Could you post sources? I feel this is especially wanted for free dietary advice on the internet. Not saying that you're wrong, I simply don't know, but just a quick search on 'bioavailability of n-3 fatty acids' show a lot of research which goes various ways and not necessarily confirming what you say here.
This probably covers it, not sure if the original papers are mentioned in here but I haven't heard of these guys misleading people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcvhERcZpWw
I take algae-derived DHA. Fatty fish get their omega-3 from algea, after all. As a benefit, the algea can be sustainably farmed in clean water, with no microplastics, heavy metals, or other contaminants. It's also not cruel! And the prices are pretty similar to fish oil!
I take these too. Besides being more environment and animal friendly they also do not suffer from buildup of persistent chemicals that is quite an issue with fish and fish derived products.
No concerns with heavy metals and algae sourcing? Supplements tend to concentrate whatever is in the environment they were harvested from. It always feels like a struggle to find reputable supplement providers. I have settled on Thorne for most things.
You're going to get far less heavy metals in algae than in fish. Supplements may concentrate things, but with fish you're adding concentration on top of concentration.
I avoid getting my omega from fish because it contains mercury and other "forever chemicals". There are suppliers of high-purity DHA omega 3 and that's good enough for me.
You should eat sardines and other small fish. They eat plankton and krill and other tiny things and therefore do not bioaccumulate the nasty stuff like mercury and PCBs.
Supplements have risk of bioaccumulation just like animals much higher up the food chain - small fish and bottom of the food chain animals is often a very safe and sustainable bet.
As childish as I know this sounds, as a white male in my early 30s, I don't really eat fish. I like the occasional can of tuna, but thats it.
It might be an aspergers thing with me about texture, but I don't like the bones. I also can't really eat solid fat on steaks for the same reason.
I think chia seeds have a good source of omega 3, along with good quality grass fed meat, but not close to optimal amounts. These days I supplement with whole foods, desiccated and/or freeze dried and put in pill form. The cronometer app is great for seeing a whole day breakdown and looking for deficiencies, which showed me nearly 0% daily omega 3 without supplementation.
I did hear somewhere that certain populations of people might not get the benefit of omega 3, and that the usually cited studies were done on populations with a long historical trend of eating mainly fish (I'm sorry, I don't have the study to hand, so I can't link it)
Chia seeds, like most plant-based sources of Omega-3 are mostly Omega-3 ALA and not the Omega-3 DHA or EPA found from fish or algae sources. The body needs to convert Omega-3 ALA into DHA or EPA and there are various other factors involved in the conversion.
> It might be an aspergers thing with me about texture, but I don't like the bones.
Have you tried salmon fillets, swordfish, butterfish, kingklip or tuna? These are rarely served on the bone and swordfish and tuna for example have a very different texture than most soft whitefish.
I usually don't order fish on the bone as it requires sensitive cooking to make it practical to eat (overcook it and its hard to separate meat and bones)
> I did hear somewhere that certain populations of people might not get the benefit of omega 3, and that the usually cited studies were done on populations with a long historical trend of eating mainly fish (I'm sorry, I don't have the study to hand, so I can't link it)
Some inland populations learned to synthesise it and so most people can. But it's a far inferior process for the body compared to eating fish
Besides salmon, and to a lesser extent tuna, which of those are high Omega-3? (Swordfish isn't common here, so don't know much about it, and I'm unfamiliar with the other two.)
Smoked mackerel is another option. Sometimes has the odd small bone, but if you buy it flaked the chance is rare, and it has a much more meaty texture than unsmoked white fish, and a delicious bacony flavour. Great with a salad or in a sandwich with lettuce and mayo.
Regarding texture. I've had issue with textures and still do. However, I have found that repeatedly trying what ever is bothering me can reduce or eliminate the effect. I of course only try this at home. Most sashimi was very difficult for me but now I can eat and enjoy it.
Completely agree about the bones, once I find a bone in the fish I have difficulty finishing the dish.
There are many different kinds of fish with varying textures. Freshness really matters. How its dispatched and processed matters. How its cooked matters.
I would urge you to keep exploring, try everything everywhich way, you will surely find something you can get behind.
If you live near the coast, seek out the docks and look to buy straight from local fishermen. Learn to clean and store it. Its worth the extra effort.
I'm in late 30's. I hated fish all my life. Then one day in my early 30's I was invited out for sushi with friends. Ever since then I was hooked. Over time, the kinds of sushi I order has evolved from the fancy deep-fried rolls with lots of sauce to the simpler, more-traditional rolls, to the basic sushi (nigiri), to sashimi. Along with that, my preference for sushi restaurant has evolved from low-end all-you-can-eat to higher end places that serve high quality sashimi.
Nowadays, I also enjoy English-style fish and chips as well as fish tacos, as long as they're really crunchy. Sushi will always be my favourite though.
I'm not saying this same sort of path will work for you but I think it's worth a try. I have been really happy with this expansion in my diet range. As a kid I really didn't like most foods. Now I find myself eating a lot of foods that my friends won't touch!
Where do you get your fish? I feel like I would have to go pretty out of my way to even buy a fish with bones still in it.
Having to carefully eat a fish with bones is not something I like dealing either, but I noticed with fish I catch myself it's often easy cleanly debone them: after you bread and fry them up the meat will usually separate cleanly from the bone, and often I can split the fish like the wafers of a nutty bar and lift the entire spine out with all the the pointy bones attached, leaving two easy to eat filets.
Same here. I don't generally have a lot of faith in supplements beyond a diverse and reasonably balanced diet or nor do I think it's a good idea to make uninformed decisions risking to disturb the body's natural equilibrium with wrong dosing, but as I'm not a big fan of eating fish, omega-3 supplements are an exception. As long as research seems to point out obvious benefits, I will keep taking them.
Sorry for the diagnosis, but that avoidance of textures is a hallmark of ARFID (Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder) which is indeed common in people on the spectrum.
Doesn't seem like it is after some looking. Not liking one type of food because of texture isn't enough for a diagnosis, at least according to this criteria:
"According to the DSM-5, ARFID is diagnosed when:
An eating or feeding disturbance (e.g., apparent lack of interest in eating or food; avoidance based on the sensory characteristics of food; concern about aversive consequences of eating) as manifested by persistent failure to meet appropriate nutritional and/or energy needs associated with one (or more) of the following:
* Significant weight loss (or failure to achieve expected weight gain or faltering growth in children).
* Significant nutritional deficiency.
* Dependence on enteral feeding or oral nutritional supplements.
* Marked interference with psychosocial functioning."
If they're meeting their nutritional needs with other foods just fine, they don't have this disorder.
Like take my wife as an example. She refuses to eat several foods because she doesn't like the texture (fish, solid fat on meats, cottage cheese, a bunch of other foods I don't remember offhand). But there's plenty of other things she will eat, and she doesn't have a nutritional deficiency.
Do note how the criteria actually only require one of the former and one of the latter group. If your wife avoids foods AND doing so causes psychosocial distress (such as not being able to eat with coworkers and consequently getting excluded) then the diagnosis does apply.
In my wife's case, at least, it doesn't cause her psychosocial distress. It just means I usually have to wait until she's got other plans before I can order from a sushi restaurant (I say usually because sometimes she's fine with getting a noodle dish). None of the bullet points apply to her.
In fact, I had more trouble finding food I could eat at restaurants when I was on the keto diet (and many years earlier when I was on a vegetarian diet), then she does right now.
The parent poster also didn't mention anything about it significantly interfering with social functioning.
Having a daughter with this disorder I can just say that, its not childish. Her disorder has been referred to as "food phobia" which explains it fairly well: She does not like a lot of food, but she actually _wants_ to try taste it and get better. But even when doing that, it doesn't really work for 95% of food, she just wont get better at eating it.
It was also mentioned that she is probably on the spectrum, but either she is very far down or she is very much a "girl" and hides it really well because she is diametrically different (play pretend is her favorite pastime, and also pretending to be others etc, also very social.) from how you are supposed to be on the spectrum, but in some ways she shows it in a classic way (change is very hard).
Not for nothing, but this subthread has finally given me a name for my own eating disorder. I'm almost 45 and in the last 10 years I've made some progress towards eating like a normal human being, but from childhood until I was almost 35 the stuff I'm reading about this disorder describes me incredibly closely. I grew up with food allergies (tree nuts, some seeds) and somewhat abusive father (he would get frustrated with me and hold me down and shove food in my mouth—obviously that didn't help matters any and I honestly believe that provided the impetus for most of my "origin story".)
This is something that affected nearly every aspect of my life. I didn't go to college away from home because I was afraid of cafeteria food in the dorms. I didn't join the military because rations. I never took a semester or year abroad because foreign food. Many of my relationships ended because seriously, how many times can a normal person eat bread and cheese in a week for years on end?
I'm sorry to unload here, I'm just reeling from having a name for this. I'm painting a picture here that is pretty bleak, because from the outside it definitely looked that way. I hope you're able to help your daughter move through it. The world today is far more accommodating than the one I grew up in though, so I'm sure her experience is somewhat different.
I also can't eat dairy or wheat for intolorence reasons. Its hard to live live a normal person sometimes. You try to date but can't go to a restaurant confidently (big cities are better though). Most sauces and prepped food have either wheat or dairy. Alcohol in in UK doesn't need an ingredients list either.
I would have sworn blind that I have a physical reaction to these two ingredients. I recently got prescribed some melatonin (it's only available on prescription in the UK) and noticed it had lactose in. I fought for the NHS to perscribe me my usual brand, which has worked fine for me in the past. When I looked, it had the same amount of lactose in as this new prescription.
This really shook me. I know the mind is powerful and can manifest physical symptoms, but to have been "tricking" my self for so long was very eye opening. I'm going to try to get someone to crush up and randomise the new and old meds to see if I can tell the difference blind.
I'm starting to think this has been a mental condition this whole time. I would have bet all I had that it was a real illness a week ago.
Depending on the amount of lactose and intolerance, your body may be able to process a small amount of it(such as in a pill) versus the amount in a glass of milk. It's not a purely binary function.
A lot of the stereotypes around AS are just that. I have two sons on the spectrum and both have traits they are "not supposed" to have and yet strongly evidence other traits so that the diagnosis is clear. In my experience this is even more the case for females. That said, the "food phobia" you describe is by no means restricted to ASD.
Almost all seafish is toxic even in small, weekly amounts. I think the main contributor to this is mercury, that was once used in industrial processes, which basically still all sits on the bottom of the sea (where many fish eat from).
What about the potential mineral leeching issue with RO? I use a RO filter and mix it with 30% glass bottled water, both for taste and in hopes of avoiding any potential issue with leeching. I searched a bit but found nothing useful on the topic.
The theory seems to be that the lack of minerals in RO water might serve to leech minerals from one's body. I think there's also some concern RO water might leech from cooking vessels and organic compounds in plastic tubing, etc.
I have no idea how real the risk is, and it all seems less risky than drinking unfiltered water in most areas.
But it's no headache for me to mix RO water with bottled spring water, since I prefer the flavor and it takes seconds.
But those registered krill oils are way more expensive. Alleged absorption improvement is 2.5x (in only 1 study AFAIK). Just take more cheaper algae or fish oil. This all smells of krill oil manufacturer marketing. And who knows who funded that study.
To improve your suggestion, it's very easy to also get triglyceride non-fish omega-3 (DHA+EPA), so now there shouldn't be less worry about other stuff getting into it.
As far as Omega-3 DHA and EPA, they are. It's just that you also get the algae flavor in concentrated form, and the demand is not high enough for the cost as low as fish-based supplements.
I had looked into it after seeing the modern fishing practices, and even took algae-based DHA supplements for a while. The ones I got did not contain enough EPA though, and that also has an interesting affect on mood. (Maybe I should have taken more ALA from plant sources with curcumin).
I am having a hard time understanding what is "essential" about essential fatty acids. That the body does not produce EPA or DHA is necessary but not sufficient for the claim that humans need to consume n-3 PUFA. The body doesn't endogenously produce amphetamine or cayenne pepper, are those essential too?
When the human organism lacks n-3 PUFA, it generates n-9 20:3 LCPUFA (Mead) from 18:1 oleic acid (which makes up over 80% of the lipid content of olive oil). Is this Mead acid of no benefit compared to the n-3 series?
Secondly, it seems strange that supplementing n-3 PUFA is so popular, considering the brain seems to mirror overall fatty acid composition of the diet. Throwing in a little n-3 isn't going to change much when you're getting a lot of n-6 AA, and AA in the brain is linked to Alzheimer's and cognitive impairment. Therefore, outside of changing your diet entirely (or trying your best to cut out omega-6), there isn't much of a call to action from these studies.
Sorry, I'm not a biochemist, which is why my post consists of two questions. I do think a diet with plenty of n-3 is good, just not sure how much or what type. But I'm glad I made you curious. Please do more research and form your own conclusions. Also please note that when I wrote AA I meant arachidonic acid, which your link unfortunately does not address.
This is also my gripe. Information on fatty acids is extremely basic and sometimes downright condescending, as if all n-3, n-6, n-9 PUFA are the same. They don't seem to be.
According to Ray Peat, PUFAs in any amount are toxic to humans. It's so obvious that after we started to consume PUFAs, the mitochondrial dysfunction, and all associated with it chronic diseases and obesity started as well! I've only heard Ray Peat talk about cardiolipin and how detrimental the desaturation of fatty acids is for our health!
I hope that I am doing this correctly: I eat about 1 1/2 tablespoons of chia seeds a day. I soak them for an hour and then put them in whatever I am eating. I prefer to not eat much fish oil.
EDIT: after just reading the comments here, I just order some vegan algae oil for omega 3 to add to the soaked chia seeds. I try hard to avoid all foods with omega 6.
Most of omega 3 benefits come from EPA and DHA. Not ALA. chia seeds have mainly ALA. Your body will only convert some of ALA into EPA, but not much. If you are trying to avoid fish oil, you could try krill oil
Veganism, vegetarianism mostly. Fish oils are now certified independently by IFOS who have an excellent site showing actual tests of retail fish oils, not sure if I can link to it here but searching for "ifos certifications" will bring up the site. Mercury is not an issue for certified fish oils.
Basic Omega 6 and Omega 3 are both EFA (essential fatty acids) and you want to eat both. Definitely though Omega 6 is much easier to get so it is good to prioritise Omega 3. Not sure how much Omega 3 that small amount of Chia seeds has but I would guess you need a lot more.
Omega 3 also goes rancid fairly quickly so you need the source to be fairly fresh (and especially not processed)
Your body can make medium chain and long chain fatty acids from the short chain ones above but its also good to consume those as well since it (your body) can only do so in limited amounts. This is why people say seafood consumption is a good idea.
There are also other omega fatty acids which also can be good for you - Omega 9, Omega 7 etc etc. Many nuts and seeds can be good sources of these.
I don't remember the study but ratios of Omega 6 to Omega 3 can matter if you are prone to inflammation. In our North American diet Omega 6 is nearly unavoidable in amounts that hurt some folks with inflammation.
I have a collagen issue and so googled for studies about omega 3 and collagen the other day. Was surprised to find a strong negative result for wound healing and collagen formation (in mice, but the effect size means something)
It’s interesting to note the anti-inflammatory effect seems directly responsible for slowing healing (where you want it), and that this may be broadly applicable. We don’t always want less inflammation, everywhere.
For anybody without any specific issues like yours, surely this effect would be hardly observable? They administered 2 g/kg every day for four weeks, which is absolutely massive, whereas most people eating a lot of fish might be eating at most 0.05 g/kg of EPA/DHA, and that would probably only be a couple of days days a week… I take “high strength” fish oil supplements (for an autoimmune condition), and that only has 900 mg of triglycerides per capsule (1.5g of fish oil), which for me is 0.01 g/kg. I usually take two, except on days I eat salmon, when I only have one.
I've always a lot of doubts on the quality of fish oil supplements being sold (not only for the amount of omega 3 but also for the content of less desirable chemicals derived from farmed fish), and also there has been a lot of research downplaying various omega3 supposed benefits over the years.
See Labdoor.com and Consumerlab.com to verify supplement quality.
There are some good meta studies on Omega-3s. Dr Bradley Stanfield[1] walks through Mayo Clinic meta analysis[2]. Rhonda Patrick[3] is the best resource for an interpretation of the data.
TLDR; consume enough omega-3s (DHA/EPA) to get omega-3 index above 8.0. Discrepancies in research outcomes are attributed to study design, methodology of measuring intake, methodology of measuring blood.
It is very good to be skeptical about the composition of the food you buy, and to check as much as possible which it is.
However, when you buy some kind of fish oil for which the vendor provides precise values for its content in DHA, EPA and vitamin D, and you buy this in a country where such false claims are punished, you can be reasonably certain about the quality of the oil.
I have not seen a vendor publishing the admissible content of mercury, but in most countries there are legal limits for it.
I have seen a few studies where random samples taken from various fish oil commercial products were analyzed for mercury, and in most cases the content was significantly lower than encountered in most fish meat that is sold. Also one would eat much less fish oil per day, e.g. at most a spoon, than one would eat fish meat, when choosing a fish dish.
I agree that unfortunately, due to the human stupidity in managing waste, now eating any fish-derived products implies some risks.
However, in the case of fish oil obtained from some reputable source, I believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. The only good alternative to fish oil is the oil obtained from cultures of some unicellular living beings, but that is about 8 times more expensive than fish oil, so few people can afford it in the quantities that are needed for the recommended daily intake.
Regarding the research downplaying the "omega3 supposed benefits", I have read many such studies and the conclusions were mostly opposite. While in many cases there could not be observed any effects from taking various vitamin supplements, there were nonetheless in most cases measurable good effects from the use of omega3 supplements.
The reason for this is easy to understand. Any kind of vitamin, mineral or omega3 supplements can have effects only when the food eaten is deficient in those substances, otherwise there is no effect.
Someone who eats large quantities of food obtained from animals will not need any kind of omega3 supplements. On the other hand someone who is either vegan or eats mostly vegetable food, will need omega3 supplements, like also vitamin D and vitamin B12 supplements.
