Fish Oil

Alzheimer's, cardiovascular, and other chronic diseases; biomarkers, lifestyle, supplements, drugs, and health care.
User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Julie G » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:29 am

Looks like a great (brand new) review
Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) from genesis to senescence: the influence of LCPUFA on neural development, aging, and neurodegeneration
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 271300057X

Here's another new paper, that once again, indicates supplementing with other nutrients (in addition to fish oil) has the greatest effect on cognition...perhaps because the other nutrients protect against oxidation :?:
Special lipid-based diets alleviate cognitive deficits
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445040

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Julie G » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:23 pm

Just found this new paper examining the relationship between fish oil, LDL-C and LDL-P. Despite the anecdotal evidence shared here, no deleterious relationship between fish oil and APOE genotype was found.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-9554-8

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Mod
Mod
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Northeast US mostly
Contact:

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Gilgamesh » Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:55 pm

Juliegee wrote:Just found this new paper examining the relationship between fish oil, LDL-C and LDL-P. Despite the anecdotal evidence shared here, no deleterious relationship between fish oil and APOE genotype was found.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-9554-8


Well, they found no relationship between serum Omega-3 index and APOE genotype, right? Intake of fish oil is one obvious way to raise the Omega-3 index, but there are other ways of raising it.

More important is what they say here:

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of the study include a very large sample size, the use of an objective biomarker sensitive to changes in omega-3 fatty acid intake (the Omega-3 Index), and a broad spectrum of unselected patients with an APOE genotype distribution similar to that in other cohorts. There were also limitations; this was not a randomized trial of fish oil supplementation in patients with different APOE genotypes but a retrospective, medical records-based analysis. As such, we had no data on comorbidities or lifestyle factors for these patients. Perhaps more importantly, we had no information on concomitant drugs, and it is possible that pharmacologic regimens differed by genotype. This could confound the relations observed here and limit the conclusions that could be drawn from them.


"Could confound"?? To put it mildly!

I chomp a little EPA and DHA, but I try to emphasize high quantities of plant-based omega-3s. (That, by the way, is what the references in Lara P.'s famous article support, even if the article itself says something diff.)

GB

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Julie G » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:35 pm

I have to admit, I just read full-text for the first time, G. Yeah, the title is a bit misleading, but the results are still interesting. E4s had similar Omega 3 levels as other genotypes WITHOUT a deleterious effect on lipids, BUT we have zero data on variables: diet, fish oil supplementation, statins, etc. It would be interesting to follow-up with a controlled study...

I'm in agreement with you re. the use of plants for EPA/ALA...but DHA is supposed to be the MOST protective (and necessary) for neural health. IMO, you are wise to supplement there- especially given E4s apparent inefficiency in DHA homeostasis compared to other ApoE genotypes.

MarkES
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:49 pm

Re: Fish Oil

Postby MarkES » Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:24 pm

Gilgamesh wrote:I chomp a little EPA and DHA, but I try to emphasize high quantities of plant-based omega-3s. (That, by the way, is what the references in Lara P.'s famous article support, even if the article itself says something diff.)

GB, how much ALA? I've always got this pesky age-related macular degeneration connection in the back of my mind.

http://veganhealth.org/articles/omega3#SumBenCon
Jack Norris wrote:If it weren't for the (small chance) for potential eye problems, I would suggest either adding 3 g of ALA per day or taking DHA supplements. Because of the eye issues, that much ALA is not worth the risk when DHA supplements are available. I would still recommend adding about .5 g of ALA per day for its own benefits for heart disease and to help increase EPA levels. If using such small amounts of uncooked, plant sources of ALA the risk to the eyes should be minimal.


0.5 g of ALA is very little:
Jack Norris wrote:Add 0.5 g of uncooked ALA to your diet daily (see chart). This would be the equivalent of:
1/5 oz English* walnuts (3 halves)
1/4 tsp of flaxseed oil
1 tsp of canola oil
1 tsp ground flaxseeds
ε3/ε4

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Mod
Mod
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Northeast US mostly
Contact:

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Gilgamesh » Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:23 am

Mark, Cron-o-meter says I'm getting 3-4 g/day. I don't worry about the cataract risk, in part for reasons noted in the article you cite:

The studies finding ALA to be linked with eye problems were all done on only one population by one group of researchers, measuring intakes rather than blood levels. I consider it likely that further studies will show inconsistencies and until plant and/or uncooked sources of ALA are examined, I am skeptical that uncooked, plant sources of ALA are harmful to the eye.


The effect, if it's real, was probably due to rancid canola oil or the like.

GB

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Julie G » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:02 am

Well, well, well, this pretty much sums it up:

Why Fish Oil Fails
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914521/

Really interesting new paper; but DOES it fail with regard to brain health? This review sites only one 2010 study to support that stance:

DHA Supplementation and Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer's Disease: A Randomized Trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045096

Around 300 folks, already DXed with AD ultimately participated in this trial; there was a large attrition rate. The authors conclude that DHA failed to improve cognition when compared to the control group. Interestingly, however, when ApoE is taken into account, those without E4 did show some modest benefit on several cognition scales. Given our less efficient lipid transport, metabolism, and more oxidative environment; no wonder E4s fail to show benefit. The fact that non E4 carriers showed some improvement feels like an important clue. IF we can figure out a way to overcome our many deficits, could E4 carriers benefit as well? Several newer rodent studies say YES.

Also, NOTHING has reversed already established AD. My guess is that the damage is too great at that point to have a significant impact. But, what about DHA as a preventative, while attempting to correct for oxidation, etc?
I'm thinking the jury may still be out on this one...at least for E4 carriers.

User avatar
MarcR
Mod
Mod
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:28 pm
Location: Camas, Washington, US

Re: Fish Oil

Postby MarcR » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:02 pm

I dug up a couple of red flags on the fish oil paper. First, Brian Peskin had a run-in with the Texas Consumer Protection Division about 10 years ago:

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/Peskin/injunction.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/Peskin/peskin.html

Interestingly, the original radianthealth.org website has been manually excluded from the Internet Archive WayBackMachine:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://radianthealth.org

The only remaining indication that Peskin lied about his credentials is in the injunction itself:

13. Defendants also advertise extensively that their products were created by Defendant Brian Scott Peskin and his team of "Life-Systems scientists." Defendants falsely represent that Brian S. Peskin is the "Holder [of the] Emeritus Life-Systems Engineering Chair, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University." Defendants also falsely represent that Brian Peskin is a doctor, scientist, and professor. Defendants fail to disclose that Brian Peskin has a degree in electrical engineering. The representations that expressly and impliedly exaggerate the credentials and expertise of Brian Peskin are false, misleading and deceptive in that they have the tendency to deceive the buying public. Defendants use of Brian Peskin's book ("Radiant Health­Moving Beyond the Zone), cassette tapes, video tape, and CD's, together with other promotional materials, brochures, pamphlets, and various Internet websites creates and facilitates widespread false advertising of Defendants' products, as these materials contain false, misleading and deceptive representations.

In his current explanation of the incident, Peskin claims that he never lied about his credentials:

http://brianpeskin.com/StoryofRH.pdf

Second, The Journal of Lipids is a product of Hindawi Publishing, which takes some arrows here:

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeolog ... publisher/

These two flags don't prove that the paper is wrong, but they do inspire some extra skepticism. Here's a brief discussion of the paper's pros and cons on Longecity:

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/68 ... oil-fails/

I take one of these most days:

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson- ... -100-sgels

And I eat a can of brisling sardines every other day:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EEWZEG/

I might drop the fish oil when my supply runs out, but I think I'm going to stick with the sardines.
(Formerly merouleau)

pal
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:30 am

Re: Fish Oil

Postby pal » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:17 pm

Wow, excellent detective work, Merouleau. Also, that's a very interesting article you cited about how to spot a "scam" journal. I was trying to get a sense which journals might be more reliable and which to be wary of and found these rankings, but I don't know if they are accurate:
http://impactfactor.weebly.com/medicine.html
http://impactfactor.weebly.com/neurology.html

I also want to know about any criticism or red flags about the doctors and researchers discussed on this site because I'm factoring that into my overall thinking. Perhaps I'm biased, but personally I'm suspicious of anyone like Brian Peskin who is selling herbal products, nutritional supplements, or even a book. I'm double-checking everything they say and doing Google searches to find criticism of them, etc. (That's what I was referring to when I said in another post that I'm suspicious of people with a predetermined agenda.) I've got too much at stake to blindly follow any so-called expert.

Sadly those with the highest qualifications don't seem immune. For example, there are questions raised about Dr. Rudy Tanzi, a distinguished Harvard professor who I previously cited on this forum. I recently got Tanzi's and Chopra's book from the library and was independently having some concerns after reading some of the chapters. I did some quick Google searches today and found the articles below, which I've only had a chance to skim. It's sounds like there is more criticism beyond these articles and it's not looking good.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/lol-deepak-has-more-bogus-science-for-me-to-read/
https://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/dr-rudolph-tanzis-rainbow-bridge-to-quackery/

There is only so much time to review all the information and I'm planning on prioritizing based on what I believe is mostly likely credible and reliable.

That's why I think our community here is so important because, as I said, we're all in the same genetic boat and figuring out the truth is essential for all of us.

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Fish Oil

Postby Julie G » Thu May 01, 2014 2:09 pm

Great sleuthing, Meroloeau. I agree that it's very important to know as much as we can about the authors behind these papers. I TRY, but often fail, not to condemn their ideas based upon what I learn. I'm working on it.

I posted this paper because I'm guessing it pretty closely represents the views of some here. I hope they (you know who you are :D ) will come forward to further elucidate us. This may be the case of a contradictory position enlightening us all.

FWIW, I try to read all of these papers through an ApoE4 lens, even if the authors themselves rarely consider that variable. In this case we MUST consider that ApoE4 carriers transport and metabolize all lipids (including fish oil) less efficiently than other genotypes. The fact that non-E4 carriers have benefitted and rodent E4 models (when taken in combination with other antioxidants) makes me feel like this one is important and more, rather than less, MIGHT be a good idea for us.

I want to learn MORE here.


Return to “Prevention and Treatment”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests