6 ms·

I get your joke but the concern he expresses is only relevant to the Omega-3. In the case of vitamin D, outside of sunlight exposure, supplements are basically

by ztjio 8y ago

I get your joke but the concern he expresses is only relevant to the Omega-3. In the case of vitamin D, outside of sunlight exposure, supplements are basically your only practical option. Furthermore, the foods mentioned often have it added (milk nearly always does) and so one would want to be aware of that before adding it further from another supplement. At worst, the paragraph is just a poorly constructed catch all warning. Bottom line is, get your Omega-3 from fish. Get your Vit D from the sun as much as you safely can and then from common sources before jumping to a separate supplement.

shard 8y ago
Here are my concerns with their statement: First, I recall warnings about too much fish consumption due to mercury levels in the fish. So how much fish consumption is necessary to get the required omega 3 and does the benefits balance out over the harm caused by the mercury? And are there any particular kinds of fish to consume to limit mercury exposure while getting the benefits of omega 3? Second, as far as I know juices are not too great for your health, all the sugars of a large amount of fruit in a quickly absorbable form without the fiber to slow it down. Consuming large amounts of juice might have been the trigger for diabetic conditions in a family member. Also, if I remember correctly, cereal had also been deemed not particularly healthy, although I don't recall the details.
- cies 8y ago
  > mercury levels in the fish Better not to eat fish at all, as one small bit of tuna (for instance) per week already increases the mercury build up in the body. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/ Also, you can get high DHA omega 3 supplements made from algae. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-epa-and-dha-omega-3-for-our-heart/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-epa-and-dha-...
  - speedplane 8y ago
    Tuna is nice and fancy (and expensive). Few eat it every day. Tilapia is cheap, sustainable, and has low mercury. I’m no nutritionist, but what’s the big deal with eating tuna every now and again, but mostly sticking to smaller fish?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Tuna is nice and fancy (and expensive). Few eat it every day. In which country? Tuna cans and tuna sandwiches and salads are some of the most popular foods in lots of countries. Nothing fancy (tuna is no lobster or caviar) or especially expensive about it. It's available as a Subway sandwich for dog's sake!
      - y4mi 8y ago
        you're talking about different things... fresh tuna is pretty expensive. its just the cans that are dirt cheap
        coldtea 8y ago
        I see. But you can get your precious oils (or mercury) from either, right?
        oAlbe 8y ago
        Not sure about the oils/omega-3, but the fish used to make the canned tuna is generally regarded as a much lower source of mercury compared to, say, the tuna used for sushi, and thus safer to eat.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Real tuna is delicious. Canned tuna is worse than pet food. (perhaps this explains the slip in your last sentence?) We probably shouldn't be eating tuna at all, for environmental reasons. GP's point that there are lots of non-apex-predator fish in both fresh and salt water still holds.
- cies 8y ago
  > Consuming large amounts of juice might have been the trigger for diabetic conditions in a family member. I believe this is only possible when on a diet that's >10cal% fat. When your fat intake is very low (like the fruit binging chimps/utangs/bonobos), and your cells are (thus) properly sensitive to insulin, you will not suffer from lots of sugar in fruit juice. Fibers help making it digest slower, and will reduce the blood sugar spike further, but the main thing is that your cells quickly absorb the blood sugar, for which proper insulin sensitivity is needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRbj3n-1CUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRbj3n-1CUM
  - speedplane 8y ago
    But why drink juice when you can have the full fruit/vegetable? There is way more fiber, you fill up faster, and often it tastes better.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Not to people used to adding tons of sugar and syrups in their "juices"
      - cies 8y ago
        That's not a juice anymore. Then I'd call it lemonade. :)
  - JanSt 8y ago
    Fructose does not raise blood sugar (!) but can lead to NAFLD. Bananas have a relatively low GI. Fat is not the enemy!
    - cies 8y ago
      > Fructose does not raise blood sugar (!) It does, but in the absence of fat (>10cal%) in the diet it does not raise it in a significant way. > but can lead to NAFLD Do you have a source for that? Here a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the ways NAFLD can come about. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent-non-alcoholic-fatty...
