ExRx.net

Well there's a lot of stuff like http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/drug ... shoil.html saying huge amounts may "actually increase the risk of hemorrhagic (bleeding) stroke".

Practically every study there states that more studies are needed to draw meaningful conclusions, for and against, but the evidence seems to be in favor of the fish oil.

Trouble is, most of these 'very pooly executed' studies are conducted on people with underlying health problems anyway, so you can expect a few of them to die!

It's simply a case of personal risk assessment given the information you can find. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

Sure, there will be some people who take fish oil and have strokes, just as people who dont take fish oil will have strokes. Just like some people who fly will die in plane crashes and some people who dont fly will be killed by a plane crashing into their house. Maybe the chances of it happening either way are the same, who knows? More studies are needed to draw meaningful conclusions. However, we know there are benefits to flying that outweigh the risk. So...I choose to fly!

Of course, you can interpret data different ways depending where your viewpoint on the matter is. If you are a paranoid type, you will probably favor the negative data over the positive.

I may choose to look at studies that show one quarter of fatal road accidents are caused by drunk drivers and conclude that therefore the other three quarters of fatalities are caused by sober drivers. Therefore I should insist my taxi driver gets drunk first in order to get me home safely! Of course not, because I realise there's more to take into account than just the stats, mechanical failure, sleep deprivation, mobile phones and reading whilst driving. All these are not taken into account in the study, but I would be wise to research these before making a decision about sober drivers.



Certainly the consensus is that theres too much Omega 6 in our diets and not enough Omega 3. It's also accepted that you need equal amounts of O6 and 03 to maintain a healthy balance. 140g of chicken breast can contain 1000mg of O6, so to counteract this, swallow 1000mg of fish oil. 1 large corn on the cob also contains 1000mg of 06, so another 1000mg of O3 please! Therefore is it reasonable to assume that taking the manuafactures 'recommended' daily capsule of 1000mg is not enough for most people? Looking at the evidence available other than the flawed studies would suggest to me...YES!

End rant...

Rik

about the drinking and driving, some people who drink and drive are afraid to crash or get arrested so they try very hard to concentrate while driving. While most people who are sober and in broad daylight like to drive worry free and don't focus as much as they should.

Which is why most accidents are during daylight while sober.

I took a very good driving course and we went over many accidents that could have been prevented, most of which were during the day.

I went to Young Drivers of canada

Well there does seem to be consensus regarding unnatural oils like corn oil. But where's evidence that you should take a gram of O3 fish extract for every gram of O6 from food.

That is ridiculous. Do you know what "Eskimo amounts" means? We are talking like 90% of the diet. Those people live on whale blubber. a few extra capsules are not even close.

What?

The evidence is about the omega 3 to 6 ratio. That's it. What the hell difference does it make if you have the oil with or without the rest of the fish? It's not like they make it out of petroleum in a lab.

There is no officially recomended ratio of O3:O6. It appears the 1:4 is the minimum required to prevent disease. Remember that 1:20 is "normal" and it's also "normal" to be sick.

It is likely that prehistoric man got a 1:1 ratio. This should be your goal. It's not hard and fast, it's just a target.

By minimizing seeds and seed oil from your diet and increasing consumption of fish, pastured meat and eggs and green vegetables, its not hard to get your O3:O6 ratio close to 1:1. Understand that seeds are not a natural part of out diet. Animals and plants are.

Eskimos got way more O3 than O6 and never had heart disease while eating a traditional diet. There is NO risk in consuming too much O3.

The only caveat, is that if you are taking asprin, your blood may get too thin. You probably won't need the asprin if you get your O3:O6 ratio fixed anyway.

Actually, there has been quite a lot of studies conducted by Artemis P. Simopoulos, MD, Alexander Leaf, MD and Norman Salem, Jr, PhD on the subject and the conclusion of these professionals was that 1:1 - 1:4 ratio is ideal.

I just didn't post it earlier, as I couldn't be bothered to feed the troll anymore, or do his googling for him.

KPj

Thats one of the funniest things i've seen for a long time!

I love that link.

On a more serious note, the first site that came up was this: http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9483.html

I don't know who this guy is but for sources of O3 he said: "seafood, whole grains, beans and other seeds". I just want to correct that in case someone else reads it.

Except for notable exceptions like flax, chia and walnuts, seed, nuts and beans are poor sources of Omega 3. Even then, the O3 in these sources is largely ALA and is not used by the body efficiently.

Omega 3 originates in green vegetables and is related to chloropyll. It rarely shows up in seeds. Animals eat the green stuff and the O3 accumulates in fat. Fish eat algae so it's the same mechanism. That's why pastured and wild animals are better for you than grain fed. That's also why meat is not generally given as an O3 sources. Most of our mainstream meat is grain fed so is deficient in O3.

....I guess it takes a frigginwizard to know that google is your friend.....

I've seen several places (and of course didn't keep track of where) that there are two matters that are important in regard to omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. First is reducing the o-6, then increasing ratio of o-3 to o-6. As long as the total amounts of o-6 are high, the ratio doesn't make much difference. Once the total o-6 is low enough, the ratio becomes increasingly important.

Stu, do I understand this correctly?