43 replies to this topic

[opales]

Note that on my previous post the reference to eating few servings of fish per week was not a statement towards eating fish but rather to point out that the needed dosages of EPA/DHA are actually fairly small, much smaller for example than what I see frequently suggested at sites like ImmInst. In many cases I would suggest supplementation (either through fish oil or flax) as most people do not reach that bare minimum amount through their diet.

Also, I edited my previous post where I made a reference to alpha linolenic acid using acronym ALA, which is in fact misleading as ALA usually refers to alpha lipoic acid. LNA is the frequently used acronym for alpha linolenic acid.

Also, I would like to correct a common flaw in thinking regarding supplements in guyledouches post: the fact that given supplement can be beneficial for people with given condition does not oftentimes justify taking that supplement for preventive purposes for that same condition in healthy people. Making sick people less sick (say, preventing recurring heart attack) and making healthy people not becoming sick (say, preventing the heart condition in the first place) just are not the same thing.

Edited by opales, 12 March 2006 - 07:03 PM.

[ajnast4r]

the fact that given supplement can be beneficial for people with given condition does not oftentimes justify taking that supplement for preventive purposes for that same condition in healthy people. Making sick people less sick (say, preventing recurring heart attack) and making healthy people not becoming sick (say, preventing the heart condition in the first place) just are not the same thing.

that quote should be a sticky in the health forums. everyone here needs to read & reread that.

[kevink]

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.

The "raising the pressure" comes from the underlying hypertension - whatever is causing that in the first place, not the fish oil. The fish oil blood thinning just comes into play if the rupture occurs (high pressure + thin fluid + tiny hole = squirt).

Of course fish oil is "heart healthy", but the human cardiac and circulatory system does not have a single type of failure. Even when talking "stroke" people have to realize the difference between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

I'm not spending any time on this, so somebody else will have to go back and determine the quality of the studies, the funding, etc...but I present them here because I stumbled across them and they might be useful for anyone needing to start their own research...

Fish prevents stroke

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. Several studies have shown that regular fish consumption helps protect against stroke. It is not clear, however, whether fish consumption protects against both ischemic stroke (stroke caused by a blood clot) and hemorrhagic stroke (stroke caused by a burst blood vessel). Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health have now released the results of a major study designed to answer this question.

The study involved 43,671 male health professionals aged 40 to 75 years when enrolled in 1986. During a 12-year follow-up period 608 strokes occurred (377 ischemic, 106 hemorrhagic, and 125 strokes of unknown origin). The annual stroke rate in this group is clearly remarkably low at 0.1% overall and 0.07% for ischemic stroke. The participants completed food frequency questionnaires in 1986, 1990 and 1994. Men who consumed fish at least once a month had a 44% lower risk of having an ischemic stroke than did men who consumed fish less than once per month. No significant associations were found between fish or long chain omega-3 PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid) intake and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, but a possible association could not be ruled out due to the relatively small number of hemorrhagic strokes that occurred in the group. The optimum protection was achieved at fish consumption once per week and more frequent fish consumption (5 or more times per week) did not reduce stroke risk further. The protective effect of fish consumption was not significantly affected by the use of aspirin or vitamin E supplements (about 25% of participants used aspirin for stroke protection and about 20% supplemented with vitamin E). The researchers calculated the intake of PUFAs (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) from fish and found that significant protection against ischemic stroke was achieved at a daily fish oil intake of between 50 mg and 200 mg. The level of daily intake of alpha-linolenic acid did not affect stroke risk. Additional fish oil supplementation did not reduce risk of ischemic stroke any further.

He, K, et al. Fish consumption and risk of stroke in men. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 288, December 25, 2002, pp. 3130-36

The observed reduction of ischemic stroke risk of 44% compares to a stroke risk reduction of 21% by taking a daily aspirin and a risk reduction (in atrial fibrillation patients) of 64% by taking high-dose warfarin. High-dose warfarin, unfortunately, confers a significant risk for serious internal bleeding.

Fish oils prevent stroke in women

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. A 1995 study concluded that men who ate fish five or more times per week had a 40 per cent lower risk of having a stroke than did men who ate fish less than once a week. Researchers at the Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women's Hospital now report that the benefits of fish consumption are even more spectacular for women. Their just completed study involved 79,839 female nurses who were between the ages of 34 and 59 years at the start of the study in 1980. After 14 years of follow-up a total of 574 strokes had occurred in the group. Most of the strokes (303) were ischemic, i.e. caused by a blood clot. There were also 181 hemorrhagic strokes, i.e. caused by a ruptured artery and 90 strokes of undetermined origin.

After adjusting for age, smoking and other cardiovascular risk factors the researchers concluded that women who ate fish once a week lowered their risk of having a stroke of any kind by 22 per cent and those who consumed fish five or more times per week reduced their risk by 52 per cent. They ascribe the protective effect of fish consumption to the commensurate intake of fish oils (omega-3 fatty acids). They estimate that women whose intake of fish oils is 0.5 gram/day or more have a 30 per cent lower risk of suffering a stroke than do women whose intake is below about 0.1 gram/day. There was no evidence that women with a high fish or fish oil consumption have an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. The researchers believe that the protective effects of fish oils are due to their ability to inhibit platelet aggregation, lower blood viscosity, suppress the formation of leukotrienes, reduce fibrinogen levels and reduce blood pressure levels and insulin resistance. They also note that the beneficial effects of fish consumption were substantially more pronounced among women who did not take aspirin on a regular basis.

