5 ms·

Does the consumption of fish matter? It seems like the linked article encourages consumption of more Omega-3. Also, I'm generally confused by Omega-3 studies a

by afpx 10y ago

Does the consumption of fish matter? It seems like the linked article encourages consumption of more Omega-3. Also, I'm generally confused by Omega-3 studies anyway (I'm not a scientist). In the early 2000's lots of research came out linking Omega-3 to health. But, then more recently, I thought that Meta analysis studies showed no relationship. (Could someone explain like I'm five?) [0] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1357266 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/135726...

JohnJamesRambo 10y ago
The article you linked is about supplementing Omega 3. Many times in science we isolate out the one thing we think that is causing the health benefit and supplement more of it. Usually we don't find the result we are looking for. Food is a very complex item and it could be many factors and they all need to be present together to get the effect. Lycopene supplementation doesn't seem to have the health benefits seen with eating tomatoes, etc., etc.
- ranit 10y ago
  So true and still consistently ignored by a lot of scientists. Especially these working for (or getting grands from) pharmaceutical industry.
- criddell 10y ago
  That's not really an indictment of the scientific method though. So isolated lycopene isn't as good as eating a tomato. Surely there are scientists that are iterating on that, trying to find the combination of compounds that does give the desired outcome, right?
  - darkmighty 10y ago
    That wasn't a critique on science, just noting that the simplest approach (trying to pin down health benefits to a single substance) doesn't work well in this case. It's a good idea to start with the simplest hypothesis; if that is rejected you move to more complex ones. In that case multiple substances are probably acting non-independently in our physiology, thus your experiments need to accommodate that.
  - rdlecler1 10y ago
    There may be other factors, or the form it is delivered in which creates the bioavailability. It's not always additive.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
pharrlax 10y ago
The best evidence available currently (See: https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/ https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/ ) points to an optimal 1:1 ratio between omega-3 and omega-6 consumption. Since eggs and many other meats are richer in omega-6 fatty acids, for most people eating more fish or supplementing with fish oil helps balance omega-3 and omega-6.
- cgh 10y ago
  The most concentrated sources of omega 6 fatty acids are actually plants and especially manufactured plant oils, eg sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. Meat and eggs have some but they also have considerable omega 3s to balance things out. It's best to avoid plant oils except for olive oil and coconut oil. Stick with butter, tallow and so forth, all great sources of balanced fatty acids.
  - abandonliberty 10y ago
    The dose in meat is several orders of magnitude smaller, so you can almost ignore the effect on your dietary 3:6 ratio.

by afpx 10y ago

JohnJamesRambo 10y ago

The article you linked is about supplementing Omega 3. Many times in science we isolate out the one thing we think that is causing the health benefit and supplement more of it. Usually we don't find the result we are looking for. Food is a very complex item and it could be many factors and they all need to be present together to get the effect. Lycopene supplementation doesn't seem to have the health benefits seen with eating tomatoes, etc., etc.

ranit 10y ago
So true and still consistently ignored by a lot of scientists. Especially these working for (or getting grands from) pharmaceutical industry.
criddell 10y ago
That's not really an indictment of the scientific method though. So isolated lycopene isn't as good as eating a tomato. Surely there are scientists that are iterating on that, trying to find the combination of compounds that does give the desired outcome, right?
- darkmighty 10y ago
  That wasn't a critique on science, just noting that the simplest approach (trying to pin down health benefits to a single substance) doesn't work well in this case. It's a good idea to start with the simplest hypothesis; if that is rejected you move to more complex ones. In that case multiple substances are probably acting non-independently in our physiology, thus your experiments need to accommodate that.
- rdlecler1 10y ago
  There may be other factors, or the form it is delivered in which creates the bioavailability. It's not always additive.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

pharrlax 10y ago

The best evidence available currently (See: https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/ https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/ ) points to an optimal 1:1 ratio between omega-3 and omega-6 consumption. Since eggs and many other meats are richer in omega-6 fatty acids, for most people eating more fish or supplementing with fish oil helps balance omega-3 and omega-6.

cgh 10y ago
The most concentrated sources of omega 6 fatty acids are actually plants and especially manufactured plant oils, eg sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. Meat and eggs have some but they also have considerable omega 3s to balance things out. It's best to avoid plant oils except for olive oil and coconut oil. Stick with butter, tallow and so forth, all great sources of balanced fatty acids.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  The dose in meat is several orders of magnitude smaller, so you can almost ignore the effect on your dietary 3:6 ratio.