Ah, okay. So instead of taking supplemental Vitamin D, you should get it from natural sources, such as..... foods that have been artificially fortified with supplemental Vitamin D.
At worst, the paragraph is just a poorly constructed catch all warning.
Bottom line is, get your Omega-3 from fish. Get your Vit D from the sun as much as you safely can and then from common sources before jumping to a separate supplement.
First, I recall warnings about too much fish consumption due to mercury levels in the fish. So how much fish consumption is necessary to get the required omega 3 and does the benefits balance out over the harm caused by the mercury? And are there any particular kinds of fish to consume to limit mercury exposure while getting the benefits of omega 3?
Second, as far as I know juices are not too great for your health, all the sugars of a large amount of fruit in a quickly absorbable form without the fiber to slow it down. Consuming large amounts of juice might have been the trigger for diabetic conditions in a family member.
Also, if I remember correctly, cereal had also been deemed not particularly healthy, although I don't recall the details.
Better not to eat fish at all, as one small bit of tuna (for instance) per week already increases the mercury build up in the body.
Also, you can get high DHA omega 3 supplements made from algae.
I’m no nutritionist, but what’s the big deal with eating tuna every now and again, but mostly sticking to smaller fish?
Is there a chance that a diet that is similar to chimps, bonobos and utangs is most healthy for us as well?
No refined food, mostly fruits+leaves and some seeds and bugs. It "maybe" that simple. These doctors are aware of this, and promote --to my best knowledge-- based on science what can logically be derived from our evolutionary ancestery.
Calling it "vegan advocacy" is besides the point. It's WFPB advocacy, because it's showing to work in studies/practices.
High meat cultures never produced the longest living people. High fruit+leaves have, repeatedly.
This is a lie.
Spain has the fourth longest living country in the world according to the WHO, and ranks 11th in the world in meat consumption at 97 kg per person according to the FAO.
Australia, tied at 4th with Spain in life expectancy, consumes a whooping 111 kg per person, 3rd in the world.
Japan and Iceland, first and fifth in life expectancy, consume metric shittons of fish.
How would you bend this crushing evidence to support the argument that "high meat cultures don't produce the longest living people"?
Also in Japan you can find the longest living people, Okinawa, and they barely eat meat (traditionally). A food culture is not defined by national borders: we have to look inside the countries to see what culture work for longevity. See the bluezones book.
Then I must say that I said something wrong: "longest living" alone is not enough, we want to be healthy too. Being sick for the last 30 years of my life, kept on my feet by a medical system (as what happens a lot in developed nations), it not a good prospect for me.
You were specifically arguing against eating tuna. So a plant AND fish based diet might be best after all? Regardless, Spain and Australia trail very closely to Japan, and they are huge meat eaters.
> "longest living" alone is not enough, we want to be healthy too
You seem to be subtly implying now that these long-living countries might have serious public health issues. Again incorrect - according to Bloomberg, Australia, Italy or Spain are in the top-10 healthiest countries in the world, which includes measures other than longevity.
> Being sick for the last 30 years of my life
Well, I am sorry you had to endure that, but I hope you understand that your health and that of the public might not be related at all.
I argue against beef for fat/ cholesterol/ animal protein (not for the iron, but get that from e.g. pommegranades)
> according to Bloomberg
I prefer the method of the BlueZones book (until I can read teh details of the Bloomberg study methods)
> Well, I am sorry you had to endure that
I expect not to endure that. As I do not consume the high-processed, high animal product diet so common in the west.
Evidence based nutrition :) That's my game. Meat causes colon cancer. The ideal consumed cholesterol amount is zero (yes a lot of short term studies like to show otherwise).
In which country? Tuna cans and tuna sandwiches and salads are some of the most popular foods in lots of countries.
Nothing fancy (tuna is no lobster or caviar) or especially expensive about it. It's available as a Subway sandwich for dog's sake!
Don't know, I like both for their own tastes. Some canned tuna is worse than pet food (especially the one made into a mush), but some canned tuna is great.
>perhaps this explains the slip in your last sentence?
No, I wanted to give it a lighter slant than "god's sake" for our American friends, sort of like "heck".
Dry feed is linked to kidney failure in cars and small dogs.
Veterinarian food is marginally better but it still isn't comparable to a close-to-natural diet. Pretty much the same business model used by toothpaste brands sold by dentists (piggy-backing on profession trust).
There are higher quality cans and options like BARF which cost a bit more but are far better (and tastier) for pets. It can also be done at home at a lower cost but it's pretty messy. Time-wise takes around 8 man-hours per month for us (recepie calculation, getting supplements, grinding and cutting meat, getting it all together and packaging).
We've been feeding our cats with it for over 2y now. Their blood tests are far better and there's a visible increase in fur quality. Partner is a vet tech and has easy access to the clinic to checkup on our pets. She also daily sees effects of cheap dry stuff on patients.
Once a week builds up merc in the body. Merc is toxic. That's the big deal. Smaller fish have less of this problem, but still add to it. Better avoid most fish at this point, we've destroyed the oceans to much, sadly.
Mercury bioaccumulates in the ecosystem. That means higher levels in fish that eat fish, and highest levels in fish that eat fish that eat fish. It also accumulates over a lifetime, so longer lived fish have higher levels.
Farmed fish (in this US mostly tilapia and salmon) have other issues, but mercury isn't a generally concern. For wild fish, the small ones--anchovies, herring, sardines--are low in mercury, along with catfish, pollock, shad, and haddock.
The worst for mercury that are widely eaten are tuna (sushi or steak grade, the species they used for canned tuna aren't as bad), certain types of mackerel, and grouper.
I'm an amateur Bay Area fisherman, so as someone eating fish out of the Bay, am often studying up on mercury and PCB levels in species. My understanding is this is not true- farmed salmon are often fed baitfish meal (sardine/anchovy etc). They eat orders of magnitude higher quantities of these fish than they would in the wild, so they bioaccumulate more toxins than they would outside the farm. Let me see if I can find a source.
Some quick googling returns sources supporting both sides, so I'd take either position with a grain of salt.
I believe this is only possible when on a diet that's >10cal% fat. When your fat intake is very low (like the fruit binging chimps/utangs/bonobos), and your cells are (thus) properly sensitive to insulin, you will not suffer from lots of sugar in fruit juice. Fibers help making it digest slower, and will reduce the blood sugar spike further, but the main thing is that your cells quickly absorb the blood sugar, for which proper insulin sensitivity is needed.
It does, but in the absence of fat (>10cal%) in the diet it does not raise it in a significant way.
> but can lead to NAFLD
Do you have a source for that? Here a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the ways NAFLD can come about.
: HNTD (the book) is on the topic of treating disease with whole plant food. Is that a problem? Is he denying that sometimes another approach is needed? (nope) Is he claiming prevention is better than curing? (yups) Now the article does little more that claiming "cherry picking"... 1/4th of the book is refs to scientific publications. Whether you think this was cherry picked or carefully selected is up to you... It more a matter of taste than anything else.
First, fish consumption mercury concerns are mainly relevant with large fish. So stick to smaller fish like salmon, or, if you want the biggest bang for your mercury buck, the healthiest fish to eat is actually anchovies. And frankly if you learn to prepare them right, they are delicious.
Regarding juice, you don't need to drink much juice to get a vitamin D boost. First of all, at least around here, the only juice you typically see with it is orange juice. A glass of OJ a day with an otherwise recommended diet isn't going to give you any problems unless you have an allergy or something. Actually a glass of OJ without supplements is not a bad idea as many popular "healthy" diets lack citrus which is important for numerous reasons. But the key here is quantity. It's true, lots of juice is associated with bad health outcomes. Just stick to a max of 1 cup (~230ml) a day, and be sure to get sufficient fiber. I'd always eat something with 5+ grams of fiber along with my OJ. That said, if you prefer you could always just drink milk or take a supplement. Or go outside. I get my Vit D by going outside. I drink OJ daily because there's very little citrus in my diet otherwise. Plus I like it. It balances my black coffee nicely.
Cereal, again, depends entirely on what you're eating as well as culturally what you even consider cereal to be. There is a near infinite range of foods called cereal with highly varying degrees of nutrition. I personally wouldn't rely on cereal for nutrition. The nutrient rich cereals on the shelf at the store are basically typical low nutrition grains with a ton of added vitamins. You may as well take a multivitamin. The importance of mentioning cereal is that they already have many added nutrients so you should be paying attention to what you are ALREADY getting before choosing to add a supplement.
Honestly, all of these things are VALID concerns, but, your whole post is an exercise in modern blanket nutritional and health guidance. In short, blanket health guidance is crap. For any blanket guidance you encounter, even scientifically support guidance, you are going to have a plethora of nuances that undermine it. Just take the "avoid carbs" advice so popular today. Turns out the healthiest people get about 50% of their daily caloric intake from carbs. But it's the KIND of carbs, and the combination of other factors that matter the most. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/74608 In another recent study it was found the Japan's oldest and most healthy elderly people lived on 80% calories from sweet potatoes, ate hardly any rice, and small amounts of meat/fish. Sweet potatoes are extremely nutritious so I'm not surprised. The carbs are mostly complex as well. That's pretty important.
