4 ms·

Seeing as you don't even know that fish oil is more like snake oil[0], I don't think you're in any position to give nutrition advice. 0: http://www.onlinecjc.c

Seeing as you don't even know that fish oil is more like snake oil[0], I don't think you're in any position to give nutrition advice. 0: http://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00237-2/abstract http://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00237-2/abstra...

ceasarby 12y ago
Not giving any nutritional advice here, you just misinterpreted. If you don't need it, don't take it. It works for me though. I mentioned fish oil because it's technically not a vitamin, so the message was Vitamins + Protein/Carb Supplements > Soylent. Own it in any dimension (price, taste, variety, etc.)
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  > Not giving any nutritional advice here, you just misinterpreted. There's no point in trying to backtrack after saying "Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine." Have the grace to just accept that you're wrong and admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
  - ceasarby 12y ago
    "Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine." <-- this was an answer for that: "You can't live off those products alone, you would miss out on important nutrients." Again if you have a problem with fish oil it doesn't mean that it's useless and everyone else is wrong about.
    - w1ntermute 12y ago
      I don't have a "problem" with fish oil, I have a problem with people going around claiming that it is nutrionally beneficial. According to your standards for proof of nutrional value, you should also be going around telling everyone to drink donkey semen.
  - mkal_tsr 12y ago
    > Have the grace to just accept that you're wrong and admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about Why are you being a jackass to him? What is your justification for saying he has "no fucking clue" ? Flagged for being inflammatory
    - w1ntermute 12y ago
      I'm not "being a jackass to him," I'm calling him out on his bullshit claims that fish oil is nutrionally beneficial. My justification is the journal article linked in my first post.
mkal_tsr 12y ago
> fish oil is more like snake oil[0] Except it's not - http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#main_clinical_results http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#main_clinical_resul... All studies are cited at the very bottom (720+ in total)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  You didn't even bother to read the review article I linked, did you? The whole point is that the data has been misinterpreted, just like the site you linked.
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    Not weighing in on either side just wanted to provide this [0] link posted to HN 5 days ago and the discussion [1]. [0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/popular-fish-oil-study-deeply-flawed-new-research-says-1.2637702?cmp=rss http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/popular-fish-oil-study-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7740561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7740561
  - mkal_tsr 12y ago
    I'm waiting for you to send me the $31.50 to read the full-text. Their conclusion is about a specific claim for fish oil, re CAD. Examine.com is looking at more than just CAD. If it has a health benefit outside of the CAD claims, then I don't see how you can call it snake oil. Particularly, a reduction in triglycerides. The abstract of what you linked (again, just let me know where you'd like to send the $31.50 so I can read this full-text that you are linking to) is discussing one effect of fish oil and Examine is looking at any possible effects (and many say it has negligible to no effect, but some do).
  - aaxe 12y ago
    Obviously you did not either. There is no centralized data from which all fish oil studies came from. It simply stated that the impetus was a study that had misinterpreted data. The rest is exclusive to it.
herm 12y ago
I read the article, and your interpretation is wrong. Simply put, the Eskimo Diet != Fish Oil. There is simply no denying the efficacy of supplementing with EPA, DHA and Omega-3 fat, regardless of the source. If your concern is motivated by your ideological beliefs that you should not consume animal products then you should look into an algae based supplement.

ceasarby 12y ago

Not giving any nutritional advice here, you just misinterpreted. If you don't need it, don't take it. It works for me though. I mentioned fish oil because it's technically not a vitamin, so the message was Vitamins + Protein/Carb Supplements > Soylent. Own it in any dimension (price, taste, variety, etc.)

w1ntermute 12y ago
> Not giving any nutritional advice here, you just misinterpreted. There's no point in trying to backtrack after saying "Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine." Have the grace to just accept that you're wrong and admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
- ceasarby 12y ago
  "Take vitamins, take fish oil and you'll be fine." <-- this was an answer for that: "You can't live off those products alone, you would miss out on important nutrients." Again if you have a problem with fish oil it doesn't mean that it's useless and everyone else is wrong about.
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    I don't have a "problem" with fish oil, I have a problem with people going around claiming that it is nutrionally beneficial. According to your standards for proof of nutrional value, you should also be going around telling everyone to drink donkey semen.
- mkal_tsr 12y ago
  > Have the grace to just accept that you're wrong and admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about Why are you being a jackass to him? What is your justification for saying he has "no fucking clue" ? Flagged for being inflammatory
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    I'm not "being a jackass to him," I'm calling him out on his bullshit claims that fish oil is nutrionally beneficial. My justification is the journal article linked in my first post.

mkal_tsr 12y ago

> fish oil is more like snake oil[0] Except it's not - http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#main_clinical_results http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#main_clinical_resul... All studies are cited at the very bottom (720+ in total)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
w1ntermute 12y ago
You didn't even bother to read the review article I linked, did you? The whole point is that the data has been misinterpreted, just like the site you linked.
- joshstrange 12y ago
  Not weighing in on either side just wanted to provide this [0] link posted to HN 5 days ago and the discussion [1]. [0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/popular-fish-oil-study-deeply-flawed-new-research-says-1.2637702?cmp=rss http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/popular-fish-oil-study-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7740561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7740561
- mkal_tsr 12y ago
  I'm waiting for you to send me the $31.50 to read the full-text. Their conclusion is about a specific claim for fish oil, re CAD. Examine.com is looking at more than just CAD. If it has a health benefit outside of the CAD claims, then I don't see how you can call it snake oil. Particularly, a reduction in triglycerides. The abstract of what you linked (again, just let me know where you'd like to send the $31.50 so I can read this full-text that you are linking to) is discussing one effect of fish oil and Examine is looking at any possible effects (and many say it has negligible to no effect, but some do).
- aaxe 12y ago
  Obviously you did not either. There is no centralized data from which all fish oil studies came from. It simply stated that the impetus was a study that had misinterpreted data. The rest is exclusive to it.

herm 12y ago

I read the article, and your interpretation is wrong. Simply put, the Eskimo Diet != Fish Oil. There is simply no denying the efficacy of supplementing with EPA, DHA and Omega-3 fat, regardless of the source. If your concern is motivated by your ideological beliefs that you should not consume animal products then you should look into an algae based supplement.