I am glad that I am not Michael Phelps. Imagine popping 48 omega pills per day. But I guess he should be eating 22 000 UI D-vitamin daily too considering he eats 12000 kcal daily. B.A. logic ftw.
what I wrote:
- 3-6 standard fish oil caps is equal to 1-2 teaspoons of cod liver oil for EPA/DHA content
- a typical supplemental dose is 6-10 caps (debatable, certainly)
- special cases could require up to 20 (damn, does that sound like a limit)
- how one could get a dose equal to 6-10 standard caps from more concentrated sources
- that vitamin D is available in 5000 IU and a single cap a day would suffice
what NikH read:
- that I recommend 20 caps a day fish oil and 12000 IU vitamin D
- that I or NikH should take 20 caps a day
- that I think Michael Phelps should take 48 caps a day and 22000 IU vitamin D
I’ll leave it as a exercise for readers to determine the extent of this Straw man argument. I also realize it is an attempt to ‘catch’ me, but also illustrates his utter lack of comprehension.
In consideration of the fact that dietary recommendations are based on a typical male of 154 pounds and the actual values arrived at are based on mass and then reported for this given body mass, it is not a stretch to see how one would scale values for larger or smaller individuals as is practice for dieticians and in clinical nutrition (after taking into account specialized nutrient requirements for clinical populations). NikH certainly had no problem attempting to do this for my EPA/DHA “recommendation”.
Mr. Phelps has since cleaned up his diet as he can no longer get away with what he did. One wonders if he actually digested all this food or what the long term consequence (if any) may be.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand or recommendations that I would make should I be employed (yes, I am laughing at this also) as his nutrition advisor. Given the amount of money he earns, it would be relatively cheap to do extensive bloodwork to measure effects of a given intake of nutrients and how changes in such intake affect those measures.
I wrote “typical”, “up to”, and “suffice”, quite powerful qualifying words. NikH took that to mean must. How is that for logic.
NikH, please learn to read. Note how you keep coming up with ever increasing edge cases and I post information directly relevant to the issue at hand. Don’t choke on your pride. You are so focused on how you might be right and I wrong, you fail to see where you are hopelessly wrong. Keep trolling. I think the rope is long enough now that if we open the trapdoor your head will pop off.
So what is the health benefit of taking 20omegapills compared to 3 omega pills on a 5k kcal diet?
[quote]xxxx wrote:
@ chillain:
Thanks, we have agreed in the past and have even argued in a respectful manner (likely due to lack of context). As for claims of trolling, based on the questions and responses, I think it is typical of people who have been looking into nutrition and are trying to separate some experts’ claims from reality. The media and their frequent misreporting (without malice) certainly do not help.
@ paulie:
You are correct in the last post. The reason I nit-picked was that others with less background or ability to make a decision for their own context will read this and be confused. I apologize for my negative comments towards you. You have certainly shown yourself to be a gentleman and a scholar (scholars argue to assert, others argue to win). Thank you for taking part in this discussion.
There is a difference between adequate intake (the amount needed not to get death or disease sick) and he amount required for influencing leukotiene, prostaglandin, and thromboxane pathways. This is why 18-carbon o3 like from flax is recommended since it counters the the high dietary intake of o6 in pathways which they compete for enzymes for. Likewise, the LUFA o3s from fish oil counter high arachidonic acid from meat based diets.
One last nit-pick, lets summarize a reasonable course of action:
- One needs some omega3 in diet, 15-20g flax and a few servings of oily fish a week will suffice.
- If 1 is not met, omega3 eggs and 6 fish oil pills (standard 30% strength) could fill the gap.
- Any combination of 1 and 2 will suffice.
- Supplementation of fish liver oil must be carefully monitored due to vitamin A toxicity (very real issue).
None of the above will lead to omega 3 dominance, but rather a reasonable 1/(3-4) o3/o6 ratio. Although, this too may not be important for all individuals. Some are more sensitive than others to such intake levels/ratios.
As for omega 3-6-9 ratios, it is more complicated. omega 9 is a proxy for monounsaturated fats, not all are omega 9, that is a misnomer, see that link I posted above for way too much info on fatty acids chains. omega 3 and 6 are polyunsaturated fats and should roughly be balance with monounsaturated and saturated fats. With monounsaturated being the one that can be higher without negative effects (to the best of current knowledge).
If anything o3+o6 should roughly be equal to SAT and MONO should be this amount or a little more. Achieving the o3/o6 balance with flax and oily fish has benefits beyond the fat content as flaxseed contains liqnans which help remove the more negative estrogen compounds while leaving the beneficial ones behind (note this is putative, not gospel). Fish protein too seems to have benefits beyond the protein or fat content, though it is less clear why.
/paulie-specificResponse (you just got your own tag bro!)
Ah, fucknuts.
First off, I was unaware that I had more offspring than X or that we were royalty. My assumption is we both have zero - knock on wood.
You certainly were not clear, further, you were an outright asshole, took qualified statements out of context, invented claims out of thin air, and apparently have no clue what toxicity is. Sounds like someone here is projecting their own X-like tendencies onto others.
Interesting how I asked for a study from you for reference to discuss, and you respond by asking me to post a study. I certainly thought my baiting would work. Yes, I am trolling you. You brought it on yourself.
The so-called upper limit for o3 is based on test-tube studies, which are notorious for varying from in vivo. Please present me with an in vivo one. Don’t worry, I know you can’t because none such exist with negative effects. Beyond that researchers have a an extremely difficult time determining intake of any nutrient due to data collection inconsistencies because of self reporting, let alone the fact that the ranges of measures for omega 3 content vary more than measures of food containing said omega 3 fats (the numbers you see reported for a given food are averaged amounts).
The LUFA (EPA/DHA) amount of 2-3g (2g supplemental) is based on studies related to cardiovascular health, namely the reduction of triglycerides which is more important than LDL/HDL since the simple ratio tells nothing. There are no in vivo studies suggesting toxicity at the ratios I have suggested (2-3g intake, we will deal with 6g later).
It is the size of the LDL or HDL particles which is most important and this is linked to the triglyceride levels. Low triglycerides are correlated with large LDL and small HDL. LDL is the delivery vector for fatty acids, thus large particles indicated that the liver is sending out fat and it is not being deposited instantly. The small HDL particles mean that the ability to pick up triglycerides in the blood is high and this accounts for the low blood triglyceride levels. Such a mileau indicates that the body’s main energy system is working effectively and that there is plenty of available fat energy if needed.
So what is the official take on intake of fish oil?
[quote]Impact on cardiovascular disease: According to both primary and secondary prevention studies, consumption of omega-3 fatty acids, fish, and fish oil reduces all-cause mortality and various CVD outcomes such as sudden death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction. The evidence is strongest for fish and fish oil supplements.
Impact on heart function: Animal and isolated organ/cell culture studies demonstrate that omega-3 fatty acids affect cellular functions involved in ensuring a normal heart rate and coronary blood flow.
Impact on CVD risk factors: Fish oils can lower blood triglyceride levels in a dose-dependent manner. Fish oils have a very small beneficial effect on blood pressure and possible beneficial effects on coronary artery restenosis after angioplasty and exercise capacity in patients with coronary atherosclerosis.[/quote]
See the part about dose-dependent? Other than this perhaps some impact on joint health. The rest is inconclusive.
As for negative effects:
Nothing new here. Trying to use diabetics and hyperlipidemics in place of generally healthy sedentary people is disingenuous at best in your discussion of toxicity (as opposed to very real vitamin A toxicity which is why I posted in the first place).
As for 6g for a 5000 Kcal diet, as a percentage this is the same as 3g for a 2500 Kcal diet. If you want to believe one will drop dead or get sick, feel free, but there is a study referenced on the wikipedia page of Greenland Eskimos who were found to take in 5.7g EPA with no ill effects (there likely was was a 3.5g or so DHA component to this based on ratios found in marine animals they hunt).
BTW I’m really getting a kick out of your feeble attempts, please continue I have plenty of rope left.[/quote]
thanks for the compliment and knowledge bombs man haha.
I agree with chillain
I do look forward to reading your future posts!
[quote]NikH wrote:
So what is the health benefit of taking 20omegapills compared to 3 omega pills on a 5k kcal diet? [/quote]
Now that is an excellent question. It has been answered in the previous 2 posts I made (some of the rationale is in the part addressed to paulie - the part about eicosanoid precursors is important, wikipedia eicosanoid).
Long story short:
It gives the same intake percentage as 10 pills on a standard diet, that is the maximum recommended amount for cardiovascular protection assuming fatty fish is not part of the diet. This is a very important assumption. If such fish is part of the diet, or say DHA enhanced eggs - there are some on the market with up to 125mg per egg - then naturally, there would be no need to take so many pills. As well one could take more concentrated forms, but I assume the dose of EPA/DHA is the main question at hand.
Obviously this particular dosing is aimed at otherwise healthy populations, no clinical populations should be taking advice from other than licensed medical professionals. I think if you take this into account and consider I gave a range of 6-10 pills and said “up to 20 in special cases” you may see that such an observation is not out of line with what may be considered conservative advice - which is what the government agencies aim for.
Other benefits are related to reduced inflammation, some see joint health benefits, I see improvements in my eczema with higher EPA versions. This is something that will vary between individuals, as will the cardiovascular health response. It will even vary in the same person under different circumstances. It really depends on many factors we cannot pin down, this is why I keep trying to point out that it is not my “recommendation” but rather more of an observation of what might be. Particularly in the context of the OP using fish liver oil due to higher EPA/DHA.
If you have any studies or related questions you’d like to discuss, by all means post, but I have no hard stand I am going to take on this matter beyond what is posted and I’m guessing by your straight up question we are both done being childish about this.
PS: I hope you got the jest about beef in the other thread, I only realized the pun after I wrote it, I wasn’t trying for extra points. Also, at the risk of ruining my own joke, the part about me and X being royalty and issues, issue is also a synonym for child of, particularly when taking about royalty.
[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
thanks for the compliment and knowledge bombs man haha.
I agree with chillain
I do look forward to reading your future posts![/quote]
Likewise, thanks. You know you can delete the part of the quote that doesn’t apply. Anyone reading on a mobile device will be especially grateful, the rest of us somewhat.
Very little EPA/DHA is actually needed and is not beneficial in large amounts. They are both still very highly oxidative polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Think of them as the fatty acids to counterbalance the omega-6 fats that we cannot keep out of our diet because they are naturally occurring in so many plant foods.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Very little EPA/DHA is actually needed and is not beneficial in large amounts. [/quote]
Please quantify such a claim.
He is correct, the “need” for EPA/DHA is 250-500mg for the average person. This doesn’t mean that one would not “want” to take more for certain reasons.
Mike Roussell covered the oxidation part here:
This is more or less the crux of my argument in this thread (and we do need some o6 in the diet, just many people consume more than enough and some increase this amount further as they try to eliminate saturated fats). The question is what is a large amount. And that depends…
[quote]xxxx wrote:
He is correct, the “need” for EPA/DHA is 250-500mg for the average person. This doesn’t mean that one would not “want” to take more for certain reasons.
[/quote]
Glad you mentioned this and included that excellent link.
But you also bring up something LIFTICVS often seems to gloss over: context.
Data for the “average person” is helpful of course, but with this regularly-training audience in mind – those whose lifting creates more inflammation than “average” and whose joints are certainly more taxed than “average” – well, you see my point.
Heck, even the “average” American almost certainly NEEDS more to counter their (likely) dampened insulin sensitivity, unfavorable lipoprotein ratios, etc
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]xxxx wrote:
He is correct, the “need” for EPA/DHA is 250-500mg for the average person. This doesn’t mean that one would not “want” to take more for certain reasons.
[/quote]
Glad you mentioned this and included that excellent link.
But you also bring up something LIFTICVS often seems to gloss over: context.
Data for the “average person” is helpful of course, but with this regularly-training audience in mind – those whose lifting creates more inflammation than “average” and whose joints are certainly more taxed than “average” – well, you see my point.
Heck, even the “average” American almost certainly NEEDS more to counter their (likely) dampened insulin sensitivity, unfavorable lipoprotein ratios, etc
[/quote]
So I will be in agreement with everyone I do think a little bit more is helpful to reduce inflammation but not that much more. 1 gram of EPA plus DHA at most.
The cleaner one’s diet is the less omega-3 is actually needed because inflammation should be naturally reduced by diet.
^^ Heh, you know that wasn’t my goal.
I wouldn’t ask/expect you to change your posting style not even a little. Your ability to advance and keep discussions going is sorely needed on forums, in general.