krill oil vs fish oil
- Thread starter qwerty33
- Start date
elabor
New member
I currently take one krill (swanson) and 3-4 fish (carlson super DHA) in hopes that the phospholipid vehicle in the krill will increase bioavailability of the regular fish oil. Krill has other benefits, mainly from the red pigment (a strong antioxidant) such as cholesterol lowering effects and sunburn protection. The pigment also keeps the oil fresh and intact. I am wary of taking too much of any antioxidant at once because it becomes counterproductive. Most research shows that krill is superior, but with the price difference and my concerns of taking too many antioxidants, I prefer a combo. Here is some current research on the subject. As you can see, the increased bioavailability alone does not make the much more expensive krill oil worth it. But as I mentioned before, krill has additional benefits that make it, in my opinion, a worthy addition to my supplement regime. Swanson has the cheapest Neptune Krill Oil, by far. Neptune is standardized so any brand you buy is equal. Carlson Super DHA is the best price:quality ratio per gram of DHA I have been able to find anywhere.
Source: Nutrition Research Oct 2009
Volume 29, Issue 9, Pages 609-615
“Krill oil supplementation increases plasma concentrations of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids in overweight and obese men and women”
Led by Kevin Maki from Provident Clinical Research, the researchers recruited 76 overweight and obese men and women to take part in their randomized, double-blind parallel arm trial.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive capsules containing 2 grams per day of krill oil, fish oil (menhaden), or control oil (olive) for four weeks.
At the end of the time, the researchers report that levels of EPA and DHA concentrations increased significantly more following krill oil supplementation than following menhaden or olive oil supplementation. Indeed, EPA and DHA levels rose by an average 178 and 90 micromoles per litre of plasma, respectively, in the krill oil group, compared to 132 and 150 micromoles per litre of plasma in the menhaden group, and only 3 and -1.1 micromoles in the olive oil group.
“The daily quantity of EPA provided in the krill (216 mg) and menhaden oil (212 mg) supplements in this study was comparable,” reported the researchers. “However, the DHA present in the krill oil (90 mg/d) was approximately one half that provided in the menhaden oil (178 mg/d).
“At the end of the treatment period, the mean plasma EPA concentration was somewhat higher in the krill oil group compared with the menhaden oil group (377 versus 293 micromoles per litre), whereas the mean plasma DHA concentrations were comparable (476 versus 478 micromoles per litre).
“These results suggest that the EPA and DHA from krill oil are absorbed at least as well as that from menhaden oil,” they added.
“Compared with both menhaden oil and olive oil, krill oil was generally well tolerated and showed no indication of adverse effects on safety parameters,” they concluded.
Source: Nutrition Research Oct 2009
Volume 29, Issue 9, Pages 609-615
“Krill oil supplementation increases plasma concentrations of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids in overweight and obese men and women”
Led by Kevin Maki from Provident Clinical Research, the researchers recruited 76 overweight and obese men and women to take part in their randomized, double-blind parallel arm trial.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive capsules containing 2 grams per day of krill oil, fish oil (menhaden), or control oil (olive) for four weeks.
At the end of the time, the researchers report that levels of EPA and DHA concentrations increased significantly more following krill oil supplementation than following menhaden or olive oil supplementation. Indeed, EPA and DHA levels rose by an average 178 and 90 micromoles per litre of plasma, respectively, in the krill oil group, compared to 132 and 150 micromoles per litre of plasma in the menhaden group, and only 3 and -1.1 micromoles in the olive oil group.
“The daily quantity of EPA provided in the krill (216 mg) and menhaden oil (212 mg) supplements in this study was comparable,” reported the researchers. “However, the DHA present in the krill oil (90 mg/d) was approximately one half that provided in the menhaden oil (178 mg/d).
“At the end of the treatment period, the mean plasma EPA concentration was somewhat higher in the krill oil group compared with the menhaden oil group (377 versus 293 micromoles per litre), whereas the mean plasma DHA concentrations were comparable (476 versus 478 micromoles per litre).
“These results suggest that the EPA and DHA from krill oil are absorbed at least as well as that from menhaden oil,” they added.
“Compared with both menhaden oil and olive oil, krill oil was generally well tolerated and showed no indication of adverse effects on safety parameters,” they concluded.
matthias7
Well-known member
Good post.
It is very trendy, as a possible nootropic. The other reason its taken its a reduced concern of Vit D toxicity (over fish oil). For gym I don't see krill as being worth it over fish oil.
Yes that is why it is taken. I wasn't aware of the potent anti-oxidents. You get the same thing from flax/sessame/pumpkin/sunflower mix but krill is considered more bioavailable.
