Fish Oil Supps, Necessary?

I’ve read all the articles concerning the benefits of fish oil supplements, but my lunch consists of either salmon, mackerel or tuna & twice a week my dinners will be fish. Should I still consider fish oil caps or is my intake from actual fish already enough? Also, does anyone know what the best brands of fish oil caps are in Australia? Cheers.

Anybody?

I would still take a fish oil supp regardless, I also eat a lot of fish every week but my joints feel better when I’m taking fish oil on a regular basis.

Dunno about fish oils in Australia, but most that you will find at your local pharmacy will be quite low in potency, so I would recommend something like Flameout which you can buy from this site, it beats taking 20+ capsules at a time which is what I do at the moment.

If your salmon is farm raised, it doesn’t have the beneficial fat profile.

I would still take the caps. For a supplement.

Good Luck.

You’d have to eat huge amounts of fish to get as much DHA/EPA as Flameout has. And eating that much fish, I’d be worried about contaminants - an unfortunate reality in today’s world. My 2 cents.

Are they necessary even with fish in your diet? Yes.

I’ll tell you what, and I know this may not be good but the fact is, I was having horrible shoulder soreness before supplementing heavily with fish oil (40 g a day). I did nothing else to remedy the shoulder soreness (I.E. I still do overhead pressing movements) but the fish oil seems to have gotten rid of the inflammation.

6g a day is Flameout.

If I had a pet shark, I’d still give him Flameout.

No matter how much fish you eat, you should still supplement with fish oil. Eating the real thing is great, but you can’t come close to the amounts of DHA/EPA that you can find in quality caps, like Flameout.

no matter what it says on the label the wild card with fish oil is oxidation. the best brands will be the ones who take the steps to minimize this. i think carlson’s is pretty much recognized as top quality the world over. but even then it’s like any other food product and you need to get it from a supplier with proper shipping and storage…

i don’t mail-order carlson’s in mid summer for example. and personally i don’t like caps so much because it’s more difficult to taste and smell what you’re getting. taking a handful of semi-rancid caps is only counter-productive. if you go with caps try a few brands. cut them open and see.

Fish oil is the SINGLE most important supplement. It is the one thing you can not easily get in diet, and almost certainly are low in. It is the most important thing for everything: brain function, inflamation, muscle growth.

If I could pass a law I would decree that EVERYONE must have fish oil because the health benefits and payoff to economy would be HUGE - smarter healthier population with more energy less fatness and less disease.

You might find cheaper than flamout but I doubt it, and you prob. can’t find better.

In the old days Cod Liver oil was popular and I took it as a kid and your body kind of knows it is good for you even though it was a bit foul. looks like granny knew what she was doing.

if you buy the best oil in the world and then spend hours in 40 degree heat taking it home on the bus, it may go rancid.

humans evolved the way we are on a diet rich in oils especially shellfish or marrow or brains. BRAINSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Thanks, i’ll definetly start hunting around for some quality manufacturers. None of the ones ive looked at so far have as high potency as Flameout, and most have higher levels of EPA than DHA. With postage on top of the initial price, ordering from this site goes well beyond the budget. Any suggestions on what to look for on the label?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This seems to be a big todo about nothing. Most credible nutritional sources will tell you to just eat fish twice per week. I know it’s not as cool as swallowing 23 pills per day, but it’s really all you need.

[/quote]

Yeah but most ‘credible’ nutrition sources also say that you only need 65g of protein a day no matter how much muscle mass you carry.

-S

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This seems to be a big todo about nothing. Most credible nutritional sources will tell you to just eat fish twice per week. I know it’s not as cool as swallowing 23 pills per day, but it’s really all you need.

[/quote]

That’s really not true mick. Even if you were eating, twice a week, high quality, wild caught salmon, you wouldn’t be getting nearly enough DHA/EPA. And most fish has far less. This is all especially true if you’re an athlete, or have inflammatory-related diseases and/or are elderly - in other words, most of the population.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I am in agreement with Stymie regarding “Fish Oil” by Carlson, manufactured and bottled in Norway from deep, cold ocean-water fish (copied this from the label). It is of excellent quality, and recognized the world over.

I purchase Carlson “Fish Oil” in four 500 ml bottles at a time. The per bottle price is $44.50, but purchased in quantity your cost is about $32.50 per bottle. And, it has a great lemon taste. Just my $.02 on fish oil.

Hey, thanks! I’ve read the articles. A few things to start:

First, whether a study is funded by government, industry, or a supplement company, the question should really be, “is this good science?” We’d be hard pressed indeed to find truly disinterested research. Anyway, the pieces you reference are journalistic pieces based on the original, so it’s hard to assess the quality of the original studies.

Second, overall these articles seem to be saying is that eating some “fish” is good for you, and outweighs the risk of contaminants. As I mentioned above, this is completely meaningless: DHA/EPA can vary wildy fish by fish type. So I’m a little suspicious already since all they mention is “fish,” except for the third piece which makes a brief nod to this fact, and sort of passes over it.

Third, the level of contaminants in any piece of fish, as the EPA has found, can vary wildly also (both among types of fish, but also especially within the same type of fish, say, yellow tuna): they randomly tested fish in restaurants and supermarkets - and yes, they did find that many pieces of fish were moderate to low. But they also found some pieces were actually toxic. So, it’s a bit of russian roulette.

Let’s focus on the third piece which is the most recent and the strongest piece by far.

Now maybe it’s me, but the below does not seem to be a ringing endorsement of eating fish. It seems a half assed, weasel attempt to say, “well, the fatty acids in fish are good for you, and you’re better off getting those fatty acids than not, even with the risk of contamination.”

I guess I might agree with this: if our only source of DHA/EPA was fish, I would be tempted to risk ingesting contaminants.

But we do have other sources: molecularly distilled/ultra pure DHA/EPA that has no risk of contamination.

Moreover, while I don’t have time to locate them now, the number of studies using fish oil to treat depression, joint problems, pain management, etc, are very numerous and growing.

Finally, I’ve never seen a single study that says that fish oil/DHA/EPA supplementation is bad for you, dangerous, or useless. If you have something along those lines, please send it along.

Anyway, here are the important quotes, at least as I read it. That’s all for now, I’ve gotta go. Cheers.

[quote]
Mercury levels in fish are one potential risk of eating seafood. Studies have shown that high levels of mercury exposure, for example, following an industrial accident, can have adverse health effects. However, the effects of low-level exposure (i.e. from eating fish) are less well-established.

The researchers found no definite evidence that low-level mercury exposure
from seafood consumption had harmful effects on health in adults, although they did find that mercury may lessen the cardiovascular benefit–but not cause net harm–from eating some fish.

The evidence was suggestive that mercury may have subtle effects on brain development for a child exposed in the womb, or in early childhood. To obtain the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids for brain development and minimize the potential risk of mercury, the investigators�?? findings
agreed with the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration that women of childbearing age, nursing mothers and young children should eat up to two servings per week of a variety of fish (for example, salmon, light tuna, shrimp, mackerel, and up to 6 oz. per week of albacore tuna) and avoid only four species of fish�??golden
bass (also known as tilefish), king mackerel, shark and swordfish�??larger, predatory fish that have higher levels of mercury. The researchers emphasized that this advisory is only for women of childbearing age, nursing mothers and young children, not the general population. Importantly, the evidence suggests that, for those women, it is as important for their health and for the brain development of their infants that they eat a variety of other types of fish as it is to avoid the four fish species higher in mercury.

Some studies have shown that PCBs and dioxins may be carcinogenic. The authors found that the benefits of eating fish far outweighed the potential cancer risks from these chemicals. �??The levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish species are low, similar to other commonly consumed foods such as beef, chicken, pork, eggs, and butter. Importantly, the possible health risks of these low levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are only a small fraction of the much better established health benefits of the omega-3 fatty acids,�?? said Mozaffarian. �??For example, for farmed salmon, the cardiovascular benefits are greater than the cancer risks by a factor of at least 300:1. With the
exception of some locally caught sport fish from contaminated inland waters, the levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish should not influence decisions about fish intake.�?? The study also points out that only 9% of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from fish and other seafood; more than 90% comes from other foods such as meats, vegetables, and dairy products. [/quote]

Again, perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of eating fish. It’s saying that fish is good for you because of the fatty acids, and small amounts of fish have not been proven to be harmful. That is not very comforting and seems very half-hearted to me. Also, I’m sure we get toxins from other foods as well, which is why I am careful about what I eat.

Okay, so because eating contaminated fish hasn’t been absolutely proven to be harmful, I should still eat it, even though it means I am ingesting contaminants?

Okay, right, DHA is essential to the human body. Yes, that’s true.

[quote]
The authors conclude that, based on the evidence, the benefits of eating one to two servings of fish a week greatly outweigh the risks among adults and, except for a few species of fish, women of child-bearing age. �??It is striking how much greater both the amount of the evidence and the size of the health effect are for health benefits, compared with health risks. Seafood is likely the single most important food one can consume for good health,�?? said Mozaffarian. The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.[/quote]

Again, yes, if you have no other source of DHA/EPA, you should risk eating some seafood because DHA/EPA is so critical to your body/brain.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.