Point is, be sure to understand the details or you'll end up blanket statement-ing yourself out of every good thing this life has to offer.
That doesn't make any sense in the case of Vitamin D. The amount of fish necessary to get a reasonably high amount of Vitamin D from a diet is so high, you may well get heavy metal poisoning. Fish is pretty much the only viable dietary source of Vitamin D.
There is only two way to get "enough" Vitamin D: Sunlight and supplements. Obtaining enough sunlight in the winter with an office job isn't possible in the northern hemisphere.
I believe the portion of the sentence advising readers on vitamin D sources is this part: "vitamin-D fortified cereals, milk, and orange juice." It is confusing because the order is reversed from the first clause of the sentence.
I do think it's a bit odd that the article criticizes vitamin D supplements and instead advises ... vitamin D supplemented foodstuffs.
A daily 15 minutes of exposure for the face and forarms is enough, and it contributes to recalibrate the mood and circadian rythm as well. It's free, healthy, and simple. Why would anyone recommand a supplement to people that have access to the sun is beyong me.
Omega 3 is harder, but still.
Also eating fish has other problems
I read there:
"""The fish used as sources do not actually produce omega-3 fatty acids, but instead accumulate them by consuming either microalgae or prey fish that have accumulated omega-3 fatty acids."""
A single purified component of fish oil - EPA, did lead to a 25% relative risk reduction on top of statin treatment. This is a huge result with off the charts p values.
> Among patients with elevated triglyceride levels
Much like low dose aspirin its possible this is a bad idea for the average person unless you are already showing signs of heart disease.
The effect is stronger in individuals with elevated triglyceride levels, but it seems to lower triglycerides in those with more normal levels as well.
There's a small dollar cost, and there's this whole section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Adverse_effects
Think 1 teaspoon of blood per day that you bleed from stomach.
Vitamin C can prevent some of that but it still exists.
(see my comment below).
Does having one product (that sold $xxx mil last year) make a bad company? Or one that put all of it's chips into this long term outcomes study? (which has now paid off)
Why do you care so strongly about this?
No, but something can be both FDA approved and fraud, e.g. snake oil. It just can't be particularly dangerous.
>Why do you care so strongly about this?
Wasn't you who devoted 4-5 arguments to a single comment the parent made? Why add this pop-psychology facile dismissal? What does "care so strongly" even means as an argument?
"On 10/16/2013 after FDA's ADCOM panel had voted 9-2 against recommending to expand Vascepa's label for treatment of cardiovascular disease, shares dropped over 60%"
"In March 2016, after losing a court case, the FDA agreed to allow some off-label marketing"
So, it's not like FDA approved it as a drug for cardiovascular disease. They overwhelmingly rejected it as so, and then were forced to allow it to market it self off-label as such (for "free speech" purposes, as opposed for medical reality).
A way to scam money out of Medicare.
Using mineral oil in the study to make their product look superior.
I'm not the only one to share those concerns:
The biomarkers of patients in the PLACEBO group decreased significantly (up to 30%). Why?
"But what seriously bothered five of the six cardiologists I spoke to was that the mineral oil had not behaved as a placebo at all. In other studies of cardiovascular drugs, blood test results on placebo do not budge. That’s not what happened here. Patients who received mineral oil saw their levels of low-density lipoprotein, the bad cholesterol, increase 10% to 84 milligrams per deciliter, 6% more than in the Vascepa group, according to the New England Journal of Medicine paper. What’s more, other blood test results used by cardiologists also went in the wrong direction. These changes were included in a supplement to the scientific paper, but not in the study itself. Levels of c-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation that is used to help calculate heart risk by some doctors, increased from 2.1 milligrams per liter to 2.8 milligrams per liter, a 30% increase. Could the placebo be causing some heart problems or strokes, making Vascepa look better than it really is?"
Shame on NPR for the sloppy reporting.
I live in scandinavia so every autumn I start taking one vitamin D pill a day to keep my spirits up during the long darkness.
I believe it helps and I have no illusions of preventing any diseases with it, except winter depression.
'It is unclear whether supplementation with vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, and data from randomized trials are limited.
We conducted a nationwide, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) at a dose of 2000 IU per day and marine n−3 (also called omega-3) fatty acids at a dose of 1 g per day for the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease among men 50 years of age or older and women 55 years of age or older in the United States. Primary end points were invasive cancer of any type and major cardiovascular events (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes). Secondary end points included site-specific cancers, death from cancer, and additional cardiovascular events. This article reports the results of the comparison of vitamin D with placebo.
A total of 25,871 participants, including 5106 black participants, underwent randomization. Supplementation with vitamin D was not associated with a lower risk of either of the primary end points. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, cancer was diagnosed in 1617 participants (793 in the vitamin D group and 824 in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.06; P=0.47). A major cardiovascular event occurred in 805 participants (396 in the vitamin D group and 409 in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; P=0.69). In the analyses of secondary end points, the hazard ratios were as follows: for death from cancer (341 deaths), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02); for breast cancer, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.31); for prostate cancer, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07); for colorectal cancer, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.62); for the expanded composite end point of major cardiovascular events plus coronary revascularization, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.08); for myocardial infarction, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19); for stroke, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.20); and for death from cardiovascular causes, 1.11 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.40). In the analysis of death from any cause (978 deaths), the hazard ratio was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.12). No excess risks of hypercalcemia or other adverse events were identified.
Supplementation with vitamin D did not result in a lower incidence of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; VITAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01169259.)'
Who they tried it on: older adults in USA.
What they found: no difference in risk of cancer, heart attack, stroke, or death.
A person with a moderate deficiency would probably get 5,000 IU. Doses up to 10,000 IU are fairly well tolerated.
So, no it's not a large dose. It's a modest dose.
10 IU D3 : 2 mcg+ MK-4. And chelated/TRAACS magnesium.
I highly recommend reading Dr Mark Hyman's book the Ultramind Solution. It's loaded with great info regarding nutrition and how it affects your brain. It is truly life changing information. He also had a podcast called Broken Brain that is worth checking out.
Julia Ross' the Mood Cure is good too, the not as detailed (tho that can be good if you are feeling overwhelmed).
> ... we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of [omega-3] as a treatment for [major depression]. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect ... compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low.
Also, I'd be careful with Mark Hyman. He's controversial at best and associated with some fairly quacky organisations. I'm also automatically wary because his bibliography is wonder-fix followed by magic-cure - and medicine is never that simple.
I'm a student doctor. If the answer was easy we'd have found it, and we'd tell you about it.
It's nothing groundbreaking, but that's a good sign in my book when it comes for credibility.
Or is it something more specific you're looking for?
That sounds like a bookful of BS and pseudo science.
I don't claim to be a genius, and I don't see how using the collective pronoun is a problem. I'm just moderately persistent, and I do actually care about people and their health, and advancing our understanding. I'm also a scientist, with a not-bad-for-a-student publication record: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=x-VF3w4AAAAJ
Please also follow the site guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." There are plenty of other ways to interpret that "we".
> While the overall results were disappointing, there appeared to be a beneficial effect when it came to one aspect of heart disease and fish oil: heart attacks.
> Taking fish oil lowered the risk of heart attack by about 28 percent, which is a "statistically significant" finding, says Dr. JoAnn Manson, who is chief of the division of preventive medicine at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. She led the research.
> Those who appeared to benefit the most were people who didn't ordinarily eat much fish in their day-to-day diet, as well as African Americans, Manson says.
> African-Americans in the study experienced a 77 percent lower risk of heart attack when compared to placebo, which is a "dramatic reduction," Manson says. Further research is needed to confirm these findings, she adds, but, "in the meantime it would be reasonable for African Americans to talk with their health care providers about whether they may be candidates for taking fish oil supplements."
Edit: LOL downvotes for a straight up medical fact :D
Osteoporosis among other symptoms. Swelling tongue is not on the list.
"Taking fish oil lowered the risk of heart attack by about 28 percent, which is a "statistically significant" finding, says Dr. JoAnn Manson, who is chief of the division of preventive medicine at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. She led the research."
"African-Americans in the study experienced a 77 percent lower risk of heart attack when compared to placebo, which is a "dramatic reduction,"
Because if they spun the study as a success, the funders of this study, a pharmaceutical company, wouldn't be able to promote their drug.
I remember both my parents taking both regularly growing up in the 90s and they both separately mentioned cancer prevention as the big reasons.
Fish has never been part of my diet. Started using fish oil, eating Cheerios, vitamins and some excercise. Started makeung a point to include seafood 2 times a week. Long story short, 6 months later all my numbers were in line.
The most striking thing I recalled from this was the fish oil, brain fog went away, I felt a great deal more mental acuity.
Fast forward to today; that was all 8 years ago, in the interim I stopped all that and the brain fog and unwell ness are back. I started fish oil again, and the effect was immediate. I even remarked to my wife how much better I felt.
That’s all anecdotal, and probably placebo effect anyway, ymmv.
So that's my one data point, and the only one relevant to me regarding statins.
It seems statins have serious side effects such as nerve damage, so perhaps you should go with the exact dosage prescribed by a doctor instead of taking an unknown quantity of the same drug from natural sources.
How much fish oil do you take?
But there's very good evidence that shows fish oil has benefits for triglycerides and cholesterol, which is consistent with the results of this study re: heart attacks.
