31–40 of 69 posts
I prefer eating quality canned sardines regularly instead of taking these supplements which can be viewed as a heavily processed industrial food derived from sources of unknown provenance. They have plenty of omega-3s and are very low on the food chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer flax seed oil to ground flax seeds, due to cyanide being present in the shells.
And do you think shells aren't pressed when the flax seeds are for oil extraction?
Keep in mind that this does not mean you have a 70% chance of getting prostate cancer if you take fish oil supplements. Based on this[0], it's roughly an increase from about 0.02% chance to about 0.034% chance (given no other information to base your risk on) [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706483/
My understanding was that basically every man will, if they live long enough, have some cancerous cells in their prostate. The main risk seems to be going from "so slow growing you die of old age first" to "fast enough growing it becomes a problem", unless I am horribly mistaken.
I don't know how representative the samples were of the entire population - one theory was that our young motorcycle samples had significantly higher testosterone on average and were more likely to develop those tumors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the part about pollutant free shouldn't be overlooked. Some labels claim they have removed harmful things like mercury from their fishoil supplements. Eating fish and shellfish in large quantities eould certainly increase your exposure to that and other contaminants.
Smaller fish have negligible quantities of mercury and other pollutants, due to their short lifespan not allowing for bioaccumulation, as well as being much lower on the food chain. Herring, Anchovies, Smelt, Sardines, and even Mackerel or Trout, are all are excellent sources of EPA/DHA, and without any of the risks of larger fish.
Incidentally, it's also possible to get DHA supplements sourced completely from algae.
[1] - https://www.drnewtons.com/blog/avoid-dangers-mercury-pure-kr...
[2] - http://krill-oil.wellwise.org/krill-oil-side-effects/krill-o...
The article does not talk about alternatives. A great alternative for Omega-3s are ground flax seeds, one tablespoon a day mixed for example in your oatmeal is enough - https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/omega-3-fatty-acids Also for the derived DHA/EPA, there are pollutant-free alternatives based on algae oil.
Flax seeds are a bad source of omega 3s, because the oil they have, ALA, isn't used in the body and the conversion into DHA/EPA (which are) is poor [0]. [0]: https://examine.com/nutrition/can-i-eat-flax-seeds-instead-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flax seeds are a bad source of omega 3s, because the oil they have, ALA, isn't used in the body and the conversion into DHA/EPA (which are) is poor [0]. [0]: https://examine.com/nutrition/can-i-eat-flax-seeds-instead-o...
So what are vegetarians, or those with fish allergies, are supposed to be eating?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flax seeds are a bad source of omega 3s, because the oil they have, ALA, isn't used in the body and the conversion into DHA/EPA (which are) is poor [0]. [0]: https://examine.com/nutrition/can-i-eat-flax-seeds-instead-o...
So what are vegetarians, or those with fish allergies, are supposed to be eating?
Keep in mind that this does not mean you have a 70% chance of getting prostate cancer if you take fish oil supplements. Based on this[0], it's roughly an increase from about 0.02% chance to about 0.034% chance (given no other information to base your risk on) [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706483/
Let me give an alternative view of this epidemiological study. "Those more interested in their health (motivated to take supplements or eat a high omega-3 diet) more likely to be diagnosed by their doctor with common health issues"
Participants were selected by having a cancer. Have you read the article? it's about growth rate.
That sounds to me that in fact they were looking at cancer-free people as well.