Do you take a fish oil/omega 3 supplement?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities

Do you take fish oil or another omega 3 supplement?

Yes, and I eat fish regularly
68
17%
Yes, but I don't eat fish regularly
96
24%
Yes, but I don't eat fish regularly
96
24%
No, but I eat fish regularly
43
11%
No, but I eat fish regularly
43
11%
No, and I don't eat fish regularly
27
7%
No, and I don't eat fish regularly
27
7%
 
Total votes: 400

kraftwerk
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:56 pm

Post by kraftwerk »

rayout wrote:
Pretty off-topic at this point but to be on topic: anyone else here buy grass-fed beef/lamb/eggs They have a much more natural Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio. Plus the farmers don't have to inject them with anti-biotics since they are eating natural food that makes their immune systems work properly.
Yes I'm signed up with a local farmer through CSA, which I discovered last year.

http://www.localharvest.org/csa/
kraftwerk
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:56 pm

Post by kraftwerk »


I really recommend Gary Taubes's book Good Calories, Bad Calories for a deep historical analysis of why our medical system thinks the way it is and how politics trumped science (and still trumps science) regarding healthy diet, heart disease and cholesterol. It is astounding how bad the science is that medical professionals spout. The other night I had to correct a doctor who claimed you needed to eat grain so your brain could get the glucose it needed.
Part of me can't help but wonder if the USDA recommendations weren't part of a covert government plan to "fix" social security through higher mortality :lol:
User avatar
gatorking
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: MA

Post by gatorking »

I defer to the wisdom of grandmothers the world over and take only fermented cod liver oil. My brand of choice is Green Pastures.
User avatar
gatorking
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: MA

Post by gatorking »

Triple digit golfer wrote: The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.
Would you say "the restaurant is becoming less crowded because more people are leaving than entering?"
"restaurant is becoming less crowded" and "more people are leaving than entering" both explain the same phenomenon. The actual cause lies elsewhere. Using the word "because" does not establish cause and effect.
Similarly "losing weight" is the same thing as "you are burning more calories than you consume". It is not cause and effect, just two different ways to describe the same thing.

See: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

rayout wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
Why is that? So the more saturated fat in the diet, the better?

The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.

All I know is that since early April, I'm down 45 pounds, to a healthy 145. I did it by eating less calories and moving more and ultimately some good resistance training. I could do about 20 pull-ups and benchpress 1.5+ times my weight. I'm in the best shape of my life. I eat foods like lean chicken, 96% lean ground beef, greek yogurt, skim milk, oatmeal, lots of fruits and vegetables, almonds, walnuts, whole grain pasta, sweet potatoes, and eggs. I'll have one cheat meal a week consisting of whatever I want. Pizza, burgers and fries, Mexican food, whatever. My skin is also very clear and noticeably softer. I used to get frequent headaches. I have not had a headache since I started this. We're talking five months without a headache. I'd ordinarily get a headache a couple days a week. I also haven't had a cold or the flu.

So, I am a firm believer in eating mostly whole foods and avoiding a lot of saturated fat. It's worked for me and I'm glad your method has worked for you. Sure, there are other variables at play and it's impossible to isolate what is truly reaping our benefits, but I'm not about to go back to eating a burger with 20 grams of saturated fat several times a week.
Your diet is very healthy but its not something I would be able to stick with. The key point in any way of eating is that it is sustainable - and for me it involves alot of rich fatty food. Growing up with my grandma's full fat, old home style of cooking (which folks were plenty healthy on in decades past), its what I am used to. Oh and I love bacon. I just want to bring in the idea that saturated fat is not a harmful part of the diet. There is more than one way to peel an orange and humanity has adapted to an incredible palate from the 98% meat diet of the ancient Inuit to the vegetarian diet of parts of India.

I agree with you on several points - eating whole foods is a huge aspect. Avoiding sugar (fructose) is a huge factor as well since it is only metabolized by the liver, much of into fat. I let myself go every Thursday when I buy doughnuts and apple fritters for the office (I have one too).

However what you are eating has alot to do with your weight. A calorie is not just a calorie. To a lesser extent what you are doing (exercise). The alternative hypothesis that is advocated is that insulin is what regulates fat storage in the body. Insulin regulates blood sugar - excess blood sugar is either stored as glycogen in muscles and the liver or as fat. A diet that minimizes insulin spikes by avoiding processed foods and starches helps allow the body to finally mobilize fat for fuel instead of continually storing excess glucose into fat. So does exercise that depletes glycogen stores which makes space in your muscle and liver for excess glucose - the most effective of which is resistance training which is much more effective for weightloss than strenuous cardio. I work out no more than 15 minutes once or twice a week but I try to do alot of walking and rely on my diet to lose weight. I feel bad seeing folks running on the sidewalk now - they are doing alot of work which has the potential to damage joints when they could just do a bunch of push ups/squats for 10 minutes :P

Minimizing fructose is one of the biggest things anyone can do. A byproduct of its metabolism is uric acid which raises blood pressure. Your body has no receptor for it so it does not register as a calorie consumed in your metabolism - it is a truly empty calorie. Dr Lustig does a great lecture on its negative effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The idea of calorie counting is still somewhat true. No you can't eat 1500 calories above what you are expected to "burn" for a given activity level and lose weight. However with a diet that moderates insulin levels and allows the body to burn fat instead of glucose for fuel, fat is mobilized into ketones at a level that is beyond the body's ability to burn it. The excess ketones are then secreted through urine, sweat and saliva. This is why calories don't necessarily count - your body is now in a metabolic state that is actively breaking down fat to a level that is in excess of what your body can use it. Now it becomes a question of what you eat rather than how much. Fat is the one thing in what we eat that has almost no impact on insulin - which is why the fattier the cut of meat the better. Also fat makes the meat taste better (think marbling on a steak).

The other item is that most of the nutrients in vegetables are fat soluble. Without a good dose of fat (preferably in the form of butter), you will not be extracting the most nutrients.

I also disagree with you on the idea of whole grain wheat. There really is not much healthy about wheat - and the benefits of fiber were based off of studies that included vegetable fiber not wheat fiber. There is a new book out called "Wheat Belly" that explores the problems wheat causes. It's not the same wheat our grandparents grew up with. One of the items the book explores are the breeding modifications done as part of the "green revolution" which changed some of the metabolic characteristics of the wheat in digestion that makes it more allergenic and it now spikes your blood sugar faster than a candy bar. I have not yet read it but am waiting for it to come in. The "nutrients" in wheat are also bound up by anti-nutrients that prevent them from being absorbed. Traditional methods of preparation that eliminated the anti-nutrients (fermenting the grain, i.e. sourdough) aren't practiced much anymore.

I too am in the best shape of my life - and getting better. I think its good that people share their successes regardless of diet. People are very hesitant to make big shifts in their diet - the more options they have (high fat or low fat) the more likely they will find something that works for them.

Pretty off-topic at this point but to be on topic: anyone else here buy grass-fed beef/lamb/eggs They have a much more natural Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio. Plus the farmers don't have to inject them with anti-biotics since they are eating natural food that makes their immune systems work properly.
Regarding the calories burned thing, I don't think all calories are equal, but it's still about calories burned minus calories consumed. If you burn 2,500 calories a day through activity and consume 2,000 calories of sugar, say you'll burn 500 calories a day. If you do the same exact activities and consume 2,200 through healthy foods eaten over smaller meals, maybe your metabolism will speed up and that 2,500 turns into 3,000 and you end up with a net burn of 800. But it's still about burned minus consumed.
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

gatorking wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote: The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.
Would you say "the restaurant is becoming less crowded because more people are leaving than entering?"
"restaurant is becoming less crowded" and "more people are leaving than entering" both explain the same phenomenon. The actual cause lies elsewhere. Using the word "because" does not establish cause and effect.
Similarly "losing weight" is the same thing as "you are burning more calories than you consume". It is not cause and effect, just two different ways to describe the same thing.