"Overall, they showed that neither fish oil nor vitamin D actually lowered the incidence of heart disease or cancer," Fine says.
So apparently heart disease and heart attacks are two different things. If so, why should we care about heart disease at all?
1st study about Vitamin D https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259
2nd study about fish oil with a low dose, 1 gram https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259
3rd study about a PROPRIETARY PRESCRIPTION variation of fish oil with a HIGH DOSE https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01492361
1st study - no effect.
2nd study - no effect.
3rd study - "REMARKABLE degree of risk reduction".
The researchers are different but the HOSPITAL that conducted them is the same.
The HOSPITAL posted about BOTH studies at the same time (today):
IMHO, something smells a little bit ... FISHY in here LOL.
Amarin is a one-product medical "startup" trying to show that their fish oil variation works. Oh, they are also publicly traded. Their stock went up after this announcement. It has also 10x-ed this year.
They are also trying to convince the FDA that it "works".
My opinion? Total fraudsters.
The D-Health study in Austrialia will be done in a couple of years and is a similar size just looking at vitamin D, so we can see then if the results match. That is a large monthly dose so not exactly the same thing. Also, vitamin D studies seem to very often get contradictory results and I don't know if the reasons for that have been figured out.
Not directly related to this study, but one oddity with vitamin D for anyone who had done testing is that the most common tests undercount D2 and fortified products and many supplements use D2.
Establishing an Accuracy Basis for the Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS). Burdette et al. 2017.
Google around about the company and their drug Vascepa. Many people are skeptical about it and IMHO they have a point. Vascepa an extract from fish oil but is... prescription? Why? So they can extract hundreds of dollars from programs like Medicare when your doctor writes you a prescription about it. Vascepa does not seem to be any better than regular over-the-counter fish oil.
""We are reporting a remarkable degree of risk reduction," says Dr. Deepak Bhatt, who headed the study and is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital."
"Taking fish oil lowered the risk of heart attack by about 28 percent, which is a "statistically significant" finding".
"African-Americans in the study experienced a 77 percent lower risk of heart attack when compared to placebo, which is a "dramatic reduction," Manson says".
"Overall, that study found there was a 25 percent risk reduction for patients taking the extract. These patients were less likely to die from heart disease, have a heart attack or stroke, be hospitalized for chest pain or need procedures such as angioplasty, stenting or bypass surgery, researchers reported."
However fish oil undeniably reduces dryness in the EYES, with and without contact lenses.
They do sell in pharmacy supplements for eye health, I think targeted at older people, and the dosage of EPA /DHA is very low. I didn't try those so I can't say how much is needed.
I took eg. Life Extension 700/500 epa/dha and for me the effect was 100% reproducible. On a day I took it, my eyes supported the contacts much better in the evening. Without supplements I could feel the difference.
I wish I could say as much about D3. I keep hearing how it's good for winter etc, but even though I am healing TRAUMA and have suffered anxiety for 20+ years before starting therapy.. i never noticed any obvious changes in mood when supplementing with D3 (which was averaging 3000-ish IU per day). I wish! (edit: and, I spend a ton of time indoors, and working on a PC.. so if they did anything I should have noticed?)
I didn't noticed a lot of changes with 2000 IU but at 5000 IU the effect on mood is dramatic and quite noticeable. Being liposoluble the effect has quite a latency over several days.
It's basically the "summer vacation" feeling.
(Be carefult to take pure D3 not something mixed with calcium though: effective dosage of vit D. would bring into calcium overdosage.)
It's winter soon so I guess I could give it another go.
Since this contains calcium, is it harmful to take everyday? Should I try to find a different supplement?
Vitamin D supplements can sometimes be underdosed.
If you're quite serious about it you could maybe draw blood and see if you're deficient in any particular vitamins.
Short answer: none of your business.
I'm glad to say, though, that I spot-checked what she said against the medical research literature myself and it seemed right to me.
Still, a 25% decrease in heart decease for African Americans and people who don’t eat fatty fish is a good result.
Also, re: “That includes eating fatty fish like sardines, tuna and salmon, and vitamin-D fortified cereals, milk, and orange juice.” I don’t like breakfast cereals, to many carbs, I prefer my morning carbs from steamed cauliflower, broccoli, etc. I decided to cut out dairy partly for health reasons and partly because of animal cruelty. I hate drinking commercially packaged orange juice, tastes like sugar. A fresh orange is tasty but does does not have artificially added vitamin D - so take vitamin D pills.
I am in my mid 60s and felt tired and low energy earlier this year. My doctor tested vitamin D levels, put me on vitamin D pills, and I literally felt good again within a week.
