Fish oil and Fish

[dennisraf]

Was wondering what others felt on this issue. The books recommend fish oil. My question is, if we regularly consume fish (salmon, sardines, etc) do we still need to supplement with a fish oil capsule or would that be overdoing it so to speak. I eat fish at least 4-5 times per week. I don't want to do to much of a good thing.:confused:

Thanks ,

Dennis

[Songwriter]

Eat the fish and take some krill oil.

[JBezold]

I was told by a health expert this week that eating fish is the true way of the body getting the DHA as it is connected to the fish tissue. When taken by an oil the stomach acids destroy it and it never reaches your tissues unless you consume the oils by capsules which are coated so they do not deslove until they reach the stomach. Interesting.

[maxlharris]

I do not buy it.

I don't eat fish (don't like it). I get my DHA and EPA through capsules.
I notice changes when I do it in terms of cognition and how silky my hair is.

I do not buy it.

I do not think your doc fully understands digestion. Where are the fats being digested when you eat the fish? Not pre-stomach. Not if they are attached to proteins. Not even if they aren't.

FWIW: some people drink their fish oil (as the Eades recommend).

[Frank Hagan]

I use liquid fish oil because I'm trying to get 3200 mg of EPA/DHA per day. Those little 300mg capsules were becoming tiresome, having to swallow ten of them.

The brand I've been using is Carlson's Finest Lemon Flavored Fish Oil, and if taken before a meal never gives me "fish burp". A teaspoon provides 1600 mg, so two teaspoons is all I need.

[Roadstr]

It's always... always better to get nutrition from real, high quality, organic or wild food. Fish is the best source of protein. Most body builders will agree with this... they talk of "eating clean" and fish is the best source of protein.
You can't eat too much haddock, salmon and wild fish. As a matter of fact the Japanese have the longest life expectancy along with soy, that's their diet. I'm not recommending soy, just mentioning it.
Supplement means what it says, something else in addition to what you are taking.

Was wondering what others felt on this issue. The books recommend fish oil. My question is, if we regularly consume fish (salmon, sardines, etc) do we still need to supplement with a fish oil capsule or would that be overdoing it so to speak. I eat fish at least 4-5 times per week. I don't want to do to much of a good thing.:confused:

Thanks ,

Dennis

[isisrose]

You can't eat too much haddock, salmon and wild fish..

Considering all the mercury and other toxins one would be eating I would say you certainly CAN eat too much of these fish! Of course if your brain, lungs and stomach and intestines etc aren't important to you go for it with wild abandon.

[maxlharris]

Eggs are a much better source of protein than fish if you eat the whole egg, and not just the yolk. The vitamins and compounds in the yolk cause the protein to be absorbed better than any other protein.

Beef is probably second best. Naturally raised, grass fed beef. High levels of CLA and acceptable levels of omega 3s, with a lower water content than fish that results in a higher amount of protein per ounce.

Fish isn't bad, but it is neither eggs nor beef.

The Masai have no heart disease, are lean, strong and long lived. And they eat cows, cow blood and milk.

Okinawan longevity may be an artifact of more than diet. It may an artifact of more comprehensive health systems, activity patterns, genes, sun exposure, or diet, or some combination of all of the above.

You want to get about 3g daily combined of either DHA or EPA. ALA (the plant based omega 3) doesn't work, and the conversion rate is very low. I do not eat fish, so I could not tell you how much wild salmon you would need to eat to get 3g of DHA/EPA combo, but I would suggest, that if you are serious about seeing what getting adequate omega-3 essential fatty acids will do for you, you will probably want to supplement your cold water fish with some oil, in either capsule or liquid format.

PS- Roadstr is a bit out there, as an advice giver, and prone to posting junk science. And, he uses bodybuilders as examples of what normal people ought to be doing, which confounds people losing weight with people building large amounts of muscle, in what is likely a counter productive way.

Here's some easy to digest advice about protein and muscle building (http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/foods_that_build_muscle/index.php?cm_mmc=DailyDoseNL-_-2009_09_02-_-MainBlk-_-hed) from Jeff Volek of University of Connecticut, the leading low carb research school, and Men's Health. This is my support for eggs and beef. I know more than is written there, but this is enough to refute the claim that "Fish is the best protein, and you can't get too much haddock, etc." As an aside, I wouldn't feed unfermented soy to any person I actually cared about, and I would feel guilty about feeding it to anyone I didn't bear a grudge towards.

