7 ms·
I think it's easy to take algal-based omega-3 supplements. They've gotten pretty good in the last couple years with gummies with a high dose and no algae test.
by Faelon 8mo ago
I think it's easy to take algal-based omega-3 supplements. They've gotten pretty good in the last couple years with gummies with a high dose and no algae test. And no fish killed!
- dotancohen 8mo agoI evolved to eat fish and meat killed. So did all other carnivores. I'm happy to continue eating and shitting and sleeping and having sex, I don't want supplements to replace food and AI to replace intellect and IVF to replace sex. I want to be alive.
- niek_pas 8mo agoYou also evolved to nearly choke to death when you accidentally eat and breathe at the same time. Doesn’t mean it’s desirable.
- mlekoszek 8mo agoAt least we can talk about it.
- wang_li 8mo ago“Evolution” is not a sound basis for most choices. We didn’t evolve to wear shoes, live in houses, to use powerful cleaning agents, indoor plumbing, decontaminated water, refrigeration, and pretty much all modern medicine, among about every other thing that is part of modern life.
- cluckindan 8mo agoReject modernity, embrace nomadic life in the forests.
- Propelloni 8mo agoPreach it. I, for one, welcome my caveman dentist!
- dymk 8mo agoYou are not living in the body of a carnivore Eat some berries and nuts "Paleo" diet doesn't even include that much meat in it
- CalRobert 8mo agoOk, but evolution didn’t get us somewhere over 8 billion people can share this planet.
- staticassertion 8mo agoThis feels like a series of completely disconnected statements. The underlying theme seems to be that "living" is something that can only be realized by isolating behaviors to those that developed under specific niche conditions that applied pressure to our ancestors, and that this is good, and that deviating is bad. The word "living" and "alive" seems to be a proxy word for something like "happy" or "fulfilled"? So many hoops to jump through to understand what the hell you're talking about, just to land on what could charitably be called the dumbest thing I'll read today if I'm lucky.
- Insanity 8mo agoOur species started out predominantly eating fruits, vegetables, nuts,.. As hunter gatherers, meat eating came later and initially was still not a dominant source of nutrition. So yes, you eventually evolved for this, but it wasn’t the dominant food source for a loooooong time.
- Antipode 8mo agoAlso likely insects.
- konart 8mo agoOur species started out predominantly eating whatever was available. During different points of time the ration was very different. From "mostly nuts" to "mostly fish".
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Insanity 8mo agoYes, but more likely insects as first small “animals”. Hunting animals takes more effort than eating fruits etc. I know it’s all vague delineation of where our species really started, and at which point you would no longer consider it the homo line, but for a significant part of history we were a small predator that would eat whatever was _easily_ available. Hunting animals is not easy and it’s a risky endeavour. I’m not saying meat wasn’t part of our diet obviously, but it logically wouldn’t have been as dominant a part of our diet as it is today.
- adrian_b 8mo agoThe most likely hypothesis about how humans have become the most efficient hunters of the planet does not pass through catching insects and very small animals, but through eating the remains of the big prey killed by carnivores. There are various bits of evidence for this, like the higher stomach acidity of humans, which resembles that of carrion eaters, like hyenas. It is plausible that the ability to throw sticks and stones was used initially for scaring other predators and make them abandon their prey, and only later, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, it became accurate enough to be usable for hunting living animals. The ability to use stones to break the bones and eat the parts inaccessible for the carnivores who had killed the prey, i.e. marrow and brain, which are rich in hard to get nutrients, e.g. omega-3 fatty acids, is also presumed to have played an important role in the development of a bigger and bigger brain. It is likely that the gangs of humans acted in a very similar way with the packs of hyenas, which acquire much of their food by scaring away from their prey the other predators, e.g. cheetahs, wild dogs, leopards and even lions. Moreover, similarly to humans, the most important ability of hyenas is not speed, but endurance when pursuing a possible prey that is tired or weakened, e.g. by wounds. While hyenas rely on their big teeth to chase the other predators, humans have relied on their ability to throw things at a distance, for the same purpose. While humans are quite bad at running, jumping, climbing or swimming, in comparison with most mammals, their throwing ability is unmatched by any other animal.
- boston_clone 8mo agoYou are not a carnivore, neither is any other human.
- amanaplanacanal 8mo agoPlenty do, though. Just like there are plenty of vegans. And plenty that live on junk food.
- bluGill 8mo agoI don't know anyone who claims that. Humans are omnivores is the most common claim - that is eat a mix of meat and vegitables.
- Faelon 8mo agoThis is orthogonal to the main point which is that just because we are capable of eating something doesn't provide a moral justification for eating something. It is extremely clear from data and example that it's possible and actually easy to live a happy life on a plant-based diet. This means that eating meat is a choice, and many would say it is an overwhelmingly cruel choice.
- Saline9515 8mo agoMorality is a relative and personal thing. It is also very clear from data that you can live a good life while eating quality animal products. Some may prefer to do it for personal pleasure, but also ease of life, or cost, which allows them to have time for things that they believe are also moral. Such as taking care of their children, working, and so on.
- boston_clone 8mo agoThe commenter I'm replying to implicitly made that claim: > [...] So did all other carnivores
- Faelon 8mo agoAbstaining from killing animals is about the sober realization that we can have perfectly healthy and happy lives without killing animals, who have feelings and a sense of perspective and experience, just like us. Living with my values and actions as one give me a strong sense of life, and I love cooking every day. Plants taste great when cooked well!
- dotancohen 8mo ago> Abstaining from killing animals is about the sober realization that we can have perfectly healthy and happy lives without killing animals, Maybe, maybe not. If one is lacking a hobby and happy to spend much time learning and obsessing and fiddling with what they eat, while accepting that they may be missing some vital things that we don't yet know about, then sure. But I have enough hobbies and I don't want to risk missing some things we don't yet know about. I just eat what I evolved to eat.
- girvo 8mo ago> I just eat what I evolved to eat So do I: plants!
- bluGill 8mo agoI'm an omnivore. all meat or no meat is not what i'm evolved to eat. Perhaps I eat too much meat, but zero meat isn't the right answer.
- Faelon 8mo agoJust because you evolved to do something doesn't provide a moral justification to do that thing. Whether you evolved to or not, animals suffer extraordinarily in the farms of torture we've made for them. It is well accepted that you can eat healthily on a vegan diet, and it would only really take a couple articles to figure out how to have a healthy plant-based diet. You could do it at Walmart.
- Braxton1980 8mo ago>, I don't want supplements to replace food and AI to replace intellect and IVF to replace sex. I want to be alive No one is pushing for these changes you suggest and to take a stance suggests a social disorder or mental illness.
- BobaFloutist 8mo agoI evolved to shit outdoors, bathe in cold water, sleep on the ground, and die without having traveled more than at most a couple of hundreds of miles from my birthplace but I refuse to be limited by the capacities of a glorified ape without language, culture, or understanding of the interiority of others, not to mention indoor plumbing.
- dotancohen 8mo agoWell actually I still prefer to shit outdoors and bathe in cold water. https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/34403 https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/34403
- BobaFloutist 8mo agoThat would I assume preclude taking a shower for 3-4 months of the year in some climates? Especially since we didn't evolve with indoor heating either. Or indoors at all, for that matter.
- cultofmetatron 8mo agoare they artificially converting the ALA to DHA? we treat omega3 like they are all one bucket but theres a big difference.
- wang_li 8mo agoGo find one that is IFOS certified.
- Faelon 8mo agoAlgal omega 3 is the exact same omega3 in fish. This isn't a product endorsement, but you can see an example here: https://www.amazon.com/GparkNature-Supplements-Supplement-Turmeric-Vitamins/dp/B0FL86D4Z6 https://www.amazon.com/GparkNature-Supplements-Supplement-Tu...
- deeth_starr_v 8mo agoAlgal ALA has a different chemical makeup https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/ https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthPro... Edit: I think you mean Algae (which is EPA) Edit2: My mistake, I read Algal as ALA rather than Algae (algal)
- adrian_b 8mo agoThe "algal" omega-3 is not extracted from any algae, but it is extracted from certain cultivated strains of a fungus-like organism, Schizochytrium. The cultivated strains have been selected and/or genetically engineered to have enhanced production of certain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. The composition of an "algal" oil ("algal" is the adjective derived from "alga", "algae" is the plural of "alga") depends on the particular strain that the vendor has used in production. The first cultivated strains produced only DHA, but in recent years most vendors use strains that allow them to sell oil that has a mixture 2:1 of DHA and EPA, with minor quantities of other long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.
- tbossanova 8mo ago
- adrian_b 8mo agoSchizochytrium oil with DHA and EPA, which is sold as "algal" omega-3, for a lack of a correct word that could be understood by the general population (Schizochytrium is not an alga), is very good and no fish are killed for it. Nevertheless, it remains at least 3 times more expensive than a fish oil, e.g. cod liver oil (I mean price per content of omega-3 fatty acids, not per volume; when not diluted to fool the customers, "algal" oil has a double concentration in comparison with fish oil, i.e. 5 mL of "algal" oil are equivalent with 10 mL of fish oil). Taking daily a decent dose of "algal" oil can be more expensive than the daily protein intake required by a human, if that is taken from cheap sources (e.g. legumes and chicken meat). Allocating a major part of the budget for food to a supplement taken in minute quantities seems excessive. I am not aware of any serious reason for the high cost of "algal" oil. A decade ago, it was much more expensive, e.g. 8 times or more in comparison with cod liver oil. Then the price has dropped to 3 times, and then it has diminished no more, remaining at 3 times for 5 years or more. I believe that it should be possible to further reduce the cost of "algal" oil to make it an acceptable substitute for fish oil, but it seems that the producers are content with their niche market of rich vegans and they do not make any effort to reduce the cost in order to enlarge their market. I have taken occasionally "algal" oil, to test it, but as long as it remains a luxury food I cannot use it to replace the cod liver oil that I am taking regularly, despite desiring to do so.
- Faelon 8mo agoI think that it is a health tax, as many things are. For what it's worth, it costs me 50 cents a day. I'm not sure what semantics about it not being a "true" algae has to do with anything, though. If it's a protist or an algae, I'm not sure what that information does other than muddy the waters for people forming an opinion on non-animal based omegas.
- adrian_b 8mo agoIf you consume "algal" oil of 50 cents per day, that must be some kind of capsule with a small amount of oil, e.g. a few hundred mg of DHA+EPA. This is much better than nothing, but it is far from a daily intake comparable to that of the populations who live in places with access to cheap sea fish, where such fish are a significant fraction of their food (e.g. Japan). If your target is to match the diet of such populations, that means e.g. 5 mL per day of non-diluted "algal" oil, i.e. a teaspoon of such oil (or 10 mL of fish oil), which contains around 2 grams of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That would be much more expensive when using "algal" oil, at least judging after the prices seen e.g. on Amazon. In order to not scare the customers, many sources of "algal" oil have a similar price with fish oil, but only because they contain much less omega-3 fatty acids per capsule. If you read the fine print, then you discover the true price ratio.
- Aurornis 8mo ago> They've gotten pretty good in the last couple years with gummies with a high dose and no algae test Gummy supplements are questionable, especially for supplements that can have strong flavors and odors by themselves. If you’re taking algal based gummies and thinking they taste good, they likely either have very little omega-3 or the ingredients have been so heavily processed that I’d start questioning if the omega-3 survived the processing
- codebje 8mo agoIf your supplements are in gummy form there's a high likelihood animals were killed for gelatin, FYI.
- Faelon 8mo agoDon't worry- I always check
- SubNoize 8mo agoCan you suggest any?
- culi 8mo agoConsumerlab is great for this. They test for heavy metal content and accuracy of nutrition labels. They've only tested 4 algae-based ones and they all passed. Carlson, DEVA, and Ovega are the brands they looked at (two from Carlson) with DEVA being their "top pick"