- ztjio 8y ago
  You bring a lot of concerns with very little facts or data to back it up. You should do the research on all of these things because every single one is a case of nuances. First, fish consumption mercury concerns are mainly relevant with large fish. So stick to smaller fish like salmon, or, if you want the biggest bang for your mercury buck, the healthiest fish to eat is actually anchovies. And frankly if you learn to prepare them right, they are delicious. Regarding juice, you don't need to drink much juice to get a vitamin D boost. First of all, at least around here, the only juice you typically see with it is orange juice. A glass of OJ a day with an otherwise recommended diet isn't going to give you any problems unless you have an allergy or something. Actually a glass of OJ without supplements is not a bad idea as many popular "healthy" diets lack citrus which is important for numerous reasons. But the key here is quantity. It's true, lots of juice is associated with bad health outcomes. Just stick to a max of 1 cup (~230ml) a day, and be sure to get sufficient fiber. I'd always eat something with 5+ grams of fiber along with my OJ. That said, if you prefer you could always just drink milk or take a supplement. Or go outside. I get my Vit D by going outside. I drink OJ daily because there's very little citrus in my diet otherwise. Plus I like it. It balances my black coffee nicely. Cereal, again, depends entirely on what you're eating as well as culturally what you even consider cereal to be. There is a near infinite range of foods called cereal with highly varying degrees of nutrition. I personally wouldn't rely on cereal for nutrition. The nutrient rich cereals on the shelf at the store are basically typical low nutrition grains with a ton of added vitamins. You may as well take a multivitamin. The importance of mentioning cereal is that they already have many added nutrients so you should be paying attention to what you are ALREADY getting before choosing to add a supplement. Honestly, all of these things are VALID concerns, but, your whole post is an exercise in modern blanket nutritional and health guidance. In short, blanket health guidance is crap. For any blanket guidance you encounter, even scientifically support guidance, you are going to have a plethora of nuances that undermine it. Just take the "avoid carbs" advice so popular today. Turns out the healthiest people get about 50% of their daily caloric intake from carbs. But it's the KIND of carbs, and the combination of other factors that matter the most. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/74608 https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/74608 In another recent study it was found the Japan's oldest and most healthy elderly people lived on 80% calories from sweet potatoes, ate hardly any rice, and small amounts of meat/fish. Sweet potatoes are extremely nutritious so I'm not surprised. The carbs are mostly complex as well. That's pretty important. Point is, be sure to understand the details or you'll end up blanket statement-ing yourself out of every good thing this life has to offer.
- perlpimp 8y ago
  to that effect, Tony Robbins was exclusively eating fish and ended up with advanced neurodegenration (due to heavy metal poisoning) had to go on chelation etc.
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  > And are there any particular kinds of fish to consume to limit mercury exposure while getting the benefits of omega 3? Mercury bioaccumulates in the ecosystem. That means higher levels in fish that eat fish, and highest levels in fish that eat fish that eat fish. It also accumulates over a lifetime, so longer lived fish have higher levels. Farmed fish (in this US mostly tilapia and salmon) have other issues, but mercury isn't a generally concern. For wild fish, the small ones--anchovies, herring, sardines--are low in mercury, along with catfish, pollock, shad, and haddock. The worst for mercury that are widely eaten are tuna (sushi or steak grade, the species they used for canned tuna aren't as bad), certain types of mackerel, and grouper.
  - scrollbar 8y ago
    > Farmed fish (in this US mostly tilapia and salmon) have other issues, but mercury isn't a generally concern. I'm an amateur Bay Area fisherman, so as someone eating fish out of the Bay, am often studying up on mercury and PCB levels in species. My understanding is this is not true- farmed salmon are often fed baitfish meal (sardine/anchovy etc). They eat orders of magnitude higher quantities of these fish than they would in the wild, so they bioaccumulate more toxins than they would outside the farm. Let me see if I can find a source. Some quick googling returns sources supporting both sides, so I'd take either position with a grain of salt.

