Fish Oil Bad? New Article

jaeger01

New member
Awards
0
Most fish oil supps don't have anywhere near enough DHA in them to be effective. The most popular and cheapest brands won't do much for people. Especially if the rest of the diet is trash lol .

I go for a gram of DHA per day in supps and then lots of fatty fish. The study isn't great quality either as far as I can tell.
 

jaeger01

New member
Awards
0
The link between seed/vegetable oils and becoming fat and dumb vs animal fats making you healthy and smarter is very solid
 
rodefeeh

rodefeeh

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I take 3-4 Controlled Labs Orange Oximega gels daily for 2g of DHA/EPA.
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
I also have a question to everyone about studies and articles. You guys do realize that Articles and studies are proof of nothing correct? If a study came out tomorrow that said it proves fish oil is bad, Do you really think that one study or handful of studies is gonna negate the last thirty years of studies that say it's good for you? Five million studies magically become nullified from one study? Or maybe studies are just studies.
 

Danksta710

Active member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Junk study. That group isn't us; ppl who follow strict diet and an exercise routine. So many others issues could have caused that result. From diet to shitty fish oil with other stuff added, that is actually unhealthy.
 

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Going to preface this by saying I am not speaking specifically of you OP so don't take anything as personal I say below.

Every so often I get motivated to do a post on studies, but then decide it isn't worth my time since most people don't seem to actually look at science or talk about anything that isn't simple to understand, so I don't...then something like this pops up and I wish I had so I could refer to it.

I think most people here don't really understand a lot of what that even means, and just grab abstracts to try and confirm their biases rather than understanding the nuance of the situation.

I'll admit I don't feel motivated enough for a super in depth post, but I'll cover some of this briefly and I won't even pull direct quotes (feeling lazy) since it doesn't feel worth the effort (but I can if needed later).

First, this isn't the first study to address this. There have been some other meta-analysis that have shown this effect.

It is important to keep in mind, before we even look at this study, is that this effect being shown was small and there doesn't appear to be any underlying mechanism to determine why this would happen. You could argue that both ways of being good and bad. My view is that what this does is it means there is now reason for researchers to try and uncover why this may be seen to even determine if it is actually an issue or something unrelated. Nothing wrong with finding new information and then digging to find if that information is relevant, this can lead to other new discoveries along the way.

This study in particular though is probably not that helpful in helping that issue though. Not all studies are equal (as in a "study" can mean both a wide range of different things and even if the same "type" of study is done some can be "done" better than others, hence peer review and scrutiny after publishing with things like fully disclosing things done in the study) and this one wouldn't land at the peak (or the bottom to be fair) due to being a cohort. I don't want to get too off track and go into all the positives and negatives of cohorts because I am not saying cohorts are "bad", just that the information they present must be interpreted in a specific way. One thing this can be good for is finding things like what is being pointed out so that further studies can be done to find underlying issues, etc. The issue here is that we already kind of have seen this (although replication should be appreciated) so it doesn't tell us anything necessarily "new". This study in particular (and as is often the case in these types of studies) did not actually track the dose, frequency, or composition of the fish oil taken. I don't want to delve too far into speculation (as I didn't fully dissect this particular study), but one quick thought was maybe considering that those who already had issues were prescribed fish oil they were receiving a specific "quality", dose and the likelihood of compliance in taking it was probably higher than those who were "healthy" before and may just be buying random fish oil, with varying dosages, purity, and compliance in taking it.

I'd always recommend looking at something more in depth than just what a news outlet posts about studies, they tend to do a poor job explaining things.

Fish oil has lots of studies though so there is a lot to look at when determining if it fits into each persons specific use case scenario. :)
 
rodefeeh

rodefeeh

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I was expecting to get replies like this - plenty of studies saying it is good. I appreciate everyone's comments!
 
BCseacow83

BCseacow83

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Something I always consider is how many people start taking something like fish oil and then they actually lead an even unhealthier lifestyle due to the "protection" they now believe they have? Not saying everyone does this but I could absolutely see this happening. We see it all the time with PED's, guys get even sloppier with diet and training as the drugs will carry them across the finish line so to speak.
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Something I always consider is how many people start taking something like fish oil and then they actually lead an even unhealthier lifestyle due to the "protection" they now believe they have? Not saying everyone does this but I could absolutely see this happening. We see it all the time with PED's, guys get even sloppier with diet and training as the drugs will carry them across the finish line so to speak.
Ive always felt a lot of the health problems that gen pop on steroids sees is due to ppl eating trash while taking steroids and its a 1+1=(-3)
 
sns8778

sns8778

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
My thoughts have mostly been covered by others in the thread.

This 'study' isn't really a study so much as them looking at other studies and there is really no control variable - they asked x amount of people and they said they took fish oil over that period of time.

Let's be honest - how many people say they take something consistently that don't? What is the definition of consistently as criteria for this article? 51% of the time? There just doesn't seem to be any way to verify it.

