

What's the Deal with Fish Oil? - frankus
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16greenberg.html?_r=1

======
jseifer
While this isn't directly about the article, anyone who regularly takes fish
oil should read "The Great Fish Oil Experiment" by Ray Peat at
<http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml>.

That linked article goes in to way too much depth to really paste anything
useful here but he basically says that while there are short term benefits to
fish oil, it could actually be quite harmful to take it in the long term.

~~~
msluyter
As someone who recently started taking fish oil (prescribed my my doctor) due
to low HDL levels, I find this highly frustrating. And it's not like I could
just eat _fish_ ; it seems most of our fish sources are contaminated. The more
I learn about nutrition, the more uncertain I become about what to eat, and
the angrier I become towards our entire agricultural industry.

~~~
DavidMcLaughlin
I was a one-time subscriber of Men's Health and let me tell you something:
everything, absolutely everything is potentially bad for you.

In one issue they could say that drinking a beer a day in moderation can
prevent certain cancers and taking too much health supplements can cause
irreversible, long-term damage to your liver. Then six issues later they could
say to get the dream abs you've always wanted, you must take these same health
supplements every day and cut out all beer.

They can provide facts and statistics to sell you any nutritional scare story,
and the whole game is this: they want you to think that you NEED them, so that
you will continue to buy their magazine. Most people take one story or more
from this type of scare tactic and run with it. Every diet has its secret.
Every nutritionist has his angle to keep you living for longer or to get
results in the gym faster. No wants makes money on the obvious: eat equally
from every food group and without bias, exercise regularly (cardiovascular and
weight training) and most importantly - have a bit of luck on the way - and
you'll be fine.

------
blakeweb
FYI, the author mentions "flax oil also fits the bill", which from what I
know, and from the most recent Nutrition Action Newsletter (nonprofit consumer
information organization), isn't true. It's in their latest (November) issue,
but I can't find a link to it online. <http://www.cspinet.org/nah/index.htm>

Flax oil I believe contains mostly omega-6, which people aren't generally as
needy of with our current diets.

~~~
catzaa
As I understand it a high amount of Omega-6 means that you cannot absorb the
omega-3. From WP:

> Thus accumulation of long-chain n−3 fatty acids in tissues is more effective
> when they are obtained directly from food or when competing amounts of n−6
> analogs do not greatly exceed the amounts of n−3.

Fish oil contains a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega 6 than other sources
(flax seed).

Also, fish oil contains Vitamin D which is very good for teeth (if you get
enough vitamin D, holes in teeth repair themselves).

A lot of fish oil is also specified as "cod liver oil". So I don't think that
it uses the above fish and i don't think that the cod livers is used in food
(so it is a byproduct).

~~~
alecco
> Fish oil contains a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega 6 than other sources
> (flax seed).

NO.

On the contrary, flaxseed oil has more v ω-3 than ω-6.

Flaxseed oil: <http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/7554/2> RATIO:
43 Salmon oil: <http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/632/2> RATIO:
23 (allegedly the best fish oil for ω-3) Cod Liver Oil
<http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/628/2> RATIO: 21.5
<http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/629/2>
<http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fats-and-oils/633/2> ...

~~~
catzaa
I read the following in wikipedia
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid>):

> Flax, like chia, contains approximately three times as much n−3 as n−6.

> Oils from these fish have a profile of around seven times as much n−3 as
> n−6.

Obviously WP is not infaliable and needs to be corrected.

(I usually drink Flax seed oil because fish oil seems grouse).

------
alecco
And the funny thing is the Omega-3 oil in question comes actually from algae
and not fish. I bet it's even easier to get it directly from the source.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docosahexaenoic_acid>

~~~
tokenadult
_I bet it's even easier to get it directly from the source._

I think in terms of what is economical for food production and what is
bioavailable to human eaters, that is not the case yet today. Scientists are
working on that, I have read elsewhere.

~~~
dejb
> I think in terms of what is economical for food production and what is
> bioavailable to human eaters

I've been taking Algae based DHA supplements for a while. The consensus seems
to be that it should work just as well as DHA from fish oil but so far there
are no studies using this form so it isn't 100% certain. The cost is somewhat
more than fish oil (maybe 2 or 3 times the prices) although I'm sure that is
mostly because it is a niche product. There are also version with both DHA and
EPA but they are a fair bit more expensive and the conversion of ALA to EPA is
generally viewed as good enough for flax seed oil to be used for EPA.