It is very trendy, as a possible nootropic. The other reason its taken its a reduced concern of Vit D toxicity (over fish oil). For gym I don't see krill as being worth it over fish oil.
elabor
New member
Plants provide ALA. ALA is converted to EPA (pretty poorly, like 6% according to some studies) but not to DHA. (Postgraduate Medicine: Volume 121: No.6 Nov 2009. Understanding Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids) DHA is only obtainable from marine and algal (algae) sources. DHA is the most prominent fatty acid in sperm, eyes (retina), and brain tissue. (Conversion of ALA and DHA., I.H. Gerster, Internat J Vit Nutr Res 68 (1998) 159-173)
The health benefits of ALA appear to come from the conversion to EPA. So that means you need a lot of ALA (i.e. a lot of flax oil) to get moderate benefits compared to preformed (marine/algal) EPA. And you still don't get the benefits of DHA (Postgraduate Medicine: Volume 121: No.6 Understanding Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids). The conversion is something like 11g flax oil = 1g EPA (no DHA).
EPA intake does not increase plasma DHA concentrations. DHA intake increases plasma DHA concentrations (duh) and modestly increases plasma EPA concentrations. 2 grams of DHA per day increases plasma DHA to maximal levels possible. (Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jun;83(6 Suppl):1467S-1476S. Distribution, interconversion, and dose response of n-3 fatty acids in humans.)
Basically, taking DHA is ideal because you get the conversion to EPA too, whereas EPA won't help you with DHA levels. This is why I take Carlson Super DHA, but any marine or algae oil will do. Additional flax or other plant oils help out a little with EPA and may have their own separate benefits.
As a side note, Matthias, Vit D toxicity is rare. Current research places vit D deficiency in US adults at 40-80%. In my own practice, I regularly prescribe 50,000iu vit D2 (ergocalciferol) 3x a week for 4 months to get deficiencies back into a normal range. Then 1000iu D3 (cholecalciferol) a day or 50,000iu D2 a month to keep levels in the optimal range. Even with regular sun exposure, you are pretty likely to be deficient. (Low Vitamin D status despite abundant sun exposure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:2130, 2007)
Optimal range is 60ng/dl. I very regularly come across patients in the 5-20 ng/dl range. Toxicity is a risk above 150 ng/dl. Vit D is something I recommend for everyone. Especially in cold/flu season (I haven't been sick in many years), which is supported by current research (Association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and upper respiratory tract infection... Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169:384-90.)
Bottom line, take 2g DHA, 1000iu Vit D3 (cholecalciferol) every day for optimal health and less sick days.
elabor
New member
Right, I would recommend 1000 iu Vit D, 2g DHA from fish, krill, or a combo of both, and a USP verified multivitamin low (100% or less) in A (beta carotene), E and all other nutrients. Flax is just icing but is likely beneficial! As a bodybuilder you are probably eating much more than the usual person and paying more attention to what you are eating (or should be), so the need for extra stuff is less than some sedentary person living off of processed foods.
Athletix
Board Sponsor
Fish oil is far superior to flax mainly because of the quantities of DHA/DHA and their ratios. With that being said be careful about reading studies on obese as they can be misleading. In healthy individuals who probably did not have a prior deficiency in healthy fats, which probably made them obese in the first place, it won't make that much of a difference. Omega-3's are best reserved for lowering triglycerides though. In some studies it shows to increase HDL but in many studies it is either neutral in regards to LDL or actually slightly increases it so just keep that in mind.
I am not saying that it is not worth taking as it does have cardioprotective effects but in the absence of elevated LFT's (liver function tests) niacin is probably a better option as it inhibits cholesterol formation and vastly increases HDL, which is responsible for bringing atherosclerotic plaques from the periphery back to the liver. If you do choose niacin, however just remember to get the extended release version and take it at night before bed since cholesterol production peaks while you sleep. DO NOT buy flush free niacin, also called niacinamide, however, as it is basically worthless. You shouldn't feel flushing with the ER versions of niacin but if you do just take a baby aspirin with it.
I am not saying that it is not worth taking as it does have cardioprotective effects but in the absence of elevated LFT's (liver function tests) niacin is probably a better option as it inhibits cholesterol formation and vastly increases HDL, which is responsible for bringing atherosclerotic plaques from the periphery back to the liver. If you do choose niacin, however just remember to get the extended release version and take it at night before bed since cholesterol production peaks while you sleep. DO NOT buy flush free niacin, also called niacinamide, however, as it is basically worthless. You shouldn't feel flushing with the ER versions of niacin but if you do just take a baby aspirin with it.
matthias7
Well-known member
Flax/sesame/sunflower/pumpkin 3:1:1:1 balances omega 3 and 6 (what you find in cells) aside from bio-availability.
matthias7
Well-known member
DHA/DHA will have a ratio of 1:1 whether you are a human or a blue whale or another other animal using DHA for that matter.
matthias7
Well-known member
I'm aware that Vit D is very trendy right now. Vit A toxicity does happen.
