain to me why they are saying this.

It's like a hydraulics system...

The pipe is built to withstand 100psi. The fluid in the pipe is made to harden/seal when released from the pipe. (note: hydraulic fluid does not do that, but I wanted to make the example clearer)

You ramp up the pressure to 200psi which puts stresses throughout the system and increases the possibility of a "rupture". At the same time you also add a chemical (fish oil) that reduces the fluids ability to harden (clot) when escaping through a rupture.

In other words - an increased chance of hemorrhagic stroke.

[biknut]

Oh thanks kevink, I think I understand. the fish oil raises the viscosity of blood making it harder to pump, and raising the pressure, and at the same time making it harder to seal a rupture if one occurs.

I was under the impression, that what others are saying about fish oil and EFA's was they are supposed to be heart healthy because they cleaned cholesterol out of arteries, and in the long run lowered blood pressure.