Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Fats - Enlighten me please
-
16-06-2010 6:05pm#1
Comments
-
-
Spot on Khannie, one tweak, O9 has a separate metabolic pathway so it doesn't compete with 6 or 3 so you can have pretty as much as you like.
ULstudent, I think the law of diminishing returns applies here, stay away from veg oil, eat good fresh unprocessed food prepared along with wild caught oily fish (not farmed salmon) 3 times a week, should be good enough IMO. Oh and watch those damn addictive nuts or switch to macadamias which have very low O6.
Can I add one more fact? Coconut oil is awesome in every way.
0 -
-
Butter is good.
...
Heating oils leads to free radicals, also the devils spawn.
OK, between this, and reading your thread on whether or not to use olive oil for cooking ....
I often fry chicken, veg etc using extra virgin olive oil, even though I'm aware that for some reason I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? And what are these free radicals you speak of?!
And what's my alternative? Is butter really good - should I be using that for frying?
Coconut oil and avocado oil were mentioned in the other thread, but I hate the taste of both of those
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Temple_Grandin wrote: »Spot on Khannie, one tweak, O9 has a separate metabolic pathway so it doesn't compete with 6 or 3 so you can have pretty as much as you like.
ULstudent, I think the law of diminishing returns applies here, stay away from veg oil, eat good fresh unprocessed food prepared along with wild caught oily fish (not farmed salmon) 3 times a week, should be good enough IMO. Oh and watch those damn addictive nuts or switch to macadamias which have very low O6.
Can I add one more fact? Coconut oil is awesome in every way.
Damn it, I eat farmed salmon 5 or 6 times a week and other fish too, every day I would eat fish. So am I doing no good if it is not wild?0 -
-
-
-
Couple of questions for you Khannie.
There are gmo plant and algae sources of EPA and DHA. Your referring to ALA right?
Yes indeedy.Why is epa more advantageous to adults? And How much of both epa and dha do we need?
Honestly, I was starting this thread because I want to learn stuff, so I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer your question, but I'll give it a bash.
My understanding, which is limited / may be complete nonsense, is this: DHA is good as a building block in the brain so you require more of it when you're younger. EPA is more advantageous when you're an adult for reasons that I don't understand.
How much of each you need is mostly dependent on your omega 6 intake. Personally, I take around 1.5g of EPA and DHA per day, 1.2g of which is EPA. I get it from taking two of these. Honestly I'm not sure if that's enough / too much, but I'm pretty sure it's not doing me any harm.
edit: I should add that my calorie intake is probably substantially higher than the average punter. Although I'm short and skinny I expend a huge amount of energy every day training (today will be > 3500 calories for example) so I think one of those tablets I linked to above would probably be enough for a normal person. I add a 2nd one because I think I probably get more omega 6's than a normal person based on my high calorie intake.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Ok, I really haven't researched this too much, but from my limited knowledge, adults need just as much DHA as children. I keep hearing that kids need more DHA but I haven't seen any solid papers to verify it. TBH the whole omega 3/6 thing is very early days. But we do know that it's a very good thing to have slightly more omega 3 stored in tissues than omega 6.
I do know that we all need more DHA than EPA and that's exactly how it comes packed in nature, i.e. in fish.
To answer the question 'How much do we need?' Chris Kresser from the healthy skeptic says:From: http://thehealthyskeptic.org/how-much-omega-3-is-enough-that-depends-on-omega-6
Of course, as I’ve described above, the amount of n-3 needed to attain 60% tissue concentration is dependent upon the amount of n-6 in the diet. In the Phillipines, where n-6 intake is less than 1% of total calories, only 278mg/d of EPA & DHA (0.125% of calories) is needed to achieve 60% tissue concentration.
In the U.S., where n-6 intake is 9% of calories, a whopping 3.67g/d of EPA & DHA would be needed to achieve 60% tissue concentration. To put that in perspective, you’d have to eat 11 ounces of salmon or take 1 tablespoon (yuk!) of a high-potency fish oil every day to get that much EPA & DHA.
So the bottom line is reduce omega 6 with a modest intake of wild fish or mega-dose with omega 3. I'm very wary of the latter strategy, it seems rather unnatural, never mind expensive, plus most of the benefits have been shown through eating fish, rather than taking supplements. Having said that, I do take 2g fermented cod liver oil a day myself..just in case..
