That linked article goes in to way too much depth to really paste anything useful here but he basically says that while there are short term benefits to fish oil, it could actually be quite harmful to take it in the long term.
As someone who recently started taking fish oil (prescribed my my doctor) due to low HDL levels, I find this highly frustrating. And it's not like I could just eat fish; it seems most of our fish sources are contaminated. The more I learn about nutrition, the more uncertain I become about what to eat, and the angrier I become towards our entire agricultural industry.
I read a lot of the citations quoted by this guy and they seem to be saying different things than he does.
For example he says that fish oil has toxic effects on the liver and cites Ritskes-Hoitinga, et al., 1998. The actual paper says that fish oil may have hepatoxic effects in herbivorous animals and that therefor when using herbivorous animals to study the effects of fish oil on atherogenesis, the effects on these animals livers may need to be excluded (because it's not observed in other animals).
From your link I ended up reading a lot of Ray Peat's content and it is very very dense. There are so many levels of different interactions he describes that my instinct is to run away screaming and want to repeat the mantra: just eat what the oldest living people eat, lots of vegetables, many root vegetables, and a little fish and a bit of meat.
I was particularly intrigued by his discussion of how different fats impair or are required for mitochondrial functioning, but I barely understood it.
FYI, the author mentions "flax oil also fits the bill", which from what I know, and from the most recent Nutrition Action Newsletter (nonprofit consumer information organization), isn't true. It's in their latest (November) issue, but I can't find a link to it online. http://www.cspinet.org/nah/index.htm
Flax oil I believe contains mostly omega-6, which people aren't generally as needy of with our current diets.
The problem with the omeaga-3 in flax oil is that it's ALA, while we really need EPA and DHA. Although the body can convert ALA, it doesn't do so with great efficiency.
As I understand it a high amount of Omega-6 means that you cannot absorb the omega-3. From WP:
> Thus accumulation of long-chain n−3 fatty acids in tissues is more effective when they are obtained directly from food or when competing amounts of n−6 analogs do not greatly exceed the amounts of n−3.
Fish oil contains a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega 6 than other sources (flax seed).
Also, fish oil contains Vitamin D which is very good for teeth (if you get enough vitamin D, holes in teeth repair themselves).
A lot of fish oil is also specified as "cod liver oil". So I don't think that it uses the above fish and i don't think that the cod livers is used in food (so it is a byproduct).
I bet it's even easier to get it directly from the source.
I think in terms of what is economical for food production and what is bioavailable to human eaters, that is not the case yet today. Scientists are working on that, I have read elsewhere.
It is not clear that dietary or supplemental omega 3 fats alter total mortality, combined cardiovascular events or cancers in people with, or at high risk of, cardiovascular disease or in the general population. There is no evidence we should advise people to stop taking rich sources of omega 3 fats, but further high quality trials are needed to confirm suggestions of a protective effect of omega 3 fats on cardiovascular health.
There is no clear evidence that omega 3 fats differ in
effectiveness according to fish or plant sources, dietary
or supplemental sources, dose or presence of placebo.
The null conclusion of the Cochrane report rests entirely upon inclusion of one trial, DART 2 2. This was a randomized dietary trial with clinical endpoints testing the effects on total mortality of either giving advice to eat fish or providing fish oil capsules to men with angina. Surprisingly, while total mortality was not statistically different in the two groups, there was less sudden death in the control group than in the intervention group. Upon exclusion of DART 2 from the meta-analysis, the overall decrease in relative risk with omega-3 consumption became similar to that reported in a previous meta-analysis by Bucher et al: 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.91) 3
In our view, the weight of the evidence available in May of 2006 is sufficient to conclude, even in light of the Cochrane analysis, that EPA and DHA reduce risk for cardiovascular diseases. Not only do we feel so, but also the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 15 , the European Society for Cardiology 16 , a systematic review conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the NIH 17 , the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 18 , and a number of other national and international bodies 19-22
There is no clear evidence that omega 3 fats differ in effectiveness according to fish or plant sources, dietary or supplemental sources, dose or presence of placebo.
There are effectively no plant sources, except for algae.
25,000 years ago we consumed omega-3 and omega-6 precursors in a 1:1 ratio. Today, thanks to the widespread consumption of cereal grains and few sweetbread meats, that ratio is about 1:20. That has drastic implications for the production of essential lipids like EPA that the body cannot create on its own.
I've been planning to get fish oil for quite some time and today I finally bought some capsules. Thank you frankus for the reminder :)
EDIT: Hm. Maybe I've should've RTFA before I commented. I hope that the product I bought is one of the 75 that do not deplete the menhaden stock. Maybe a certificate for this would be nice?
The discussion about flaxseed oil holds for walnuts, too. The type of omega-3 in walnuts is called alpha-linolenic acid, or ALA which is widely believed to be not as beneficial as EPA and DHA for the human body.
> the company’s ... continued right to fish in federal waters, means a half-billion menhaden are still taken from the ecosystem every year.
... this egregious privatization of what is essentially a public resource is shocking.
The whole issue is that public federal waters and fishing rights are being abused but this guy complains the problem is privatization.
