(no title)
MarkMarine | 21 days ago
Do I need to eat fish twice a week? 5 times? Do I need to supplement because there is no way to eat enough fish?
Would love some practical guidance tacked on to this
MarkMarine | 21 days ago
Do I need to eat fish twice a week? 5 times? Do I need to supplement because there is no way to eat enough fish?
Would love some practical guidance tacked on to this
svara|21 days ago
The correlative effect is quite clear, i.e people who have high omega 3 levels (eat a lot of fish) have health benefits.
But in random controlled trials Omega 3 supplements have not had convincing effects.
It might be because the supplements aren't very good, or because there's actually something completely different going on, like fish displaces less healthy foods from the diet.
terribleperson|21 days ago
unknown|21 days ago
[deleted]
MarkMarine|21 days ago
darkerside|21 days ago
boston_clone|21 days ago
- hemp hearts (complete protein, goes best with oatmeal for breakfast, on salads, or in soups for an extra bit of nutty / fatty flavor)
- pumpkin seeds (also good source of iron, iirc)
- algae-based supplement (currently taking an omega3 + vit D + vit K combo capsule from nordic naturals)
CWIZO|21 days ago
Finnucane|21 days ago
cromka|21 days ago
So here we go again. First it was cholesterol, which was then rebutted, so people (myself included) started eating eggs every day. And now this. You can't win!
KempyKolibri|20 days ago
Eggs are believed to lead to adverse outcomes because of: 1. Their high cholesterol content. 2. Their SFA content.
I'm not sure what you mean by cholesterol being rebutted. The only thing like that I'm really aware of is the dietary guidelines de-prioritising dietary cholesterol, but that decision was made because when making DGs, people want to focus on the biggest levers we can pull. Dietary cholesterol _does_ have a negative impact on health, but it also has a threshold effect at around 400mg/d after which it has considerably less impact (unless you're part of the ~20% of the population who are "cholesterol hyper responders").
Because most people eating a SAD are already at that threshold, the decision was made to take dietary cholesterol off the headline recommendations, but if you read the details in the DGs and the meta-analyses that drive them, they still point to lowering dietary cholesterol as a smart health move.
I frequently see this change portrayed as "no longer recommending the lowering of dietary cholesterol" or "admitting they were wrong about dietary cholesterol", but that's not really what happened.
mixmastamyk|21 days ago