"... among men 50 years of age or older and women 55 years of age or older in the United States"
Maybe by then it's too late?
What works great for one person might not work for the majority. This doesn't mean a particular remedy or supplement should be cast aside.
Here is an example of where I wish the "health industry" would move:
EDIT: here’s some information - https://arthritisaustralia.com.au/managing-arthritis/living-... - and without doing much research I’ve been taking it to prevent joint strains from running - not sure if that’s worthwhile or not
It would be amusing to find out that it actually makes no difference at all and it's all placebo.
I've noticed no difference (though to be fair, it was hardly an empirical approach). I have a pretty well-rounded diet, so I assume I'm not deficient.
I do think that fish oil makes a difference, at least in terms of exercise.
I wasn't aware of magnesium supplements - what's the science behind it?
Also, the "placebo" used here was mineral oil, which has many known health benefits. Why not use some type of sugar pill? Talk about tipping the scale in favor of big pharma's desired results from the beginning. Past similar studies on fish oil (funded by big pharma) have even used an olive oil "placebo", which skews p-values even further. Imagine a weight loss study that told the placebo group to start running a mile everyday and eating healthier food....
Also, though the studies are dubbed ‘disappointing’ in the second paragraph
> African-Americans in the study experienced a 77 percent lower risk of heart attack when compared to placebo,
Isn’t exactly chicken feed.
I'd recommend that anyone interested in the health benefits of eating healthier... look into eating healthier. I really dig Marty Kendall's work on https://nutrientoptimiser.com/
Flax seed oil is still healthy but only for the lignans - only marine oils can effectively provide DHA and EPA. Though most commercially available products are DHA heavy, which no longer seems to be the beneficial conjugate.
> there appeared to be a beneficial effect when it came to one aspect of heart disease and fish oil: heart attacks.
> Taking fish oil lowered the risk of heart attack by about 28 percent,
Vitamin C, E, and many other supplements have similarly questionable benefits with possible harsh side effects.
I wouldn’t reach for almost any supplement unless a doctor + blood tests + my own research suggested I should. And even then I believe diet and lifestyle modifications could be attempted beforehand.
Everything has side effects.
Why the quotes?! If the author doesn't understand what that means why report on science at all?
It is important to remember though D3 has other proven benefits.
I take vitamin D because it makes a massive difference to my mood during the gloomy months in Seattle.
So is it possible some people don't really need fish oil for well-being? Evolution might have rendered eating fish useless for these people.
The 2 essential fatty acids are:
- alpha-linolenic acid (ALA, an omega-3 fatty acid). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-Linolenic_acid
- linoleic acid (LA, an omega-6 fatty acid). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleic_acid
Linseed oil (flaxseed oil) is a good provider of essential fatty acids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linseed_oil
EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) or DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) are conditionally essential fatty acids.
Experts recommend a vegan diet against heart disease and cancer.
People who lived in areas without fish also lived in areas without algae.
>The 2 essential fatty acids are
It is worth noting that there is basically no evidence that those 2 fatty acids are actually essential. A single study done in the 1930s is the basis for that belief. A study in which rats fed no fat got symptoms we now would consider indicative of vitamin B6 deficiency. This study was done prior to the discovery of vitamin B6. Although adding "essential" omega 6 fatty acids alleviated the rat's symptoms, later studies were able to alleviate the symptoms using vitamin B6 while the rats continued to receive absolutely no fats.
>Linseed oil (flaxseed oil) is a good provider of essential fatty acids
And linseed oil consumption is correlated with an increase in all cause mortality.
>Experts recommend a vegan diet against heart disease and cancer.
Experts recommend all sorts of things that contradict evidence. Like taking statins even though they increase mortality. Or switching from perfectly safe saturated fats to "heart healthy" trans fats even though it increases mortality. Or once trans fats were too obviously bad they simply changed their recommendation to "polyunsaturated fats" which are also correlated with increased mortality.
The point is that EPA and DHA is not made by fish. EPA and DHA can be bought in vegan form. EPA and DHA are not even considered as essential fatty acids. Unlike ALA and LA.
I have not seen any study what shows that ALA and LA are not essential. If you have one, please link it. I would like to know.
> And linseed oil consumption is correlated with an increase in all cause mortality.
> Or switching from perfectly safe saturated fats to "heart healthy" trans fats even though it increases mortality.
What are you talking about ? Are yout talking about margerine and butter ?
But I agree that many so called experts are not experts.
Many organizations and in particular government organizations (e.g. EPA and FDA in the USA) affected by politicians are very prone to corruption and pleasing corrupting lobby groups like the food industry and the military industry and the fossil fuel industry.
But some truth is known in 2018.
