Omega-3

[Iggy131313]

tinned fish can be high in histomine, whch is bad....does fish oil have histomine in it?

[Iggy131313]

can you tell me if this one looks too strong to be starting off with?

http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/pag...did=421&cid=17

[Iggy131313]

it says it has vitamin e in it, do they all?

[Sheila]

Iggy – I have not come across anything about histamine in fish oil, but I haven’t been looking for it. Can you do some research and post the results here?

Re the Holland & Barrett brand – They’re only about 300 mg EPA + DHA per pill. (Serving size is three pills.) You may be taking a lot of pills. Look for 500 – 600 mg EPA + DHA per pill.

OTOH, if you’re worried about your reaction and want a low dose pill, you could start with these.

Ah, I didn’t notice the E. Well, it’s such a small amount that it wouldn’t add up to 400 until you were taking 14,000 mg EPA + DHA. So, that’s OK. No, not all fish oil pills have E. Mine do not, and I take 400 IU separately.

[Iggy131313]

I think I will start with a small amount and work my way up thanks sheila

[Luc]

Junk study: Pfizer-Funded Study Falsely Claims Fish Oil Useless


A study claiming that fish oil provides no benefit in heart disease is being hyped as the final word on the issue. But is it? No, it is not. In fact, the study is absurdly blatant pseudo science, with two errors so glaring it's hard to believe they were made. Why do the researchers do it? Why do they care so little about the truth and your health?

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine purports to show that fish oil provides no benefit whatsoever in prevention of heart disease. At first glance, it would appear to be true. The study is, after all, double blind and placebo controlled, not to mention having a significant number of participants. But is it for real, or is there some sleight of hand at work?

There's one initial clue that should give pause. The study's endpoints had to be changed. That's always a bad sign. In fact, it breaks the rules of good research. But, they had to do it because they found that their study participants weren't dying as fast as they'd anticipated.

Now, if they'd been interested in the truth, they'd have tried to figure out what was wrong. After all, the odds of dying when people have signs of heart disease are pretty well understood. Otherwise, how could they possibly have anticipated the rate at which deaths would occur?

Of course, they didn't sit back and wonder what they might be doing wrong. Instead, they just added new end points to their study.

How They Cheated: Basic Trick

There's a blatantly obvious reason that the death rate was lower than expected, but we'll get to that in a minute, after demonstrating the study's primary flaw:

There was no placebo!

Certainly, the write-up on the study claims there was, but the fact is that a placebo, to be legitimate, must contain things other than the active ingredients being tested. So what's being tested? Eicosapentanoic acidand docosahexanoic acid, two of the substances in fish oil that are believed to be the active properties that provide its benefits.

The "placebo" used was olive oil. What's in olive oil? Eicosapentanoic acid and docosahexanoic acid, among other substances. Why would anyone expect different results between subjects who took the active ingredients and a "control" group who also took the active ingredients?

How They Cheated: Secondary Trick

The death rate in both the fish oil and fake placebo groups was less than the author anticipated. Why would that be?

In fact, the study did demonstrate something significant. Fewer people in both groups died than the researchers anticipated. Why would that happen? Simple! Both fish oil and olive oil are beneficial in heart health.

Nonetheless, rather than admit the truth - since clearly, these researchers were focused on something other than finding out what's beneficial to heart health - they refused to ask why there were fewer deaths than anticipated. Instead, they simply ignored the only valid question. Instead, they simply added end points to the trial, such as nonfatal heart attacks and strokes.

And what did they discover from the secondary endpoints? In fact, they learned something that supports the fact that both fish oil and olive oil are beneficial to heart health: The secondary endpoints had the same results in both groups.

What Went Wrong?

Now we need to ask: Why is this pseudo study so embarrassingly wrong? How did the authors get themselves into such an absurdly ridiculous situation? And that can be answered quite simply: Follow the money.

Who paid for this junk science? There were three funders: Pfizer, Società Prodotti Antibiotici, and Sigma-Tau. All three of them are pharmaceutical corporations.

It isn't in their interest to fund research that elicits the truth. It's in their interest to fund research that drives potential patients and their doctors to their products. The fact is that fish oil and olive oil are not products that they sell. What they sell are drugs.

Pfizer sells the cholesterol reduction drug, Lipitor. Fish oil and olive oil are both in competition with Lipitor. So, a study that directly debunks claims about the heart health benefits of fish oil and indirectly implies that olive oil is also not beneficial is just the sort of thing they'd want to fund.

What do the researchers know? If they hope to continue to receive research funding, they'd better deliver what the funders want.

So they did.