[Frank Hagan]

You won't OD on omega 3's, even if you eat fish several times a week. And you may be getting enough with your diet depending on what your goal is. For healthy people, orgs like the American Heart Association recommend eating fatty fish 2 to 3 times a week.

They mention that people with coronary heart disease and especially people with high triglycerides will probably have to supplement to get the 3 to 4 grams per day that seems to be beneficial. (Article is here (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632).) I couldn't find a source that said any thing like "4 ounces of wild salmon provides XXmg of EPA and DHA".

They also recommend plant sources and then say the recommendation provides only a tiny amount and is controversial.

The types of fish they recommend are fatty fish like mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon. I'm not sure how much you'll get if you're eating white fish like orange roughy and halibut.

[maxlharris]

EPA/DHA content of various seafoods, circa 2005 (I assume it hasn't changed much) from a reliable source:
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/html/table_g2_adda2.htm

Since I love you all, I put it in a spreadsheet:
http://tinyurl.com/lu55p5

Atlantic Salmon, farmed, cooked on dry heat (like baked or grilled), contains about 1.8g of DHA+EPA per 3 ounce serving. To get to 3g, you would consume 5 ounces. Very doable.

Wild salmon should be higher than farmed salmon, but then you get into the whole heavy metal issue. I don't eat fish, so I am not up on this.

Curiously, the densest EFA concentration on this list is in caviar and fish roe. Of course, few people eat 100g at a sit.

Densest EFA concentration in anything I eat, on the list, is in lobster. 22 ounces of spiny lobster or queen crab to get you to 3g of EFAs.

Again, unless you are gonna eat salmon, herring, anchovy, or tuna, in 5-8 ounce quantities, on a daily basis, I'd look into a supplement.

[amdawson]

i think it's funny how us 'Mericans view other cultures and their habits....how we so easily accept that all the Japanese eat fish every day, all the Chinese eat only rice, the brazilians only eat high-quality steak, etc. this is 2009 -- any developed area is going to have a very broad diet, and of course, a wide range of eaters within the culture.

[maxlharris]

It's more a testament to a slow changing progression in understanding against a fast changing world. So, one hundred and fifty years ago, pretty much everyone in the world ate what was local and in season for 80-90% of their total consumption. With packaged goods, refrigeration, containers, preservatives, air travel, the Panama Canal, etc, etc, etc, that number is probably flipped to 10-20% of the average person's consumption is local and in season. And the amount of "traditional" food eaten in any city anywhere is way lower than what it was in decades and centuries prior. But, our attitude still holds that Japanese eat sushi and teriyaki and tempura and soy at every meal.

[Frank Hagan]

EPA/DHA content of various seafoods, circa 2005 (I assume it hasn't changed much) from a reliable source:
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/html/table_g2_adda2.htm

Since I love you all, I put it in a spreadsheet:
http://tinyurl.com/lu55p5


Great info! Thanks!

[Roadstr]

PS- Roadstr is a bit out there, as an advice giver, and prone to posting junk science.

Thanks Max. I don't know what junk science is, but since you do I will leave that title to your handing out as you see fit. I'm sure you are more familiar with it than I am.
I will agree that egg white is the best source of protein. It's the standard that all other protein is measures. But, that doesn't mean you should eat eggs to the exclusion of all other protein because it's the best. If you did you would be missing out on the outstanding cod, salmon and flounder dishes I prepare.
So, there's some more junk science... real food tasting great with fresh herbs or junk... I'll let you be the judge.

[maxlharris]

Fish ad infinitum is a bad recommendation, due to heavy metals. And I'm not talking about Iron Maiden.

I am not saying to eat eggs to the exclusion of other proteins. You stated, "Fish is the best source of protein." Empirically, this is untrue. Further, you have added that egg whites are the gold standard. I stated that you have to eat the yolk, because that's where the vitamins and fats that improve protein utilization in eggs come from. While egg whites are good for protein, yolks put the gold in the egg's gold standard.

Further, you have shared, on several instances, a respect for body builders as some gold standard of health. While I'm not going to suggest they are not healthy, I will suggest, again, that a bodybuilder's goals do not align with most of the population's goals, and, with modern bodybuilding, you are not talking about strength, power or flexibility, but presentation (which requires some elements of strength, power and flexibility, but is far from maxed, or even optimal). Further, pretty much all bodybuilders, natural and roided, will do food and water fasts to get to their competition level of leanness. This is a dangerous practice that does not jibe with a general recommendation. While I'm not saying you're advocating water fasting, when you hold body builders as a gold standard, you are embracing the junk and the damage as well as the health and the strength.

If you want a prime example of junk science posted by you, you are welcome to revisit the Master Cleanse thread, which, if you didn't start, you certainly contributed large portions of.

[isisrose]

Eggs are a much better source of protein than fish if you eat the whole egg, and not just the yolk. The vitamins and compounds in the yolk cause the protein to be absorbed better than any other protein.

Beef is probably second best. Naturally raised, grass fed beef. High levels of CLA and acceptable levels of omega 3s, with a lower water content than fish that results in a higher amount of protein per ounce.

Fish isn't bad, but it is neither eggs nor beef.

The Masai have no heart disease, are lean, strong and long lived. And they eat cows, cow blood and milk.

Okinawan longevity may be an artifact of more than diet. It may an artifact of more comprehensive health systems, activity patterns, genes, sun exposure, or diet, or some combination of all of the above.

You want to get about 3g daily combined of either DHA or EPA. ALA (the plant based omega 3) doesn't work, and the conversion rate is very low. I do not eat fish, so I could not tell you how much wild salmon you would need to eat to get 3g of DHA/EPA combo, but I would suggest, that if you are serious about seeing what getting adequate omega-3 essential fatty acids will do for you, you will probably want to supplement your cold water fish with some oil, in either capsule or liquid format.

PS- Roadstr is a bit out there, as an advice giver, and prone to posting junk science. And, he uses bodybuilders as examples of what normal people ought to be doing, which confounds people losing weight with people building large amounts of muscle, in what is likely a counter productive way.

Here's some easy to digest advice about protein and muscle building (http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/foods_that_build_muscle/index.php?cm_mmc=DailyDoseNL-_-2009_09_02-_-MainBlk-_-hed) from Jeff Volek of University of Connecticut, the leading low carb research school, and Men's Health. This is my support for eggs and beef. I know more than is written there, but this is enough to refute the claim that "Fish is the best protein, and you can't get too much haddock, etc." As an aside, I wouldn't feed unfermented soy to any person I actually cared about, and I would feel guilty about feeding it to anyone I didn't bear a grudge towards.

Right on Max and yes I have noticed that from some of Rodstr's other posts.

[isisrose]

Thanks Max. I don't know what junk science is, but since you do I will leave that title to your handing out as you see fit. I'm sure you are more familiar with it than I am.

How about this as a definition....science that only makes sense to the the person spouting it and no one else.

I will agree that egg white is the best source of protein. It's the standard that all other protein is measures. But, that doesn't mean you should eat eggs to the exclusion of all other protein because it's the best. If you did you would be missing out on the outstanding cod, salmon and flounder dishes I prepare.

How the heck do you get that from Max's post??? You, like your science, are probably the only one that gets it.

So, there's some more junk science... real food tasting great with fresh herbs or junk... I'll let you be the judge.

Ok here's my judgement: Max = sound science....Roadstr = Junk science

[Dutchess2009]

ummm....I hate getting involved in this...but seriously....these forums are all about sharing each other's experiences, ideas, asking questions, keeping all of us motivated, and the like. We all have various opinions, maybe some more diverse then others, and we may not all agree with one another. Which is expected. But do we have to go on the attack? Maybe I am just more sensitive, but if I posted something I felt strongly about, and even if know one else agreed, I would hope all of you would express your point of view, but in a respectable manner.

[maxlharris]

@Heather: I dunno if you are a regular Roadstr reader, but his posts frequently include information that is not helpful. Or that is simply wrong. Frequently.

If you let everyone discuss these things respectfully, without calling anyone out, then the junk science gets in, and people alternate the master cleanse with a couple of weeks of unlimited heavy metals from fish, the whole time, keeping the dietary fat and dietary carbs low, because that's something else Roadstr has advocated on here (evidenced as a still held belief, above, by taking what I said about eggs, and turning it to egg whites.)