Ah, it's a private company that does all the fishing and books all the profit. As in, catches 90% of the fish. Apparently they don't need any special license to do this.
Agreed - I read that sentence and asked myself "How are they privatizing federal waters? Fences? Guard Boats? Exclusive Fishing Licenses?"
It read like the resource was still public. I wonder though, if we can consider it a "Tragedy of the Commons" when a single player is doing most of the (alleged) damage to this resource.
[+] [-] jseifer|16 years ago|reply
That linked article goes in to way too much depth to really paste anything useful here but he basically says that while there are short term benefits to fish oil, it could actually be quite harmful to take it in the long term.
[+] [-] msluyter|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travisp|16 years ago|reply
For example he says that fish oil has toxic effects on the liver and cites Ritskes-Hoitinga, et al., 1998. The actual paper says that fish oil may have hepatoxic effects in herbivorous animals and that therefor when using herbivorous animals to study the effects of fish oil on atherogenesis, the effects on these animals livers may need to be excluded (because it's not observed in other animals).
[+] [-] pmikal|16 years ago|reply
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fish-oil-health-benefits/
[+] [-] delackner|16 years ago|reply
I was particularly intrigued by his discussion of how different fats impair or are required for mitochondrial functioning, but I barely understood it.
[+] [-] blakeweb|16 years ago|reply
Flax oil I believe contains mostly omega-6, which people aren't generally as needy of with our current diets.
[+] [-] jpschorr|16 years ago|reply
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/omega-3-dosage-sources/
[+] [-] catzaa|16 years ago|reply
> Thus accumulation of long-chain n−3 fatty acids in tissues is more effective when they are obtained directly from food or when competing amounts of n−6 analogs do not greatly exceed the amounts of n−3.
Fish oil contains a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega 6 than other sources (flax seed).
Also, fish oil contains Vitamin D which is very good for teeth (if you get enough vitamin D, holes in teeth repair themselves).
A lot of fish oil is also specified as "cod liver oil". So I don't think that it uses the above fish and i don't think that the cod livers is used in food (so it is a byproduct).
[+] [-] alecco|16 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docosahexaenoic_acid
[+] [-] tokenadult|16 years ago|reply
I think in terms of what is economical for food production and what is bioavailable to human eaters, that is not the case yet today. Scientists are working on that, I have read elsewhere.
[+] [-] pierrefar|16 years ago|reply
It is not clear that dietary or supplemental omega 3 fats alter total mortality, combined cardiovascular events or cancers in people with, or at high risk of, cardiovascular disease or in the general population. There is no evidence we should advise people to stop taking rich sources of omega 3 fats, but further high quality trials are needed to confirm suggestions of a protective effect of omega 3 fats on cardiovascular health.
There is no clear evidence that omega 3 fats differ in effectiveness according to fish or plant sources, dietary or supplemental sources, dose or presence of placebo.
[+] [-] skmurphy|16 years ago|reply
The null conclusion of the Cochrane report rests entirely upon inclusion of one trial, DART 2 2. This was a randomized dietary trial with clinical endpoints testing the effects on total mortality of either giving advice to eat fish or providing fish oil capsules to men with angina. Surprisingly, while total mortality was not statistically different in the two groups, there was less sudden death in the control group than in the intervention group. Upon exclusion of DART 2 from the meta-analysis, the overall decrease in relative risk with omega-3 consumption became similar to that reported in a previous meta-analysis by Bucher et al: 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.91) 3
In our view, the weight of the evidence available in May of 2006 is sufficient to conclude, even in light of the Cochrane analysis, that EPA and DHA reduce risk for cardiovascular diseases. Not only do we feel so, but also the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 15 , the European Society for Cardiology 16 , a systematic review conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the NIH 17 , the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 18 , and a number of other national and international bodies 19-22
[+] [-] miked|16 years ago|reply
There are effectively no plant sources, except for algae.
25,000 years ago we consumed omega-3 and omega-6 precursors in a 1:1 ratio. Today, thanks to the widespread consumption of cereal grains and few sweetbread meats, that ratio is about 1:20. That has drastic implications for the production of essential lipids like EPA that the body cannot create on its own.
[+] [-] alexyim|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikeCapone|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zach|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpach|16 years ago|reply
EDIT: Hm. Maybe I've should've RTFA before I commented. I hope that the product I bought is one of the 75 that do not deplete the menhaden stock. Maybe a certificate for this would be nice?
[+] [-] 3dFlatLander|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techiferous|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silentbicycle|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ptuzla|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkongreveng_|16 years ago|reply
> the company’s ... continued right to fish in federal waters, means a half-billion menhaden are still taken from the ecosystem every year. ... this egregious privatization of what is essentially a public resource is shocking.
The whole issue is that public federal waters and fishing rights are being abused but this guy complains the problem is privatization.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|16 years ago|reply
Your point was...?
[+] [-] ghshephard|16 years ago|reply
It read like the resource was still public. I wonder though, if we can consider it a "Tragedy of the Commons" when a single player is doing most of the (alleged) damage to this resource.
[+] [-] hello00718|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]