Omega 3's Are Bad For You?

Diet and Nutrition
21

I read through most of those extracts.

First off, a ton of them not only deal with polyunsaturated fats in general (the study will list several specific fatty acids, none of which are DHA or EPA). Furthermore, many of them specifically address the dangers of arachidonic acid, an Omega-6 fatty acid.

The few that look partially legit simply challenging benefits of Omega 3’s.

There are a couple that mention accelerated atherosclerosis in rats and rabbits, which flies in the face of a dozen other studies. All you have to do is google “Atherosclerosis and Omega 3” to see that.

I’m not going to say that Omega 3 fatty acids are a wonder drug or there are absolutely no drawbacks out there, but this guy’s references are terrible and his argument seem to hold no water.

22

Uh…old news, buddy. Omega 3’s cause cancer, same with water, air, and creatine.

23

How to test if thing X is good for?

  1. Does it come from nature?
  2. Are the doses close to what one would find in nature?
  3. Do you take it in moderation?
  4. DO YOU EXERCISE DAILY?

Follow just about any diet you want, as long as you exercise with some intensity, you’ll be fine.

Look at how many diets have been followed in sports. High carb, low carb, high protein, low protein, blah blah blah. They’ve all worked. Just some of everything. Don’t overeat too often, don’t undereat too often. What does that mean? Look in the mirror.

24

As usual with these types of articles, a bit of truth is taken and used to create nonsense, for a lack of a better word.

Yes, it’s true that omega 3 fatty acids can increase the susceptibility of cell membranes to oxidative damage after being incorporated. However, without large doses and insufficient antioxidants (e.g., vitamin E) it isn’t the issue this author wants people to believe and the overwhelming amount of positive data is supportive of this.

Last, I couldn’t believe there was any good data supporting statements regarding all of these supposed deleterious effects. And upon looking at these references, I’m not disappointed.

Out of the first two studies I’ve checked out, neither was supportive in any way of what the author is stating. In fact, neither was evaluating what the author was claiming in any way. As someone pointed out, there are references to omega 6 fatty acids, where the author is making claims about omega 3 fatty acids.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

25

Thank you Cy. Some of the stuff this Guy Schenker has to say I find interesting. Although I think he may be right on some things he also comes across as ignorant in others. He basically fills in the gaps with anecdotal evidence and logic which as you know doesn’t hold much weight in the scientific community.

I appreciate your input.

26

[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
He basically fills in the gaps with anecdotal evidence and logic which as you know doesn’t hold much weight in the scientific community.
[/quote]

What is up with your hard-on for this guy? Read through the very abstracts that you posted, and you’ll see what a joke this is.

He doesn’t “fill in gaps,” he creates issues where there are none based on shitty research and paranoia.

27

No problem Bri!

[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
Thank you Cy. Some of the stuff this Guy Schenker has to say I find interesting. Although I think he may be right on some things he also comes across as ignorant in others. He basically fills in the gaps with anecdotal evidence and logic which as you know doesn’t hold much weight in the scientific community.

I appreciate your input.[/quote]

28

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
He basically fills in the gaps with anecdotal evidence and logic which as you know doesn’t hold much weight in the scientific community.

What is up with your hard-on for this guy? Read through the very abstracts that you posted, and you’ll see what a joke this is.

He doesn’t “fill in gaps,” he creates issues where there are none based on shitty research and paranoia.[/quote]

Is English your second language?

29

[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
Leafblighter wrote:
Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
He basically fills in the gaps with anecdotal evidence and logic which as you know doesn’t hold much weight in the scientific community.

What is up with your hard-on for this guy? Read through the very abstracts that you posted, and you’ll see what a joke this is.

He doesn’t “fill in gaps,” he creates issues where there are none based on shitty research and paranoia.

Is English your second language?
[/quote]

If there’s any misunderstanding here, it is definitely on your side… not mine. Your sentence reads that this man is using logic (when he is clearly illogical) and anecdotal evidence (of which there is none).

All of your posts about him have had an underlying supportive tone, despite overwhelming evidence that he is either incapable of interpreting a study or knows damn well what they say but hopes that you won’t check his references.

Maybe you don’t intend to sound supportive of him, but it certainly reads that way.

30

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
If there’s any misunderstanding here, it is definitely on your side… not mine. Your sentence reads that this man is using logic (when he is clearly illogical) and anecdotal evidence (of which there is none).

All of your posts about him have had an underlying supportive tone, despite overwhelming evidence that he is either incapable of interpreting a study or knows damn well what they say but hopes that you won’t check his references.

Maybe you don’t intend to sound supportive of him, but it certainly reads that way.

[/quote]

Using logic to solve a problem is not good science. An example: Protein is bad for people with liver/kidney dysfunction. I eat a high protein diet. Therefore I will develop liver/kidney dysfunction. See the problem? (Disclaimer: That was not a supportive tone.) :slight_smile:

Guy Schenker has lots of anecdotal evidence, hence the fact that he runs a private practice! Is it a perfect way to conduct science? No, very far from it. (Disclaimer: That wasn’t very supportive either.)

The truth is though, of a lot of the information we know about exercise and nutrition is from observing what works first, then trying to figure out why afterwards. Not vice versa. It sucks we have to do this, but sometimes it’s necessary. (Sort of positive I guess)

Overwhelming evidence? Have you read all 100 or so of his newsletters? Have you read his book? Are you familiar with his nutritional system and the theory behind it? Sorry, I assumed you weren’t familiar with his work. I thought you only half read the newsletter I presented earlier. :slight_smile: (Yeah, that does come across as a bit defensive.)

Do I think this guy is spot on with all of his recommendations? No. (Negative)

Do I think Omega 3’s are unhealthy? Not sure. I’m keeping an open mind at the moment. It most likely depends on the amounts consumed and the particular needs of the person. I know I for one feel worse when taking Omega 3’s(fish oil or flax). I develop low blood sugar, anxiety, and acne. That makes a total of one person I know that most likely should not take extra Omega 3’s. It is also a reason I found this newsletter interesting as it may be a possible reason as to why I experience negative effects to Omega 3’s. (Positive)

Do I think he makes mistakes? Yes. (Negative)

Are there any contributers on this site that have made errors? Yes. (Supportive to an open mind)

Is it common for scientists to unwillingly make wrong conclusions based on their research? Yes. (Supportive of an open mind)

Since I’m pretty sure this is the first time anyone here has ever heard of Guy Schenker, it’s because he does not actively deal with the general public. He does not sell supplements to anyone but the clients he sees in his private practice and other registered healthcare practitioners. His book, he sells only to other practitioners, and his free newsletter is only meant for other practitioners as well. (Positive)

He has no secret agenda to convince people that Omega 3’s are bad, where he’s going to make millions of dollars by selling some flim flam diet theory. Does that validate some of the stuff he has to say? A little bit. There isn’t as much motive to stretch the truth, as there would be if he was selling directly to the general public. I’m sure if he wanted to he could. (Positive)

If someone is right half the time or even 90% should we therefore discredit everything they’ve done? If that’s the case then you’re never going to trust anything since no one’s ever right all the time. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but John Berardi hasn’t been “right” all his nutritional career either, or anyone else you may recieve diet info from for that matter. People make mistakes, even among the best in any chosen field. It’s called finding the diamonds amongst the coal, and thinking for yourself. (Supportive of an open mind)

This here ends my semi-positive/semi-negative/open minded, or neutral and unbiased as possible post, as I like to call it.

31

Just something that came to mind as I skimmed through this tread…

Omega-3s in excess (read: taken in ridiculous amounts through supplements) can have adverse effects. Specifically, excesses can hinder wound healing, suppress immune function, and raise LDL cholesterol. The mechanisms involved in these changes may perhaps generate genetic mutation. Also, some supplements contain contaminants that I presume can become carcinogenic through repeated exposure over time.

Forgive me if I missed this earlier, but were any specifications made as to the source and amount of omega-3s we’re talking about?

32

[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Just something that came to mind as I skimmed through this tread…

Omega-3s in excess (read: taken in ridiculous amounts through supplements) can have adverse effects. Specifically, excesses can hinder wound healing, suppress immune function, and raise LDL cholesterol. The mechanisms involved in these changes may perhaps generate genetic mutation. Also, some supplements contain contaminants that I presume can become carcinogenic through repeated exposure over time.