We value experience. Here is my experience: Some things are true. Some we suspect are true. Some are in the process of being proved. Some things are fringe science. And some things are discredited junk. If you treat discredited junk and fringe science as if they are true, or even in the process, you are eroding the value of what is proved true, in process, or suspected of being true.

Sorry the method of clean up bothers you.

[Gaelen]

Method of cleanup doesn't bother me...nor does the pointing out of junk science or inaccuracies. I am no fan of either, and both should be pointed out whenever they show up.

That said, in this grown-up sandbox let's point out any errors and fallacies of junk science and things that are just plain wrong without tossing personal insults at each other in the process. For those who are out of practice with the technique of refutation without personal insult, it goes something like 'this idea is incorrect because...' It does not need to include editorializing: 'so-and-so is not a trusted source' -- whether that's a true assessment or not. Honest and consistent refutation shows the [lack of] worth of erroneous information without any need for editorializing about any individual's overall contribution to this forum.

FWIW, I don't take fish oil supplements and never have. Fish oil supplements and my colostomy are primarily incompatible--but to be honest, I didn't use them before I had the ostomy, either because I hate hate hate the taste of liquids and the after-tastes of capsules. I usually use Barleens unfiltered flax seed oil in my morning protein shake, although I've been out for a month and just have had zero time to go across town to the only health food store that carries it. I eat fatty fish 2-3 times per week, and fish has been my protein source of choice for a lot of years. Sometimes I *do* eat a 5-6 oz. portion daily; depends on the season. Ounce for ounce and dollar for dollar, fish is a protein source that compares favorably (at least in my area) with grass-fed or organically raised beef and pork, and with free -range poultry.

As for the finger-pointing and name calling -- thanks in advance to everyone for maturity and restraint in posts going forward. ;)

Gaelen
Forum Administrator
(let's not wake up the flying monkeys...)

[johankrava]

I was told that if you consume quite a lot of salmon (few times a week) then no supplement is needed.

[Frank Hagan]

I was told that if you consume quite a lot of salmon (few times a week) then no supplement is needed.

I don't know how authoritative the American Heart Assn is on this, but 3 ounces of fish daily is enough according to their chart and Max's spreadsheet. Unless you have CHD or high triglycerides, in which case you'll need the equivalent of 6 ounces of farm raised salmon daily. That's based on 1 gram and 3 grams of omega 3's per day.

[CKG]

There seems to be two conversations going on here (hi, I'm new here). One is fish as a source of protein and the other fish/fish oil as a source of omega 3s. I'm interested from the perspective of getting omega 3s. Over at the "Heart Scan blog", (which I think has been referenced on other threads here) Dr. Davis seems to be positive on taking fish oils while in their latest book, the Eades seem to now frown on it. I've been off statins (altoprev) for 6 months and my cholesterol went from 152 to 248 although I must admit I've not been eating as good as I should so I'm checking the Eades' program out. I'm also very interested in supplementing with fish oil and niacin. If 'm not mistaken the Eades recommend "no flush" niacin while the Dr Williams says niacin without flush is probably worthless. I'm not trying to pit one person against another but need to know the best thing to do as you can see from my numbers below.

Total: 248
HDL: 37
LDL: 154
Trig: 258

Thanks


~craig

[Frank Hagan]

Hi Craig, welcome to the site!

I read both Heart Scan Blog and Dr. Mike's. I think they are basically in agreement on most things, although Dr. Davis is a more recent convert to low carb eating.

Dr. Davis recommends Slo-Niacin brand niacin, which is different than the so-called no-flush niacin (really "niacinide" or something like that ... its a different chemical). I used Slo-Niacin, available online and at Costco, for over a year. The therapeutic dose is 1,000 to 1,500 mg per day. To handle the flushing, I take an aspirin 30 minutes before the Slo-Niacin (if I still get a flush, I drink 16 ounces of water, and that helps minimize it).

I didn't get the idea that the Drs. Eades were critical of fish oil; I think they prefer krill oil now. Its a bit expensive, so I'm still using fish oil. I read either on Dr. Eades or Dr. Davis' blog that the therapeutic dose of fish oil is to get at least 1600 mg of EPA/DHA per day, which is hard to do with capsules (plus, Dr. Davis has warned about rancid fish oil inside capsules). So I now take two teaspoons of "Carlson's Very Finest Lemon Flavored Fish Oil" that I buy from Amazon.com for about $25 a bottle (about 16 ounces ... it lasts quite a while).

Your triglycerides are high, over 150, so the best thing you can do is adopt a low carb diet, at least in my opinion. It quickly lowered my triglycerides within 6 weeks, from the mid-300s to 106. I had been taking 1500 mg of Slo-Niacin for about a year without too much movement on my triglycerides (they dropped about 100 points from around 440). And while I hadn't been taking enough fish oil, I had been taking 800mg for over a year also.
My lab results are at http://lowcarbage.com/about/

[maxlharris]

Total: 248
HDL: 37
LDL: 154
Trig: 258

Triglycerides are your major problem. Trig/5 = ~52. If you brought your Trigs down to 75, your total number would drop to 211. Easiest way to do that is to be sharp with your low carb eating for a couple months. Easy. Dramatic improvement.

Your other problem is low HDL. If you want to improve HDL, you gotta eat some saturated fat. Lifting weights works as well. I think the good fish oils help, but can't remember. But good old beef is good for increasing HDL. As is low carbing (mostly by dint of increasing sat fat).

Niacin should straighten your LDL. It's a little high. And your ratios are all screwed up (because of low HDL).

[CKG]

I don't think my Triglycerides have ever been below 155 and I was on statins then. Even thought I stopped taking the statins (altoprev) I am still currently taking Lovaza. My diet had not been as good as it should be prior to my last bloodwork. I am now making a more concentrated effort to reduce carbs plus I've started taking Sloniacin at 500 Mgs a day and may increase it to 1000 day. Even though I take Lovaza, I am also taking Fish Oil caps. I've never gotten much results from taking supplements, but then again I've never taken "real" niacin (not the no-flush) for any extended period of time.

My cholesterol numbers did drop a few years ago when I was doing low fat eating, but it didn't seem to impact my triglycerides.

Oatmeal is always touted as a good means of lowering cholesterol. How does it fit in with low carb eating?

[Frank Hagan]

I don't think my Triglycerides have ever been below 155 and I was on statins then. Even thought I stopped taking the statins (altoprev) I am still currently taking Lovaza. My diet had not been as good as it should be prior to my last bloodwork. I am now making a more concentrated effort to reduce carbs plus I've started taking Sloniacin at 500 Mgs a day and may increase it to 1000 day. Even though I take Lovaza, I am also taking Fish Oil caps. I've never gotten much results from taking supplements, but then again I've never taken "real" niacin (not the no-flush) for any extended period of time.

My cholesterol numbers did drop a few years ago when I was doing low fat eating, but it didn't seem to impact my triglycerides.

Oatmeal is always touted as a good means of lowering cholesterol. How does it fit in with low carb eating?

When I was looking at pharmaceutical solutions for high triglycerides, my doctor told me only one of the prescription drugs was found to lower them in his experience ... tricor. The therapeutic dose for niacin, according to him and also Dr. Davis at the Heart Scan Blog, is 1,000 to 1,500 mg per day (taken all at once), so increasing it may help. I was at 1,500mg a day, and stopped taking it 10/15 ... I'll see if my triglycerides have risen next Tuesday (I suspect the low carb diet had more to do with it than the niacin, but we'll see).

Dr. Davis also recommends 1600mg or more of EPA/DHA in fish oil, but most people take one or two 300 or 400mg capsules and don't see much effect. I take two teaspoons of Carlson's Very Finest Lemon Flavored Fish Oil and get 3200mg; I have continued this to see if lc diet and fish oil will maintain my triglycerides at a low level.

Oatmeal does help for some people, but usually not for triglycerides. It tends to lower LDL and HDL cholesterol. You can eat it on PP, you just have to work it into the carb allotment for the day. But, if you go to 10g carbs per meal, you probably won't need to add oatmeal (some people see LDL rise going lc, sometimes a function of the way its measured, but I would cross that bridge when I get to it!)