What are you're symptoms of deficiency? We're unlikely to suffer osteoporosis.
I'm open to the evidence. What I am suspicious of:
Its been a fashion to use mega-vits ever since Linus Pauling wrote a book on Vit C. Mega doses of Vit B (which I use) followed shortly afterwards. There is no evidence mega-Bs actually work, but being water soluable can't do much damage if they don't work. I think they do. Mega-Ds are the next in line for the trend.
Shoot me down.
matthias7
Well-known member
Hey elabor. Thanks, you've argued EPA / DHA very well indeed. All I know is what my nutritionist told me. The serum vs. cell levels is also comprehensively argued.
This I doubt. In actual fact I do infectious disease for living.
I would severely doubt a single epidemiological study claiming risk factor associated cold/flu. "Cold" is a very different viral agent to influenza. Biologically they are no similarity at all, its a bit like saying hepC is like hepB - well both hit the liver but thats where the similarity stops. To suggest commonality between cold + influenza severly risks being undermined by the vastly different receptors, genome architecture (influenza is segmented), immune response etc... I haven't reviewed the publication nor even read it but "Archives" are never great journals in impact factor. To suggest a single nutrient eliminates two viruses with very different biological mechanisms is shaky at best. I could go on but I think the point is taken.
I could get the paper and technically critique it - but I've got a life to lead.
This I doubt. In actual fact I do infectious disease for living.
I would severely doubt a single epidemiological study claiming risk factor associated cold/flu. "Cold" is a very different viral agent to influenza. Biologically they are no similarity at all, its a bit like saying hepC is like hepB - well both hit the liver but thats where the similarity stops. To suggest commonality between cold + influenza severly risks being undermined by the vastly different receptors, genome architecture (influenza is segmented), immune response etc... I haven't reviewed the publication nor even read it but "Archives" are never great journals in impact factor. To suggest a single nutrient eliminates two viruses with very different biological mechanisms is shaky at best. I could go on but I think the point is taken.
I could get the paper and technically critique it - but I've got a life to lead.
matthias7
Well-known member
Wait a minute ... its not that simple.
Vit D is believed to be the current wonder Vit that we are all deficit in. The normal response to this is to go MEGA, until toxicity can be proved.
elabor is saying 'cause we're all deficit there ain't such a thing as toxicity. However elabor is monitoring serum levels - which you ain't.
All I'm saying is that because vit D is fat soluble it can build up. elabor is saying it can't because we're deficit. In all honesty I've no idea who is right here. What I do know is that even mega-vit C (which I also take) has never been linked to health benefits. Although it is thought to have greatly improved the life expectancy of many US citizens, its not conclusive. If mega water soluble vit theory is wrong - it doesn't matter much (it does at the extremes) because its excreted. If mega-D theory is wrong you need to know the signs of going toxic.
If you are really worried serum levels are the way to go. What we really need to know are the signs of deficiency. I know how UK dietricians work and you'd fill in a questionaire and they'd screen for suspected deficiencies. Here though I dunno, I'm arguing from a 'traditional' perspective.
Vit D is believed to be the current wonder Vit that we are all deficit in. The normal response to this is to go MEGA, until toxicity can be proved.
elabor is saying 'cause we're all deficit there ain't such a thing as toxicity. However elabor is monitoring serum levels - which you ain't.
All I'm saying is that because vit D is fat soluble it can build up. elabor is saying it can't because we're deficit. In all honesty I've no idea who is right here. What I do know is that even mega-vit C (which I also take) has never been linked to health benefits. Although it is thought to have greatly improved the life expectancy of many US citizens, its not conclusive. If mega water soluble vit theory is wrong - it doesn't matter much (it does at the extremes) because its excreted. If mega-D theory is wrong you need to know the signs of going toxic.
If you are really worried serum levels are the way to go. What we really need to know are the signs of deficiency. I know how UK dietricians work and you'd fill in a questionaire and they'd screen for suspected deficiencies. Here though I dunno, I'm arguing from a 'traditional' perspective.
marco wolf
Member
He recommends taking 1000iu of Vit D2 daily, which in no way will cause toxicity. The megadoses are what he prescribes after taking blood levels.
Athletix
Board Sponsor
Unfortunately this is not the case with many supplements, which is what I was referring to in that sentence. For instance many products containing fish oil contain 1000mg of fish oil which contains 180mg of EPA and 120mg DHA. Is this a big difference, of course not, I was just making a point
. But DHA/EPA is much more important than ALA when it concerns the heart so stick to the fish oil 
.
eatingisfun
Active member
You should read some of the studies on this page
Invalid Link Removed
Don't put anything trust into what Steve Gibson says on the page, just read some of the studies there. It's a good collection of studies on Vit. D benefits
Athletix
Board Sponsor
Three aren't many downsides to it except taking it with iron can be an issue and can actually make it a pro-oxidant. There still hasn't been much research on mega dosing it for the anti-hyperlipidemic effects but there are some possibilities there. It has been shown in most studies that anti-oxidants don't have much of an effect on diseases later in life either such as Alzheimer's. Vitamin C wouldn't do you much good anyways since it is a water soluble vitamin.