0 -
-
-
-
-
Chris Kresser to the rescue once again (this guy is seriously making me redundant)
The definitive fish oil buyer’s guide0 -
-
It's never ending!!
Arg, I know how you feel. Sometimes you have to just say 'Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.' If you can't afford 'the ultimate' fish oil then stick with the best you can. But don't forget to bite the odd capsule to ensure that they haven't gone rancid, because that actually would be worse than taking nothing. 0 -
Temple_Grandin wrote: »Chris Kresser to the rescue once again (this guy is seriously making me redundant)
The definitive fish oil buyer’s guide
That's a really good read. Thanks.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Although I would note that krill fishing is putting marine food chain under serious pressure so...
I wonder on a scale of 1-100 how important these different supplements are to the average diet? Just in terms of being able to do a proper analysis of the costs & benefits involved. That goes for all supplements, not just fish oil.
The main harvesters of Krill say it is sustainable:
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Industry/Over-fishing-no-threat-to-krill-harvest-says-industry
They would say that though wouldn't they.. do you have any studies that have been done in that area or is it all based on projections so far?
I supplemented Krill for a while, can't say I noticed it being drastically better, so I switched back to -don't hate me!- fermented cod liver oil.
If you get really really strict about your omega 6, getting it under 1% total calories, then you don't need any fish oil. This means no grains, pork, chicken, avocado, nuts, seeds or olive oil, then you can get away with a tiny amount of omega 3, there's probably enough in a decent amount of grass-fed butter. It's bloody hard though, I've tried, and failed.
As to other supplements, the only that are really difficult to get from food are magnesium and vitamin D.0 -
-
MSC says that part of the krill harvest done by a particular company, is sustainable. But this has been challenged by Pew Environment, ASOC and Greenpeace.Temple_Grandin wrote: »They would say that though wouldn't they.. do you have any studies that have been done in that area or is it all based on projections so far?
Here's what I'd like to know. What do you mean by "get away with"? What happens if you don't get the perfect omega ratio? And is it worth taking a huge bite out of an important source of food for the marine ecosystem? These are the questions that are always going around in my head when I think about nutrition.Temple_Grandin wrote: »If you get really really strict about your omega 6, getting it under 1% total calories, then you don't need any fish oil. This means no grains, pork, chicken, avocado, nuts, seeds or olive oil, then you can get away with a tiny amount of omega 3, there's probably enough in a decent amount of grass-fed butter. It's bloody hard though, I've tried, and failed.
Good to know! I shall investigateTemple_Grandin wrote: »As to other supplements, the only that are really difficult to get from food are magnesium and vitamin D. 0 -
-
-
I don't have access to academic studies any more but this is one from ASOC - it's pretty readable:
http://www.asoc.org/Portals/0/Antarctic-krill-LF_EN.pdf
This one is from back in 2005 so things have gotten worse since then.
When you say implicated, what do you mean? If I'm off my ratio a bit but I eat healthily, keep a healthy BMI, exercise 3 times a week, generally look after myself etc, I just find it hard to believe that I need to ingest this stuff. I just wonder how we managed to survive for so many thousands of years without krill supplements, even if we do eat more olive oil than we used to!
Thanks, I'll give it a read. All the things you're doing will do you good for definite. But rest assured, an imbalance will have a profound effect on your health. In heart disease alone there is trial after trial showing that an imbalanced tissue concentration results in a huge increase risk of heart attack.
I can link you solid studies on any of of the diseases I mentioned, granted some of the intervention trials are on rats, but I think we have enough observational studies in different human populations to back that up.
In answer to what we did before fish oil supplements? We ate fish and didn't eat seed oils.
Every mountainous hunter-gatherer population would make a big effort to trade with coastal tribes for fish and marine vegetables. They saved fish especially for pregnant mothers and young infants.
You can definitely get away without fish oil but it takes a big effort.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
True, but they have lower heart disease than the average person, which must mean there are other significant factors at play.Temple_Grandin wrote: »Once you are eating over 4% of your total calories as omega 6 (which vegans and meat-eaters do alike) then there's no more damage done by eating 40% of your calories as omega 6 as there is 5%, just that at 5% you could probably out compete it with omega 3, but most people don't. Vegans and vegetarians are no healthier than their equivalent health-conscious meat-eaters.
Very interesting.Temple_Grandin wrote: »The third world are actually an awful lot better off when it comes to omega 6, most of them still use traditional fats and have a modest consumption of wild fish, they have lower heart disease rates despite higher rates of smoking in most cases. But even if you make a serious effort to eschew omega 6 in the first world, you still eat a fair amount of it every time you eat out as even high-end restaurants use seed oils to cook, hence why we see a beneficial effect of omega 3's on heart-disease risk.
I'm sure the other 6 billion humans are wondering exactly the same thingTemple_Grandin wrote: »As your sig says: The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition, and it may well be true that there isn't enough resources on this planet to feed every one of the 6 billion humans on it an optimal diet, in fact I'm pretty sure that's true. Does that mean I should sacrifice my health by eating a sub-optimal one?:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one,2892/
The point I'm trying to make is that these decisions have repercussions not just for us or other today but also for the next generation. Are we going to condemn our children to have an even worse diet in the future through our pursuit for an optimal one today? If fish isn't being harvest sustainably, that means it's unsustainable, which by definition means it cannot continue indefinitely. I wish these decisions were simple!0 -
True, but they have lower heart disease than the average person, which must mean there are other significant factors at play.
Very interesting.
I'm sure the other 6 billion humans are wondering exactly the same thing:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one,2892/
The point I'm trying to make is that these decisions have repercussions not just for us or other today but also for the next generation. Are we going to condemn our children to have an even worse diet in the future through our pursuit for an optimal one today? If fish isn't being harvest sustainably, that means it's unsustainable, which by definition means it cannot continue indefinitely. I wish these decisions were simple!
Better than average health is still not great health, I'm just trying to emulate the diets of people who don't get any measurable cancer or heart disease, not just 'less'.
I really wish we had a simple answer too, my best try is to eat as little omega 6 that I can get away with while trying to eat sustainable fish such as mackerel and pollock. I will switch to wild salmon oil though when my current bottle of CLO runs out. But I, given no alternative (and I suspect I'm not alone) will tend to put their own well-being ahead of that of a perceived future environmental repercussion. Harsh, but there you go 0 -
OK but my point was that there are clearly other factors. I also think genetics has a lot to do with it so you can have the perfect diet etc and still get cancer, heart disease etc.Temple_Grandin wrote: »Better than average health is still not great health, I'm just trying to emulate the diets of people who don't get any measurable cancer or heart disease, not just 'less'.
Actually, this is an interesting talk on long life and health by Dan Buettner. He studied blue zones or geographical areas where people typically tend to live to 100+. He found 9 indicators and only 3 relate to diet:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html
That's great that you're conscious and trying to make an effort. I would just take you up on the "perceived repercussion". There's no question about the pressure on the world's fisheries. There is a scientific consensus about the need to relieve the pressure on fish stocks or future generations will not enjoy fish as we do today.Temple_Grandin wrote: »I really wish we had a simple answer too, my best try is to eat as little omega 6 that I can get away with while trying to eat sustainable fish such as mackerel and pollock. I will switch to wild salmon oil though when my current bottle of CLO runs out. But I, given no alternative (and I suspect I'm not alone) will tend to put their own well-being ahead of that of a perceived future environmental repercussion. Harsh, but there you go0 -
OK but my point was that there are clearly other factors. I also think genetics has a lot to do with it so you can have the perfect diet etc and still get cancer, heart disease etc.
Actually, this is an interesting talk on long life and health by Dan Buettner. He studied blue zones or geographical areas where people typically tend to live to 100+. He found 9 indicators and only 3 relate to diet:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html
Oh absolutely, there's no point shoving a load of omega 3 down your throat if your eating white flour and sugar the rest of the time. The modern Eskimos are a perfect example of this. Their n3 intake is sky high but they're still getting shocking rates of heart disease and diabetes. It's worth keeping all polyunsaturated fats total below 10% due to their inherent volatility.
Of course a healthy lifestyle is multi-factorial, everything from sleeping well to stress management plays a role. I had a look at that Dan Buettner guy's site. He says that there are ten factors that contribute toward longevity, but as he's just observing and not perfoming a controlled trial, he's guessing what he thinks are the reasons are. I don't doubt some of them are important, but nevertheless it's his opinion, and ultimately an educated guess.
I also couldn't help but notice pretty much all the blue zones have low omega 6 content in their diet along with a good intake of omega 3.. but hey, that's just an observation.