Plus, I say this a lot - we live in a world where there are so many studies, looking at the abundance of evidence is important. If you have hundreds, maybe thousands of studies, showing that something is beneficial and then one or two showing it isn't, then I tend to believe the large number that show the benefits and especially if those studies have better controls.

There's also the big issue of brand quality - someone can take fish oil and get very little of the active ingredients that are helpful like EPA and DHA depending on the type that they take. It's not fish oil that matters, its the amount of EPA and DHA and basic over the counter cheapo generic brands usually have little to no EPA/DHA content.

So I actually wouldn't expect to see the same benefits from supplementing with a low EPA/DHA fish oil as a high content one anyway.

And btw... I'm not defending fish oil, just stating the facts. I actually don't take fish oil myself. When I used to, I use NOW Foods Ultra Omega bc it was the highest % EPA/DHA I could find and it hurt my stomach less than other brands. But, I hate the taste of fish and I missed as many or more dosages than I took (going back to my comments on being honest about consistency of use).

I now take a potent Algal oil supplement that has a high DHA content - no fish taste, no stomach upset, etc. It costs a little more, but it helps me be consistent with my dosages.
 
LeanEngineer

LeanEngineer

Legend
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Something I always consider is how many people start taking something like fish oil and then they actually lead an even unhealthier lifestyle due to the "protection" they now believe they have? Not saying everyone does this but I could absolutely see this happening. We see it all the time with PED's, guys get even sloppier with diet and training as the drugs will carry them across the finish line so to speak.
I mean that could always be a possibility, but (and you generally approach things well so don’t take this as directed personally at you) that’s kind of the point of having certain data collection and types of studies.

Just want to caution trying to rationalize a way to start throwing away studies just because they don’t conform exactly to what we want. There will even be studies that show that specific tendency and keeping that in mind is important when interpreting things. Good researchers will generally point things like that out on the papers.
 
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar

I would like an excuse to stop paying $20 a month for fish oil.

Any thoughts on the article?
I agree with everyone saying fish oil is actually good for us, and wish I could take it. But, after trying various brands over the years, varying dosages, etc, I’ve come to the conclusion it’s not for me. Every time I just feel worse overall (lethargic/lazy, lowered mood, etc).
 
thescience

thescience

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
“But even in the prescription strength, highly purified versions of fish oil, the risk for AFib and sometimes stroke has also been present and doctors are cautious about that,”

prescription strength... as if it has some kind of next level potency. I wish the article had attempted to address why some people feel like dogs*t taking fish oil and others dont. algae oil, it seems, mysteriously appears to get around that issue for me as well
 
sns8778

sns8778

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
“But even in the prescription strength, highly purified versions of fish oil, the risk for AFib and sometimes stroke has also been present and doctors are cautious about that,”

prescription strength... as if it has some kind of next level potency. I wish the article had attempted to address why some people feel like dogs*t taking fish oil and others dont. algae oil, it seems, mysteriously appears to get around that issue for me as well
Not disagreeing with you, but explaining the why part of your question.

In my opinion, that article was really just a click bait type piece with a headline meant to get attention moreso than to present any valid information. The title of it alone showed that and there was really nothing presented in that article that was meant to be objective.

There are definitely different strengths and potencies of the constituents in fish oil - but the article did nothing to explain what it was even talking about or why any type would be better or worse than another.

I think a lot of people in general, and probably the author of that article don't even realize that its not about the amount of fish oil that you take, its the amount of EPA and DHA that is important. A person could take 10 grams a day of fish oil by one brand and not get the level of EPA and DHA in 2 grams by another. I don't take Fish Oil, but when I did, that's why I would take the NOW Foods Ultra Omega because it delivered the most EPA and DHA for the least amount of total grams fish oil.

I'm kind of glad that article didn't even attempt to address why some people feel bad when taking fish oil while most people don't, because the truthful answer there is that no one really knows; so all they would have been doing is guessing anyway.

I have theories on the answer to that myself, but they're only theories. In my mind, as it applies to me personally, I'm fairly sure I'm right, but I can't say that for 100% sure which is why I don't generally discuss them.

I know for me personally, I feel better with Algal Oil BUT there is getting to be a real problem with BS Algal Oil too - brands rushing to capitalize on it and not meeting label claims, and brands just going for total algal oil dose and meaningless concentrations of DHA/EPA. I personally use Nature's Way Algal Oil myself.

I've thought about doing one under SNS, but the category is so saturated with BS ones and low concentration ones, that I'm not sure enough people really understand the importance of what's in it versus the total grams, for it to sell well.
 
thescience

thescience

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Not disagreeing with you, but explaining the why part of your question.

In my opinion, that article was really just a click bait type piece with a headline meant to get attention moreso than to present any valid information. The title of it alone showed that and there was really nothing presented in that article that was meant to be objective.