Bottom line I would just stick to getting at least 500mg of it per day. There will be many on here that recommend mega dosing it but there could be more problems than anything else and most of it is excreted in the urine fairly quickly regardless.
Be careful with what type of vitamine E form you buy though. If it isn't the ester form it can actually form a pretty nasty quinone that has pro oxidant effects as well. Luckily most companies are smart enough to put that form in their products. It is also a very potent anti-coagulant.
Vitamin D is definitely a great supplement to take and it could be one of the most deficient vitamins in the American diet. It has to go through two conversions to be in its active 1,25-OH form.
One more I recommend everyone take is niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotonic acid). Don't take any more than 500mg in a slow release tablet in the evening. Nothing is better for increasing HDL and lowering LDL in the long term. Good luck
.
elabor
New member
wow many additions to this thread since I last visited.
If you are megadosing with Vit D you must get your serum levels checked. The test is inexpensive. A safer bet is the 1000iu D3 daily, which is not a megadose. In fact the current RDA will likely be increased to 1000iu in the near future based on recent research.
As far as preventing viral infection, the cause is not implied, just a correlation. I highly doubt that taking vit D alone will prevent illness. BUT, I do believe there is a connection, just as Vit D deficiency does not cause the elderly to fall, BUT there is a correlation between vit D deficiency and falls in the elderly. It is extremely difficulty to prove a causal effect for this type of thing because there are so many variables. I do think vit D is important and more benefits will be revealed with future research.
Vit C is probably good too and likely harmless in reasonable doses. I only give 500mg to patients with decubitus ulcers or surgical or other wounds, as it may aid in skin integrity and healing. But if you are deficient in C from your diet then it may be useful with immunity and, of course, preventing scurvy (a result of severe deficiency). Argh! More than 500mg and you increase the risks of kidney stones in susceptible people and diarrhea, especially when you are taking multiple grams, which I have not seen any convincing evidence of which to support the use.
Vit A and E are definitely not recommended by me though, as toxicity is pretty easy to achieve with supplementation and deficiencies are rare with even crappy diets. I've read of ignorant parents causing permanent mental retardation in their children with megadoses of vitamin A.
If you are megadosing with Vit D you must get your serum levels checked. The test is inexpensive. A safer bet is the 1000iu D3 daily, which is not a megadose. In fact the current RDA will likely be increased to 1000iu in the near future based on recent research.
As far as preventing viral infection, the cause is not implied, just a correlation. I highly doubt that taking vit D alone will prevent illness. BUT, I do believe there is a connection, just as Vit D deficiency does not cause the elderly to fall, BUT there is a correlation between vit D deficiency and falls in the elderly. It is extremely difficulty to prove a causal effect for this type of thing because there are so many variables. I do think vit D is important and more benefits will be revealed with future research.
Vit C is probably good too and likely harmless in reasonable doses. I only give 500mg to patients with decubitus ulcers or surgical or other wounds, as it may aid in skin integrity and healing. But if you are deficient in C from your diet then it may be useful with immunity and, of course, preventing scurvy (a result of severe deficiency). Argh! More than 500mg and you increase the risks of kidney stones in susceptible people and diarrhea, especially when you are taking multiple grams, which I have not seen any convincing evidence of which to support the use.
Vit A and E are definitely not recommended by me though, as toxicity is pretty easy to achieve with supplementation and deficiencies are rare with even crappy diets. I've read of ignorant parents causing permanent mental retardation in their children with megadoses of vitamin A.
Athletix
Board Sponsor
Yup, I agree with above. That is the biggest problem with correlation studies is that although it shows two variables are 'associated' somehow it does not say how. So if they show that people who get adequate vitamin D have less instance of viral infection, it could just be due to the fact that people who are taking vitamin D happen to be more on top of their diet and other supplementation as well, there are a million possibilities.
Elabor is also correct in the fact that all fat soluble vitamins can cause toxicity. Their Vd is much higher and they can distribute without elimination much easier. As I stated before most of the studies even done on diseases later in life such as Alzheimer's do not look promising for anti-oxidants so outside of getting a little more than your daily allowance there isn't much use for it. Water soluble vitamins such as C are easily excreted so you don't have to worry much about a toxicity, just don't take it with iron.
junkyarddogzz
Member
I think its a fad...cant go wrong with a good fish oil