by ztjio 8y ago

shard 8y ago

Here are my concerns with their statement: First, I recall warnings about too much fish consumption due to mercury levels in the fish. So how much fish consumption is necessary to get the required omega 3 and does the benefits balance out over the harm caused by the mercury? And are there any particular kinds of fish to consume to limit mercury exposure while getting the benefits of omega 3? Second, as far as I know juices are not too great for your health, all the sugars of a large amount of fruit in a quickly absorbable form without the fiber to slow it down. Consuming large amounts of juice might have been the trigger for diabetic conditions in a family member. Also, if I remember correctly, cereal had also been deemed not particularly healthy, although I don't recall the details.

cies 8y ago
> mercury levels in the fish Better not to eat fish at all, as one small bit of tuna (for instance) per week already increases the mercury build up in the body. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/ Also, you can get high DHA omega 3 supplements made from algae. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-epa-and-dha-omega-3-for-our-heart/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-epa-and-dha-...
- speedplane 8y ago
  Tuna is nice and fancy (and expensive). Few eat it every day. Tilapia is cheap, sustainable, and has low mercury. I’m no nutritionist, but what’s the big deal with eating tuna every now and again, but mostly sticking to smaller fish?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Tuna is nice and fancy (and expensive). Few eat it every day. In which country? Tuna cans and tuna sandwiches and salads are some of the most popular foods in lots of countries. Nothing fancy (tuna is no lobster or caviar) or especially expensive about it. It's available as a Subway sandwich for dog's sake!
    - y4mi 8y ago
      you're talking about different things... fresh tuna is pretty expensive. its just the cans that are dirt cheap
      - coldtea 8y ago
        I see. But you can get your precious oils (or mercury) from either, right?
        oAlbe 8y ago
        Not sure about the oils/omega-3, but the fish used to make the canned tuna is generally regarded as a much lower source of mercury compared to, say, the tuna used for sushi, and thus safer to eat.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Real tuna is delicious. Canned tuna is worse than pet food. (perhaps this explains the slip in your last sentence?) We probably shouldn't be eating tuna at all, for environmental reasons. GP's point that there are lots of non-apex-predator fish in both fresh and salt water still holds.
cies 8y ago
> Consuming large amounts of juice might have been the trigger for diabetic conditions in a family member. I believe this is only possible when on a diet that's >10cal% fat. When your fat intake is very low (like the fruit binging chimps/utangs/bonobos), and your cells are (thus) properly sensitive to insulin, you will not suffer from lots of sugar in fruit juice. Fibers help making it digest slower, and will reduce the blood sugar spike further, but the main thing is that your cells quickly absorb the blood sugar, for which proper insulin sensitivity is needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRbj3n-1CUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRbj3n-1CUM
- speedplane 8y ago
  But why drink juice when you can have the full fruit/vegetable? There is way more fiber, you fill up faster, and often it tastes better.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Not to people used to adding tons of sugar and syrups in their "juices"
    - cies 8y ago
      That's not a juice anymore. Then I'd call it lemonade. :)
- JanSt 8y ago
  Fructose does not raise blood sugar (!) but can lead to NAFLD. Bananas have a relatively low GI. Fat is not the enemy!
  - cies 8y ago
    > Fructose does not raise blood sugar (!) It does, but in the absence of fat (>10cal%) in the diet it does not raise it in a significant way. > but can lead to NAFLD Do you have a source for that? Here a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the ways NAFLD can come about. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent-non-alcoholic-fatty...
ztjio 8y ago
You bring a lot of concerns with very little facts or data to back it up. You should do the research on all of these things because every single one is a case of nuances. First, fish consumption mercury concerns are mainly relevant with large fish. So stick to smaller fish like salmon, or, if you want the biggest bang for your mercury buck, the healthiest fish to eat is actually anchovies. And frankly if you learn to prepare them right, they are delicious. Regarding juice, you don't need to drink much juice to get a vitamin D boost. First of all, at least around here, the only juice you typically see with it is orange juice. A glass of OJ a day with an otherwise recommended diet isn't going to give you any problems unless you have an allergy or something. Actually a glass of OJ without supplements is not a bad idea as many popular "healthy" diets lack citrus which is important for numerous reasons. But the key here is quantity. It's true, lots of juice is associated with bad health outcomes. Just stick to a max of 1 cup (~230ml) a day, and be sure to get sufficient fiber. I'd always eat something with 5+ grams of fiber along with my OJ. That said, if you prefer you could always just drink milk or take a supplement. Or go outside. I get my Vit D by going outside. I drink OJ daily because there's very little citrus in my diet otherwise. Plus I like it. It balances my black coffee nicely. Cereal, again, depends entirely on what you're eating as well as culturally what you even consider cereal to be. There is a near infinite range of foods called cereal with highly varying degrees of nutrition. I personally wouldn't rely on cereal for nutrition. The nutrient rich cereals on the shelf at the store are basically typical low nutrition grains with a ton of added vitamins. You may as well take a multivitamin. The importance of mentioning cereal is that they already have many added nutrients so you should be paying attention to what you are ALREADY getting before choosing to add a supplement. Honestly, all of these things are VALID concerns, but, your whole post is an exercise in modern blanket nutritional and health guidance. In short, blanket health guidance is crap. For any blanket guidance you encounter, even scientifically support guidance, you are going to have a plethora of nuances that undermine it. Just take the "avoid carbs" advice so popular today. Turns out the healthiest people get about 50% of their daily caloric intake from carbs. But it's the KIND of carbs, and the combination of other factors that matter the most. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/74608 https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/74608 In another recent study it was found the Japan's oldest and most healthy elderly people lived on 80% calories from sweet potatoes, ate hardly any rice, and small amounts of meat/fish. Sweet potatoes are extremely nutritious so I'm not surprised. The carbs are mostly complex as well. That's pretty important. Point is, be sure to understand the details or you'll end up blanket statement-ing yourself out of every good thing this life has to offer.
perlpimp 8y ago
to that effect, Tony Robbins was exclusively eating fish and ended up with advanced neurodegenration (due to heavy metal poisoning) had to go on chelation etc.
bradleyjg 8y ago
> And are there any particular kinds of fish to consume to limit mercury exposure while getting the benefits of omega 3? Mercury bioaccumulates in the ecosystem. That means higher levels in fish that eat fish, and highest levels in fish that eat fish that eat fish. It also accumulates over a lifetime, so longer lived fish have higher levels. Farmed fish (in this US mostly tilapia and salmon) have other issues, but mercury isn't a generally concern. For wild fish, the small ones--anchovies, herring, sardines--are low in mercury, along with catfish, pollock, shad, and haddock. The worst for mercury that are widely eaten are tuna (sushi or steak grade, the species they used for canned tuna aren't as bad), certain types of mackerel, and grouper.
- scrollbar 8y ago
  > Farmed fish (in this US mostly tilapia and salmon) have other issues, but mercury isn't a generally concern. I'm an amateur Bay Area fisherman, so as someone eating fish out of the Bay, am often studying up on mercury and PCB levels in species. My understanding is this is not true- farmed salmon are often fed baitfish meal (sardine/anchovy etc). They eat orders of magnitude higher quantities of these fish than they would in the wild, so they bioaccumulate more toxins than they would outside the farm. Let me see if I can find a source. Some quick googling returns sources supporting both sides, so I'd take either position with a grain of salt.