Iso, Hiroyasu, et al. Intake of fish and omega-3 fatty acids and risk of stroke in women. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 285, January 17, 2001, pp. 304-12 [40 references]

[kevink]

that quote should be a sticky in the health forums. everyone here needs to read & reread that.

Yeah, I agree. The mass media doesn't help with getting that message across either.

There's a ton of stuff in the Health forum that should be turned into a FAQ section. This subject being one of them.

Any volunteers? (great pay, paid vacations, and of course that star on the "walk of fame") [sfty]

[biknut]

kevink wrote:

"The "raising the pressure" comes from the underlying hypertension - whatever is causing that in the first place, not the fish oil".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[ajnast4r]

that quote should be a sticky in the health forums. everyone here needs to read & reread that.

Yeah, I agree. The mass media doesn't help with getting that message across either.

There's a ton of stuff in the Health forum that should be turned into a FAQ section. This subject being one of them.

Any volunteers? (great pay, paid vacations, and of course that star on the "walk of fame") [sfty]

ill gladly write an FAQ

[biknut]

It's always best to find as much information as possible, from as many different sources as you can before making decisions about diet and supplementation. It's a mistake to form opinions on just one source. Contradictory studies come out all the time. This forum is one of my sources. I take responsibility for my own decisions.

Based on what I think I know, I'm going to continue to take my Carlson fish Oil Multi vitamin, and EFA every day, but in many cases I take less than what the bottle recommends.

[opales]

ill gladly write an FAQ

Cool, just remember it will be subjected to the most extensive peer-review process in Internet history, based mostly on unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks [lol]

Anyway now that we got into this (my favourite) subject, I would like to repost this awesome comment from CR society list which I think is of greatest importance to any supplement user. Read & reread it. I posted this quote here few days ago in the dopamine thread but I doubt it got much of (deserved) attention there. I would like to see something like this included in the FAQ (as a general statement and not specifically in the context of 5-htp).

Additionally, while my confidence in its safety has slightly increased
over the years, the possibility that 5-HTP may induce right mitral valve
abnormalities:

http://groups.google...941?dmode=print
http://groups.google...36b?dmode=print

The lack of report of this in clinical trials is unsurprising, as like
most nutraceuticals the 5-HTP trials have been small and of brieff
duration; the disorder was not detected in trials of phen/fen, despite a
much larger cohort size & longer duration, but were caught in followup.
Alas, supplement companies in the USA are STILL not required to actively
document and report reported side-effects, and there is no established
gov't reporting system for them; combine with the fact that physicans
are often unaware that their patients are taking supplements and that
consumers AND docs often just assume tht supps are harmless, PLUS the
smaller cohort using it in the population as in the trials, and a very
real effect could be happening invisibly.

[eternaltraveler]

ill gladly write an FAQ

good idea. If you guys want to write a faq about something lets do it this way. Write a faq, create a thread for it, let people comment on it, make changes, and then we might move that into a faq area or something once we have a few of them.

[Live Forever]

You could, if you wanted to, create a new page for it on the ImmInst wiki, like was done for the ImmInst FAQ so it is editable by anyone.

Just a thought..

[kevink]

I'll put my money where my mouth is...I'll help with the FAQ if ajnast4r wants to get it going. It's clear that the same questions come up a lot and it's hard to answer them without missing a disclaimer or leaving out part of the story.

I like the idea of collaboration since, I imagine, many people are very busy. I know I am.

I believe there are several "level heads" around here that know a fair amount...or know what to watch out for.

What does the FAQ cover? Does it also cover noots? I think "Health" is clearly Life Extension related, but noots are "transhuman" at best. I'd suggest leaving noots off the agenda. Trying to make comprehensive and accurate FAQ about supplements is daunting enough.

Since we are not selling anything, I think the output could be extremely helpful.

Opales -
That's what I meant by "level heads" and "disclaimer". An example I've used myself is that many of us are downing the R-LA/ALCAR mitochondria combination and all that data is from rat studies. Until solid in vivo human trials come out, we're all talking theory and assuming some risks.

Like I said, since we're not selling anything, the possibilities are quite promising. As you know, a few individuals have already done fair and balanced breakdowns on many substances, but I think this can be done "better".

The hard part will be agreeing on a single position. We may need to have a "point/counter-point" or "for/against" type model. That way the reader can see the arguments and make up their own mind. 5-HTP comes to mind. Perhaps racemic ALA versus R-LA is another one.

Edited by kevink, 13 March 2006 - 02:41 AM.

[ajnast4r]

it will be fun. ill start writing up some stuff on basic nutrition and supplementation this week. i have no interest in writing about noots at all, nor do i have any interest in writing about xenobiotics that lack human proof. i think its more important to cover: diet, exercise, lifestyle, sleep, nutrition, maintenance supplementation, preventive supplementation, etc

i also think something that really needs to be covered is the difference between maintenance and therapeutic dosing. alot of people have the 'more = better' attitude here, which is dangerous.

[FunkOdyssey]

Debate about the net effects of fish oil on longevity is raging on sci.life-extension right now, any knowledgeable parties should put their .02 in (MR?).

[syr_]

i think its more important to cover: diet, exercise, lifestyle, sleep, nutrition, maintenance supplementation, preventive supplementation, etc

i also think something that really needs to be covered is the difference between maintenance and therapeutic dosing. alot of people have the 'more = better' attitude here, which is dangerous.

I completely agree with you.
Looking forward reading your articles.