But that point is not relevant to the post you replied to, which was wondering aloud about human adaptation to the availability of fish. The availability of algae is the same as the availability of fish.
>I have not seen any study what shows that ALA and LA are not essential.
Have you seen one that shows it is? Because there are none.
I can't find the original study, just people talking about it. They gave up on the original premise as the linseed oil was killing people instead of making them healthy, so they ended up reporting on smoking and blood pressure.
>But some truth is known in 2018.
But people with agendas lying on their blogs or youtube isn't truth. Pretending carnivores are omnivores and then saying "look we're not like omnivores" is just deliberate dishonesty. We are not like carnivores. We are, 100% without any question, omnivores. Read literally any text on mammology, there is no debate, no controversy, no ambiguity. Poor studies like the adventist study vegan advocates like to cite may show benefits when they don't control for anything else. But properly defined and conducted trials show veganism is not associated with lower mortality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691673/
Yes it is. Remember:
>>> So is it possible some people don't really need fish oil for well-being? Evolution might have rendered eating fish useless for these people.
> But people with agendas lying on their blogs or youtube isn't truth. Pretending carnivores are omnivores and then saying "look we're not like omnivores" is just deliberate dishonesty.
Yes we can it fresh meat and digest it. Even cows can digest milk and meat to some degree; remember the mad cow disease.
The human body works best with vegan food as main food or only vegan food in 2018 with modern vitamin supplements. This is a fact.
Regarding vitamin B12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cavI_FnIrh4 and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5TLzNi5fYd-Tyz9vI6Q2...
I am sure you have not watched the videos because otherwise your would reply differently.
Again, human physiology that you can not deny or call a lie:
By far most humans do not like and do not eat raw meat.
Most humans do not even like predigested meat in the form of cooked meat or grilled meat without further additions like salt and spices and other plant based food for the taste.
No it is not, read the context you intentionally cut out: "Quite a large population in the the world lives at place where fishes aren't available".
>The human body works best with vegan food as main food or only vegan food in 2018 with modern vitamin supplements
There is no evidence to support your assertion. The fact that vitamin supplements are required in order to avoid dying is incontrovertible evidence that humans are not herbivores. Our digestive tract, dentition, and enzyme production are those of an omnivore. We have absolutely no characteristics of herbivores.
>Even cows can digest milk and meat to some degree
All mammals can digest milk, that is why all mammals produce milk. That has nothing to do with your claim. Meat fed to cattle is pre-digested in order to allow them to get some energy value from it. They can not digest it normally.
>Again, human physiology that you can not deny or call a lie:
It is a bunch of lies and deliberate nonsense. Claws do not define diet, that is a completely irrelevant characteristic to focus on. Dogs are not omnivores they are carnivores. Our closest primate relatives are omnivores just like us, not herbivores. Notice how you keep referencing vegan activists spouting nonsense on blogs and videos? That is not evidence. There is a reason every biologist in the US has read this book rather than watch vegan youtube videos: https://www.amazon.ca/Mammalogy-Adaptation-Diversity-George-...
>Most humans do not even like predigested meat in the form of cooked meat or grilled meat without further additions like salt and spices and other plant based food for the taste.
And your basis for this claim is that the vast majority of the population of earth consumes meat all the time? If lots of people choose to add additional flavorings to something they eat, then that means it isn't part of their natural diet? By that definition, the natural diet of humans is absolutely nothing, not even water.
Wolves are presented as typical carnivores in the linked video.
The web page puts dogs in the category of omnivores like many experts do or did.
I link these "vegan activists" because they were active to create the good videos that I can link.
I live in West-Europe and from primary school to university, the recommendation for food has always been less meat and less cheese and less fat and less candy and more vegetables including fruits and more fiber.
The benefits of a plant based or vegan diet have become only more scientifically validated and more accepted in the population. Also because of a growing acceptance that actions against climate warming and pollution and unsustainable and horrible animal farming are needed.
You are literally linking to youtube videos by an infamous crank.
>link a book that I will not buy
You don't need to buy it. The point is, biology text books contradict your advocate fraud. Which is more credible?
>The web page puts dogs in the category of omnivores like many experts do or did.
Dogs are the same species as wolves.
>I live in West-Europe and from primary school to university, the recommendation for food has always been less meat and less cheese and less fat and less candy and more vegetables including fruits and more fiber.
And health problems have gotten worse. Funny how that works huh? Myocardial infarctions literally did not exist prior to the 1900s when "vegetable oil" was introduced to our diets. We consume far less animal fat than Victorians did, yet have far worse health. Hmmm.
>The benefits of a plant based or vegan diet have become only more scientifically validated and more accepted in the population.
There is no evidence to support that belief.