See: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.

So you think this statement is incorrect?

"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."

I don't see how that is incorrect or explaining the same phenomenon. It is cause and effect. If I burn more calories than I consume, I will lose weight.

It doesn't matter what is causing the calories to be burned at the rate at which they're burned, but that's irrelevant anyway.
rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Post by rayout »

englishgirl wrote:
rayout wrote:Please see this critique on the China Study: http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ponse2.pdf
The response to that critique is here: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/c ... inger.html
A response which re-states the author's vegetarian/vegan agenda. All I am saying is that a vegetarian diet is not the be all and end all for health. Denise points out that what he presents as correlations with meat consumption and negative effects on health were actually slightly inverse (i.e. meat and fish consumption correlated with reduced mortality). These "studies" are easily affected by scientific bias and should not be relied on as the basis of dietary policy as Campbell keeps pushing in his closing summary. Name calling aside (she was 23 or so when she published her critique). It is very easy to get emotional about this topic when you've tried alot of "diets" and conventional wisdom in starving yourself. You do your own research and shockingly enough learn that there is another way to achieve lasting weight loss that does not involve starvation or hours in the gym. At first I was very angry and snappy at people that perpetuate "common sense" information as well.

Let me quote in Campbell's own words how they looked for variables to control for: "We began with a collection of previously developed cause-effect models (previously published) that we could test for consistency with the China data." This is why these studies are so unreliable. This is not an experiment - this is an interpretation of data based on what he was looking for. And he was looking for evidence to support his own diet.
rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Post by rayout »

Triple digit golfer wrote:
gatorking wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote: The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.
Would you say "the restaurant is becoming less crowded because more people are leaving than entering?"
"restaurant is becoming less crowded" and "more people are leaving than entering" both explain the same phenomenon. The actual cause lies elsewhere. Using the word "because" does not establish cause and effect.
Similarly "losing weight" is the same thing as "you are burning more calories than you consume". It is not cause and effect, just two different ways to describe the same thing.

See: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.

So you think this statement is incorrect?

"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."

I don't see how that is incorrect or explaining the same phenomenon. It is cause and effect. If I burn more calories than I consume, I will lose weight.

It doesn't matter what is causing the calories to be burned at the rate at which they're burned, but that's irrelevant anyway.
Calories in calories out seems intuitive but does nothing to explain the biology of what is truly happening in your body. Gary Taubes presents his case in his books that the calorie hypothesis is incorrect to a certain extent. Like what I state in my post - if your body is actively using fat for fuel, there is an excess of ketones that is wasted and passed through urine, sweat and saliva. The calories in the fat are not used or burned by your body at all but excreted as a waste product. You are "wasting" fat so theoretically you can eat an excess of calories to a certain point and still lose weight.

Eating small meals will not "speed up" your metabolism. If any study showed it having a benefit I would imagine that it was caused by spreading out the impact of the carbohydrates consumed that spike insulin over a course of several meals.
User avatar
gatorking
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: MA

calories in calories out

Post by gatorking »

Triple digit golfer wrote:
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.
So you think this statement is incorrect?
"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."
Yes, I think your statement is incorrect. Burning more calories than one consumes is the same as loosing weight. You cannot have one without the other.
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: calories in calories out

Post by Triple digit golfer »

gatorking wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.
So you think this statement is incorrect?
"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."
Yes, I think your statement is incorrect. Burning more calories than one consumes is the same as loosing weight. You cannot have one without the other.
OK, but that's very picky on semantics.

How about this: Eating foods with less calories than the calories the body burns causes one to lose weight?
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

rayout wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
gatorking wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote: The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.
Would you say "the restaurant is becoming less crowded because more people are leaving than entering?"
"restaurant is becoming less crowded" and "more people are leaving than entering" both explain the same phenomenon. The actual cause lies elsewhere. Using the word "because" does not establish cause and effect.
Similarly "losing weight" is the same thing as "you are burning more calories than you consume". It is not cause and effect, just two different ways to describe the same thing.

See: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.

So you think this statement is incorrect?

"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."

I don't see how that is incorrect or explaining the same phenomenon. It is cause and effect. If I burn more calories than I consume, I will lose weight.

It doesn't matter what is causing the calories to be burned at the rate at which they're burned, but that's irrelevant anyway.
Calories in calories out seems intuitive but does nothing to explain the biology of what is truly happening in your body. Gary Taubes presents his case in his books that the calorie hypothesis is incorrect to a certain extent. Like what I state in my post - if your body is actively using fat for fuel, there is an excess of ketones that is wasted and passed through urine, sweat and saliva. The calories in the fat are not used or burned by your body at all but excreted as a waste product. You are "wasting" fat so theoretically you can eat an excess of calories to a certain point and still lose weight.

Eating small meals will not "speed up" your metabolism. If any study showed it having a benefit I would imagine that it was caused by spreading out the impact of the carbohydrates consumed that spike insulin over a course of several meals.
I agree on the small meals. The small meals don't speed up metabolism, but the effect that small meals (or, more specifically, small carb meals) has on the body does. That being keeping insulin levels in check.
Andy Wren
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:08 am

Getting the best out of Omega 3 supplementation

Post by Andy Wren »

Has any one considered taking Krill oil instead of traditional Fish Oil capsules. This has been proven to be up to 22 times more effective than normal fish oil supplements when it come to reducing fat around the heart?
atwood
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Getting the best out of Omega 3 supplementation

Post by atwood »

Andy Wren wrote:Has any one considered taking Krill oil instead of traditional Fish Oil capsules. This has been proven to be up to 22 times more effective than normal fish oil supplements when it come to reducing fat around the heart?
I thought about it until I saw the price difference.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Getting the best out of Omega 3 supplementation

Post by dm200 »

Andy Wren wrote:Has any one considered taking Krill oil instead of traditional Fish Oil capsules. This has been proven to be up to 22 times more effective than normal fish oil supplements when it come to reducing fat around the heart?
As, I think, I posted above, I take one Mega-Red Krill Oil capsule a day. This was smething my wife saw on some TV show or read about. Some of the Krill Oil products highly pitched on radio are very expensive and have a lot of other things in them. The Mega Red capsules are not that expensive either when on sale or the 90 day bottle at Costco. This is the only "supplement" that I take that is not specifically recommended by a physician. The physician-recommend supplents are: multivitamin/mineral, calcium and Vitamin D, as well as a low dose (81 mg) aspirin. My previous ophalmologist recommended "Occuvite", but by the time I got around to be ready to start, I switched insurance plans and my new ophalmologist says that her opinion is that there are no studies supporting vision related supplements for those not having current vision conditions and to get nutrients from the food we consume.
kraftwerk
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:56 pm

Post by kraftwerk »

How does krill oil compare to freshly clubbed harp seal oil?

Image
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

kraftwerk wrote:How does krill oil compare to freshly clubbed harp seal oil?

Image
"Krills" (or is the plural krill, like deer or sheep?) are not considered "cute" to most people, although perhaps very atractive to another krill.
User avatar
Kellsworth
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:33 am
Location: Stone Mountain, GA

Post by Kellsworth »

Dear Bogleheads:

As a registered dietitian and acute care clinician, I thought I would provide you with the following evidence-based guidelines for those interested in omega-3 supplementation as a prophylaxis or as a treatment for a medical condition with an inflammatory etiology.

