IGX

Shapecharge wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... er-70.html

Always go to examine.com first.
http://examine.com/blog/fish-oil-and-your-prostate/

I knew that from the beginning of the fad. But nobody wanted to believe it. Fuck it. Suffer. I don't give a shit any more.

ATTA BOY ANDY!!!
Still keepin' it real.

Another recent research finding is that decreasing intake of salt provides no benefit whatsoever. I never fell for that one either.

Fish oil has been bad for a couple years now...

http://chriskresser.com/when-it-comes-t ... not-better

Seems like another supplement that looked like a good idea but turned out not so hot. I still think fish oil has some short term benefits but the research shows harm over years of use. I realize there might be more to it but said screw it and just eat salmon a couple times a week now instead.

This matter is discussed on Examine.com, RobbWolf.com, etc. Correlation does not equal causation.
There is a discussion on Monkey Island as well.
Before everyone starts jumping around like a bunch of Kansas City Faggots.. actually go to people who read, understand and apply the research.
Aragon, McDonald, Examine.com or even James Krieger. I'm sure there are many more.

Furman been suckin' that shit down and gonna die from prostate cancer. Relax Tom, we'll all say RIP when you're gone.

supplements are unnecessary. i've seen no evidence to the contrary.

save your money and make a gift to the "immortal andy cat food diet fund"

The SELECT trial that the examine.com article discusses the SELECT trial that finds a correlation between high levels of omega-3s nd prostate cancer. I understand the distinction between correlation and causation quite well. I also understand that prostate cancer is not all the worlds ills; if omega-3s increase your chances of prostate cancer a little but dramatically reduce ten things ten times worse, it's still worth taking. Still, this correlation is nothing to sneeze at. Udo Erasmus is probably the original omega-3 cheerleader, has his academic reputation and his income tied to omega-3 supplements, and even he acknowledges it is a concern. If someone has prostate cancer or is at high risk of prostate cancer, in my opinion they have rocks in their head if the take fish or flax supplements.

The study the Chris Kresser article above alludes to is not the SELECT trial but the DART 2 trial, four years and the longest one at that time according to the article. The abstract is on pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12571649

As noted in the examine.com article, the SELECT is a case-cohort study, a snapshot taken at one point in time. The DART 2 is a controlled trial with specific interventions, and it does provide evidence of causation, not correlation. There were over 3000 subjects over a period of years, so this isn't some chump change study done on fourteen college freshmen. I see no whiff of pharmaco or other sponsor biasing things. The evidence is what it is.

A lot of gurus - even very, very smart ones - REALLY hate reversing their decisions. George Armstrong Custer was one of these types. I don't like admitting I was wrong about fish oil, I don't like the fact that I bought a lot of fish oil for myself and family and friends, but I'd be sticking my head in the sand if I just pretended this study wasn't there.

By the way multivitamin supplements and most individual vitamin supplements also have more evidence showing long term harm than help, vitamin D supplementation being a shining exception.

can you elaborate a bit on vitamin d?

dead man walking wrote:supplements are unnecessary. i've seen no evidence to the contrary.

save your money and make a gift to the "immortal andy cat food diet fund"

Good idea DMW. Think of the enormous fortune that's been spent on that bullshit. I'll take it.
BTW You're old too. In your 70s?

andy,

i'm 67.

i have no idea where all those years went.

DMW. I understand that feeling quite well! 80 in 2 months.

happy birthday!

you might could set some new world records.

I'm sure I could but BD and EZ would get mad!

dead man walking wrote:can you elaborate a bit on vitamin d?

With a lot of vitamins, there is evidence that having high levels of that vitamin is correlated with good health, but supplementing that same vitamin does not cause any benefits, and in many cases is actually detrimental. With vitamin D, there is not only a pile of evidence that higher levels have benefits, but also at least some evidence that raising levels with supplementation causes the benefits.

Realistically you aren't going to get vitamin D in your diet, unless you eat vitamin D enriched foods. (Most milk is vitamin D enriched, or at least it used to be, but people don't drink as much milk any more...) You can get it from the sun if your exposure to the sun, and your genetics, are adequate. But the easy way is to take the little capsules, they don't cost much.

I can't find it at the moment but I think the study showing this is somewhere on

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

It also might be somewhere here in one of Quack's posts.

I never managed to choke down enough fish oil to realize a benefit and I was always wary when people would talk about getting up to a dose that started to affect their immune system. The last time I tried was a fancy DHA-heavy oil from Whole Foods - a double dose had me shitting water for the night.

I buy wild Alaskan salmon from Costco and sardines/canned salmon from Whole Foods, I try to eat those several times a week instead.

ccrow wrote:

dead man walking wrote:can you elaborate a bit on vitamin d?

With a lot of vitamins, there is evidence that having high levels of that vitamin is correlated with good health, but supplementing that same vitamin does not cause any benefits, and in many cases is actually detrimental. With vitamin D, there is not only a pile of evidence that higher levels have benefits, but also at least some evidence that raising levels with supplementation causes the benefits.

Realistically you aren't going to get vitamin D in your diet, unless you eat vitamin D enriched foods. (Most milk is vitamin D enriched, or at least it used to be, but people don't drink as much milk any more...) You can get it from the sun if your exposure to the sun, and your genetics, are adequate. But the easy way is to take the little capsules, they don't cost much.

I can't find it at the moment but I think the study showing this is somewhere on

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

It also might be somewhere here in one of Quack's posts.

thanx. i live in the north where, according to my doc, the sun is not strong enough to enable the body to produce vit d during the winter.

Came across a good review on PubMed and decided to bump this thread.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357022/ wrote:Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: Benefits and Endpoints in Sport

Obviously it's about Omega-3 in serious athletes. Look at the doses they use: EPA and DHA of 3 - 4g. Pharmacy variety contains about 300 mg per capsule, so you have to down 10 capsules just to start getting the proper dose.

from all I've read and heard, fish oil is a win.

as far as dose? go with a liquid

Liquid is the easiest way to get the dose. When I was a kid, at kindergarten every morning they would line kids up and stick a good sized spoon of fish oil into everyone's mouth. One spoon for the whole crowd, of course. Tasted like crap, but that was the routine.

I am guessing it was a non-standardised, industrial quality oil, so EPA and DHA content was probably on the lower side.

To get three gram of pure EPA/DHA and up is not easy.

This thread made me miss Andy. Is dmw still around?

baffled wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 11:30 pm This thread made me miss Andy. Is dmw still around?

Was "dmw" a user name?