>Also because of a growing acceptance that actions against climate warming and pollution and unsustainable and horrible animal farming are needed.
That has nothing to do with veganism, it is a red herring vegans use to push their agenda on the back of environmentalism which people are more receptive to.
So perhaps NPR views this as "disappointing" but the headline suggests broadly that everyone should stop taking those supplements, when in fact the results are far more nuanced.
HN's absurd title policy is using a clickbait (and misleading) title chosen by NPR and amplifying it.
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
A better one would be something like "Landmark Study On Fish Oil and Vitamin D Shows Fish Oil Reduces Heart Attacks, But Few Other Benefits"
Current title is: "Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements"
The current title doesn't contain the conclusion which is much more neutral and invites for more reading. The current title is not clickbait.
>However, these “positive” results need to be interpreted with caution. First, there was no correction for multiple comparisons, as would be required to attenuate the chance that these are spurious results, owing, in part, to the number of secondary end points. Second, these putative effects have not been consistently observed across other large, randomized trials of n−3 fatty acids.5,6 However, in one of the trials of vitamin D supplementation, post hoc analysis showed a lower incidence of cancer among women who received active supplements than among those who received placebo, excluding women who had withdrawn or in whom cancer had developed in the first year of the trial.13 Finally, the medical literature is replete with exciting secondary end points that have failed when they were subsequently formally tested as primary end points in adequately powered randomized trials. Thus, in the absence of additional compelling data, it is prudent to conclude that the strategy of dietary supplementation with either n−3 fatty acids or vitamin D as protection against cardiovascular events or cancer suffers from deteriorating VITAL signs.
In practice, those tests are probably going to be skipped or done improperly, and it's difficult to tease out if the subgroup analysis suffers from the statistical fraud of reanalyzing until you get a positive result. Redoing the test from the start with the subgroup as the primary endpoint would always get you more accurate data, and history has pretty clearly shown that most instances of "we looked at the subgroups and found something where it works!" tend to not actually work when done properly anyways.
Just like super white people need to be careful about sun screen when away from northern European climates.
No, outcome switching is not exactly the same as P-hacking, but either could be blamed here.
I don't know how what heart attack values normally look like, but those percentages are pretty huge. They sound like numbers that might stand even after you compensate for the subsetting.
In general I think the HN title policy works great, and I don’t think it’s fair to call it “absurd”.
I think HN at its core always was a sort of social experiment revolving around online discussions. The title policy, along with the guidelines, is what makes HN be HN.
NPR's title is certainly accurate for the portion on the two studies, but ~3/4 of the text is not about the negative study results. So, while it's not the most misleading headline ever to grace the orange site, it's not exactly representative of the text either.
Since the comment yesterday, the HN headline has changed to "Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements," dropping "disappointing."
>Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
Maybe NPR is just playing to their audience?
I don't see it as lunacy. Some chemicals we put into our bodies kill us, some cure our illnesses, some keep us awake or put us to sleep. It's lunacy to believe that some can benefit our health?
Regardless, this isn't zero-sum. I don't think people are advocating for a pill to replace diet and exercise, but it seems obviously worthwhile to pursue other avenues of living a healthy life.
Also, saying "you make time" is true in such a way that is of little value, as there are a multitude of things you can make time for, such as connecting with your friends and family, learning new skills, educating your children, and any of those can take up as much time as you have. Life is a balance of things where you try to minimize your regret, since there is just not enough time to do everything you want to do.
Us folk need all the help we can get.
“Vegetable oil”, as such, is almost never an ingredient in premade food, as it is a marketing term for plant-based oil as a standalone consumer product (even “vegetable oil” itself lists the actual specific oil or oils used, usually pure soybean oil) as ingredients.
>(even “vegetable oil” itself lists the actual specific oil or oils used,
Often it just provides a list of oils the company uses, and you have no idea which one or how much of which ones is in the particular container you're looking at. There's plenty of "soybean and/or canola oil" out there.
Here are the abstract results: Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12-1·46], ptrend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67-0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76-0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71-0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71-0·89], ptrend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98], ptrend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality. INTERPRETATION: High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.
See also: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31812-9
If your primary interest is in longevity, IMO your best bet is to eat less often:
Also, exercise isn't bad either:
Knowing, of course, it cannot be proven.
If you are actually of open mind, there are some natural experiments that have been done, e.g. see Blue Zones.
(One interesting thing about the past associational studies is that many did not control for transfats, or even smoking).
I also like this Vox article from a few years ago that describes why nutritional research is so hard: https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-com...
Amount of food we eat, roughly eetimatable as calories, is important. I think gut biota is also an interesting field we are just learning about.
But yes, eat in moderation and exercise.