Inflammation?

pet'

More than 5000 posts
Hello,

Inflammation can have lots of sources.

Usually, we eat too much O6 and not enough O3, so the ratio between the two is not optimal.

For instance, reducing gluten is supposed to reduce colon inflammation. Dairy reduction too. Plus, dairy is supposed to increase joint inflammation (with a little exception, from a person to another, with goat dairy).

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Guys, you are overcomplicating all those things.
Fact is: we get too much omega6 in relation to omega3. One way to counteract this would be to supplement with epa/dha. If you get your epa/dha from fish either farmed or wild caught you are probably covered as long as you have it 2-3x/week. However supplementing with epa/dha is fine, too. Also there is no reason to avoid gluten or diary as long as you do not suffer from celiac diseasy or lactose intolerance.
Most articles will have you believe that GMOs, diary, gluten and probaly everything else is bad for you but nutritional science is very complex and far from black-white.
 

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Fact is: we get too much omega6 in relation to omega3. One way to counteract this would be to supplement with epa/dha.
Umh it isn't as simple as that. The O3 is useful when eaten from fish. It has been shown to have many benefits. When you extract it, isolate it, and prepare as some concentrated form of supplement, it loses pretty much all of its benefits. So much so that its rare to find any study showing any benefit from fish oil supplementation. Most are inconclusive and statistically insignificant.

Obviously the industry doesn't want you knowing that. Fish oil is the most commonly taken nonvitamin/nonmineral natural product in the US. Americans spend over a billion dollars a year on these supplements. But one simple search (like "is fish oil supplement effective?") shows link after link as to how it's not. The science quite simply doesn't seem to back it up. They're also really expensive. I can buy a ton of sardines for much less money, and get magnitudes more benefit.

Just my 2 cents. Take 'em for what they're worth.
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
IMO this vid sums up a lot of the so called research about what's healthy, unhealthy, good, bad, anti-inflammatory, probably causing cancer etc. ...


I basically just don't eat a lot of processed food anymore (I still eat bread, drink milk and eat cheese which all are processed in a way, but far from the chemical mix that are "ready-to-eat meals", sodas, gummybears etc.), drink a lot of water, get a good amount of fruits, veggies & nuts per day, eat seafish 1-3x per week and don't give a f... about anything written or said about nutrition anymore.
 
Last edited:

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@Kettlebelephant : That's a good satire. And while it can certainly be confusing, it is simply because that's what the scientific process is like. Studies show things, and as we dig deeper, we learn more things. We thought the atom was a made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons in one ball. Then we discovered the electron was orbiting it like planets, then we realized they do it in in specific energy clouds, then we discovered they have some probability of being in those clouds but also being in other places.

Trends are different (like not eating bread because it isn't Paleo). They simply benefit markets and aren't backed by science (or only by narrow studies). Fish oil supplement is another trend (not even a decade old) in my opinion.

Look, when a doctor tells you to avoid that egg, it's because he believes, for the time being, that it's the best choice. We have hindsight bias and think "they were wrong, so I'll avoid what he says about nutrition". But what about when he tells you to avoid vegetable oils, or trans fats, or tobacco? Are you gonna eat/smoke those because you hope in the future science will turn around and say they were fine all along?

In my experience, it's mostly the marketing community that are so extreme with these trends. If you ask most doctors how to eat for the past 20 years, they would've been perfectly fine with your dietary choices.
 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Umh it isn't as simple as that. The O3 is useful when eaten from fish. It has been shown to have many benefits. When you extract it, isolate it, and prepare as some concentrated form of supplement, it loses pretty much all of its benefits. So much so that its rare to find any study showing any benefit from fish oil supplementation. Most are inconclusive and statistically insignificant.

Obviously the industry doesn't want you knowing that. Fish oil is the most commonly taken nonvitamin/nonmineral natural product in the US. Americans spend over a billion dollars a year on these supplements. But one simple search (like "is fish oil supplement effective?") shows link after link as to how it's not. The science quite simply doesn't seem to back it up. They're also really expensive. I can buy a ton of sardines for much less money, and get magnitudes more benefit.

Just my 2 cents. Take 'em for what they're worth.
Do you have a link for that paper?
Also I agree that wild caught fish is best (and most delicious). There are a ton of studies on the subject of omega3.
Here is where I got my information from: Fish Oil - Scientific Review on Usage, Dosage, Side Effects
 

Antti

More than 2500 posts
I agree that it's wiser to get your fatty fish from the fish itself, but I have seen enough credible research to suggest that fish oil is about the most sensible supplement to take. I also don't agree with the relative cost, but that may be a regional thing.
 

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Umh, I've never heard of that website. You sign up with a monthly fee and they do the research for you? Interesting, very cool.

Anyways, I usually just get my stuff from the US Department of Health and Human Services' NCCIH (PubMed essentially). Here's the site:
Omega-3 Supplements: In Depth

If you scroll down to "What the Science says", it says the evidence for eating seafood is excellent but of the fish oil supplement itself is largely underwhelming. Some studies say yes, some say no, some inconclusive. And the meta-studies are pretty inconclusive too. Doesn't seem to help the heart, eyes, arthritis or anything that we wanted it to help with haha.
The studies are at the bottom if you want.

I mean, don't take my word or sites for it. Ask your doctor. I recently asked an Infectious Disease fellow if fish oil supplements made sense and her answer was literally "umh, its effect is pretty marginal. Take it if you want I guess. It won't hurt you". That's literally the answer of the medicine guild. I'm smart enough to know that whatever stuff I randomly find on Google won't compare to what the Fellow attendings say so I just stopped using it.

I mean everyone can do what they want, but if sardines are cheap as heck, 10 times the effect, tastier, with a solid serving of protein, I'm not really sure I see the argument for the more dubious extracted form. Just think of a can of sardines as your "supplement" and it seems infinitely better to me.
 
Last edited:

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
sardines are half the price, 10 times the effect, tastier, with a solid serving of protein
couple of scrambled eggs, roasted tomatoes, sprinkling of parsley. A great feed anytime of the day. Complete with real fish burps.
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Is fish oil really that expensive in other countries?
Krill oil seems to be better than fish oil, because the fishes get their O3 from the krill by eating it. It's "more true to the source" if you want to call it that.
You can get high quality krill oil for 70cents per days serving here in Germany, generic (but still high qulity) fish oil even cheaper. I don't think that buying sardines would be cheaper.
And you got to like sardines. I'm personally grossed out by the thought of eating a complete fish including head, intestines and all.
I like various sorts of fish and love salmon, but like @305pelusa already said salmon is very pricy.

Krill/fish oil and Vitamin D (during the winter months) are the only supps I take.
Does the oil really help? My joints, especially my wrists that trouble me sometimes, feel much better when I take it. In fact I only had troubles with my wrists during the times I didn't supp with oil.
Does the VitD help? I feel much more energetic when I take it. I'm prone to winter depression. Exercising helped me to keep it in check and not making it an issue anymore. Supping VitD gives me another tip of extra energy compared to only exercising.
Both experiences might just be placebo, but I don't care. All I care about is that I get those positive effects from the two supps.
I can't say that I got any effects from other supps I used before (creatine, arginin, BCAAs, glutamine etc.) So the only things I take are those two and together they are less than 80cents per day.
 

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Is fish oil really that expensive in other countries?
Krill oil seems to be better than fish oil, because the fishes get their O3 from the krill by eating it. It's "more true to the source" if you want to call it that.
You can get high quality krill oil for 70cents per days serving here in Germany, generic (but still high qulity) fish oil even cheaper. I don't think that buying sardines would be cheaper.
It was mostly operating under the assumption that you're replacing another source of protein (say chicken, which is equivalently priced) for sardines. So with that mindset, it's next to free. A low-potency fish oil might cost 10 bucks for 50 servings, but you're only paying for the O3. That was my logic.

I mean it can be mackerel, tuna (although watch the mercury), whatever. If you're grossed out by fish, or whole fish or whatever, that's a different story. Fish oil is most likely better than nothing at all. No argument there.

I can't say that I got any effects from other supps I used before (creatine, arginin, BCAAs, glutamine etc.) So the only things I take are those two and together they are less than 80cents per day.
Glutamine, Arginine and BCAAs are pretty "whatever". Research doesn't seem to back it up much and most coaches don't even seem to recommend anymore.

Creatine, interestingly enough, is heavily backed by research. Study after study showing people getting more muscle growth from even the most remote servings (3 g a day). Even Dan John recommends it on Mass Made Simple. The lifter consensus seems to be that it doesn't have the steroid-like effects many used to tout years ago, but it is still damn good.
A quick search as "creatine supplement research" already popped two studies from NCCIH:
Effects of creatine supplementation on performance and training adaptations. - PubMed - NCBI
Creatine supplementation and exercise performance: an update. - PubMed - NCBI

It's a shame you didn't benefit from it much. It has helped me build muscle and recover faster but personal experience is irrelevant since it's full of placebos/confounding variables. Like whey, it's become pretty useful for those looking to put on lean muscle. I try to spend a good amount of time on a few BBing sites to stay a bit up to date and I have to say your experience is pretty uncommon from what I've personally seen.

For those not caring much about lean muscle increases (most people in this forum from what I've seen), it's probably irrelevant though.

Anyways it's a cool topic but I'm not here to argue for either side. I was just saying I've personally seen a lot of literature and talked to a few Docs about this and I feel like going for fish over fish oil as much as possible is the best choice. That's all. No need to go down the rabbit hole further.
 
Last edited:

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
About creatine. I know it's the most researched supp out there. It's supposed to do mainly three things:
1) help to gain mass (via water retention)
2) help you squeeze out a few extra reps
3) better recovery
I gained a bit of weight which quickly went away after stopping creatine consumption, but it didn't help with 2 & 3.
I was doing crossfit back then, so I took it for 2 & 3, but no positive effects. That was with 5g per day.
Btw creatine is one of those supps that are so damn cheap, that you might aswell just take it :D It's in the 10-15cents per serving range.

I mean it can be mackerel, tuna (although watch the mercury), whatever. If you're grossed out by fish, or whole fish or whatever, that's a different story. Fish oil is most likely better than nothing at all. No argument there.
Yes, if you buy fish to replace meats plus get the benefits of O3 than it's probably cheaper.
 
Last edited:

Tarzan

More than 500 posts
I never bought into the fish oil propaganda. Now we have fish farms everywhere it's being portrayed as the best thing since sliced bread with real fish on it.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids are inherently unstable because of their structure, they are just looking for an opportunity to go rancid. Rancid oils are poison for our cells.

I've seen inside a fish oil rendering plant and it was one of the filthiest, rankest places I've ever been. The fish waste was heat processed in the open air, which seems like sure fire way to guarantee that the polyunsaturates become rancid/oxidised. If it was cold pressed under a shroud of inert gas it might be OK for a while once bottled or capped up but only if it's handled properly. Who knows what it goes through before the final point of sale or how old it really is.

I get my omega 3's from grass fed red meat. A good quality cut of steak with the fat on even smells a bit like fish when it's cooking.
 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@305pelusa thanks for the link!
The observations on omega3 are very conflicting.
But I cannot find any hint to why isolated epa/dha is less effective than seafood.
The studies compared seafood eating folks vs o3 supplementation and that is rather a correlation as I might suspect that people who eat fish regularly are in general more health aware as opposed to people taking supplements as a quick fix. So I might coclude that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with epa/dha supplements lowering its efficency (as long as they are processed under good manufacturing pracrice).
But I agree that eating cold water sea food that is low on the food chain is best.
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
The studies compared seafood eating folks vs o3 supplementation and that is rather a correlation as I might suspect that people who eat fish regularly are in general more health aware as opposed to people taking supplements as a quick fix. So I might coclude that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with epa/dha supplements lowering its efficency (as long as they are processed under good manufacturing pracrice).
But I agree that eating cold water sea food that is low on the food chain is best.
And here's the reason why studies, especially about nutrition or training, shouldn't be taken as the end-all-be-all.
They simply can't say whether the better blood work etc. is a product of eating fish instead of supping oil or just a product of their overall lifestyle. But since it's a study about fish vs. fish oil they conclude eating fish is better than supping fish oil.
I'm not doubting that eating fresh fish actually is better, but criticizing the way most of the studys come to a certain conclusion and label it as proven or given.

I like examples :D so here's one:
Take a number of people.
We want to compare eating an apple a day vs. taking a vitamin pill.
The people are all exactly the same, like clones (which isn't possible in real life)
I control their diet, their training, sleep, exposure to sun etc., everything (which isn't possible in real life either).
It just so happens that a lot of the people eating the apple live in the city, while most of the pill takers live in the countryside.
At the end of the study the pill takers have better bloodwork than the apple eaters. Maybe it's because pills are better than apples or maybe it's because most of the pill takers live outside the city and breath fresh air instead of the polluted air in the city.
It's a study about apples vs. pills, not about city vs. country. And hey maybe it was even at least partly financed by a company selling pills.
I'll conclude that pills are better than apples and if you doubt it I have all the bloodwork etc. to "prove" I'm right.

In real life I don't have participants that are genetically 100% the same and I can't control their every move etc. So instead of having that one variable (city vs. countryside) I end up with thousands, maybe even millions of variables that could alter the results.
This problem is somewhat alleviated by using a big number of participants and other methods. It still remains fact that the end results can be altered by a lot of factors and that at the end the author of the study can "manipulate" the result to prove his/her point (e.g. pills are better than apples, while the real cause might be fresh vs. polluted air).

I don't want to say that we should get rid of studys. That's clearly not my intention. We need them for scientific progress.
Just look out and be sceptical about the things you read in them.
 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@Kettlebelephant Good point!
This is very true with studies looking at nutrition since there are too many variables.

This is why I always look out for intrinsically compounds.
 

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@Kettlebelephant and @Marc I don't see how these are legitimate concerns. The studies themselves have in their conclusions that the issue is that there are confounding factors when eating seafood.

No one is hiding this info. No one is trying to trick you. They literally say it. To conclude the way @Kettlebelephant does is very sloppy. Maybe some studies do, but not the ones from PubMed I linked.

What they have shown is simply a correlation. A seafood diet is highly correlated to some pretty good benefits. And those that think those benefits are from O3 and decide to extract it and take it by itself... Don't seem to get the benefits too.

You can conclude whatever you want from that. My point was merely that to say "you just have to get your O3 from fish or fish oil whatever it is" isn't quite as simple. I think fish is superior, be it because of its O3 or something else in it we don't know about. And if it was just a confounding factor? That's why I said it "wasn't as simple". If there weren't confounding factors I would just come out and say Fish Oil is literally worse. But there are.

Anyways, none of this is as important as...
@Tarzan : OMG dude you're back!?! How are you how have you been man??
 
Top Bottom