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

Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Thunderbay
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    10

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18,563
    Rep Points
    66150743

    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.

  3. #3
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    25
    Rep Points
    10

    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.

  4. #4
    Patrick
    ELITE MEMBER
    P-funk's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    31,713
    Rep Points
    15139848

    Quote Originally Posted by Freighter View Post
    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!
    Optimum Sports Performance

    "In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, in the experts there are few."
    -Buddha's Little Instruction Book

  5. #5
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Thunderbay
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Freighter View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18,563
    Rep Points
    66150743


  7. #7
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Thunderbay
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    10

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18,563
    Rep Points
    66150743

    Quote Originally Posted by thisiswut View Post
    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.... ?

  9. #9
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Thunderbay
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by IainDaniel View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18,563
    Rep Points
    66150743

    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)

  11. #11
    Registered User
    NeilPearson's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,003
    Rep Points
    15472851

    Quote Originally Posted by thisiswut View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Thunderbay
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by NeilPearson View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18,563
    Rep Points
    66150743

    The Masai are nomads in Kenya.

    What do you consider fit?

  14. #14
    Registered User
    NeilPearson's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,003
    Rep Points
    15472851

    Quote Originally Posted by thisiswut View Post
    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

  15. #15
    in english please..... so is it not benificial? lol

  16. #16
    I enjoy SkyDiving
    ELITE MEMBER
    Plateau_Max's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    868
    Rep Points
    4631155

    Quote Originally Posted by IainDaniel View Post
    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)
    This pretty much covers my opinion on the matter.

    If you make an effort to consume cold pressed seed oils and get your meat from range fed (doesn't necessarily have to be organic, but that works too) then you'll have a much better ratio on your EFAs and won't be subjected to the steroids, hormones, and just flat out meat that came from very poorly nourished animals.
    "Years of hard work for only a single moment of perfection is a worthy trade." - Myself

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2011, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2011, 12:20 PM
  3. Krill Oil Packs More Omega-3s than Fish
    By Prince in forum Bodybuilding Gossip
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 10:02 PM
  4. are omega 3 in fish ruined if cooked
    By thisiswut in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-07-2006, 09:20 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-24-2006, 11:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->