There are definitely different strengths and potencies of the constituents in fish oil - but the article did nothing to explain what it was even talking about or why any type would be better or worse than another.

I think a lot of people in general, and probably the author of that article don't even realize that its not about the amount of fish oil that you take, its the amount of EPA and DHA that is important. A person could take 10 grams a day of fish oil by one brand and not get the level of EPA and DHA in 2 grams by another. I don't take Fish Oil, but when I did, that's why I would take the NOW Foods Ultra Omega because it delivered the most EPA and DHA for the least amount of total grams fish oil.

I'm kind of glad that article didn't even attempt to address why some people feel bad when taking fish oil while most people don't, because the truthful answer there is that no one really knows; so all they would have been doing is guessing anyway.

I have theories on the answer to that myself, but they're only theories. In my mind, as it applies to me personally, I'm fairly sure I'm right, but I can't say that for 100% sure which is why I don't generally discuss them.

I know for me personally, I feel better with Algal Oil BUT there is getting to be a real problem with BS Algal Oil too - brands rushing to capitalize on it and not meeting label claims, and brands just going for total algal oil dose and meaningless concentrations of DHA/EPA. I personally use Nature's Way Algal Oil myself.

I've thought about doing one under SNS, but the category is so saturated with BS ones and low concentration ones, that I'm not sure enough people really understand the importance of what's in it versus the total grams, for it to sell well.
you talking about natures way nutravege omega-3 plant? how is the capsule strength on those. the brand i got burst and im dealing with concerns over contaminating my workspace with the stench
 
sns8778

sns8778

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
you talking about natures way nutravege omega-3 plant? how is the capsule strength on those. the brand i got burst and im dealing with concerns over contaminating my workspace with the stench
Yes. It's the best DHA/EPA content I've seen on an Algal oil softgel. That's why I really like them - taking one of them is equivalent to taking 2 or more of some of the other ones I've seen.

No issues with bursting or leaking.
 
thescience

thescience

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
looks like fish oil is being found with pcb, which doesnt appear to be the case with algae. i can see the need for a legit algae oil that's easier on the pocket, provided it turns out id have to be doing huge doses regularly. im putting that experiment on the back burner after seemingly have resolved so much joint issues via lactic acid reduction with 6g beta alanine daily. cant believe i never got around to taking this stuff
 

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
looks like fish oil is being found with pcb, which doesnt appear to be the case with algae. i can see the need for a legit algae oil that's easier on the pocket, provided it turns out id have to be doing huge doses regularly. im putting that experiment on the back burner after seemingly have resolved so much joint issues via lactic acid reduction with 6g beta alanine daily. cant believe i never got around to taking this stuff
Beta Alanine for joint issues?
 
thescience

thescience

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Beta Alanine for joint issues?
im sort of assuming right now from the response im getting from it that i have high lactic acid. i dont think a guy with a normal amount of lactic acid in his system would notice the full body benefits. i suppose also the increased efficiency is assisting a number of other supplements im taking; , my NO production, libido, and energy has definitely increased
 
Last edited:

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
im sort of assuming right now from the response im getting from it that i have high lactic acid. i dont think a guy with a normal amount of lactic acid in his system would notice the full body benefits. i suppose also the increased efficiency is assisting a number of other supplements im taking; , my NO production, libido, and energy has definitely increased
Ok ya don’t want to get too off topic in this thread.

I know there is a lot of preliminary research on Carnosine in regards to potentially helping that (and other areas) and that Beta Alanine is probably the best way to boost Carnosine levels. I’m just trying to not get too technical because the relationships between that and lactic acid (lactic acid isn’t lactate) and how that would all interact I think is commonly misunderstood (or just most not being kept up to date).

I admit though using BA to boost Carnosine for benefits beyond what most people supplement for is pretty interesting though!
 
thescience

thescience

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
i
Ok ya don’t want to get too off topic in this thread.

I know there is a lot of preliminary research on Carnosine in regards to potentially helping that (and other areas) and that Beta Alanine is probably the best way to boost Carnosine levels. I’m just trying to not get too technical because the relationships between that and lactic acid (lactic acid isn’t lactate) and how that would all interact I think is commonly misunderstood (or just most not being kept up to date).

I admit though using BA to boost Carnosine for benefits beyond what most people supplement for is pretty interesting though!
i figure the OP is interested in pain relief, for which fish oil may not be the answer depending on the cause. yeah lactate, lactic acid, hydrogen whatever the culprit it may be that medically the emphasis is on lactic acid because physicians are focused on people who either make more than normal amounts or clear less than is necessary. i messed around with acetyl carnosine transdermally, but i regretably wasnt doing so with the idea of saturation over the course of a month laid out in beta alanine strategy. definiitely going to give a shout out for betasynth micronized beta alanine; i had another brand sitting under my tongue undissolved after 5 minutes!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Top