Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 129

Thread: fish oil

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    3,586
    Quote Originally Posted by EmassSpicoli View Post
    The FDA doesn't regulate supplements so when you hear anecdotal reports that "such and such is a waste of money" it's only one person's ignorant mouth spewing rubbish and they may have also got a way underdosed supp.
    Not really. In the case of fish oil, which is the topic of this thread, the Omega-3 isn't absorbed into your body. This is proven in real controlled studies, not by the FDA. Just because the FDA doesn't regulate it, doesn't mean it hasn't been scientifically studied and tested.
    Fish oil supplements a waste a money, if you are looking for the benefits of the Omega-3.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    Not really. In the case of fish oil, which is the topic of this thread, the Omega-3 isn't absorbed into your body. This is proven in real controlled studies, not by the FDA. Just because the FDA doesn't regulate it, doesn't mean it hasn't been scientifically studied and tested.
    Fish oil supplements a waste a money, if you are looking for the benefits of the Omega-3.
    Brah, it was a general statement across all supps that is quite true. The thread veered to lots of supps/diet, so let's remember how welcoming a thread titled "hello" can be on SI

    There's no governing body to regulate non-scheduled substances and non-foods, therefore any company can go undeterred in putting out a bunk supp that may not have much supp at all. The pseudo-quote I used represented average Joe Blow expecting a supp to rock his world and then bad-mouthing it when it did not. I'm all for primary research being done on supps. Link the citations to the studies you mention and I'll enjoy reading them, since so little primary data exists in this realm.

    I'll ask though, who funded those studies and was the methodology in any way geared to a certain result? Those familiar with the political economy of medicine and food/nutrition know well that any "study" can be skewed to a certain "conclusion" and have it stamped by a couple MD's and PhD's that walk away full-pocketed. Now, when its in AJM or NEJM, I'll take it more religiously. Not shotting down any support of your anti-fish oil claim, and actually stoked to see journal citations if you pull any up.

  3. #53
    Here's one:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19465191/

    Reputable journal there and PubMed/LexisNexis searches will give you those. Always got to read the full text and not go by an abstract. Lets you double check the authors' accuracy and sometimes you see their true motives.

    I'm right there with you on the whole food fish consumption over throwing back handfuls of oily gel caps. I'm at 4-5lbs of fish a week. Right OTB. Love it.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    3,586
    Quote Originally Posted by EmassSpicoli View Post
    Brah, it was a general statement across all supps that is quite true. The thread veered to lots of supps/diet, so let's remember how welcoming a thread titled "hello" can be on SI

    There's no governing body to regulate non-scheduled substances and non-foods, therefore any company can go undeterred in putting out a bunk supp that may not have much supp at all. The pseudo-quote I used represented average Joe Blow expecting a supp to rock his world and then bad-mouthing it when it did not. I'm all for primary research being done on supps. Link the citations to the studies you mention and I'll enjoy reading them, since so little primary data exists in this realm.

    I'll ask though, who funded those studies and was the methodology in any way geared to a certain result? Those familiar with the political economy of medicine and food/nutrition know well that any "study" can be skewed to a certain "conclusion" and have it stamped by a couple MD's and PhD's that walk away full-pocketed. Now, when its in AJM or NEJM, I'll take it more religiously. Not shotting down any support of your anti-fish oil claim, and actually stoked to see journal citations if you pull any up.
    In the case of fish oil, there are several studies out there. Here is an article about a study done in Italy on limitations of fish oil in general: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...tacks/2145431/

    Here is the one I posted earlier:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891
    The second one is not directly looking at supplements, but there were tested. It shows low absorption compared to consuming fish.
    Last edited by brewengineer; Oct 24, 2013 at 10:49 AM.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    In the case of fish oil, there are several studies out there. Here is an article about a study done in Italy on limitations of fish oil in general:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...tacks/2145431/
    The study was certainly not general, since most of the subjects were high risk cases who were already taking medication.

    ""They're very high-risk people, and so the level of other treatments was very high," Arnett said. "When you're being aggressively treated for all of your other risk factors, adding fish oil yielded no additional benefits."

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    3,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Stuart View Post
    The study was certainly not general, since most of the subjects were high risk cases who were already taking medication.

    ""They're very high-risk people, and so the level of other treatments was very high," Arnett said. "When you're being aggressively treated for all of your other risk factors, adding fish oil yielded no additional benefits."
    It is relevant if you rely on fish oil as a way to save your heart. Besides, I posted the second study for a better overview of omega-3 and health benefits (or in the case of pills, the lack of benefits). I already said there are benefits in eating fish a couple times a week.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    It is relevant if you rely on fish oil as a way to save your heart.
    Absolutely not, since the study concentrated on those who were using heart medication, how can these people be said to be relying on fish oil to save their hearts?

    If they were doing so they wouldn't be taking heart medication.



    Besides, I posted the second study for a better overview of omega-3 and health benefits (or in the case of pills, the lack of benefits).
    Is there such a thing as omega 3 in pill form?

    I thought that it usually came in capsules or in a bottle.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    3,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Stuart View Post
    Absolutely not, since the study concentrated on those who were using heart medication, how can these people be said to be relying on fish oil to save their hearts?

    If they were doing so they wouldn't be taking heart medication.




    Is there such a thing as omega 3 in pill form?

    I thought that it usually came in capsules or in a bottle.
    Gel tabs=fish oil supplements=pills. Dats how we do in Merca.

  9. #59
    You missed the main point in my post , which pointed out the fatal logical error in your argument.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    3,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Stuart View Post
    You missed the main point in my post , which pointed out the fatal logical error in your argument.
    My argument is that supplements, specifically fish oil, does not work to provide omega-3 to your body. It is just passed through and not absorbed. You are better off eating fish.