Thread: Omega 3's from fish oil supplements may not be beneficial

People used to get enough omega 3's from animal sources, it was only till we started farming animals and deteriorating there living conditions, did adequate n3 and cla intake become a problem.

Check free range animals, and compare fat types with farmed animals, that are in confined living spaces.

It is possible that the omega 3s do not help prostate cancer, but that does not negate to host of other benifits that omega 3s, especially those high in EPA and DHA, provide.

Most all early humans would have recieved their omega 3s from any wild game. All grass fed animals have a higher amount of omega 3s than farm raised grain fed animals, which are higher in omega 6s (and much higher in fat in general). They probably did not need as much omega 3s either because they also consumed less omega 6s. This kept their omega 3 to omega 6 ratio in balance. Today, the typical american's omega 6 to 3 ratio is about 20:1. The ratio of early humans was most likely between 2:1 and 1:1, which is about what is should be.

Originally Posted by Freighter

It is possible that the omega 3s do not help prostate cancer, but that does not negate to host of other benifits that omega 3s, especially those high in EPA and DHA, provide.

Most all early humans would have recieved their omega 3s from any wild game. All grass fed animals have a higher amount of omega 3s than farm raised grain fed animals, which are higher in omega 6s (and much higher in fat in general). They probably did not need as much omega 3s either because they also consumed less omega 6s. This kept their omega 3 to omega 6 ratio in balance. Today, the typical american's omega 6 to 3 ratio is about 20:1. The ratio of early humans was most likely between 2:1 and 1:1, which is about what is should be.

yea, fish oil has a lot of benefits!

Originally Posted by Freighter

It is possible that the omega 3s do not help prostate cancer, but that does not negate to host of other benifits that omega 3s, especially those high in EPA and DHA, provide.

Most all early humans would have recieved their omega 3s from any wild game.

I was not aware that wild game (besides fish) had DHA! I am aware that Milk, nuts, and some veggies can have ALA (which in excess amounts has been proven to contribute to prostate cancer. e.g. Flax Oil).

I was not aware that grass fed animals had DHA? Can you point me to some sources on this? Historically which wild game has had DHA? This is getting intresting.

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfed...its/index.html

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfed...its/index.html

CLA is an omega 6 acid not Omega 3! Or maybe you already know this.

The article stated increased levels in omega 3 in grass fed cows, *however* it did not state whether it was from ALA or DHA.

Originally Posted by thisiswut

CLA is an omega 6 acid not Omega 3! Or maybe you already know this.

The article stated increased levels in omega 3 in grass fed cows, *however* it did not state whether it was from ALA or DHA.

And.... ?

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

And.... ?

"I was not aware that grass fed animals had DHA? Can you point me to some sources on this? Historically which wild game has had DHA? This is getting intresting."

This was my original question. The study you pointed me to did not indicate that grass fed Animals had DHA. The study you pointed to me indicated CLA and ALA.

Thus my original hypothesis that only the costal people in the history of mankind ever had "adequate amounts of omega 3's from DHA".

The reason this interests me is that historically omega 3 consumption from DHA is much lower then what is being recommended today. I'm trying to find the reality of the "widespread deficiency" in DHA.

ALA is converted to EPA and DHA.

the source I posted showed a higher amount of n3 fatty acids in grass fed beef, and better ratio of n6:n3 compared to farmed beef.

How is it lower? Most suggestions for n3's or DHA are to accomodate our poor food sources, grains that are continuously farmed on the same land, reducing nutrients provided from the earth, to animals fed foods not natural to them, and lack of exercise.

Beef today, has shitty steroids and shitty nutrient profiles compared to free-range(or beef compared to our ancestors)

Originally Posted by thisiswut

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489305_4

This article talks about the relation between ALA, DHA, on Prostate cancer. It concludes by saying that ALA *may* contribute to prostate cancer, however fish oil supplementation showed no benefits in reducing prostate cancer.

I remember reader some other studies which stated that since omega 3's (DHA) were only available to costal people throughout the history of human beings....it shows that the majority of the population does not benefit from fish oil supplementaion via capsules. Throughout history the majority of the world's population never had "adequate amounts of omega 3" to todays standards....I wonder if part of this omega 3 craze is just hype by biased studies and eagerness to sell products. Let me see if I can post them up.

Throughout history, most people didn't live long enough to see their 35th birthday. I don't believe the nutrition of our ancestors was all that much better as far as vitamins, minerals and essential proteins and fatty acids are concerned. (they just had a lot less sugar and crappy fats) They didn't have more of the good stuff though. I just was never really a problem. Their bodies were designed to last just long enough to have a bunch of children and when they hit old age in their 30s (if they made it that long)... they would just die off. Yeah there wasn't as much cancer... because cancer isn't something that usually hits before 40.

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

Throughout history, most people didn't live long enough to see their 35th birthday.

Yes, but that short life span was not due to diet. Even today the Masai of Africa who are very fit only live until about 40 years of age. This is not due to their diet.

The Masai are nomads in Kenya.

What do you consider fit?

Originally Posted by thisiswut

Yes, but that short life span was not due to diet. Even today the Masai of Africa who are very fit only live until about 40 years of age. This is not due to their diet.

Just because they are active and skinny doesn't mean they are getting good amounts of EFA's... not to mention things like vitamin C and E.

The effects of slight vitamin deficiencies are often hard to notice... especially in people younger than 30

in english please..... so is it not benificial? lol