• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

The BEST Fish Oil Supplements (New study)

TrueBias said:
When I attended UF, our neuromuscular aspects prof wanted us to use pubmed a lot, but none that were too old. The only one that I would give credit to is the 2010, but the subjects had ailments. Im on a phone looking, but are there other current studies?
Click to expand...

Research doesn't have an expiration date. A good study is a good study regardless of the date - you just need the skills to discern each study's limitations.

Also, most research on fish oil is on people with some kind of health problem - like most health oriented research.

hardheart said:
Fallacious. You're appealing to the probability that there is only one proven benefit of fish oil. First, we don't know if there is only one proven benefit as neither you nor I have read all of the material as, much of it has never and will never be published. Second, your assumption is based on the idea that there never will be any other proven benefits to fish oil.

I do agree, however, eating fish is a more appropriate way to gain the benefits of a fish rich diet.

edit1:
And, for what it's worth, the human benefits of EPA & DHA are well known and documented. What's also documented is the problem is that EPA & DHA are very easily oxidized thus drawing bio-availability into question.

Also, I assume you're only including the human based studies in your statements/assumptions or are you including rodent based studies?
Click to expand...

I don't understand either of your points. I never assumed there was and only ever will be singular benefits or drawbacks to fish oil. All I can do is take into consideration past information I've gathered by reading through clinical trials, meta-analysis, animal studies, and learning the underlying physiology. We can never truly be sure of anything, all we can do is come up with some type of bayesian probability of how sure we are of a statement based on priors and new evidence. This inherent limitation of knowledge doesn't affect the probability of my statement "There is no point of taking fish oil for most people, baring some kind of temporary hormetic effect" being less or more true.

Also the oxidation does not effect the bio-availability of n-3s, oxidized and non-oxidized n-3s have the same effect. PUFAs are preferentially oxidized over saturated fat in humans anyway, so in the end they are probably the same thing. Hence why I suspect some kind of temporary hormetic benefit, but proving a hormetic theory is much more difficult than simply running a few well controlled RCTs.
 
This isn't a scientific point and I don't know if you can really argue a trajectory is meaningful but the trajectory of fish oil supplementation seems to be following the all too familiar supplement path: big headlines of new wonder discovery with no downsides, numerous small studies showing it cures almost everything under the sun and then bigger studies over longer periods failing to show the benefits and studies indicating that perhaps it might even have some risks.

I'm trying to think - is there any substance that we ought to be concentrating, refining and then taking in much larger quantities than we're likely to get in our natural diet? Seems to me that this almost always turns out to be pointless or a bad idea in the end.
 
Happy to see Nature Made up there in quality and #1 in terms of value since that's the one I always get
 
Not surprised to see nordic naturals high up. And afaik they're the only ones that started safety testing their oil for radiation after fukushima. You don't want any fish that come from the general area of japan in your fish oil.
 
Some might be interest in this.

I was at the recent American Academy for Cancer Researchers meeting in San Diego. I attended one of the sessions on metabolism in cancer cells and one of the presenters was a molecular biologist from MIT who focuses on pathways.

Cliffs:
- cancer cells love fats
- the craze over omega fats concerns him
 
therealdope said:
Some might be interest in this.

I was at the recent American Academy for Cancer Researchers meeting in San Diego. I attended one of the sessions on metabolism in cancer cells and one of the presenters was a molecular biologist from MIT who focuses on pathways.

Cliffs:
- cancer cells love fats
- the craze over omega fats concerns him
Click to expand...

Is there Video or Audio of the conference?
Because there many people that have defeated stage 3 cancer with a Keto diet. Which is absurdly high in fat.

No offense in any way, I just would really like to know what exactly they were talking about.
Because almost all cancer cells/types cannot run on fat, only sugar.

Was it this one?

Common pathways across tumor types
Joshua M. Stuart
University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States
 
Last edited:
therealdope said:
Some might be interest in this.

I was at the recent American Academy for Cancer Researchers meeting in San Diego. I attended one of the sessions on metabolism in cancer cells and one of the presenters was a molecular biologist from MIT who focuses on pathways.

Cliffs:
- cancer cells love fats
- the craze over omega fats concerns him
Click to expand...

Links? or published article? I'm actually confused by that, as my understanding is that cancer cells typically had no functional mitochondria, which impaired their ability to use lipolysis as fuel, instead relying on glycogen and glutamine
 
Seriously-Dead said:
Research doesn't have an expiration date. A good study is a good study regardless of the date - you just need the skills to discern each study's limitations.

Also, most research on fish oil is on people with some kind of health problem - like most health oriented research.



I don't understand either of your points. I never assumed there was and only ever will be singular benefits or drawbacks to fish oil. All I can do is take into consideration past information I've gathered by reading through clinical trials, meta-analysis, animal studies, and learning the underlying physiology. We can never truly be sure of anything, all we can do is come up with some type of bayesian probability of how sure we are of a statement based on priors and new evidence. This inherent limitation of knowledge doesn't affect the probability of my statement "There is no point of taking fish oil for most people, baring some kind of temporary hormetic effect" being less or more true.

Also the oxidation does not effect the bio-availability of n-3s, oxidized and non-oxidized n-3s have the same effect. PUFAs are preferentially oxidized over saturated fat in humans anyway, so in the end they are probably the same thing. Hence why I suspect some kind of temporary hormetic benefit, but proving a hormetic theory is much more difficult than simply running a few well controlled RCTs.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting in the middle of this debate, I actually just have a question. I've been diagnosed with Osgood-Schlatters as a teen and now I'm a little bit older/after years of grappling, it's seems to have began to start bothering me again in my early 30s. Is it beneficial for me to continue taking fish oil? I get conflicting info via Google and you seem to have a good grasp on the subject.
 
Is there really any reason to take fish oil supplements if your diet is already high in fish like salmon and tuna?
 
grndzro said:
Is there Video or Audio of the conference?
Because there many people that have defeated stage 3 cancer with a Keto diet. Which is absurdly high in fat.

No offense in any way, I just would really like to know what exactly they were talking about.
Because almost all cancer cells/types cannot run on fat, only sugar.

Was it this one?

Common pathways across tumor types
Joshua M. Stuart
University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States
Click to expand...

selfcritical said:
Links? or published article? I'm actually confused by that, as my understanding is that cancer cells typically had no functional mitochondria, which impaired their ability to use lipolysis as fuel, instead relying on glycogen and glutamine
Click to expand...

I have never heard that.

Hypoxic cells do utilize glutamine. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2011/cancer-metabolism-1121


Goto AACR.org program guide: Role of altered metabolism in cancer
Matthew G. Vander Heiden, MIT Koch
Institute for Integrated Cancer Research,
Cambridge, MA

http://webinar.sciencemag.org/files/slides/All%20slides_Cancer%20and%20Metabolism%20webinar_FINAL3_19apr12.pdf

Check out slide 23 and 25. A lot of the energy from the glutamine pathway is used for lipid synthesis. I think the comment was that if you are taking a lot of these oils, you may be cutting out some of the work for a proliferative tumor.
 
S. Rico said:
I'm not getting in the middle of this debate, I actually just have a question. I've been diagnosed with Osgood-Schlatters as a teen and now I'm a little bit older/after years of grappling, it's seems to have began to start bothering me again in my early 30s. Is it beneficial for me to continue taking fish oil? I get conflicting info via Google and you seem to have a good grasp on the subject.
Click to expand...

I'd say if fish oil manages your pain on par with NSAIDs, then why not? If you don't notice much of a difference in pain between taking it or not -- then I would pause to buy the next bottle of it.

n-3s are anti-inflammatory, similar to NSAIDs but work through different mechanisms. As you are probably aware NSAIDs are routinely taken in people with Osgood-Schlatters. There are no actual randomized control trials that have looked at this (particularly in adults)... that I know of - I could be wrong. So at this point it's at best a coin-flip if it works or not. You probably know this already, but definitely worry more about investing time in rehab and strengthening the knees - take it easy with everything else for a bit.

Starck said:
Is there really any reason to take fish oil supplements if your diet is already high in fish like salmon and tuna?
Click to expand...

I would say this definitely makes it obsolete. Fish consumption routinely matches or outperforms supplementation in measurable health outcomes.
 
Seriously-Dead said:
I'd say if fish oil manages your pain on par with NSAIDs, then why not? If you don't notice much of a difference in pain between taking it or not -- then I would pause to buy the next bottle of it.

n-3s are anti-inflammatory, similar to NSAIDs but work through different mechanisms. As you are probably aware NSAIDs are routinely taken in people with Osgood-Schlatters. There are no actual randomized control trials that have looked at this (particularly in adults)... that I know of - I could be wrong. So at this point it's at best a coin-flip if it works or not. You probably know this already, but definitely worry more about investing time in rehab and strengthening the knees - take it easy with everything else for a bit.
Click to expand...

At this point in life I'm not an active grappler but I do remain on my feet for a big portion of my job. I did tear my PCL and LCL (weird, I know) in 2010, which effectively ended my grappling career. My biggest issue is in the morning and the fish oil does seem to work a decent amount, whether it's a placebo effect or not. Thanks for the info, though.
 
therealdope said:
I have never heard that.

Hypoxic cells do utilize glutamine. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2011/cancer-metabolism-1121


Goto AACR.org program guide: Role of altered metabolism in cancer
Matthew G. Vander Heiden, MIT Koch
Institute for Integrated Cancer Research,
Cambridge, MA

http://webinar.sciencemag.org/files/slides/All%20slides_Cancer%20and%20Metabolism%20webinar_FINAL3_19apr12.pdf

Check out slide 23 and 25. A lot of the energy from the glutamine pathway is used for lipid synthesis. I think the comment was that if you are taking a lot of these oils, you may be cutting out some of the work for a proliferative tumor.
Click to expand...

Just do a youtube search Ketogenic cancer.
It will fill in all your blank spots.
Lots of seminar's outlining cell metabolism.
 
therealdope said:
NP, I just saw this guy speak at the recent cancer meeting (AACR).
Click to expand...

Many studies show the exact opposite though. Including people still alive after 4 years that had stage 3 cancer. And advanced brain tumours.

It is possible that both are true. All I know is my cysts aren't getting any bigger since going full Keto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SU2K6VJbDU

Here is one of the doctors in question. He states clearly that the lipid process in question requires the presence of Glycogen and Lactic acid. Keto depletes glycogen and relies on amino acid conversion to Glucose bypassing glycogen.

He does not touch on the topic that Mitochondria of cancer cells are damaged and have problems with lipid uptake.

The whole video screams of big pharma research dollars. There really isn't anything that is related to keto/cancer


Very few cells in the body require sugar as energy, and they require much less energy than cancer cells. You can get by with a very low protein and near zero carb diet that does starve and arrest cancer cells as evidence has shown. Might not be all inclusive but the evidence is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,260,386
Messages
57,025,493
Members
175,504
Latest member
Bekzod

Share this page

Back
Top