Forgive me if I missed this earlier, but were any specifications made as to the source and amount of omega-3s we’re talking about?[/quote]

Well the author stated EPA, DHA, and ALA were all damaging in excess. The reliability of the newsletter is in question though. As to what constitutes an “excess”, who knows at this point. Remember everything is bad in excess, just how much, including water. The fact that polyunsaturates oxidize much quicker than other fats does raise some red flags. I don’t think I’d be wanting to take over 10 grams a day like some people are that’s for sure. That doesn’t like moderation. If someone’s natural antioxidant ability is greater than their oxidants then I can’t see small doses of Omega 3’s causing any problems.

The question remains… how much do you need? I don’t see the point in taking extra antioxidants just so you can tolerate more Omega 3’s either. An analogy… it’s like taking liver cleansing supplements in order for your body to handle more alcohol. Not a wise choice. I’m not comparing alcohol exactly to Omega 3’s, but you get the picture.

33

Bri,

It looks like we are basically on the same page here, now that you have cleared up a few things. Just a few quick points, though:

[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
Using logic to solve a problem is not good science. An example: Protein is bad for people with liver/kidney dysfunction. I eat a high protein diet. Therefore I will develop liver/kidney dysfunction. See the problem? (Disclaimer: That was not a supportive tone.) :slight_smile: [/quote]

This is actually a logical fallacy and a good example of why I distrust his conclusions.

The thing is, it’s basically impossible to gather anecdotal evidence on many of his claims (things like arterial health and other internal occurrances on a cellular level). I mean, we know you feel crappy when you take fish oil, so that’s something you can probably trust, but who knows, maybe you’re reacting to preservatives or the pill coating. Maybe you’re diabetic and don’t realize it, or who knows what other factors might be making a healthy product have bad effects for you. I had a friend who was getting dizzy spells around the time he started taking a multivitamin. I recommended he switch brands to see if it helped, and lo and behold… the dizziness disappeared. 90% of Windex formulas have no effect on me, but a certain scented version will make me break out in hives if it touches my skin. Go figure. The human body can be weird.

I’m not against anecdotal evidence. Particularly when it comes to think that are easily visible (muscle growth, fat loss, etc), I think it can be really valuable. But when we’re talking long-term health benefits, I think the case for anecdotal evidence weakens if it’s not backed up by science.

The overwhelming in this case would be the thousands upon thousands of well-conducted studies that consistently show the positive effects of Omega 3 supplementation. If he has conclusions that differ from accepted scientific findings, then he needs a lot more to back up his case than anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies. The abstracts clearly don’t support many of his findings either.

I think it’s good that you keep an open mind. I just think that this guy is not a legitimate scientist and his work strikes me as completely untrustworthy. So I’d keep the question alive (are Omega’s 3 bad for you?), but not use this particular guy in your research.

Personally, I chalk him right up there w/ a website somebody showed me other day: apparently water can cure any illness out there. So if you have cancer, follow his water therapy and you’ll be healed. Amazing, isn’t it? The internet is filled with these assholes, and you really have to watch out.

34

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:

The thing is, it’s basically impossible to gather anecdotal evidence on many of his claims (things like arterial health and other internal occurrances on a cellular level). I mean, we know you feel crappy when you take fish oil, so that’s something you can probably trust, but who knows, maybe you’re reacting to preservatives or the pill coating. Maybe you’re diabetic and don’t realize it, or who knows what other factors might be making a healthy product have bad effects for you. I had a friend who was getting dizzy spells around the time he started taking a multivitamin. I recommended he switch brands to see if it helped, and lo and behold… the dizziness disappeared. 90% of Windex formulas have no effect on me, but a certain scented version will make me break out in hives if it touches my skin. Go figure. The human body can be weird.

I’ve tried many different brands of fish oil over the years. Some in gel caps, others in liquid form, some cheap and low quality, others expensive and high quality(Carlson’s/Nutra Sea), and all had the same effect. Even though I felt worse on them all, I kept at it thinking it was supposed to be good for me due to all the “overwhelming evidence that it was healthy”. It’s amazing how people will ignore things when they’re expecting a different result. So 10 trials or so of fish oil followed by breaks has given me a good idea on how it works for me. That’s a sample size of one which obviously doesn’t apply to anyone else, although I’ve read accounts of people having similiar problems on other forums so it’s not an isolated case.

I’m not against anecdotal evidence. Particularly when it comes to think that are easily visible (muscle growth, fat loss, etc), I think it can be really valuable. But when we’re talking long-term health benefits, I think the case for anecdotal evidence weakens if it’s not backed up by science.

One problem with many scientific studies is that they assume a population will have similar effects to a certain compound. They don’t acknowledge that certain people may do better while others may do worse. Even though the variability can be huge they often look at the average and make conclusions based on that.

Personally, I chalk him right up there w/ a website somebody showed me other day: apparently water can cure any illness out there. So if you have cancer, follow his water therapy and you’ll be healed. Amazing, isn’t it? The internet is filled with these assholes, and you really have to watch out.

I agree there are many assholes on the net preying on ignorant people. I know I’ve been suckered enough times in the past which has made me a much more critical consumer now.

[/quote]

35

It sounds like it is lowering your insuling resistance levels and having you produce higher levels of certain hormones.

However, anecdotal evidence like this is very hard to apply, as there could be a million things involved, including any health issues which you may already have confounding the issue.

However, Bri, one thing I do find disconcerting is your willingness to accept someone promoting an idea with a shoddy reference list.

This smacks of either dishonesty or incompetence on the publishers part, and neither quality is one that I think I would like in someone that is giving me health advice.

Above all else, if someone backs up health claims with shoddy evidence, I become incredibly skeptical.

36

[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
He has no secret agenda to convince people that Omega 3’s are bad, where he’s going to make millions of dollars by selling some flim flam diet theory. Does that validate some of the stuff he has to say? A little bit. There isn’t as much motive to stretch the truth, as there would be if he was selling directly to the general public. I’m sure if he wanted to he could. (Positive)[/quote]

Doesn’t he sell drugs? If people are less healthy from taking fish oil, and eating rediculous amounts of saturated fat, won’t it be more likely that they have to use his drugs?

37

[quote]vroom wrote:
It sounds like it is lowering your insuling resistance levels and having you produce higher levels of certain hormones.

I have a naturally pretty fast metabolism. If the fish oils are speeding things up even further I can see how this could contribute to certain health conditions. I do notice I feel a lot fuller when I eat foods comprised of more saturated fat as opposed to polyunsaturates and monounsaturates. At one point I was consuming around 250ml of olive oil(primarliy monounsaturates) a day and still didn’t feel very full. This was with consuming about 200g of protein, and 250g of carbs a day. I find I can eat much less saturated fat to feel full as compared to polys/monos.

However, anecdotal evidence like this is very hard to apply, as there could be a million things involved, including any health issues which you may already have confounding the issue.

True, there could be many different variables interacting with one another. It’s hard to say exactly what’s going on.

However, Bri, one thing I do find disconcerting is your willingness to accept someone promoting an idea with a shoddy reference list. [/quote]

There seems to be some confusion on this, probably because I’m saying both positive and negative things about this guy. I’m interesting in the field of metabolic typing above all. He is but one of many people in the field. I don’t agree with everything he says. But some of his other work I believe is valid.

38

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
Doesn’t he sell drugs? If people are less healthy from taking fish oil, and eating rediculous amounts of saturated fat, won’t it be more likely that they have to use his drugs?[/quote]

No he doesn’t sell or prescribe drugs. He’s a chiropractor. He does sell supplements if that’s what you were getting at. He only recommends supplements if you’re imbalanced in one of the homeostatic imbalances he tests for. Diet alone can sometimes correct imbalances.

In case you’re wondering the 5 imbalances he tests for are as follows:

  1. Electrolye insufficiency/excess (based on mean sodium and potassium levels as well as sodium/potassium ratio)

  2. Autonomic (parasympathetic/sympathetic) Rest and digest vs. Flight or flight dominance.

  3. Oxidation rate (Glucogenic/Ketogenic)
    Based on rate of carbohydrate metabolism.

  4. Anaerobic/Dysaerobic (Oxygen metabolism and cell permeability)

  5. Acid/alkaline (balance of ph, systemic, respiratory, and potassium)

39

Do you feel crappy if you eat fish? Believe it or not, some people are just plain allergic to fish.

40

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
Do you feel crappy if you eat fish? Believe it or not, some people are just plain allergic to fish.[/quote]

Not immediately afterwards. It’s more of a cumulative thing, although I don’t eat fish everyday anymore like I did when I was younger(tuna, sardines, salmon). The same with fish oil supps. The first few days I hardly notice it, then the hypoglycemia, anxiety, and acne slowly creep up.