First, the average ratio of omega 6 fatty acids (linoleic acid) to omega 3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid, DHA, EPA) in the Western diet is ~15:1. The beneficial ratio which must be attained in order to have a therapeutic effect in the management of diseases with an inflammatory etiology (cancer, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, etc) is 4:1 as documented in several meta-analyses. In order to attain this ratio for the management of a disease state, it is recommended that DHA/EPA supplementation (more bioactive than alpha-linolenic acid which must be converted via elongation and desaturation to DHA and EPA) be utilized. I recommend the supplementation of 2-3 gm daily for 3 months, followed by and alternating with a 3 month washout period. This is advised in order to avoid the oversaturation of the cellular membranes with DHA/EPA and the corresponding risk of excessive anti-coagulation. In addition to supplementation with DHA/EPA, it is recommended to reduce your consumption of omega-6 fatty acid-rich foods such as margarines and vegetable oils (safflower, sunflower, soy) by displacing them with omega-9 fatty acids (oleic acid). Olive oil is a very rich source of omega-9 fatty acids. This is why the "Mediterranean diet" is considered an excellent paradigm by which to attain a more favorable omega 6/omega 3 ratio. Not only does it feature a lower consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, but it also features more marine-based foods AND a displacement of omega-6 fatty acids by the generous dietary intake of olive oil. Omega-9 fatty acids are considered "neutral" and are not converted to the "proinflammatory" eicosanoids derived from omega-6 fatty acids.
If you are simply seeking to supplement omega-3 fatty acids for the purpose of general health (prophylaxis), I wouldn't bother with DHA/EPA supplementation. I would simply focus on reducing my consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, increasing my consumption of both marine-based foods (DHA/EPA) and alpha-linolenic acid containing foods (flax, walnut, and hemp seed), and increasing my consumption of olive oil as a displacer of omega-6 rich vegetable oil and fats. If you wish to obtain "extra credit" for your nutritional acumen, you may also wish to consume gamma-linolenic acid/alpha-linolenic acid-rich oils such as evening primrose or hemp oil. The gamma-linolenic acid serves to inhibit the conversion of omega-6 fatty acids to the inflammatory eicosanoids.

I hope you found the advice helpful and look forward to making additional nutritional recommendations in the future.

Kipp
User avatar
runthetrails
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:51 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by runthetrails »

GammaPoint wrote:Is there good research out there that suggests that supplementing fish oils works as well as eating real fish? Because they often say that multivitamins barely work compared to getting the vitamins from real foods, so I'm wondering if it's the same with fish oil.
I do take fish oil to the tune of about 1.5 grams a day, but should probably double that. I usually forget to take my evening dose.

It's above the "worth it" line in this infographic, at least for blood pressure and secondary heart disease purposes.

There is a nice interactive version at http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/p ... pplements/ -- however, as my workplace blocks Google docs, it's broken for me at the moment.
Cognitive Miser
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:52 am
Location: Los Angeles CA Age:35

Post by Cognitive Miser »

Kellsworth wrote:Dear Bogleheads:

As a registered dietitian and acute care clinician, I thought I would provide you with the following evidence-based guidelines for those interested in omega-3 supplementation as a prophylaxis or as a treatment for a medical condition with an inflammatory etiology.

First, the average ratio of omega 6 fatty acids (linoleic acid) to omega 3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid, DHA, EPA) in the Western diet is ~15:1. The beneficial ratio which must be attained in order to have a therapeutic effect in the management of diseases with an inflammatory etiology (cancer, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, etc) is 4:1 as documented in several meta-analyses. In order to attain this ratio for the management of a disease state, it is recommended that DHA/EPA supplementation (more bioactive than alpha-linolenic acid which must be converted via elongation and desaturation to DHA and EPA) be utilized. I recommend the supplementation of 2-3 gm daily for 3 months, followed by and alternating with a 3 month washout period. This is advised in order to avoid the oversaturation of the cellular membranes with DHA/EPA and the corresponding risk of excessive anti-coagulation. In addition to supplementation with DHA/EPA, it is recommended to reduce your consumption of omega-6 fatty acid-rich foods such as margarines and vegetable oils (safflower, sunflower, soy) by displacing them with omega-9 fatty acids (oleic acid). Olive oil is a very rich source of omega-9 fatty acids. This is why the "Mediterranean diet" is considered an excellent paradigm by which to attain a more favorable omega 6/omega 3 ratio. Not only does it feature a lower consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, but it also features more marine-based foods AND a displacement of omega-6 fatty acids by the generous dietary intake of olive oil. Omega-9 fatty acids are considered "neutral" and are not converted to the "proinflammatory" eicosanoids derived from omega-6 fatty acids.
If you are simply seeking to supplement omega-3 fatty acids for the purpose of general health (prophylaxis), I wouldn't bother with DHA/EPA supplementation. I would simply focus on reducing my consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, increasing my consumption of both marine-based foods (DHA/EPA) and alpha-linolenic acid containing foods (flax, walnut, and hemp seed), and increasing my consumption of olive oil as a displacer of omega-6 rich vegetable oil and fats. If you wish to obtain "extra credit" for your nutritional acumen, you may also wish to consume gamma-linolenic acid/alpha-linolenic acid-rich oils such as evening primrose or hemp oil. The gamma-linolenic acid serves to inhibit the conversion of omega-6 fatty acids to the inflammatory eicosanoids.

I hope you found the advice helpful and look forward to making additional nutritional recommendations in the future.

Kipp
Very nice summary. Thank you for posting this.
stoptothink
Posts: 15368
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am

Post by stoptothink »

Kellsworth wrote:Dear Bogleheads:

As a registered dietitian and acute care clinician, I thought I would provide you with the following evidence-based guidelines for those interested in omega-3 supplementation as a prophylaxis or as a treatment for a medical condition with an inflammatory etiology.

First, the average ratio of omega 6 fatty acids (linoleic acid) to omega 3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid, DHA, EPA) in the Western diet is ~15:1. The beneficial ratio which must be attained in order to have a therapeutic effect in the management of diseases with an inflammatory etiology (cancer, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, etc) is 4:1 as documented in several meta-analyses. In order to attain this ratio for the management of a disease state, it is recommended that DHA/EPA supplementation (more bioactive than alpha-linolenic acid which must be converted via elongation and desaturation to DHA and EPA) be utilized. I recommend the supplementation of 2-3 gm daily for 3 months, followed by and alternating with a 3 month washout period. This is advised in order to avoid the oversaturation of the cellular membranes with DHA/EPA and the corresponding risk of excessive anti-coagulation. In addition to supplementation with DHA/EPA, it is recommended to reduce your consumption of omega-6 fatty acid-rich foods such as margarines and vegetable oils (safflower, sunflower, soy) by displacing them with omega-9 fatty acids (oleic acid). Olive oil is a very rich source of omega-9 fatty acids. This is why the "Mediterranean diet" is considered an excellent paradigm by which to attain a more favorable omega 6/omega 3 ratio. Not only does it feature a lower consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, but it also features more marine-based foods AND a displacement of omega-6 fatty acids by the generous dietary intake of olive oil. Omega-9 fatty acids are considered "neutral" and are not converted to the "proinflammatory" eicosanoids derived from omega-6 fatty acids.
If you are simply seeking to supplement omega-3 fatty acids for the purpose of general health (prophylaxis), I wouldn't bother with DHA/EPA supplementation. I would simply focus on reducing my consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, increasing my consumption of both marine-based foods (DHA/EPA) and alpha-linolenic acid containing foods (flax, walnut, and hemp seed), and increasing my consumption of olive oil as a displacer of omega-6 rich vegetable oil and fats. If you wish to obtain "extra credit" for your nutritional acumen, you may also wish to consume gamma-linolenic acid/alpha-linolenic acid-rich oils such as evening primrose or hemp oil. The gamma-linolenic acid serves to inhibit the conversion of omega-6 fatty acids to the inflammatory eicosanoids.

I hope you found the advice helpful and look forward to making additional nutritional recommendations in the future.

Kipp
Pretty much sums it up. From my own studies(MS in Sports Nutrition), it is not primarily a deficiency in Omega-3, but overconsumption of Omega-6 that is the problem with the contemporary western diet.
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Kellsworth and stoptothink,

How is olive oil a good replacement for vegetable oils? It's 6:3 ratio is almost 13:1.
User avatar
retiredjg
Posts: 54082
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:56 am

Post by retiredjg »

Triple digit golfer wrote:Kellsworth and stoptothink,

How is olive oil a good replacement for vegetable oils? It's 6:3 ratio is almost 13:1.
Because the vast majority of fatty acids in olive oil are not polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega 3 and 6 and 9) at all, but mono-unsaturated fatty acids.

In other words, olive oil may have more 6 than 3, but it has very little of either one. The mono-unsaturated to poly-usaturated ratio in the bottle of olive oil on my shelf is 10 : 1.5 .

Kellsworth, I think you are right on the money and really appreciate your post. But I'm wondering if they are now teaching that in dietician school (or whatever the training is called). I was under the impression they were still teaching the "corn oil is good" cirriculum.
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

retiredjg wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:Kellsworth and stoptothink,

How is olive oil a good replacement for vegetable oils? It's 6:3 ratio is almost 13:1.
Because the vast majority of fatty acids in olive oil are not polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega 3 and 6 and 9) at all, but mono-unsaturated fatty acids.

In other words, olive oil may have more 6 than 3, but it has very little of either one. The mono-unsaturated to poly-usaturated ratio in the bottle of olive oil on my shelf is 10 : 1.5 .

Kellsworth, I think you are right on the money and really appreciate your post. But I'm wondering if they are now teaching that in dietician school (or whatever the training is called). I was under the impression they were still teaching the "corn oil is good" cirriculum.
OK, makes sense, but the ratio, which is what I understand is important, is still very high, but since it has less of both types, removing high polyunsaturated fat (6) foods and replacing with olive oil brings down the ratio because you're lowering the Omega 6 part of it.

Thanks.
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

There are really two ways to look at Omega-3 supplementation...

1. It's something that's good for me

or...

2. It helps me accomplish something that's good for me (lowering the 6:3 ratio)

In the latter case, you can probably benefit more by lowering 6 through diet modification than through 3 supplementation. If you subscribe to that camp, just answer the question for yourself...

Can an obese person with dietary 6:3 ratio of 15:1 (or probably greater) reverse that with gram equivalents of EPA/DHA from fish oil?

Sounds like a different species of oil.

Get thin, stay fit, eat right. Take some fish oil on the way if you feel like it.
stoptothink
Posts: 15368
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am

Post by stoptothink »

retiredjg wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:Kellsworth and stoptothink,

How is olive oil a good replacement for vegetable oils? It's 6:3 ratio is almost 13:1.
Because the vast majority of fatty acids in olive oil are not But I'm wondering if they are now teaching that in dietician school (or whatever the training is called). I was under the impression they were still teaching the "corn oil is good" cirriculum.
I do know as recently as 3yrs ago, when I was completing my MS, that many professors were still teaching corn oil is good. I got into a number of debates with my professors, who seemed to push certain certain things(more than likely because producers of those foodstuffs had subsidized some of their research). Not to push my own agenda, but 6 of the American Dietetics Association's largest 7 donors are pharmaceutical companies and Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogs, Mars, and General Mills are also in the top 15; sometimes it is difficult to find objectivity.
vesalius
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: Texas

Post by vesalius »

Triple digit golfer wrote:
rayout wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
gatorking wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote: The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.
Would you say "the restaurant is becoming less crowded because more people are leaving than entering?"
"restaurant is becoming less crowded" and "more people are leaving than entering" both explain the same phenomenon. The actual cause lies elsewhere. Using the word "because" does not establish cause and effect.
Similarly "losing weight" is the same thing as "you are burning more calories than you consume". It is not cause and effect, just two different ways to describe the same thing.

See: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.

So you think this statement is incorrect?

"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."

I don't see how that is incorrect or explaining the same phenomenon. It is cause and effect. If I burn more calories than I consume, I will lose weight.

It doesn't matter what is causing the calories to be burned at the rate at which they're burned, but that's irrelevant anyway.
Calories in calories out seems intuitive but does nothing to explain the biology of what is truly happening in your body. Gary Taubes presents his case in his books that the calorie hypothesis is incorrect to a certain extent. Like what I state in my post - if your body is actively using fat for fuel, there is an excess of ketones that is wasted and passed through urine, sweat and saliva. The calories in the fat are not used or burned by your body at all but excreted as a waste product. You are "wasting" fat so theoretically you can eat an excess of calories to a certain point and still lose weight.

Eating small meals will not "speed up" your metabolism. If any study showed it having a benefit I would imagine that it was caused by spreading out the impact of the carbohydrates consumed that spike insulin over a course of several meals.
I agree on the small meals. The small meals don't speed up metabolism, but the effect that small meals (or, more specifically, small carb meals) has on the body does. That being keeping insulin levels in check.
The most recent and inclusive review on Meal frequency concluded that there is no benefit .

Check the link out below for a concise read through several of these myths that have not been back up or have been outright refuted by good peer reviewed research.

Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

vesalius wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
rayout wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
gatorking wrote: Would you say "the restaurant is becoming less crowded because more people are leaving than entering?"
"restaurant is becoming less crowded" and "more people are leaving than entering" both explain the same phenomenon. The actual cause lies elsewhere. Using the word "because" does not establish cause and effect.
Similarly "losing weight" is the same thing as "you are burning more calories than you consume". It is not cause and effect, just two different ways to describe the same thing.

See: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Uh...OK :shock: I'm confused.

So you think this statement is incorrect?

"Burning more calories than one consumes causes one to lose weight."

I don't see how that is incorrect or explaining the same phenomenon. It is cause and effect. If I burn more calories than I consume, I will lose weight.

It doesn't matter what is causing the calories to be burned at the rate at which they're burned, but that's irrelevant anyway.
Calories in calories out seems intuitive but does nothing to explain the biology of what is truly happening in your body. Gary Taubes presents his case in his books that the calorie hypothesis is incorrect to a certain extent. Like what I state in my post - if your body is actively using fat for fuel, there is an excess of ketones that is wasted and passed through urine, sweat and saliva. The calories in the fat are not used or burned by your body at all but excreted as a waste product. You are "wasting" fat so theoretically you can eat an excess of calories to a certain point and still lose weight.

Eating small meals will not "speed up" your metabolism. If any study showed it having a benefit I would imagine that it was caused by spreading out the impact of the carbohydrates consumed that spike insulin over a course of several meals.
I agree on the small meals. The small meals don't speed up metabolism, but the effect that small meals (or, more specifically, small carb meals) has on the body does. That being keeping insulin levels in check.
The most recent and inclusive review on Meal frequency concluded that there is no benefit .

Check the link out below for a concise read through several of these myths that have not been back up or have been outright refuted by good peer reviewed research.

Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked
Frequent small meals do level insulin. Does that help the metabolism? Maybe not.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

kraftwerk wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
The reason you're losing weight is because you're burning more calories than you consume. It probably has very little to do, or maybe nothing to do, with the type of foods you're eating.

All I know is that since early April, I'm down 45 pounds, to a healthy 145. I did it by eating less calories and moving more and ultimately some good resistance training. I could do about 20 pull-ups and benchpress 1.5+ times my weight. I'm in the best shape of my life. I eat foods like lean chicken, 96% lean ground beef, greek yogurt, skim milk, oatmeal, lots of fruits and vegetables, almonds, walnuts, whole grain pasta, sweet potatoes, and eggs. I'll have one cheat meal a week consisting of whatever I want. Pizza, burgers and fries, Mexican food, whatever. My skin is also very clear and noticeably softer. I used to get frequent headaches. I have not had a headache since I started this. We're talking five months without a headache. I'd ordinarily get a headache a couple days a week. I also haven't had a cold or the flu.

So, I am a firm believer in eating mostly whole foods and avoiding a lot of saturated fat. It's worked for me and I'm glad your method has worked for you. Sure, there are other variables at play and it's impossible to isolate what is truly reaping our benefits, but I'm not about to go back to eating a burger with 20 grams of saturated fat several times a week.
You can either have high carbs, low fat or high fat, low carbs. Saturated fat is good for you, it's when it's combined with a lot of starches and sugars (especially fructose) that it becomes bad.

You could eat 6 scrambled eggs and steak for breakfast every day and be perfectly healthy. It's when you add the whole wheat toast and organic orange juice that it becomes UNhealthy.

On the other hand a breakfast of just toast and orange juice is OK, especially first thing in the morning when your liver is most ready for some carbs.

Personally I think the high fat one is probably better just because that's how we evolved, and how our ape brains got so big.
Maybe you could enlighten me about what you understand to be when, during evolution, humans (and our ancestors) had high fat diets? Our ancestors were not eating marbled, corn fed beef (hadn't been invented), but chasing down lean, low fat game, foraging fruits and berries (and who knows what else). I suspect also that our ancestors were hungry quite a bit of the time, especially since their activity levels were probably quite strenuous.
RebusCannébus
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:34 pm

Post by RebusCannébus »

rayout wrote:
englishgirl wrote:Or you could read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell for a different interpretation of what the studies on heart disease and cholesterol levels mean, and how cholesterol, fat and animal protein intake contribute to disease. Or Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr.
These regressions are terrible basis for dietary policy. They are based on unreliable surveys and can be interpreted as one pleases. I am deeply disturbed that people are advocating this type of research as fact. These studies do not prove anything. They are a great insight as to what experiments need to be conducted in a lab but they prove nothing. They merely imply correlation and that does not imply causation. Morever, scientific bias is easily imposed on a such a wide set of data with so many confounding factors. Please see this critique on the China Study: http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ponse2.pdf

Campbell has a vegetarian/vegan agenda as do most "health food" advocates today which is unfortunate as meat and saturated fat is tasty and part of a healthy, natural diet and the fattier the meat the better.

There is nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet - you can be healthy and happy on it. However it is not something that everyone can thrive on and there are other diets inclusive of meat that are just as healthy. I am afraid of the vegan agenda some groups have as that is a very specific diet that a much more limited subset of individuals can be healthy on and indeed can cause tremendous harm to the uneducated who do not research the needed supplementation.

For my N=1 experiment I've lost around 30 (186 lbs to 157lbs) since March enjoying steak, chicken thighs pan-fried with the skin on and plenty of butter/coconut oil/palm oil. I eat fruits and vegetables as well. Actually I lost the 30 lbs in the first 4 months or so - I've just been losing inches since then as I am doing some body weight exercises to build muscle. I eat lots of saturated fat and red meat. My triglycerides are at 34. Due to the amount of fat in my diet, my skin is incredibly soft and no longer dry. No more acne. I no longer have trouble breathing when sleeping on my back. I've gotten sick twice since I started this journey: once where the symptoms lasted less than 4 hours, and once for a couple days in July after I completed a Tough Mudder race (10 mile course with obstacles in hilly terrain). All of this while eating rich, hearty food and never counting calories or starving myself - which goes completely against the "move more, eat less" dogma that is bashed into the head of every heavy person.
I'll admit there is a "vegetarian/vegan" agenda, usually characterized by insufferable moralizing. Esselstyn's contribution to the discussion is that his book shows actual before/after angiograms of people who've followed his diet rigorously. Several showed reversal of coronary artery disease. Although his study group is small, at the time of the publication of "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease", all of Esselstyn's patients (many of whom had been told by their cardiologists that they needed to go home and wait to die) were alive--after 20 years. None had experienced a coronary event, except for one non-compliant guy, and someone else who's cause of death escapes my memory right now.

Now if there's one group of people who roll their eyes at the thought of dietary approaches to treating coronary artery disease, it's cardiologists. But guess who now regards a plant-based diet as (and I quote) "the lynchpin of [my] therapy?" Yep, my cardiologist. Now if these knife-happy guys, so heavily biased toward interventional approaches to treating CAD, find Esselstyn's evidence compelling, that's good enough for me.

My LDL is 50, my angina symptoms are vastly improved, I can now exercise vigorously, and my LDL particle size is fine. I am not trained to critique the statistical validity of medical research studies. But I do believe the evidence of my experience. And that tells me to stay the course with a plant-based diet.

Oh, and to the original topic, I have nothing against fish oil, flax seed, or other sources of Omega 3's., but I don't use them, choosing instead to focus my efforts (and money) on fresh vegetables, grains, legumes and fruit.

And finally, 3/4 of the humanity has no heart disease. What do they eat?
Peter
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

dm200 wrote:Maybe you could enlighten me about what you understand to be when, during evolution, humans (and our ancestors) had high fat diets? Our ancestors were not eating marbled, corn fed beef (hadn't been invented), but chasing down lean, low fat game, foraging fruits and berries (and who knows what else). I suspect also that our ancestors were hungry quite a bit of the time, especially since their activity levels were probably quite strenuous.
The pivotal point is the move to grain based diets made possible by agriculture. So the caveman diet was relatively high fat compared to a modern diet where grains provide a lot of calories. These grains are also what gets the omega 6:3 ratio out of whack, by direct consumption, and secondarily, by consumption of animals that are fed grain.

This is just a discussion, and I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into this argument. It's just pretty compelling if it's adequately advanced. Even if it is correct, most of the world is screwed, because there probably isn't the capacity to feed the world without grain calories. In that sense, you can see both sides of it. The health-food crowd shilling products, and the establishment adhering to the status quo, knowing there isn't anything to do for the majority, besides. In that regard, you could potentially view it as "insider-information", in the sense that you have the opportunity, should you choose, to modify your diet. If this were to be widely accepted, that opportunity would likely disappear, limited by availability(except for bogleheads, because they're all rich, and could afford exorbitant prices - but they're also too cheap to pay? - very confusing).

As far as plants, I believe there are many ways to skin a dead cat. Most of the vegetarians I know are very thin and healthy. That's probably the key, being thin.

I have never met anyone who doesn't think BMIs are too low. Talk about a contrary indicator in a country that is obese.
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

I don't know if I buy into the "cavemen at this so this is how we should eat" argument (not that anybody here is saying that).

Cavemen did not live to be 90. Now, people could argue that they did not typically die of heart disease, cancers, etc. but they only lived to what, 30? People today rarely die of those diseases before 30. So the comparison is hard to make.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

SPG8 wrote:
dm200 wrote:Maybe you could enlighten me about what you understand to be when, during evolution, humans (and our ancestors) had high fat diets? Our ancestors were not eating marbled, corn fed beef (hadn't been invented), but chasing down lean, low fat game, foraging fruits and berries (and who knows what else). I suspect also that our ancestors were hungry quite a bit of the time, especially since their activity levels were probably quite strenuous.
The pivotal point is the move to grain based diets made possible by agriculture. So the caveman diet was relatively high fat compared to a modern diet where grains provide a lot of calories. These grains are also what gets the omega 6:3 ratio out of whack, by direct consumption, and secondarily, by consumption of animals that are fed grain.

This is just a discussion, and I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into this argument. It's just pretty compelling if it's adequately advanced. Even if it is correct, most of the world is screwed, because there probably isn't the capacity to feed the world without grain calories. In that sense, you can see both sides of it. The health-food crowd shilling products, and the establishment adhering to the status quo, knowing there isn't anything to do for the majority, besides. In that regard, you could potentially view it as "insider-information", in the sense that you have the opportunity, should you choose, to modify your diet. If this were to be widely accepted, that opportunity would likely disappear, limited by availability(except for bogleheads, because they're all rich, and could afford exorbitant prices - but they're also too cheap to pay? - very confusing).

As far as plants, I believe there are many ways to skin a dead cat. Most of the vegetarians I know are very thin and healthy. That's probably the key, being thin.

I have never met anyone who doesn't think BMIs are too low. Talk about a contrary indicator in a country that is obese.
While I agree that grain calories are probably essetial to feed our world population, I do not think that this needs to be refined grain. A significant step would be for most of the grain products we consume to be whole grains.
User avatar
englishgirl
Posts: 2508
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:34 pm
Location: FL

Post by englishgirl »

SPG8 wrote:
dm200 wrote:Maybe you could enlighten me about what you understand to be when, during evolution, humans (and our ancestors) had high fat diets? Our ancestors were not eating marbled, corn fed beef (hadn't been invented), but chasing down lean, low fat game, foraging fruits and berries (and who knows what else). I suspect also that our ancestors were hungry quite a bit of the time, especially since their activity levels were probably quite strenuous.
The pivotal point is the move to grain based diets made possible by agriculture. So the caveman diet was relatively high fat compared to a modern diet where grains provide a lot of calories. These grains are also what gets the omega 6:3 ratio out of whack, by direct consumption, and secondarily, by consumption of animals that are fed grain.
I still don't understand how a caveman diet can be said to be high fat. As dm200 pointed out, the animals our ancestors were hunting were lean, low fat game. They would not necessarily have cooked with added fat. Eggs would only have been available during nesting season. They would not have eaten the sheer quantity of meat that now seems to be the norm.

I am not even aware that we know what cavemen actually did eat. If you read about Otzi the Iceman, it seems that he ate quite a lot of grain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman OK, so copper age is not the same as paleolithic times, as clearly agriculture was underway. But to me it is better evidence than modern theories.
SPG8 wrote: This is just a discussion, and I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into this argument. It's just pretty compelling if it's adequately advanced.
It's not compelling to me. And yes, it is just a discussion, but the only people who are pushing their point of view as "fact" are the ones espousing a high fat, high meat "paleo" diet. I haven't been shown any scientific studies showing that the paleo diet leads to better cardiovascular health.
SPG8 wrote: Even if it is correct, most of the world is screwed, because there probably isn't the capacity to feed the world without grain calories.
I don't see why most of the world is screwed. Most of the world didn't have cardiovascular disease before the introduction of a modern high fat diet. If we went back to eating a low fat grain-based (whole grain, not refined), I'd expect our health would be improved.
SPG8 wrote:....
I have never met anyone who doesn't think BMIs are too low. Talk about a contrary indicator in a country that is obese.
I think BMIs are correct. BMIs have been shown to be correlated with risk of death due to various factors, with lower risk at healthy BMIs. Shouldn't we aim for what is healthy, not our skewed image of what we think is normal based on the bodies we see around us?
Sarah
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

englishgirl wrote:It's not compelling to me. And yes, it is just a discussion, but the only people who are pushing their point of view as "fact" are the ones espousing a high fat, high meat "paleo" diet. I haven't been shown any scientific studies showing that the paleo diet leads to better cardiovascular health.
(and dm200)

The conventional wisdom is that a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol will cause your heart to explode. The point the paleo group raises, is that this is only true when there are surplus calories in the diet, primarily from carbohydrates in grains (setting aside 6:3 for a minute).

(((at the risk of sending this over the abyss - the Atkins diet isn't a diet, it's a biochemical manipulation of metabolism that acts by turning glycolosis off and gluconeogenesis on - the switch is blood glucose level, which is readily manipulated, and always off or on - and the manipulation allows you to burn your own body fat even in the presence of excess calories, provided they are not from carbohydrates - blood biomarkers improve, and weight is lost, although this isn't always clear form "trials" where the Atkins group always tends to sneak in Snickers bars and somehow don't get thrown out - the point here is that there is only one picture, with many pieces, information can come from many angles and often overlaps, and the optimal diet is probably far from settled)))

Anyway, when you look at the paleo diet, it is relatively high in fat not because of the nature of the meat, but because the rich sources of carbohydrates didn't exist. In other words, if you take all those carbohydrates away, what calories remained? Clearly all the cavemen didn't starve to death.

There's a dearth of peer reviewed information here. Maybe I'll do a literature search (if anyone wants to beat me to it - just find a recent article from a higher tier journal and follow the tree of citations accordingly - public access to full papers seems limited, you should write your congressman).
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

englishgirl wrote:
SPG8 wrote:....
I have never met anyone who doesn't think BMIs are too low. Talk about a contrary indicator in a country that is obese.
I think BMIs are correct.
I'd propose if I wasn't already married.

I'm approaching "high normal", which is 165 lbs, and everyone contends I'm emaciated. The midpoint is 145, and "low normal" is 125. These are right on the money, and I'd be happy to get to 155, still the higher end.

Alternatively, the BMIs are crap. We can stuff our faces and then take fish oil/statins/etc to make it all better. Oh, and yell at the doctor because he sucks at fixing us.
moolman
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Post by moolman »

I'm a pharmacist and I had high tryglycerides and took Lovaza for a bit. Fish oil has many benefits in general besides the cholesterol stuff so take it for that. Lowers TG ~50%, Increases HDL 9%, can raise LDL so becareful.

The OTC version of Lovaza is triple strength fish oil, the Costco/Sam's Club/GNC version is fine, the ratios are a bit different but close enough. I am a bit skeptical of Lovaza but their claim is more that they are purer than regular fish oil and won't have mercury. But then again, I highly doubt the Costco version has mercury either.

I took Lovaza instead of Costco Triple Strength because it was cheaper with my copay. Bad for the whole health care system because my insurance company paid $150+ for Lovaza, good for me cause I got it for free after the Lovaza coupon.

As others have mentioned you need 4g a day because that's what the study was done, I personally wouldn't take 4g a day without physician supervision because at the minimum you should get your liver checked. I've seen people with increase LFTs after taking Lovaza, that way you get it check when you start and maybe 2-3 months afterwards too. I haven't seen much of the bleeding risk that is mentioned from high doses.

I would recommend 2 of the Triple Strength pills a day for general health. I started taking 2 a day once my TG levels got lower but then again, they got lower because I lost 20lbs, started to exercise, and controlled my diet. My TG were high even on Lovaza until I did the changes. Drugs are not the answer to a healthy lifestyle.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

In regards to BMI, my "normal" (or whatever you call not being over or under weight) is a range of 38 pounds. I went from being in the obese range (just into it), down through "overweight" and into "normal". Several folks have told me that I should not lose any more weight, I look too thin, etc. I am, however, only about 8 or 9 pounds into the "normal" range. I have no factors that, I believe, would justify being at the top end of the range. I plan to keep eating right and exercising - losing weght until I reach about the midpoint of the range (which turns out to be about what I weighed in college many, many decades ago). So, I have about ten pounds to go.
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

dm200 wrote:In regards to BMI, my "normal" (or whatever you call not being over or under weight) is a range of 38 pounds. I went from being in the obese range (just into it), down through "overweight" and into "normal". Several folks have told me that I should not lose any more weight, I look too thin, etc. I am, however, only about 8 or 9 pounds into the "normal" range. I have no factors that, I believe, would justify being at the top end of the range. I plan to keep eating right and exercising - losing weght until I reach about the midpoint of the range (which turns out to be about what I weighed in college many, many decades ago). So, I have about ten pounds to go.
Outstanding.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

SPG8 wrote:
dm200 wrote:In regards to BMI, my "normal" (or whatever you call not being over or under weight) is a range of 38 pounds. I went from being in the obese range (just into it), down through "overweight" and into "normal". Several folks have told me that I should not lose any more weight, I look too thin, etc. I am, however, only about 8 or 9 pounds into the "normal" range. I have no factors that, I believe, would justify being at the top end of the range. I plan to keep eating right and exercising - losing weght until I reach about the midpoint of the range (which turns out to be about what I weighed in college many, many decades ago). So, I have about ten pounds to go.
Outstanding.
The current "Bible" that keeps me motivated is "Younger Next Year" by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge, MD. It was recommended by one of the Bogleheads. I didn't get the book until I was well on my way to a healthier lifestyle, but reading this book (and reading it again ad again) keeps me motivated. To simplify the dietary recommendations, "Harry's rule $5 - Quit eating crap"
stoptothink
Posts: 15368
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am

Post by stoptothink »

Triple digit golfer wrote:I don't know if I buy into the "cavemen at this so this is how we should eat" argument (not that anybody here is saying that).

Cavemen did not live to be 90. Now, people could argue that they did not typically die of heart disease, cancers, etc. but they only lived to what, 30? People today rarely die of those diseases before 30. So the comparison is hard to make.
The reason "cavemen" did not regularly live until 90 had nothing to do with what they ate, and much more to do with advances in medicine(especially regarding birth; they lived on average MUCH longer than most think, but the lifespan numbers are skewed because so many died at birth/during childbirth) and their hunting/gathering/fighting lifestyle. The main thing to consider is that these diseases that are killing us today(70% of people die from heart disease, cancer, or diabetes; all lifestyle-related and preventable to a large extent) did not even exist until the advent of modern agriculture and(to a much greater extent) the "western" diet.

A century ago, diabetes was an absolute anomaly; just 50yrs ago, virtually nobody had type 2 diabetes...now, at current rates, it is believed that about 40% of people born in 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime. Insulin resistance is, by and large, a result of the body being forced to deal with too much glucose in the bloodstream. Also there are clear connections between insulin resistance and the world's greatest killer: heart disease(heart disease is about inflammation, not cholesterol).

All arguments about saturated fat/vegetarianism/cholesterol aside; one thing is blatantly obvious, our eating habits are root cause of what is killing most of us.
Rick_29T9W
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:15 am

Post by Rick_29T9W »

dm200 wrote:
Maybe you could enlighten me about what you understand to be when, during evolution, humans (and our ancestors) had high fat diets? Our ancestors were not eating marbled, corn fed beef (hadn't been invented), but chasing down lean, low fat game, foraging fruits and berries (and who knows what else).
I was wondering about that too. According to one article, a 3.5 ounce serving of grass fed bison meat has 2.4 g of fat and deer meat has 1.4 g, compare that with lean roast beef with 14.3 g of fat or chicken without skin with 3.5 g of fat. The wild or grass fed meats have just a small fraction of the amount of fat that corn-fed beef has. I also doubt that they added as much oils and other types of fat to what they cooked. So, even considering that we have far more grain in our diet, I wonder how our distant ancestor's fat consumption really compared. They probably also foraged for various plant-based foods.

As mentioned before, there is good evidence for the health benefits eating a more or less vegan diet. In Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. MD’s study, angiograms were done on as many of his 18 test subjects as possible after 5 years on a very low fat vegan diet. Of the eleven angiograms done, all had arrested the progression of their heart disease and 8 had actually selectively reversed it. His describes that in his book “Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease.”

In 1990, Dr. Dean Ornish MD did a study using a low-fat vegan diet and had an angiogram done on everyone after one year. In 82% of the patients, their coronary arteries had started to open up after just one year on the diet.

Bill Clinton has recently become a vegan. One article mentioned that Ornish had contacted Bill Clinton after his angioplasty and stents in 2010. Another article, says that Ornish and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. were his dietary guides.

Dr. Neal Barnard MD has demonstrated the effectiveness of a very low fat vegan diet in treating diabetes. He describes that in his book “Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes.” In his second study, the vegan diet was 3 times more effective in reducing A1c in diabetics than the other test subjects who were on a diet based on the American Diabetes Association recommendations. Their bodies cells were becoming more sensitive to insulin. Many of the test subjects had to cut back on their diabetes medicine, because of how much their blood sugar had fallen.

As mentioned before, the huge comprehensive study described in book “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell provides additional evidence for the benefits of eating a plant-based diet with relatively little meat.. T. Colin Campbell also describes his various studies with rats, which seem to show that eating meat or drinking milk increases the risk for certain types of cancer in the rats.

I do not have any medical or nutrition education, but that is what I have run across in several books and articles. I do not know enough about the high fat, high meat paleo diet to be able to compare it to a vegan diet.
User avatar
Igglesman
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 2:20 pm

Post by Igglesman »

FYI, noticed today that Netflix has added the documentary "Forks Over Knives" to their instant streaming....the documentary covers many of the items in Rick_29T9W's posting.
rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Post by rayout »

dm200 wrote:
The current "Bible" that keeps me motivated is "Younger Next Year" by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge, MD. It was recommended by one of the Bogleheads. I didn't get the book until I was well on my way to a healthier lifestyle, but reading this book (and reading it again ad again) keeps me motivated. To simplify the dietary recommendations, "Harry's rule $5 - Quit eating crap"
I agree this is pretty much the basis of any healthy diet whether its plant or animal based, low fat or high fat. Fresh vegetables, fresh meat, nothing in a box and as little "processed" foods such as box meals, bread and rice as possible. The problem is that a "diet" is only temporary unless you enjoy what you are eating. This is why it is important to note that a vegetarian/vegan diet is not the only way to be healthy - there is a healthy diet option for people that enjoy eating alot of fat and meat too.
dm200 wrote: I was wondering about that too. According to one article, a 3.5 ounce serving of grass fed bison meat has 2.4 g of fat and deer meat has 1.4 g, compare that with lean roast beef with 14.3 g of fat or chicken without skin with 3.5 g of fat. The wild or grass fed meats have just a small fraction of the amount of fat that corn-fed beef has. I also doubt that they added as much oils and other types of fat to what they cooked. So, even considering that we have far more grain in our diet, I wonder how our distant ancestor's fat consumption really compared. They probably also foraged for various plant-based foods.
This is a assuming that they ate only the muscle meat which was considered the least appetizing. If you look at any hunter gather group, they eat the brains, marrow, organ meats and fattiest cuts first. All of those animals have lots of natural fat deposits around certain parts of the body.
In regards to BMI, my "normal" (or whatever you call not being over or under weight) is a range of 38 pounds. I went from being in the obese range (just into it), down through "overweight" and into "normal". Several folks have told me that I should not lose any more weight, I look too thin, etc. I am, however, only about 8 or 9 pounds into the "normal" range. I have no factors that, I believe, would justify being at the top end of the range. I plan to keep eating right and exercising - losing weght until I reach about the midpoint of the range (which turns out to be about what I weighed in college many, many decades ago). So, I have about ten pounds to go.
BMI is a rather poor indicator as it is based on empirical data and it is tough to account for racial differences in height versus weight. Your body fat percentage will be the most useful in determining how much more to lose to get to a "healthy" weight. It is tough to say - I've stopped losing weight (about 25 to 30 lbs depending on daily fluctuations) about 2 months ago and am just losing fat now while putting on muscle. Waist to hip ratio is a much better tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

If you want more evidence regarding high fat diets overall, Gary Taubes gives his outline about how fat as maligned and demonized here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7661765149

You can also watch a less technical video about why observaton studies are so poorly done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0
rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Post by rayout »

englishgirl wrote:
I still don't understand how a caveman diet can be said to be high fat. As dm200 pointed out, the animals our ancestors were hunting were lean, low fat game. They would not necessarily have cooked with added fat. Eggs would only have been available during nesting season. They would not have eaten the sheer quantity of meat that now seems to be the norm.

I am not even aware that we know what cavemen actually did eat. If you read about Otzi the Iceman, it seems that he ate quite a lot of grain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman OK, so copper age is not the same as paleolithic times, as clearly agriculture was underway. But to me it is better evidence than modern theories.

It's not compelling to me. And yes, it is just a discussion, but the only people who are pushing their point of view as "fact" are the ones espousing a high fat, high meat "paleo" diet. I haven't been shown any scientific studies showing that the paleo diet leads to better cardiovascular health.

I don't see why most of the world is screwed. Most of the world didn't have cardiovascular disease before the introduction of a modern high fat diet. If we went back to eating a low fat grain-based (whole grain, not refined), I'd expect our health would be improved.

I think BMIs are correct. BMIs have been shown to be correlated with risk of death due to various factors, with lower risk at healthy BMIs. Shouldn't we aim for what is healthy, not our skewed image of what we think is normal based on the bodies we see around us?
Hunting tribes would have relied on meat/fish and other game for a portion of their calories. They would not have cooked with added fat. They would have preferentially eaten the fattiest parts of the animal. There has never been a true vegan society. The only vegetarian societies have been plagued with diabetes/obesity for centuries - now even more so since they stopped cooking with ghee and are now using cheaper corn/soybean oils high in Omega-6. Southeast Asians have the worlds highest incidence of heart disease: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/113/25/e924.full

Regarding the Iceman in that article: "Ötzi's teeth showed considerable internal deterioration from cavities. These oral pathologies may have been brought about by his grain-heavy, high carbohydrate diet." Ancient Egyptians were also plague with similar issues (bad teeth, heart disease) and they lived on a grain based diet - beer and bread.

A grain based diet would not save the world. A monoculture of grain killls animals as well in that you are poisoning the earth with pesticide to maintain the crop. You bulldoze a prairie/grassland to raise wheat with fertilizers that have to be mined and imported - why not leave it as it is and raise cattle? All traditional sustainable forms of agriculture involved raising livestock to feed waste vegetable matter and for fertilizer. These monocultures end up causing tremendous soil erosion as well since growing plants then yanking them out destroys the top soil. See the following article and its associated videos on how bringing back livestock to a region was key to restoring it: http://challenge.bfi.org/2010Finalist_OperationHope

Whole grain is only healthy if you comparing it to eating white flour. I would be interested to see how well it compares between a group that eats no grain. The modern diet is a high carbohydrate, high sugar, lower fat grain based diet. Maybe its just the sugar (definitely horrible for you) but traditional methods of grain preparation (fermentation, sprouting) just aren't part of the modern diet. If you look at the trends, since the USDA gave their recommendations in the 70's, fat consumption has dropped and carbohydrate consumption has gone up accordingly. Obesity and diabetes have gone up as well. Don't blame the fat :P
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

Rick_29T9W wrote: I do not know enough about the high fat, high meat paleo diet to be able to compare it to a vegan diet.
To me, they are two paths to the same place (which would infuriate both camps).

In both approaches, weight drops and blood biomarkers improve. The common element is reducing calories;

- the Vegan diet eliminates calorie rich fat
- the Paleo diet eliminates calorie rich grains

A diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol is harmful in the presence of excess calories from grains. The Vegan and Paleo diets each addressed that problem.

If you have guts, knowledge, and discipline, you could probably address it too (and maybe write a book and retire early).

Clue: don't be fat.
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

rayout wrote:BMI is a rather poor indicator as it is based on empirical data and it is tough to account for racial differences in height versus weight.
This is the standard refutation that every fat person can recite. Yes, there are limitations, but for a country that is obese, those limitations are largely irrelevant. In practice, they amount to nothing more than rationalizations that fat people tap in to justify remaining fat. We're not interested in determining optimal weights for HGH enhanced NFL athletes or other outliers in society. We're looking for a hammer, not a scalpel. For the United States of America, it's BMI.

Get on board and get thin (or at least quit complaining about your health).

Disclaimer: Fat people are an important national resource, as they are generally much funnier than thin people. It's always a tragedy to lose our fat funny people to weight loss. What's Wayne Knight done recently? Alarmingly, Brad Pitt has allegedly taken Jonah Hill from us before he even reached his prime.
Last edited by SPG8 on Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

dp
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

stoptothink wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:I don't know if I buy into the "cavemen at this so this is how we should eat" argument (not that anybody here is saying that).

Cavemen did not live to be 90. Now, people could argue that they did not typically die of heart disease, cancers, etc. but they only lived to what, 30? People today rarely die of those diseases before 30. So the comparison is hard to make.
The reason "cavemen" did not regularly live until 90 had nothing to do with what they ate, and much more to do with advances in medicine(especially regarding birth; they lived on average MUCH longer than most think, but the lifespan numbers are skewed because so many died at birth/during childbirth) and their hunting/gathering/fighting lifestyle. The main thing to consider is that these diseases that are killing us today(70% of people die from heart disease, cancer, or diabetes; all lifestyle-related and preventable to a large extent) did not even exist until the advent of modern agriculture and(to a much greater extent) the "western" diet.

A century ago, diabetes was an absolute anomaly; just 50yrs ago, virtually nobody had type 2 diabetes...now, at current rates, it is believed that about 40% of people born in 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime. Insulin resistance is, by and large, a result of the body being forced to deal with too much glucose in the bloodstream. Also there are clear connections between insulin resistance and the world's greatest killer: heart disease(heart disease is about inflammation, not cholesterol).

All arguments about saturated fat/vegetarianism/cholesterol aside; one thing is blatantly obvious, our eating habits are root cause of what is killing most of us.
I understand what you're saying, and thanks for the information.

What I was saying is just that cavemen did not live long, so it's hard to say if they would get today's comment ailments like heart disease, cancers, etc. when they got older. They rarely lived to 60 so how do we know if they would have gotten those diseases or not? I wasn't saying that they lived to 30 and therefore their diets were bad.
Topic Author
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

SPG8 wrote:
rayout wrote:BMI is a rather poor indicator as it is based on empirical data and it is tough to account for racial differences in height versus weight.
This is the standard refutation that every fat person can recite. Yes, there are limitations, but for a country that is obese, those limitations are largely irrelevant. In practice, they amount to nothing more than rationalizations that fat people tap in to justify remaining fat. We're not interested in determining optimal weights for HGH enhanced NFL athletes or other outliers in society. We're looking for a hammer, not a scalpel. For the United States of America, it's BMI.uit complaining about your health).
I agree and can speak from experience of both sides.

I am a 26 year old male and I'm short. I say 5'9" but that's with shoes on with a boot-like heel. In reality I'm probably really 5'6". In high school I was in just incredible shape. I weighed about 145-150 and I could bench 225 for sets of 8 no problem. I ran a 5:10 mile and did the 100 in 12 seconds.

Then came college and post-college. Fast forward to early 2011 (4 years out of school) and I was 195 pounds at my highest. I lived off fast food, pizza, tacos, and sweets for years. I told myself that I'm not fat, just "normal." I told myself that I'm just an average American. The problem is that the average American is fat. If you saw me you wouldn't instantly think "fat pig" but I was definitely way overweight. I had trouble finding clothes that fit right because of my height. Mediums were too tight, larges were way too long.

Fast forward again to today. After working my @$$ off and eating squeaky clean 34 out of my 35 meals of the week for the last six months or so, I'm down to a very healthy and ripped 142 pounds.

I look back at the pictures of myself at 195 and it makes me sick to my stomach. How could I have justified it as "normal?" I was fat and unhealthy. Now I'm in even better shape than I was in high school. Not as physically strong, but I feel much better. More limber. Quicker. More flexible. More agile. I'm sure I can't run a 5:10 mile or a 12 second 100 m, but who cares? I'm also not 18 anymore.

As a bonus, the one cheat meal a week I allow myself is so, so gratifying. A burger and fries or a big pile of pizza tastes much better now than it did when I ate that stuff every day. It's a treat now, a reward, not a way of life.
SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Post by SPG8 »

Triple digit golfer wrote:How could I have justified it as "normal?".
Lot of people fall into that trap. I sure did.

Well done.

My rehabilitation is progressing very nicely, but you and dm200 are setting the bar, I have to pick it up. Only one pound over normal BMI, down from borderline obese. No tricks, just a long grind.
Locked