I am not vegan, but I eat mostly vegetable food, so I add some cod liver oil to the olive oil that I put in my food, to ensure an adequate daily intake of DHA, EPA and vitamin D.
I want to add that actually the best source of omega-3 fatty acids is eating the brains of animals.
However, since the mad cow disease, this has become a much less frequent choice, even in Europe, where it previously was a popular dish in many places.
Moreover, eating small quantities of fish oil seems better ethically than eating pig brains.
That's interesting, I feel like the opposite comes out ahead ethically. I'm on board with the idea that pigs are way more intelligent than most people realize, but unless we get people to give up bacon, the pig brains will otherwise just be discarded, and it's unlikely that losing the market for pig brains would make pork significantly less profitable.
On the other hand, fish oil seems to be a major reason for catching the fish it comes from:
> The major sources of fish oil are small pelagic fishes, caught off the coast of Peru and Chile. Each catch is transported on a fishing vessel to shore, where it is then processed by fractionation into fish meal and crude fish oil.
You have a point there, but for example I am eating cod liver oil.
Like a pig brain, a cod liver would have been otherwise discarded after making the cod fillet bought by other people.
In the future the algae-based oil will indeed be the winner (even if that is a misnomer, because the unicellular living beings that make the oil are not algae; however for the general public, "algae" is much more intelligible than "thraustochytrids").
Nevertheless, that future is not here yet. The cost of cultivation and oil extraction must be reduced at least 8 times, to make that oil competitive with the fish oil.
The argument doesn't quite work, though, because if you start to extract additional value from an animal then it becomes more valuable to farm/fish, and more of those animals get killed.
In the case of cod, cod is one of the most over-fished fishes on the planet. The extra money that the big fishing companies get from selling the liver separately certainly contributes some percentage to that over-fishing. (Some cod is sustainably farmed, but it's the minority.)
Your arguments are valid, so the truth is that none of the sources of omega-3 fatty acids that are the best choice now are good enough for the long term.
Nevertheless, eating a small quantity of animal food for covering the requirement for omega-3 fatty acids is still a great improvement over eating a large quantity of animal food containing other kinds of fat, which is better obtained from vegetable sources. Therefore, except for a little fish oil, I do not eat any other kind of animal fat.
I still hope to live enough to see improvements in the techniques of culturing unicellular organisms that can produce omega-3 acids, so that their oil will become cheap enough to replace the other sources, like oily fish, cod liver or pig brains.
In my opinion, in the distant future, the final solution to the food problem will be to have some genetically-engineered organisms, either derived from some parasitic plants, or derived from some fungi, able to produce edible parts mimicking all the foods that exist now, from apples or bananas to pork or beef meat, when fed only with minerals and with a simple organic substance, such as sugar or glucose, or maybe one as simple as ethanol, as the energy source.
Such genetically-engineered organisms would be grown indoors, possibly under ground, to save space.
The fixing of carbon dioxide into a simple substance like sugar and of dinitrogen into ammonia, would be made separately, in some devices using the energy provided by solar cells, which would cover much of what is now agricultural land.
Such artificial devices using solar energy to convert CO2, N2 and water into sugar, ammonia and free oxygen, could have much better efficiencies than the existing plants (though a lot of improvements over the existing technologies are needed to reach such a goal).
On the other hand, for the synthesis of the complex organic substances that are needed for our complete food, no methods better than those used in living beings are known yet.
Who would have thought getting enough Omega3 would be such an involved discussion. This conversation reads like how to choose TheBest(tm) javascript framework.
Yeah, I know that the effect is minor, but the same foods that have a lot of cholesterol, also tend to have a lot of fats and whatnot, so it's not a bad idea to moderate.
Eating fats doesn't raise your blood cholesterol level either. Diet is complicated, but all these myths about cholesterol/fat in leading to blood cholesterol have been debunked. People who avoid eating them tend to eat a lot more carbs and end up with higher cholesterol.
I’ve heard of a connection between carb intake and triglycerides, but this is the first I’ve heard about there being a connection to cholesterol levels.
I can't guarantee it's not the placebo effect, but I've personally felt better since I started taking NOW Ultra Omega 3-D, which is 1200mg of fish oil concentrate containing 900mg of Omega 3s and 1000 IU of Vitamin D. Many brands offer similar products that work perfectly fine so I don't want to sound like a shill, but from my research with sources like ConsumerLab.com this particular version seemed to offer the lowest cost per verifiable amount of active Omega 3s.
I was under the impression that vitamin D is one of the harder supplements to overdose on and people don't take enough generally, is that not the case? (I don't take any).
With sardines you are of course introducing the mercury issue.
Vitamin D dosage is a surprisingly controversial topic, with many voices claiming the recommended dose is much too low and you are very unlikely to overdose if you are not taking completely unreasonable amounts of it.
If anything, you might be better with a food like Mussels/Clams/Oysters. They have the lowest levels of mercury [1], and if you're so ethically inclined, some of the lowest capacity for pain or sentience in the animal kingdom.
If I would have to choose only 1 fish to eat purely for health benefits, it would be sardines. They don't live long enough and are low enough in food chain to not accumulate much metals and other crap.
As others have pointed out, Mercury in sardines is as low as it gets.
Mercury is actually not that big a deal if you are an adult male, or a woman who is done having kids. The main issue with it is developmental issues in children.
Unrelated: IMO, Sardines are the most delicious fish.
The main problem with these sites is that many - if not all - brands and products are US-centric, which makes the reviews fairly useless in the rest of the world.
I tried the top rated Omega 3 from labdoor for 6 months, it's incredibly expensive and I noticed no difference at all from my generic brand. A lot of the lower labdoor scores come from label inaccuracy rather than anything seriously wrong with the actual product.
The article references a meta-analysis, which is hardly a smoking gun.
The analysis suggests variation between afib occurrence/risk and the brand or omega-3 supplement or dose.
Additional points from the article:
* despite finding a link between afib and omega-3 supplementation, the meta-analysis didn’t find increased heart or stroke risk
* although the analysis linked a prescription-strength omega-3 supplement with higher afib risk, the analysis indicated that omega-3 appeared to reduce heart attack and stroke risk
Existing evidence and analysis find that omega-3 can impact various medical conditions and health factors.
I think that, as with any medication, one should consult their doctor and weigh the cost-benefit / risk-reward of taking omega-3 supplements/prescriptions.
Sure, it could be. For those that want to really know what's going on it's better to actually get the data. Fortunately, it's not that hard to do. A couple times a year I track all my dietary intake for a week using an app. I'm not just interested in the macro-nutrients (protein, fat & carbs) but also all the micronutrients. There are apps that are more focused on micronutrients.
I can track just a couple of typical one-week samples a year and get a decent ballpark approximation because my normal diet isn't super varied. Vacations and a few special occasions aside, I typically eat mostly the same types things in about the same amounts because I like those things and it's convenient. I decided to spot check micronutrients because for the last five years I've been on a very low carb diet that's working great for me health wise and I've also had significant improvements in cognitive sharpness and emotional stability vs eating a 'normal' diet that made me obese for decades.
Because what I eat is fairly limited, I was concerned that over a long time period I might be missing out on some important nutrients. After getting a few data points, I was pleased to learn I was already covering everything my body needs. The only thing I was a little low on was DHA/EPA. While I can eat lots of fish on a VLC diet, I just don't particularly like fish, so I don't choose to eat much. For that reason I've added a high-quality supplement. Except for special cases like mine, I do agree it's entirely possible (and preferable) to cover all your body's nutritional needs with real foods. The challenge is that individual metabolisms can vary. General dietary advice is based on large-scale averages across many individuals. I'd also caution that the typical FDA "Food Pyramid" that is still widely promoted isn't ideal for every individual. My metabolism was certainly an outlier and the recommended 'balanced' diet wasn't working optimally over the long run for me.
Just a friendly reminder - toxicity is all about the dose. Never forget what happened to Seth Roberts, who was overdosing on omega-3s! Also, there are tons of studies that most omega-3 sold are rancid and do more harm than good!
Assuming you dont want to take fish supplements.
Carnitine (L or N Acetyl) because Carnitine although made in the body helps the body use fatty acids as energy in the mitochondria.
Limited studies because obviously it cant be patented and a decent study will cost in excess of £/$/€1million, but existing studies suggest the above, it only seems to have an effect on those who are obese which would seem logical, and it also works on aging humans perhaps because the amounts produced by the body decline with age. It also seems to help with depression so the comfort eating may decline.
Its also linked to glutamate, glycine and something else in the brain but studies exist in the usual places and some medical experts also discuss it on Youtube if you cant interpret the studies found in places in like pubmed or google scholar.
The only suggested risk with Carnitine is an increase in something called TMAO (Tri MethylAmine Oxidase) its what makes fish and vagina's (trimethylaminuria) smell this can be elevated with Choline or Carnitine if certain bacteria exist and although TMAO is thought to help contribute to atherosclerosis, Fish which is touted as healthy like here is also high in TMAO, so there are questions over whether TMAO is actually good or bad.
Some seeds also have omega 3's and 6's, they are precursors for CBD, but you'll find the Omega's in most diets so if you dont want it to be used for CBD production, maybe consume some CBD.
There is not much to question about TMAO being bad. Fish having a high Omega 3 content which is protective against atherosclerosis may explain why TMAO from fish consumption is not as problematic as that from consumption of other meats. Before we start reconsidering if TMAO is bad, it's far less speculative to consider whether tmao's bad effects that are known have been offset by positive effects of omega 3 which are also known.
I wonder whether atherosclerosis is increased with lower vitamin K1 intakes, you see the arteries get harder with low K1, too much calcium and phosphate rigidise the outer wall, to the point they become hard like metal tubes. Now with plumbing and scale from hardwater, scale forms more easily on hard inflexible surfaces than flexible surfaces. So K1 puts the elasticity back in various tissues which makes me wonder if the plaques are then capable of forming and importantly adhering to the surface? There is also a case for regular exercise to increase the blood pressure operating range, ie going from low to high blood pressure and back again.
So I'm not totally convinced at this stage that TMAO is actually bad for us, it just seems to stimulate so parts of the immune system.
Besides there are ways to reduce TMAO, like consuming more Taurine (Red Bull), using nicotinic acid which incidentally also increases the release of triglycerides from adipose tissue, I got a six pack just from 500mg of nicotinic acid a day and walking, the only non patentable statin that is and arguably safer considering the man made statins can cause brain fog amongst other side effects.
Carnitine and nicotinic acid would certainly go well together for weight loss, but it definitely needs some K1 then to protect the tissues & K2-mk4 to protect the bones if doing nicotinic acid.
If its like NAC (N Acetyl Cysteine) then NAC is 100% absorbed in the gut, the L-Cysteine isnt absorbed very well and I think causes stomach upsets, so it will probably be the NA form I go with.
ALA (short chain omega 3) is very important to get. It is converted to DHA/EPA, but the conversion efficiency depends on the ratio between your omega 6 and omega 3 intake. The same enzyme that converts ALA to DHA converts omega 6 to the inflamatory arachidonic acid. Since omega 6 is so abundant in most oil rich foods, you have to be mindful of how much you ingest relative to ALA omega 3, which is harder to come by. Hence the algea oil is important too, because it contians pre-formed DHA/EPA
Thanks for the further detail! I don't eat any processed foods. My diet is dals and pulses, fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Breakfast is e.g. masoor dal, lunch is apples, mangos and strawberries with ground flax, then lobhiya, and dinner greens or broccoli, fermented veggies, onion and chana.
I'm no nutritionist but I read that one source might be: high-oleic sunflower canola oils.
> Sunflower oil is naturally high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are great for frying and cooking with but can expire quickly. To remedy this, harvesters have bred a healthier form of this oil that is lower in polyunsaturated fats and higher in oleic acid.
That would have to be grass fed for best results. it's the ALA (short chain omega 3) in the greens that get converted to DHA/EPA so grain fed won't have a lot of omega 3. You can observe this difference in the butter from grass fed versus grain fed: thd grass fed derived butter melts at lower temperatures because of the higher omega 3.
However you can also take algea or algea derived omega 3 supplements, i think the species is called nannochloropsis gaditana, and it has vegan omega 3, so probably causes no issues with fish allergies.
Jokes aside, exclusions of certain groups, both demographic and people with medical conditions, in trials is a big issue that's still not fully being addressed. Medical trials often end up with candidates with better health than the average person and lean towards white males while psychology experiments are conducted on college students.
Flaxseeds contain short-chain omega-3s, algae contain very long-chain omega 3s. Is anyone aware of another plant containing long-chain omega 3s in significant quantities?
Besides flaxseeds, walnuts have also a large content of short-chain omega-3 fatty acids. Walnuts were my preferred source of omega-3 fatty acids when I was young.
The problem is that the short-chain fatty acids must be elongated in the liver to become useful.
For many people, the elongation capacity per day of the liver is not enough to provide a sufficient quantity of long-chain fatty acids.
Because the fatty-acid elongation capacity of the liver decreases with age, for older people it is much more important to eat food with long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, e.g. fish oil or oily fish, than it is for young people, for whom flaxseeds or walnuts may be enough.
That is why in the parent article the conclusion was that the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid supplements have been more effective for older people.
There are unicellular micro-organisms which produce long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. They can be cultivated and the oil extracted from them is available commercially, but at prices 8 times higher than the price of fish oil (for the same quantity of DHA or EPA).
Moreover, different cultures must be used for DHA and for EPA, so for a complete supplement 2 oils would have to be mixed. Because a single producer usually has only the technology for a single type of culture, in most cases one would have to buy both a DHA oil and an EPA oil and consume both supplements.
In contrast, fish oil from oily fish has both DHA and EPA, while cod liver oil has DHA, EPA and also vitamin D.
Camelina sativa — the oil of which I've sometimes seen in groceries — is similar to flax in omega 3 content. Varieties with high DHA content have been genetically engineered, although I haven't seen that sold retail.
You can get them from the same place the fish get them from, algae! Like many micronutrients, fish don't actually produce them, they just accumulate them from non-animal sources. Unfortunately they also accumulate heavy metals, so they're not the cleanest source. Much better and more sustainable to go straight to the source.
> "α-Linolenic acid (ALA), (from Greek linon, meaning flax), is an n−3, or omega-3, essential fatty acid. ALA is found in many seeds and oils, including flaxseed, walnuts, chia, hemp, and many common vegetable oils." (wiki1)
> "Mammals are unable to synthesize the essential omega−3 fatty acid ALA and can only obtain it through diet. However, they can use ALA, when available, to form EPA and DHA, by creating additional double bonds along its carbon chain (desaturation) and extending it (elongation)." (wiki2)
There's a claim that the latter biochemical process (ALA -> EPA, DHA) is negatively impacted as humans age. Is this really true? Who knows, this is the supplement industry we're talking about here. Known for peddling things like shark cartilage as a cure for cancer, etc. (I'm biased: I was a QA lab analyst for a supplement outfit for a while and ended up getting fired over refusing to doctor lead content tests so that bulk imported chinese herbs would pass tests. The company didn't want to hold up production of the hottest latest fad, at the time).
The high Omega-3 content is advertised right on the box. Sardines are considered by many as a "super food". Sustainable, low on the food chain, great nutrient profile...
Re: in olive oil, I don't know about you but I'm not interested in drinking olive oil.
Packed in water is pleasant to drink, it's like drinking fish broth. Not to mention it's far less calories, oil is calorie dense. Nor do they generally use high-quality single source oils in canned fish, that oil is low-quality junk.
Most people I know who eat fish packed in oil are actually more interested in eating bread with a side of fish+dipping oil. That's nowhere near resembling my preferred diet, YMMV.
Olive oil (well, oleic acid) is a sirtuan booster, so, why not?! I personally prefer King Oscar. Sardines truly are a super food - quality protein, stable omega-3s, and tons of other nutrients! A great low-calory nutritionally-dense food for less than a Startbucks coffee!
Be my guest. I have little interest in drinking even the highest quality oil - and absolutely zero interest in drinking whatever best volume deal of the month they're canning fish in.
I apologize, I never meant to suggest drinking the sauce - being water or oil - as the omega-3s in the sauce is minuscule compared to that in the flesh.
It's not miniscule, and actually worse when packed in oil because the oil-soluble fatty acids diffuse into the oil.
But even when packed in water, or just canned+cooked in own juices on the higher end, a substantial portion of the fats and oils escape the flesh and float to the surface during cooking. Draining the can discards fatty acids, it can be a surprisingly substantial portion.
Omega-3 gets me a little 'wired' sometimes. It's a powerful nootropic. My brain fires on all cylinders because it's now in an optimal state and primed for solving problems. This is generally good, but also sort of annoying since sometimes I just want to chill out and not do anything productive for a day. Otherwise: take it, but avoid taking it, if problem solving is not on the plate.
Eh everyone is different. Some people have weird reactions, I can believe it might make someone feel simulated for some reason. It's probably not a common reaction though
I’ve read this but always had a hard time believing it. Why would the omega 6/3 ratio matter? Seems like a falsehood peddled by people trying to convince you to buy more expensive unsustainable hunted fish.
> I’ve read this but always had a hard time believing it. Why would the omega 6/3 ratio matter? Seems like a falsehood peddled by people trying to convince you to buy more expensive unsustainable hunted fish.
What I read 20 years ago when Omega 3s were starting to be a thing, is that Omega 3s are processed into certain anti-inflammatory compounds, and Omega 6s into certain pro-inflammatory compounds. "Natural" diets had the two fats balanced, but modern Western diets have reduced Omega 3s and increased Omega 6s, leading to more inflammation.
IIRC, one big mechanism for the change is feeding our food crappy food to increase production (e.g. switching from typically grass-fed to typically grain-fed beef).
You might also ask yourself: Why would the HDL/LDL ratio matter? Why would mineral ratios matter? This pattern is not unique to Omega 3. Search for "micronutrient ratios", also timing the consumption of certain vitamins and minerals, fiber, etc. Nutrition isn't just about putting enough molecules into your body.
1. Trigliceride 2. Ethyl ester 3. Re-esterified trigliceride
Almost all suplements sold are ethyl ester which means poor absorption and fast degradation (rancid).
Always buy triglycerides.
If you take ethyl ester, make sure it’s fresh and take it with fatty food