3 ms·

What’s missing from this is how much omega 3 containing food, how often you need to get this protective result. Do I need to eat fish twice a week? 5 times? Do

What’s missing from this is how much omega 3 containing food, how often you need to get this protective result. Do I need to eat fish twice a week? 5 times? Do I need to supplement because there is no way to eat enough fish? Would love some practical guidance tacked on to this

boston_clone 8mo ago
I like to get my omegas from the following sources, no fish needed! - hemp hearts (complete protein, goes best with oatmeal for breakfast, on salads, or in soups for an extra bit of nutty / fatty flavor) - pumpkin seeds (also good source of iron, iirc) - algae-based supplement (currently taking an omega3 + vit D + vit K combo capsule from nordic naturals)
- Finnucane 8mo ago
  Note that one of the authors received funding from Big Walnut.
- CWIZO 8mo ago
  It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
  - cogman10 8mo ago
    Fish metabolize and concentrate the oil. Cows eat grass for protein, we can't really skip the middle man and eat grass to get protein. I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't be unusual for there to be benefit from getting omega 3 from fish rather than algea because of something like this. AFAIK, we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish.
    - boston_clone 8mo ago
      like most nutrients, you can weigh them. for example, you can tell exactly how much protein is in 100g of a complete protein like tofu when compared to 100g of something gross like beef. similarly, my algae-based capsules contain 1210 mg of omega3s per serving, with 660mg of EPA and 440 of DHA. > we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish nope, this study describes consumption of omega3s, not fish per se.
  - goodpoint 8mo ago
    Fish contains a lot of microplastics. Algae-based omega oils do not.
svara 8mo ago
It's really unclear unfortunately. The correlative effect is quite clear, i.e people who have high omega 3 levels (eat a lot of fish) have health benefits. But in random controlled trials Omega 3 supplements have not had convincing effects. It might be because the supplements aren't very good, or because there's actually something completely different going on, like fish displaces less healthy foods from the diet.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- darkerside 8mo ago
  I wonder about cultural and ethnic confounding factors
- MarkMarine 8mo ago
  what is "a lot of fish" in this context? Sushi for lunch every day? Thanks for engaging with this in a helpful way.
  - ifwinterco 8mo ago
    Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, herring) has quite large amounts. Some people aim for huge amounts of EPA/DHA but I don't think there's really much evidence that you need 3g/day or whatever the latest broscience is. Mackerel is particularly high although it doesn't taste great to me compared to salmon, 100g of mackerel has ~4g of EPA/DHA so eating that a couple of times a week is probably more than enough. Also there is some (although much less) in white fish, there can be significant amounts in shellfish, and tinned tuna has a surprisingly high amount. So all of that adds up if you eat those as well
    - apothegm 8mo ago
      Sardines, too, which are also fishier than salmon but tend not to be salted the way mackerel is. Unless you’re also consuming all the oil from the can, prefer fish canned in water to canned in oil — because apparently the omega-3s can leach out into oil, but they’re not water-soluble. Btw, trout is also up there (though not as high as salmon) and is a lovely mild-flavored fish.
cromka 8mo ago
What's also interesting that some recent studies show eating eggs every day actually is harmful, most likely due to the Omega3 to Omega6 ratio. So here we go again. First it was cholesterol, which was then rebutted, so people (myself included) started eating eggs every day. And now this. You can't win!
- mixmastamyk 8mo ago
  Well, don’t eat the same things every day.
  - cromka 8mo ago
    Like bread? Or olive oil? Or Avocado? Or nuts?
- KempyKolibri 8mo ago
  As I understand it there's no good evidence that n3:n6 ratio matters, _as long as both are at adequate levels_. Studies showing the ratio to be of concern achieve a "low n3:n6 ratio" by low n3, rather than high n6. Eggs are believed to lead to adverse outcomes because of: 1. Their high cholesterol content. 2. Their SFA content. I'm not sure what you mean by cholesterol being rebutted. The only thing like that I'm really aware of is the dietary guidelines de-prioritising dietary cholesterol, but that decision was made because when making DGs, people want to focus on the biggest levers we can pull. Dietary cholesterol _does_ have a negative impact on health, but it also has a threshold effect at around 400mg/d after which it has considerably less impact (unless you're part of the ~20% of the population who are "cholesterol hyper responders"). Because most people eating a SAD are already at that threshold, the decision was made to take dietary cholesterol off the headline recommendations, but if you read the details in the DGs and the meta-analyses that drive them, they still point to lowering dietary cholesterol as a smart health move. I frequently see this change portrayed as "no longer recommending the lowering of dietary cholesterol" or "admitting they were wrong about dietary cholesterol", but that's not really what happened.
  - cromka 8mo ago

boston_clone 8mo ago

I like to get my omegas from the following sources, no fish needed! - hemp hearts (complete protein, goes best with oatmeal for breakfast, on salads, or in soups for an extra bit of nutty / fatty flavor) - pumpkin seeds (also good source of iron, iirc) - algae-based supplement (currently taking an omega3 + vit D + vit K combo capsule from nordic naturals)

Finnucane 8mo ago
Note that one of the authors received funding from Big Walnut.
CWIZO 8mo ago
It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
- cogman10 8mo ago
  Fish metabolize and concentrate the oil. Cows eat grass for protein, we can't really skip the middle man and eat grass to get protein. I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't be unusual for there to be benefit from getting omega 3 from fish rather than algea because of something like this. AFAIK, we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish.
  - boston_clone 8mo ago
    like most nutrients, you can weigh them. for example, you can tell exactly how much protein is in 100g of a complete protein like tofu when compared to 100g of something gross like beef. similarly, my algae-based capsules contain 1210 mg of omega3s per serving, with 660mg of EPA and 440 of DHA. > we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish nope, this study describes consumption of omega3s, not fish per se.
- goodpoint 8mo ago
  Fish contains a lot of microplastics. Algae-based omega oils do not.

svara 8mo ago

It's really unclear unfortunately. The correlative effect is quite clear, i.e people who have high omega 3 levels (eat a lot of fish) have health benefits. But in random controlled trials Omega 3 supplements have not had convincing effects. It might be because the supplements aren't very good, or because there's actually something completely different going on, like fish displaces less healthy foods from the diet.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
darkerside 8mo ago
I wonder about cultural and ethnic confounding factors
MarkMarine 8mo ago
what is "a lot of fish" in this context? Sushi for lunch every day? Thanks for engaging with this in a helpful way.
- ifwinterco 8mo ago
  Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, herring) has quite large amounts. Some people aim for huge amounts of EPA/DHA but I don't think there's really much evidence that you need 3g/day or whatever the latest broscience is. Mackerel is particularly high although it doesn't taste great to me compared to salmon, 100g of mackerel has ~4g of EPA/DHA so eating that a couple of times a week is probably more than enough. Also there is some (although much less) in white fish, there can be significant amounts in shellfish, and tinned tuna has a surprisingly high amount. So all of that adds up if you eat those as well
  - apothegm 8mo ago
    Sardines, too, which are also fishier than salmon but tend not to be salted the way mackerel is. Unless you’re also consuming all the oil from the can, prefer fish canned in water to canned in oil — because apparently the omega-3s can leach out into oil, but they’re not water-soluble. Btw, trout is also up there (though not as high as salmon) and is a lovely mild-flavored fish.

cromka 8mo ago

What's also interesting that some recent studies show eating eggs every day actually is harmful, most likely due to the Omega3 to Omega6 ratio. So here we go again. First it was cholesterol, which was then rebutted, so people (myself included) started eating eggs every day. And now this. You can't win!

mixmastamyk 8mo ago
Well, don’t eat the same things every day.
- cromka 8mo ago
  Like bread? Or olive oil? Or Avocado? Or nuts?
KempyKolibri 8mo ago
As I understand it there's no good evidence that n3:n6 ratio matters, _as long as both are at adequate levels_. Studies showing the ratio to be of concern achieve a "low n3:n6 ratio" by low n3, rather than high n6. Eggs are believed to lead to adverse outcomes because of: 1. Their high cholesterol content. 2. Their SFA content. I'm not sure what you mean by cholesterol being rebutted. The only thing like that I'm really aware of is the dietary guidelines de-prioritising dietary cholesterol, but that decision was made because when making DGs, people want to focus on the biggest levers we can pull. Dietary cholesterol _does_ have a negative impact on health, but it also has a threshold effect at around 400mg/d after which it has considerably less impact (unless you're part of the ~20% of the population who are "cholesterol hyper responders"). Because most people eating a SAD are already at that threshold, the decision was made to take dietary cholesterol off the headline recommendations, but if you read the details in the DGs and the meta-analyses that drive them, they still point to lowering dietary cholesterol as a smart health move. I frequently see this change portrayed as "no longer recommending the lowering of dietary cholesterol" or "admitting they were wrong about dietary cholesterol", but that's not really what happened.
- cromka 8mo ago