~~~
alecco
There are studies with pure DHA, EPA, and ALA. The source shouldn't matter the
result of those studies.

~~~
dejb
Thanks it's good to hear.

------
pierrefar
The omega-3/cardiovascular disease prevention is a weak link at best. From
this Cochrane Collaboration meta review:
<http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003177.html>

It is not clear that dietary or supplemental omega 3 fats alter total
mortality, combined cardiovascular events or cancers in people with, or at
high risk of, cardiovascular disease or in the general population. There is no
evidence we should advise people to stop taking rich sources of omega 3 fats,
but further high quality trials are needed to confirm suggestions of a
protective effect of omega 3 fats on cardiovascular health.

There is no clear evidence that omega 3 fats differ in effectiveness according
to fish or plant sources, dietary or supplemental sources, dose or presence of
placebo.

~~~
skmurphy
This is from 2004, there has been serious criticism of their conclusions. See
for example [http://www.issfal.org.uk/index.php/lipid-matters-
mainmenu-8/...](http://www.issfal.org.uk/index.php/lipid-matters-
mainmenu-8/hooper-rebuttal-mainmenu-38?showall=1) two key paragraphs (but they
list several other concerns as well):

 _The null conclusion of the Cochrane report rests entirely upon inclusion of
one trial, DART 2 2. This was a randomized dietary trial with clinical
endpoints testing the effects on total mortality of either giving advice to
eat fish or providing fish oil capsules to men with angina. Surprisingly,
while total mortality was not statistically different in the two groups, there
was less sudden death in the control group than in the intervention group.
Upon exclusion of DART 2 from the meta-analysis, the overall decrease in
relative risk with omega-3 consumption became similar to that reported in a
previous meta-analysis by Bucher et al: 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to
0.91) 3_

 _In our view, the weight of the evidence available in May of 2006 is
sufficient to conclude, even in light of the Cochrane analysis, that EPA and
DHA reduce risk for cardiovascular diseases. Not only do we feel so, but also
the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 15 , the
European Society for Cardiology 16 , a systematic review conducted for the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the NIH 17 , the Harvard Center
for Risk Analysis 18 , and a number of other national and international bodies
19-22_

------
alexyim
A lot of fish oil is made from other sources of fish, such as sardines and
anchovies.

~~~
MikeCapone
Indeed. My bottle (bought from costco) cites those two fishes as ingredients.

------
ars
Parts of this article is almost word for word straight from the wikipedia
article on the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menhaden>.

~~~
zach
And if that guy who keeps editing the Wikipedia page doesn't stop, this
article is going to become wholesale plagiarism!

~~~
ars
No, I checked the wikipedia article on the date before he published his piece.

And yes, some of his article is making his way back to wikipedia - but now
wikipedia has a ref.

~~~
m_eiman
That might be a business opportunity - create a magazine that publishes
rewrites of Wikipedia articles in need of references (for a moderate fee). It
could actually even be a magazine with interesting, if diverse, content!

~~~
gwern
I just subscribe to the Daily Article ML
(<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-article-l>)!

------
cpach
I've been planning to get fish oil for quite some time and today I finally
bought some capsules. Thank you frankus for the reminder :)

EDIT: Hm. Maybe I've should've RTFA before I commented. I hope that the
product I bought is one of the 75 that do not deplete the menhaden stock.
Maybe a certificate for this would be nice?

------
3dFlatLander
Hempseed has good levels of omega 3, 6, and 9 fatty acids, with whole seeds
are especially nutritious.

------
techiferous
Walnuts.

~~~
silentbicycle
The deal with fish oil is walnuts?

~~~
light3
'Walnuts are also an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids':
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnuts>

------
kingkongreveng_
I get a kick out of these consecutive sentences:

> the company’s ... continued right to fish in federal waters, means a half-
> billion menhaden are still taken from the ecosystem every year. ... this
> egregious privatization of what is essentially a public resource is
> shocking.

The whole issue is that _public_ federal waters and fishing rights are being
abused but this guy complains the problem is privatization.

~~~
anigbrowl
Ah, it's a private company that does all the fishing and books all the profit.
As in, catches 90% of the fish. Apparently they don't need any special license
to do this.

Your point was...?

~~~
kingkongreveng_
Is it really going over your head that the issue here is the fishing rights
are public? Tragedy of the commons, all that?

~~~
anigbrowl
You're right. What we really need to do here is grant a monopoly, which will
solve the problem immediately. Then we can move on to privatizing the air and
things like that.

~~~
hugh_
Interestingly, if air were in danger of being over-breathed then privatization
would be the best solution. The only reason we don't have a tragedy of the
commons in the air is that there's an awful lot of it and nobody has anything
to gain by breathing a hundred times more.