If it means that your health is damaged, that apparently means nothing to them. If it means you die as a result, they don't care. As long as they continue to get funded, they're happy to produce whatever faux results the buyers want.

As to those "experts" who have been promoting the phony results of this study, shame on them! The question is, do they prefer to be thought of as just plain ignorant, unable to see how absurd this pseudo study is, or do they want to be thought of as stupid, unable to understand how absurd it is?

http://www.sott.net/article/262166-J...sh-Oil-Useless


In post 71, you will find more critiques of the same study.

Here's the study;

N Engl J Med. 2013 May 9;368(19):1800-8.
n-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.
Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group, Roncaglioni MC, Tombesi M, Avanzini F, Barlera S, Caimi V, Longoni P, Marzona I, Milani V, Silletta MG, Tognoni G, Marchioli R.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656645

[Junior]

Wow. There it is. In black and white.

Good find Luc.

[Luc]

Fish oil fats protect brain against damage caused by a junk food diet
Friday, May 31, 2013 by: John Phillip


(NaturalNews) Medical nutrition scientists have written volumes that show how the nutrients from the foods we eat daily alter our genetic structure as well as the metabolism of every one of the trillions of cells in our body. Neurons in the brain are particularly susceptible to an accurately-delivered array of nutrients and critical omega-3 fats to help maintain memory, spatial learning and cognitive function.

A number of past studies clearly demonstrate that eating one high-fat junk food meal from the typical fast food restaurant measurably changes the expression of genes that help control the development and spread of cancer, and the retention of critical short term memories as well. In fact, the excessive sugar content and hydrogenated fats from junk foods are known to disrupt insulin levels in the brain and displace essential omega-3 fats needed to construct and maintain cell structure and assist electrical and chemical messaging.

A research team from the University of Liverpool's Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease has published the result of a study in the British Journal of Nutrition that shows how fish oils could minimize the effects that junk food have on the brain. Over the past decade, researchers have demonstrated that high-fat and high-sugar diets could disrupt neurogenesis, a process that generates new nerve cells. Diets rich in omega-3 fats help prevent these negative effects by stimulating an area of the brain that controls feeding, learning and memory.

Consuming fish or fish oil supplements supports normal hormone release after a junk food meal

In the largest study to date, scientists accumulated data from 185 studies showing that omega-3 fats from the diet play a significant role in stalling refined sugars and saturated fats' ability to inhibit the brain's control on the body's intake of food. The lead study author, Dr. Lucy Pickavance commented "Body weight is influenced by many factors, and some of the most important of these are the nutrients we consume. Excessive intake of certain macronutrients, the refined sugars and saturated fats found in junk food, can lead to weight gain, disrupt metabolism and even affect mental processing."

Researchers were able to determine that excess fats and sugars alter the secretion of critical hormones after eating that normally protect neurons and stimulate their growth. These hormones are prevented from passing into the brain by increased circulation of inflammatory molecules and a type of fat called triglycerides. The team found that omega-3 fats restore normal function by interfering with the production of these inflammatory molecules, suppressing triglycerides, and returning nerve growth factors to normal.

Dr. Pickavance concluded that fish oils "take the brakes off the detrimental effects of some of the processes triggered in the brain by high-fat diets. They seem to mimic the effects of calorie restrictive diets and including more oily fish or fish oil supplements in our diets could certainly be a positive step forward for those wanting to improve their general health." Eating fish several times per week or daily supplementation (1,200 to 2,400 mg) with a quality fish oil product will help neutralize the damaging effects of over consuming sugar and fat laden foods to preserve brain health.

http://www.naturalnews.com/040567_om...lthy_fats.html

[bruno2006]

sheila, are you using high dose fish oil? if so, what is the dose and is it effective? I am at 4 grams now once a day and usually feel better after i take it but am wanting to double my dose by taking 8 grams total two times a day. I came across various people recommending anywhere from 8-12 grams per day for issues like depression. any thoughts?

[Sheila]

Bruno – Oh, so many thoughts…..Take a look at this whole thread you’re in – especially stuff from Michael Lewis. Also –

http://www.brainhealtheducation.org/


Then, if you want to read more, take a look at these two essays I wrote --

http://neuroscienceandpsi.blogspot.c...nteric_27.html

http://neuroscienceandpsi.blogspot.c...neuron-as.html


I am writing another essay right now about Omega-3, but it still needs a few weeks to finish.

And, if you want more info, look at this thread, too --

http://survivingantidepressants.org/...cids-fish-oil/


I am currently at 12,600 mg and seeing steady, but slow, changes cognitively, emotionally, and physically. I suspect that people who are younger, have been sick less time, and don’t have apparent toxic buildup will show results faster and at lower doses.