FAQ
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:27 pm


Author Message
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:56 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
I used to take a fish oil supplement on a daily basis until a few months ago. I only stopped because I ran out of pills and didn't get around to buying more. We also try to eat fish at least once a week. Now it seems neither the pills nor the fish does any good for the heart and for men the omega 3 oils may contribute to increased risk of prostate cancer.

Quote:
A study by scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle linked eating a lot of oily fish or taking potent fish oil supplements to a 43% increased risk for prostate cancer overall, and a 71% increased risk for aggressive prostate cancer.


http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fish-oil-friend-or-foe-201307126467

This was reported a couple of days ago on NPR, when the scientist being interviewed stated bluntly that no one should be taking nutritional supplements of any kind, and should probably avoid salmon. While I've always been skeptical of supplements, the bit about salmon was a surprise. How long before Woody Allen's joke in Sleeper is proved true?

Quote:
Dr. Melik: Well, he's fully recovered, except for a few minor kinks.
Dr. Agon: Has he asked for anything special?
Dr. Melik: Yes, this morning for breakfast. He requested something called wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk.
Dr. Agon: [ laughs ] Oh, yes. Those were the charmed substances...That some years ago Were felt to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies? Or hot fudge?
Dr. Agon: Those were thought to be unhealthy, precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.


http://www.Explore-Science-Fiction-Movies.com: http://www.explore-science-fiction-movi ... z2a1BSFSvN


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:40 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
What should we be eating then?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:49 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Beans, beans, they're good for the heart.


Top
Martin Adam
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:35 am

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:24 am
Posts: 1
Location: USA

Offline
Omega-3 fatty acids are extremely vital for your health and also named as polysaturated fatty comprising α-Linolenic acid (ALA), Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA).


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:25 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
vital to your health ? in what respect + do you have the data to back that up ?
looking at what Ben Goldacre has to say about Omega-3 in Bad Science, he seems to think it's all one big con

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
TrivediScience
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:52 am

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:52 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Henderson, NV

Offline
Side effects from omega-3 fish oil may include: a fishy taste in your mouth, fishy breath, stomach upset, loose stools, nausea.


Top
Jonas344
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 11, 2015 4:30 am

Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 4:55 am
Posts: 2

Offline
Yeah one of my friends started taking omega 3 and had most of these symptoms. Then he researched quite a lot and found Green supplements as a good alternative. When I met him last week, I found him bit leaner and fitter.

[Note marnixR] If it is your purpose to come and spam your website + products here, then you're mistaken - i've removed the link, and if you do it again i'll remove you


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 4:25 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
It doesn't read as if the forum came to a satisfactory conclusion here. Maybe this thread needs a revitalisation.


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 3:35 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

Offline
Robittybob1 wrote:
It doesn't read as if the forum came to a satisfactory conclusion here. Maybe this thread needs a revitalisation.

It does seem to have from what I see. The actual links provided by posters were in agreement that supplements are suspect at best. While only single purpose posters thought different.

How do you come to the conclusion there was not resolution?

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 6:01 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
It doesn't read as if the forum came to a satisfactory conclusion here. Maybe this thread needs a revitalisation.

It does seem to have from what I see. The actual links provided by posters were in agreement that supplements are suspect at best. While only single purpose posters thought different.

How do you come to the conclusion there was not resolution?

My previous medical doctor put me onto fish oil tablets and yet MarnixR says this "vital to your health ? in what respect + do you have the data to back that up ?
looking at what Ben Goldacre has to say about Omega-3 in Bad Science, he seems to think it's all one big con".

What was your stance on Omega 3?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 6:23 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Robittybob1 wrote:
What was your stance on Omega 3?

Maybe that "supplements are suspect at best."

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 6:59 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
iNow wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
What was your stance on Omega 3?

Maybe that "supplements are suspect at best."

I bumped the thread so that we look into this again for both my doctor and dietician advocated more omega 3 in my diet. I followed that advice for a while but I am probably neglectful at the moment, so I need to revisit the topic.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 7:03 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
As a general rule, vitamins and supplements mostly tend to do little more than give you more expensive (and often more colorful and/or odoriferous) pee.

To the OP, others might even serve to increase ones likelihood of cancers, prostate or otherwise.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 2:27 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 232

Offline
iNow wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
What was your stance on Omega 3?

Maybe that "supplements are suspect at best."

Would you extend that to enriched/fortified foods? Traditionally certain staples (salt, corn flour, milk) have been a route to mass-supplementing the public. Some companies already fortify their products so heavily the doses may be toxic (Rice Krispies are banned for that reason in Denmark).

Anecdotally, I find eating a large serving of Rice Krispies more often makes me feel better, on some elusive metabolic level, so I learn to crave Rice Krispies. I get my supplements, and I adjust my other food choices accordingly. This is a nutritious diet.

Anything wrong with that?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 3:06 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Foods are a separate topic. My comments were specific to vitamins and supplements. The current research findings of the former are too scattered and inconsistent for me to offer reasonable comment. On the latter, however, that case has been repeatedly closed:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 7:10 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
Even though there are no long term benefits from these supplements (did they look at Omega 3?) I find on the days I have a multivitamin I feel better. So that feeling is worth something considering how little the supplement costs. I don't take it daily but occasionally. This might not be considered a valid trial but I'm not looking for longevity when taking the tablet. You might say that is just a placebo effect.
Quote:
Grodstein and coworkers’ findings are compatible
with a recent review (3) of 12 fair- to good-quality trials
that evaluated dietary supplements, including multivitamins,
B vitamins, vitamins E and C, and omega-3 fatty
acids, in persons with mild cognitive impairment or mild
to moderate dementia. None of the supplements improved
cognitive function

The effectiveness of omega 3 on the heart were not examined (not further mentioned in the article).


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 7:42 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 232

Offline
That's news to me iNow, thanks. I really did believe the consensus rather supported supplements and fortifications.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 11:36 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Robittybob1 wrote:
I find on the days I have a multivitamin I feel better. So that feeling is worth something considering how little the supplement costs.

A sugar pill costs even less, doesn't risk the same long-term health issues cited, and still works just as well even if known to be a placebo.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 11:38 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Pong wrote:
That's news to me iNow, thanks. I really did believe the consensus rather supported supplements and fortifications.

Until just a few short years ago, so did I. It was only after seeing meta analysis after meta analysis consistently showing they didn't that I changed my mind and moved on.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 7:46 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
iNow wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
I find on the days I have a multivitamin I feel better. So that feeling is worth something considering how little the supplement costs.

A sugar pill costs even less, doesn't risk the same long-term health issues cited, and still works just as well even if known to be a placebo.

You can't just take that sugar pill yourself and make it work. The placebo effect would depend on it being taken thinking it really was the treatment.
If you know you are taking a placebo what effects will you get? Will it just be the sugar rush?
I didn't understand that bit where you said "and (it) still works just as well even if known to be a placebo".


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 11:33 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Robittybob1 wrote:
You can't just take that sugar pill yourself and make it work. The placebo effect would depend on it being taken thinking it really was the treatment.

It's strange, I know, but you're quite mistaken: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 135629.htm

And this isn't something new. We knew this more than five years ago already: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... yre-fakes/

Robittybob1 wrote:
I didn't understand that bit where you said "and (it) still works just as well even if known to be a placebo".

See above.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 1:20 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
iNow wrote:
It's strange, I know, but you're quite mistaken: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 135629.htm

And this isn't something new. We knew this more than five years ago already: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... yre-fakes/

Does that second link only work if one is a subscriber to New Scientist?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 1:25 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Works fine for me despite my absence of subscription. If failure continues, consider looking instead at the original article on which they were commenting: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0015591

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 1:53 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
iNow wrote:
Works fine for me despite my absence of subscription. If failure continues, consider looking instead at the original article on which they were commenting: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0015591

I was able to get to an index but didn't know how to find the article from there on placebos. This new one works fine. Cheers.


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 6:36 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
That was surprising.
This was part of the discussion: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0015591
Quote:
The placebo response in this trial (59% on IBS-AR) was substantially higher than typical reported placebo responses of 30–40% in double-blind IBS pharmaceutical studies. [15] This finding seems counterintuitive. We speculate that it is an indication of the credibility of our open-label rationale. Patients in our study accepted that they were receiving an active treatment, albeit not a pharmacological one, whereas patients in double-blind trials understand that they have only a 50% chance of receiving active treatment. It may be that one hundred percent certainty that one is receiving the “treatment of interest” (in this case open-label placebo) is more placebogenic than a fifty percent probability of receiving an inactive control.


So they were still being conned in some way for they were told they were receiving an active treatment. Can a person con themselves if they were to take a sugar pill? Say to yourself: Take this sugar pill it contains an active treatment so take it and feel better".
It wouldn't work for me.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 4:35 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Depends on the person. Another article here explaining: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ugar-pill/

If you can't get in, try google since I have no control over that site or your browser, etc.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:03 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
iNow wrote:
Depends on the person. Another article here explaining: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ugar-pill/

If you can't get in, try google since I have no control over that site or your browser, etc.

I got in OK. Thanks. The cartoon expressed my skepticism "I'll have a box of sugar pills, please"

Having a positive mind does help. [One of the reasons I believe this forum will thrive (one day) because you can come here with a positive attitude.]


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Omega 3: good, bad,neutral?  |  Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:53 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
.https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ugar-pill/
These make you think about cause and effect.

Quote:
4 weird things about the placebo effect

1. It doesn’t have to be a secret. Some believe that a placebo can only work if the recipient is unaware they are taking one. But there’s evidence that people with irritable bowel syndrome who knowingly receive a placebo do better than those who are left untreated.

2. It works better if it’s expensive. The pain-killing power of a placebo pill is greater among people who are told they are taking a full-price version, compared to those told that the pill is on sale for a discounted price.

3. It’s not just us, animals can get it too. A 2012 study found that between 30 and 40 per cent of rats experienced pain relief when their morphine injections were swapped for inactive saline solution.

4. It has an evil twin. The nocebo effect makes people undergoing treatment more likely to suffer from side-effects if they are warned about them by their doctor.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy