Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Gr-Easy EJL's fish oil megadosing ala Charles Poliquin thread

EasyEJL said:
These people saw a net positive change of more than 2% in body composition vs the placebo group. These were people who had bodyfat levels in the 40% range, and saw a more than 5% in bodyfat leves by dropping 2%.

If you feel that a 2% body composition % change in 12 weeks with no change in caloric consumption is nothing exciting at all, then you must have all sorts of other magic bullets. Sadly since I can already see that you are happy to use a scientific reference to "prove" results different than the researchers themselves found, I won't be buying your book to see what fairly tales you choose to share.
Click to expand...
Buy the Blood Type book, Poliquin endorses that. No science in sight there, it should make you real comfortable. Anyway, let's stay on topic.

I just did the math, and fish oil caused 1.9 kg more fat loss during the 12 week trial... That's a notch above jack diddly. If you think that's miraculous, then you're pretty easy to impress. Since I work in the field full time, I can tell you that 1.9 kg in 3 months is exactly what I've been saying like a broken record in this thread -- it's minor.

And stop taking everything so personally. Don't get mad at me, get mad at the data.
 
EasyEJL said:
well, 30g extra of fat a day is an extra 270 calories a day. thats 2lbs a month of gain more or less, whether fat or muscle. what sort of time frame did you gain that in?
Click to expand...

About 2 weeks :blink:

I should have offset my diet with a carb reduction.. seems the only way I can add in the extra fat and not gain fat
 
The sure way to figure out if it was fat gain not or not is skinfold calipers finding out your BF % before and after and multiplying that percentage times your bodyweight...Dont use the mirror to judge whether it was fat or muscle........I cannot remember if its 2500 or 3500 calories to store a pound of fat...but lets say 9 lbs times 3500= 31500......then divide by numbers of days which = 2250....

That means that you would have to have 2250 calories extra/day to gain those in fat pounds.....so you figure it out...its highly unlikely....use calipers and figure it out....could be some muscle and a little water...who knows..


Another thing man...like John Berardi reccomends....I would seperate your meals into P+C and P+F meals take the majority of P+C meals in the morning when your insulin sensitivity is just right after a night fast and the majority of those will got for fuel.....not fat....that is unless you workout in evening which using some of those P+C meals (2) after you workout will cause the carbs to go to the muscle building and repair....other keep evenings to protein and fats...I would not have more than 5 grams of fat total into a carb containing meal ....even fish oil....take your fish oil with your evening protein and fat meals...

read this for more info...



Read this

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed



Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
alan aragon said:
And stop taking everything so personally. Don't get mad at me, get mad at the data.
Click to expand...

I don't take it personally, i just disagree with your assessment, as does the author of the study you use as a reference. And given that you use reference a study that states in its own conclusions that fish oil does provide a fat loss assistance to support your conclusion that it doesn't, I'm quite free to disbelieve anything else you write, as I don't feel like reading through every scientific reference to see which ones you choose to use to find a conclusion different than the authors found. Feel free to take that personally, as I believe it calls into question how you choose to interpret data. Using a double blind study in a peer reviewed journal that concludes that something is effective to support your conclusion that it isn't reeks of bias.

If 1.9kg (4.2lbs) of fat in 3 months is so easy to loose without changing total caloric intake or making other changes to diet than substituting 6g of fish oil a day for other fats, why do so many people have a problem loosing fat then? Why does so much of the population have more than 35% bodyfat? Why isn't everyone a lean muscle machine?
 
More Good News About Fish Oil

Data from the University of Western Ontario shows that fish oil supplementation increases lean body mass (during non-dieting conditions), increases BMR (by up to 400kcal/day), decreases inflammation, and improves the ratio of fat/carb oxidized (sparing carbs, burning fat). Recommended dose: start with 6-10g per day of total fish oil (assuming 30% EPA and DHA).
 
EasyEJL said:
I don't take it personally, i just disagree with your assessment, as does the author of the study you use as a reference. And given that you use reference a study that states in its own conclusions that fish oil does provide a fat loss assistance to support your conclusion that it doesn't, I'm quite free to disbelieve anything else you write, as I don't feel like reading through every scientific reference to see which ones you choose to use to find a conclusion different than the authors found. Feel free to take that personally, as I believe it calls into question how you choose to interpret data. Using a double blind study in a peer reviewed journal that concludes that something is effective to support your conclusion that it isn't reeks of bias.

If 1.9kg (4.2lbs) of fat in 3 months is so easy to loose without changing total caloric intake or making other changes to diet than substituting 6g of fish oil a day for other fats, why do so many people have a problem loosing fat then? Why does so much of the population have more than 35% bodyfat? Why isn't everyone a lean muscle machine?
Click to expand...
You need to learn the difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance. Just because the fat lost within the course of the trial was signficant according to the confidence interval set by the authors, it doesn't mean that the actual amount is anything to get excited over. Especially in a trial where dietary intake was self-reported by the participants.
 
Its handy that you can interpret data differently than your peers do. I'm putting you on my ignore list now. Thanks.
 
Quick question for you guys. I noticed that a lot of you said that it is easier to take a few teaspoons of the liquid than 3-45 caps per day. I was looking at the back of a bottle of the Carlson’s brand and it reads 1.6 grams per Tsp (5ML) you would still need to take 18 or more TSP per day to get up to 30+ grams of fish oil. I though the liquid was the easier way to get your mega dosing in? Is this correct or am I reading things wrong?
 
lookingforane said:
Quick question for you guys. I noticed that a lot of you said that it is easier to take a few teaspoons of the liquid than 3-45 caps per day. I was looking at the back of a bottle of the Carlson’s brand and it reads 1.6 grams per Tsp (5ML) you would still need to take 18 or more TSP per day to get up to 30+ grams of fish oil. I though the liquid was the easier way to get your mega dosing in? Is this correct or am I reading things wrong?
Click to expand...

3tsp to a tbsp. Hmm interesting. I haven't used the carlsons tho, so i need to go find a label and look at it to see.
 
EasyEJL said:
Its handy that you can interpret data differently than your peers do. I'm putting you on my ignore list now. Thanks.
Click to expand...
This guy was captured by the power of hope & belief from the start, so he's better off staying safe from the truth. I'll maintain the position that 1.9 kg of fat loss in 12 weeks is no reason to start megadosing in the hopes that if - based on the research as a whole - a little has minor to no effect, a ton will have miraculous effects.

PS - anyone else wanna run away from civil discussion?
 
Even coming from an anecdotal standpoint..the megadosing is not all that miraculous. I've done it for several months and noticed very little in the way of body comp changes. I will however vouche for it's mood boosting potential as it does seem to ease my depression.

I'll probably stay on a tablespoon per day for this reason as I don't see much need to go above that to get the anti-depressant effects. Too expensive.
 
No, its not miraculous, thats for sure. But it is another weapon in the arsenal.

For me I think the 30g for a month followed by 10-15g/day after that works very well. For all the little things like less dandruff, better complexion, the mood enhancement etc its well worth it to me. From the liquid fish oil when vitamin shoppe has its buy 1 get one 50% off, I think 10g/day works out to something like $0.25 a day.
 
Once again if he was staying away from the truth then so did you when I posted obvious evidence back up fish oil as a fat burner....

More Good News About Fish Oil

Data from the University of Western Ontario shows that fish oil supplementation increases lean body mass (during non-dieting conditions), increases BMR (by up to 400kcal/day), decreases inflammation, and improves the ratio of fat/carb oxidized (sparing carbs, burning fat). Recommended dose: start with 6-10g per day of total fish oil (assuming 30% EPA and DHA).
 
turbopugsleyl said:
Once again if he was staying away from the truth then so did you when I posted obvious evidence back up fish oil as a fat burner....
Click to expand...
Repost it, let's take a look. If you're the sensitive type who gets offended by critical analysis, then don't bother.
More Good News About Fish Oil

Data from the University of Western Ontario shows that fish oil supplementation increases lean body mass (during non-dieting conditions), increases BMR (by up to 400kcal/day), decreases inflammation, and improves the ratio of fat/carb oxidized (sparing carbs, burning fat). Recommended dose: start with 6-10g per day of total fish oil (assuming 30% EPA and DHA).
Click to expand...
Post up the reference, let's take a look. Same stipulations apply.

Hahahaha, what's up AM, good to be back :)
 
Copy and Paste from T-mag....


Let's look at some of the studies that have recently displayed the effectiveness of fish oil in helping shed those nasty pounds. The first one comes from the International Journal of Obesity where they took 324 overweight and obese men and women and put them on a reduced calorie diet. (3) These people then received either nothing, fatty fish, lean fish, or fish oil capsules.

I should mention that the diets they were put on weren't very conducive to weight loss. Participants were consuming 50% of their calories from carbohydrates and only 20% of their calories from protein. They also weren't exercising — it was like the researchers were setting them up to fail!

Despite the odds, the men lost an average of 14 pounds, and the men that ate fish or took fish oil lost an extra 2 pounds. There was an added weight loss advantage even in the group of men that ate cod (non-fatty fish). However, the driving force behind this stumped the researchers.

One of the first studies to show the fat loss effects of fish oil was published back in 1997. The participants were put on a diet containing 50% calories from carbohydrates. Instead of supplementing with fish oil the whole time, 12 weeks into the study some of the participants were asked to replaced 6 grams of fat in their diet with 6 grams of fish oil for the remaining three weeks. (4)

The people who replaced fats in their diet with fish oil lost 2 pounds over three weeks while the non-fish oil group lost 0.7 pounds. That may not seem like a lot at first but you need to consider that these people didn't do anything different except for replacing fat in their diet with fish oil — they didn't exercise and they were on a high carbohydrate diet.

What's the take-home message here? These two studies suggest that even when people are put on high carbohydrate diets, fish oil supplementation can increase fat loss and fat oxidation (especially in men).


First study: 3. Thorsdottir I, Tomasson H, Gunnarsdottir I, Gisladottir E, Kiely M, Parra MD, et al. Randomized trial of weight-loss-diets for young adults varying in fish and fish oil content. Int J Obes 2007.

Second Study : 4. Couet C, Delarue J, Ritz P, Antoine J, Lamisse F. Effect of dietary fish oil on body fat mass and basal fat oxidation in healthy adults. International journal of obesity 1997; 21: 637-643.



The other study from western ontario was posted in a short berardi article on t-mag.... found here

Invalid Link Removed
 
turbopugsleyl said:
Let's look at some of the studies that have recently displayed the effectiveness of fish oil in helping shed those nasty pounds. The first one comes from the International Journal of Obesity where they took 324 overweight and obese men and women and put them on a reduced calorie diet. (3) These people then received either nothing, fatty fish, lean fish, or fish oil capsules. Despite the odds, the men lost an average of 14 pounds, and the men that ate fish or took fish oil lost an extra 2 pounds.
Click to expand...
Is an extra 2 pounds lost in an 8 week period worth hyping up fish oil as being some magic bullet? In my view, definitely not; I can lose 2 lbs in 2 minutes taking a dump. The weight loss occurred in the 1st 4 weeks of the study, and leveled off in the 2nd 4 weeks. If this study continued for a few more months, any statistically significant difference would likely disappear. Keep in mind that in lean subjects, any difference in fat loss would probably not even be detectable from the outset. As a final FYI, funding for this study was secured by SEAFOODplus, which is the research arm of the European fishing industry.
One of the first studies to show the fat loss effects of fish oil was published back in 1997. The participants were put on a diet containing 50% calories from carbohydrates. Instead of supplementing with fish oil the whole time, 12 weeks into the study some of the participants were asked to replaced 6 grams of fat in their diet with 6 grams of fish oil for the remaining three weeks. (4)

The people who replaced fats in their diet with fish oil lost 2 pounds over three weeks while the non-fish oil group lost 0.7 pounds. That may not seem like a lot at first but you need to consider that these people didn't do anything different except for replacing fat in their diet with fish oil — they didn't exercise and they were on a high carbohydrate diet.
Click to expand...
Extremely small sample size (6 subjects total), short trial period (3 weeks per treatment period), and a complete absence of randomization or treatment balance leave this trial susceptible to seasonal variation effects, among other errors. In contrast, 2 more recent, better-designed studies conducted within the past 3 years looking at weight-loss diets supplemented with omega-3's have not observed any significant effects on body composition beyond what was caused by dietary restriction alone. And then of course you have this latest one by Hills which we've been beating down (I like how EJL ignored my observation that the control group had 30g/day more carbohydrate than the fish oil group). Once again, my point - the research on fish oil's fat loss effect is not impressive by any means.
The other study from western ontario was posted in a short berardi article on t-mag.... found here

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
No reference was given in that link, and nevermind it's from a site that has a financially vested interest in hyping fish oil.
 
alan aragon said:
This guy was captured by the power of hope & belief from the start, so he's better off staying safe from the truth. I'll maintain the position that 1.9 kg of fat loss in 12 weeks is no reason to start megadosing in the hopes that if - based on the research as a whole - a little has minor to no effect, a ton will have miraculous effects.

PS - anyone else wanna run away from civil discussion?
Click to expand...

Again, you avoided my conversational points. 1.9kg of FAT loss in 12 weeks (no muscle loss) is impressive to 60% of the american population. This study was not the justifcation for taking higher doses of fish oil, it was a study you quoted in your "proof" that fish oil was not useful for fat loss. So tell us why america is so obese if in a year apparently people could loose 16-17lbs of fat solely by switching 6g of fish oil for 6g of other fats?

Perhaps the control group took in 30g less carbs. but the control group started out that way, it was a piece of their baseline. the randomly selected participants for each group just ended up that way. They also started as 2 pounds heavier bodyweight and half a % less bodyfat average. Thats why you have randomly selected groups so that individual variations are minimized. I attached the baseline info as a picture here to show that. The numbers of respondents and the level of fat loss are enough that the results are statistically significant.

Tell us what knowledge you have to share that is so much more impressive than this while being so easy to implement as taking 2 fish oil caps 3x a day (or 6oz of wild alaskan salmon a day) that could cure obesity as we know it.

Mind you i've looked now at your other articles, and most of the rest of them I like both the details on, as well as the style. But it will be impossible to convince me that the research on dietary anthropology is all wrong, and that additional omega 3 supplementation in our current diets is unnecessary or harmful. What the level is that provides most benefit may be questionable, but since fish oil is not patented who will fund large scale studies to work that out? For all the other horrifying things i've done to my body over the years (alchohol, getting to nearly 50% bodyfat, etc) I find that the danger of taking 10g of fish oil a day is minor compared to the scientifically proven benefits.
 
Another thing to think about aragon is that who cares who funded a study....it is published in the international journal of Obesity...they have a reputation as a scientific journal to uphold in the community....also realize that just cause someone funds a study doesn't mean its skewed or that the results are tampered...just that nobody was willing to do the study for purely scientific purposes and a company who was hoping to use the stats if they are favorable for marketing purposes decided to fund it since there is no scientific demand in the community....

Also you may be looking for a while for the "perfect" study and its real easy to point out flaws in study when you are searching for flaws......the only thing we have to look at in a whole in a broad spectrum is the direction the results were moving in, as well as coupled with the results experience has given individuals....which in this case are both positive and tending towards fat loss....

If you read my post above from Christian Thibadeau he says this is not a magic bullet, but 2 extra pounds of loss in a three weeks is very significant...and over the course of a year that will likely make a huge difference....and it proves enough that the fish oil was added after they subjects had already been dieting at the tail end of the study, eliminating water weight lost.....

Also the studies do show an increase in fat oxidation and carb sparing....and lastly realize if you marketed fish oil you would go out and find studies that back up your POV as well....just cause this fact doesn't make the studies null and void....they are still scientific studies!


REALISE that that article John Berardi posted was in NOV of 2005......Flameout did not come out till Feb 2006....there were no motives there.....and trust me one little paragraph was not their idea to hype the supplement up for the next couple months...
 
Wow, this thread is still going strong! I'm going to jump back onto the fish oil band-wagon again for neuroprotective properties, ADHD control, mood enhancement,... well geeze... just about every benefit I can use. I remember my mood and drive was increased a noticable amount with megadosing omega 3 fish oil. I can get omega 3 liquid cheap now, so... why not?
 
Force of Green said:
Wow, this thread is still going strong! I'm going to jump back onto the fish oil band-wagon again for neuroprotective properties, ADHD control, mood enhancement,... well geeze... just about every benefit I can use. I remember my mood and drive was increased a noticable amount with megadosing omega 3 fish oil. I can get omega 3 liquid cheap now, so... why not?
Click to expand...
I got to find a cheap liquid myself, I want to get back on fish oil, but taking the pills is a pain. The biggest thing I notice is my skin is completely different with and without fishoil.
 
The fish oil helped me a lot. I need to start taking it daily again. I have been trying to get back into the lifestyle, but can't stop tripping and falling.
 
Fwiw, I noticed little to nothing when megadosing fish oil (did approx 20g's/day).

In addition bloodwork showed little to no improvement compared to past cycles without using fish oil. Actually lipids were worse....probably due to a heavier cycle. But nonetheless the additional fish oil didnt appear to offer any form of assistance.

I most likely will not try dosing more than 5-6g's/day again.
 
EasyEJL said:
Again, you avoided my conversational points. 1.9kg of FAT loss in 12 weeks (no muscle loss) is impressive to 60% of the american population. This study was not the justifcation for taking higher doses of fish oil, it was a study you quoted in your "proof" that fish oil was not useful for fat loss.
Click to expand...
There's a bit of miscommunication going on here. In my article I reviewed the research on fish oil & fat loss. Some of it indicates that fish oil does nothing beyond placebo, some of it indicates that it does. Of the studies that showed it actually did do something, it amounted to a little over a pound of fat loss per month beyond placebo. The difference between us is that this does not impress me, but if it impresses you, then cool. Keep in mind that when I work with fat loss clients, I'm used to a hell of a lot more fat loss than that even when the plan is not aggressive. And this includes clients who don't take fish oil or eat fish for that matter.
So tell us why america is so obese if in a year apparently people could loose 16-17lbs of fat solely by switching 6g of fish oil for 6g of other fats?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be great if fish oil would automatically strip 16-17 lbs of fat of of obese people per year? Too bad that fish oil intake would comprise only one of a battery of variables that determine weight loss success. You're disillusioned if you think that a single supp is gonna act as the backbone of a program's success -- especilly a supp whose track record for fat loss effects is made of research that's still very preliminary, and still has shadows of doubt.
Perhaps the control group took in 30g less carbs. but the control group started out that way, it was a piece of their baseline. the randomly selected participants for each group just ended up that way. They also started as 2 pounds heavier bodyweight and half a % less bodyfat average. Thats why you have randomly selected groups so that individual variations are minimized. I attached the baseline info as a picture here to show that. The numbers of respondents and the level of fat loss are enough that the results are statistically significant.
Click to expand...
This is the beauty of having your critical thinking gears engaged once the study is done and the dust settles. At this point we can see what possibly could have been done better for the sake of future investigations. We can look at the baseline characteristics and see some glaring imbalances between the groups. This is also where you begin to see the errors of self-reported dietary intake. On one end the numbers seem to make sense - The fish oil group lost slightly more fat by the end of the trial, but their average caloric intake through the length of the trial was 2319 kcal, while the control group averaged 2463. 1st of all, that's interesting since you mentioned that the fish oil group was slightly heavier than the control group at baseline. Since they lost weight by the end of the trial, this opens up the possibility (if the reporting was anywhere near correct) that more folks in the fish oil goup were already in the process losing weight at the beginning of the trial. After all, no pre-trial weight stability period was specified.

Okay, back to the math. Assuming accurate reporting, the fish oil group consumed 144 kcal less than the control group. This would equal a deficit of 4320 kcal at the end of each month, which lo and behold adds up to roughly 1.25 lbs lost per month in the fish oil group -- Now you tell me, given that the lesser amount of calories consumed in the fish oil group had it on pace to lose 15 lbs for the year, how much could fish oil actually contribute on top of that??? At 16-17 lbs per year with fish oil as compared to 15 lbs per year with a small caloric deficit, the answer is BARELY NADA.
 
turbopugsleyl said:
Another thing to think about aragon is that who cares who funded a study....it is published in the international journal of Obesity...they have a reputation as a scientific journal to uphold in the community....also realize that just cause someone funds a study doesn't mean its skewed or that the results are tampered...just that nobody was willing to do the study for purely scientific purposes and a company who was hoping to use the stats if they are favorable for marketing purposes decided to fund it since there is no scientific demand in the community....
Click to expand...
To dismiss funding source completely is a joke. You need to take everything into account, including funding source, otherwise you might as well walk around in a sheep suit.
Also you may be looking for a while for the "perfect" study and its real easy to point out flaws in study when you are searching for flaws......the only thing we have to look at in a whole in a broad spectrum is the direction the results were moving in, as well as coupled with the results experience has given individuals....which in this case are both positive and tending towards fat loss....
Click to expand...
The research on fish oil & fat loss is still mixed, and we're yet to see a study using a population/protocol relevant to us as bodybuilders & fitness folks. There's one study in existence showing fish oil + aerobic exercise = extra fat loss, in the overweight/obese population on a newbie training program. And as I just described, the caloric intake imbalance was enough to all but cancel out any possiblity of the fish oil doing jack.
If you read my post above from Christian Thibadeau he says this is not a magic bullet, but 2 extra pounds of loss in a three weeks is very significant...and over the course of a year that will likely make a huge difference....and it proves enough that the fish oil was added after they subjects had already been dieting at the tail end of the study, eliminating water weight lost.....
Click to expand...
Re-read the calculations that were made. "Huge" is hardly descriptive of them.
Also the studies do show an increase in fat oxidation and carb sparing....and lastly realize if you marketed fish oil you would go out and find studies that back up your POV as well....just cause this fact doesn't make the studies null and void....they are still scientific studies!

REALISE that that article John Berardi posted was in NOV of 2005......Flameout did not come out till Feb 2006....there were no motives there.....and trust me one little paragraph was not their idea to hype the supplement up for the next couple months...
Click to expand...
You have tons to learn about the wide world of bias, as well as how to critically evaluate science. Yes, even research has to be critically evaluated rather than taken on face value. This is the basic principle here.
 
I think mega dosing on fish oil is also counter productive myself. At most 6g would be optimal. The only reason why I would see to mega dose is if you are about to or on for a cycle since the lipids take a turn for the worst.

On top of that, mega dosing fish oil will shift your body towards an anti-inflammatory state thus most likely reducing your gains long-term.

Poliquin is just releasing another over-hyped opinion.

Anyone remember his 'One day arm cure' ? Yeah..'nuff said.


Any real secrets Poliquin had, he'll keep for his PAYING clients.


A lot of people have the 'more is better' mentality. In this case it is fish oil.
 
Alan, I cannot believe you'd dare argue with the EasyEJL. He does have over 10,000 posts you know. :rolleyes:

Sidenote, good posting and good to see you posting at AM again.
 
SupFatHead said:
Like I posted above...this didnt seem to be true at all in my case.
Click to expand...


This could be subjective. The 'severity' of the cycle, how much/how long you take fish oil could all be determining factors. It is by no means any type of 'immunity'. At any rate, I'd I were to cycle I'd rather take it than not. That's just me though.
 
turbopugsleyl said:
Another thing to think about aragon is that who cares who funded a study....it is published in the international journal of Obesity...they have a reputation as a scientific journal to uphold in the community....also realize that just cause someone funds a study doesn't mean its skewed or that the results are tampered...just that nobody was willing to do the study for purely scientific purposes and a company who was hoping to use the stats if they are favorable for marketing purposes decided to fund it since there is no scientific demand in the community.
Click to expand...

From where and from whom a study is funded by is everything and most definitely affects the results of it. Each study operates on fundamental pretenses and when these pretenses are not objective the results may be accurate within the context but not valid. What I mean by that, is the results may be accurate within the parameters of a given study, but when those parameters are set such that favourable outcome probability is increased, you'd say the results are not valid.

Also you may be looking for a while for the "perfect" study and its real easy to point out flaws in study when you are searching for flaws......the only thing we have to look at in a whole in a broad spectrum is the direction the results were moving in, as well as coupled with the results experience has given individuals....which in this case are both positive and tending towards fat loss....
Click to expand...

Double goes for seeking positive results when it comes to self-fulfilling prophecies. The flaws he are pointing out are indicative of a low level of reliability and replicability, especially the study containing the self-reported dieting. Those results are extremely skewed as there was no objective diet parameter (i.e., no replicability) and therefore the results are variable (i.e., no reliability).

'Perfect' studies do not exist, that is correct; however, studies which are properly conducted cross the line from statistical significance to 'real-world' application, as Aragaon alluded to earlier.
 
Well,

Just thought I would chime in with my personal dealings with megadosing fishoil.

Every month I've been purchasing three containers of it @ Costco, the Kirkland brand fishoil caps. I take 30 caps a day. It has never upset my stomach.

What is has done though, is caused more and more viens to appear in my forearms and chest, while helping me pack on 5lbs. I've been doing this over a month now. Recently, I added pSlin to the mix, and this same trend has continued, but more dramatically. I'm wondering if in both cases it has to do with increased insulin sensitivity.


ALSO,

I used to get BAD tennis elbow, and shooting pain in my forearms from doing skull crushers (125lbs+). Since, I started megdosing fishoil, NADA. Cissus used to help a lot, but even Cissus did not wipe out the pain like fishoil has for me. My joints feel great!
 
alan aragon said:
Okay, back to the math. Assuming accurate reporting, the fish oil group consumed 144 kcal less than the control group. This would equal a deficit of 4320 kcal at the end of each month, which lo and behold adds up to roughly 1.25 lbs lost per month in the fish oil group -- Now you tell me, given that the lesser amount of calories consumed in the fish oil group had it on pace to lose 15 lbs for the year, how much could fish oil actually contribute on top of that??? At 16-17 lbs per year with fish oil as compared to 15 lbs per year with a small caloric deficit, the answer is BARELY NADA.
Click to expand...

You are comparing to the sunflower only with no exercise as the control to get that much caloric difference, so yes, that is fairly unimpressive. Compared to the SOX group which did exercise, but took sunflower oil instead the difference is much smaller, and still fish oil leads by a statistically (although not clinically) significant margin

but I agree its no silver bullet. I've never been fond of silver bullets anyhow. What it does show me is that fish oil supplementation can be a valid and useful part of an overall program for fat loss. Particularly at the start of a new fat loss program for someone who has been more sedentary, the mood lifting and anti inflammation capabilities help make it easier. No, not at megadoses, at the 3-6g a day range. I believe in the dietary anthropology, and that our ancestors had far more omega 3 in their diet. Is fish oil the only way to get it? no, but its easy and inexpensive.

I look at the megadosing as with many other dietary related details - individuals are quite different in chemical makeup. Yes I agree, the blood typing for dietary/body type is fairly ridiculous as there are way too many other factors, however factually peoples bodies do process things differently. How a tablespoon of sugar affects me is different than how it affects a handful of other people. Similarly I think with getting optimal ratios of omega 3/6 and many other dietary needs. There doesn't seem to be anything like a 1 size fits all in terms of perfect dietary structure. Soy protein has some estrogenic effects in caucasians, but it doesn't in asians.

I think true long term, once I reach where I want to maintain fat level wise, I'll be dropping to the 3-6g range for fish oil.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
From where and from whom a study is funded by is everything and most definitely affects the results of it. Each study operates on fundamental pretenses and when these pretenses are not objective the results may be accurate within the context but not valid. What I mean by that, is the results may be accurate within the parameters of a given study, but when those parameters are set such that favourable outcome probability is increased, you'd say the results are not valid.

...

'Perfect' studies do not exist, that is correct; however, studies which are properly conducted cross the line from statistical significance to 'real-world' application, as Aragaon alluded to earlier.
Click to expand...


The problem here is "who will fund the studies". For the fish oil example, to have a similar 4 group study, with lets say 30 people per group instead (120 total) and have them all on controlled diets would cost easily into the multi million dollar range. I don't disagree that this study could have been better, but I can't recall a study i've read that I couldn't say that about. If no company with a vested interest will fund the study, where does the money come from?
 
Hey Alan, I want to apologize for the way I responded earlier. I have been moderately ill over the last week, and also on a protein sparing fast type diet. So that combined with spending all day on my feet saturday (doing pre-scheduled demos for applied nutriceuticals at vitamin shoppe) left me in a crabby mood. I reread through the earlier posts, and realize that I was overreacting. Anyhow, sorry about that. sub 1200 calories a day while maintaining 190+g of protein sucks in some ways. And i'm not using any fish oil right now (i'm using X-factor at the moment, so no fish oils....) so my mood is worse than average :)
 
EasyEJL said:
You are comparing to the sunflower only with no exercise as the control to get that much caloric difference, so yes, that is fairly unimpressive. Compared to the SOX group which did exercise, but took sunflower oil instead the difference is much smaller, and still fish oil leads by a statistically (although not clinically) significant margin
Click to expand...
Brotha, I indeed compared the 2 exercising groups. You can double-check the caloric difference to see that I got my numbers right. But check this out, here's what I did that I shouldn't have done -- I included the baseline (week 0) caloric intakes into the calculation. If you average just the caloric intakes during the trial (at weeks 6 & 12), the difference is even greater. The fish oil group consumed 801.5 kJ less than the control group during the trial. This translates to 191.4 kcals less than the control group. This would put the fish oil group at a pace to lose 1.64 lb more per month than the control group. This caloric intake imbalance between the groups puts a whole new twist on the outcomes, since it almost perfectly explains the weight loss advantage in the fish oil group. Go ahead & double-check this to see for yourself.

PS - your apology is appreciated & accepted. Perhaps our adversarial moment is sign for me to work on making my debate style less inflammatory... Perhaps it needs more fish oil?

:D
 
That or I need to avoid posting after eating 3 benadryls, and 3 tbsp of robutussin dm ;)

Hmm from what I see, the fish oil + exercise groups caloric intake went down further in week 6, but at week 12 was much higher than the control. The calories report (particularly given self monitoring) are definitely the least reliable part of the study. given the # of respondents tho, it really should be fairly evenly distributed. Kind of interesting how high the variation of the 2 groups who exercised was, +- 250 cal. pretty wide range, really a 10% from median variation over the group.

looks like they were all drinkers, and had relatively pitiful protein intake too :) what a nasty macro ratio they had
 
EasyEJL said:
That or I need to avoid posting after eating 3 benadryls, and 3 tbsp of robutussin dm ;)

Hmm from what I see, the fish oil + exercise groups caloric intake went down further in week 6, but at week 12 was much higher than the control. The calories report (particularly given self monitoring) are definitely the least reliable part of the study. given the # of respondents tho, it really should be fairly evenly distributed. Kind of interesting how high the variation of the 2 groups who exercised was, +- 250 cal. pretty wide range, really a 10% from median variation over the group.

looks like they were all drinkers, and had relatively pitiful protein intake too :) what a nasty macro ratio they had
Click to expand...
I agree that the self-reported intake is the study's main achilles heel. Heck, it's not even industry-funded, which would have lent some extra credibility to the outcomes had it been better executed. The wonkiness of the self-reported intake can clearly be seen in how the non-exercising control group reportedly ate progressively less calories as the trial wore on but somehow gained weight & bodyfat %. Although the gains didn't reach statistical significance, they still are obvious errors that illustrate the need for more research on fish oil with better caloric control.
 
The problem is with funding. to do a double blind placebo study like this, large enough groups (bigger than this) to even out variations, and then fund the food and a gym for them reaches into the millions. you are talking hundreds of thousands in blood tests. Nobody wants to pay for it.

On the ADF trials you only mention bodyweight lost, were those not checked for bf %? I've frequently considered that one as a single day at 0 or near 0 cals isn't long enough to start a starvation response, and returning to even just normal intake the other days would let you be carbed up, etc and yet have a very low average caloric intake. I guess I should start a thread in the nutrition forum on that :)
 
EasyEJL said:
On the ADF trials you only mention bodyweight lost, were those not checked for bf %? I've frequently considered that one as a single day at 0 or near 0 cals isn't long enough to start a starvation response, and returning to even just normal intake the other days would let you be carbed up, etc and yet have a very low average caloric intake. I guess I should start a thread in the nutrition forum on that :)
Click to expand...
Heilbronn et al measured BF, I dont think the other 2 trials did. Would have liked to see a control group in any of them. Are you ADF'ing?
 
no, but considering it as a viable alternative. I'm at around a 1200-1500 cal a day diet, but maintaining 190-200g of protein a day. I think id feel a little better at the gym with more normal calories those days. I'm at the point where I have about 6% bf to loose to get where I want to be, so "only" 10-12 lbs as fat loss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top