Also, I think quality of life matters far more than longevity. No point living until 100 when you spend the last 30 years of your life suffering from chronic disease and increasing dementia.That's great that you're conscious and trying to make an effort. I would just take you up on the "perceived repercussion". There's no question about the pressure on the world's fisheries. There is a scientific consensus about the need to relieve the pressure on fish stocks or future generations will not enjoy fish as we do today.
What about so-called 'sustainable' sources like sardines, mackerel etc, can we enjoy these knowing that we're not destroying stocks for future generations?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Oh sure. Absolutely. Part of the problem is the externalised costs of fish and other foods these days. If we paid the real cost of fish, ie not subsidies by the EU, including cost of carbon emissions etc, we would be paying a hell of a lot more for fish and fish supplements than we do today.
That's why the more sustainable foods cost more - the consumer is paying for these things (plus the missing economy of scale because these operations are normally very small).
Yep, I agree, as awful as it is good food (in every sense of the word) costs more money. But I do think that if we all ate a nutritious diet we'd eat an awful lot less food. I have a theory that a lot of overeating is a result of malnutrition.
I do find that oily fish is exceptionally filling per calorie compared to other protein sources. What do you think of farmed fish? Is the cure worse than the original problem from an environmental point of view? I heard they are feeding corn to fish now
BTW: I paid €50 for my cod liver oil - 2 months supply, from Norway where no EU subsidies apply, cannot find a thing online about sustainability. In it's defense it is a by-product, is it really unjustifiable?0 -
just throwing in my two cents worth here.....coconut oil is probably one of the best oils you can use for everything, cooking, eating and rubbing on your skin!! It contains medium chain triglycerides which come with all sorts of health benefits (google for the seemingly endless list!). It has a high burn point, so doesn't degrade at high temperatures like most oils. It is these fatty acids that also give coconut oil it's anti-fungal and anti-bacterial properties, making it great for all manner of ailments. Smells great too
One book that I can recommend if you REALLY want to understand fats inside out, upside down and back to front is Fats That Heal Fats That Kill by Udo Erasmus. It's a hard slog of a book at times but well worth it.
0 -
Good point quality over quantity - for sure! Yes, farmed fish is far worse - they feed corn and smaller fish to farmed fish meaning that the process actually uses up more fish than is produced at the end. Plus they tend to spread disease, mites and all sorts of nasty stuff.Temple_Grandin wrote: »Yep, I agree, as awful as it is good food (in every sense of the word) costs more money. But I do think that if we all ate a nutritious diet we'd eat an awful lot less food. I have a theory that a lot of overeating is a result of malnutrition.
I do find that oily fish is exceptionally filling per calorie compared to other protein sources. What do you think of farmed fish? Is the cure worse than the original problem from an environmental point of view? I heard they are feeding corn to fish now
Oh well if it's a by-product then you are basically using up waste! Wait - is all fish-oil a by product??!Temple_Grandin wrote: »BTW: I paid €50 for my cod liver oil - 2 months supply, from Norway where no EU subsidies apply, cannot find a thing online about sustainability. In it's defense it is a by-product, is it really unjustifiable?0 -
Oh well if it's a by-product then you are basically using up waste! Wait - is all fish-oil a by product??!
Technically yes, possibly with the exception of Krill, not much meat on those guys.
But I guess even if you're buying a by-product of unsustainable fishing, you're still supporting unsustainable fishing..Will write those guys an email about what their policy is.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Nuravictus wrote:ermm i eat 6 fillets of tesco smoked mackerel a week with a stir-fry cooked in Tesco extra virgin olive oil (tablespoon). When I dont eat Mackeral I eat Salmon. Am I screwed
Mackerel has an insane amount of EPA/DHA in it so work away. Even if I was trying to megadose on EPA/DHA (say 10g a day) 150g of the M&S Smoked Mackerel would do me for the day. If you need a lot lower then you should be able to get all you need from oily fish! Salmon though has a lot less so keep getting that mackerel in.0 -
-
Nuravictus wrote: »ermm i eat 6 fillets of tesco smoked mackerel a week with a stir-fry cooked in Tesco extra virgin olive oil (tablespoon). When I dont eat Mackeral I eat Salmon. Am I screwed
Off topic here sorry but Nuravictus, you shouldn't really be eating that much fish in a week, the reccommended fish intake a week is about 2-4 servings (due to high levels of mercury in the fish I think). Try and substitute chicken/turkey/lamb etc for some of your meals.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement