Let’s just all accept the fact that we will die. And lets worry about the bugs and rodents that will consume our remains will be ingesting all these horrible chemicals we are putting into our bodies and how it will affect thier lives. I stay up late at night worrying about that…or even what will happen to my crazy neighbor next door when he finally kills me and eats my organs.
[quote]Bri Hildebrandt wrote:
Paleo,
I’m confused. You say that taking fish oils make you feel better, and then are trying to prove that fish oils may not be healthy? Isn’t there some dissonance in what you’re doing here?
Is not feeling better a measure of health? I think it would be a good idea to compare other markers of health, off/on supplemented polyunsaturates and saturates. Get some blood work done. What ever works right? It’s very hard to apply research done on a population to a specific individual. There’s that much variation.[/quote]
Good point. I probably have just chosen to play the underdog, but overall I am open to the possibility that fish oil may be healthy. It’s just everyone always seems to ignore the conflicting information, and I rather read about the negatives before the positives. There is alot of hype and myths in this world and more times than not, the opposite always seems to be the truth.
I probably should guage more on my own feelings but I keep thinking that just because I feel better doesn’t necessarily mean it’s helping me long term. Does it not concern you that fish oil might actually be very immunosupressive? That DHA may actually accelerate aging. That it’s occuring through the very same pathway that is anti-inflammatory. Alot of things just don’t add up and I haven’t been convinced beyond a doubt.
So like you, it has come down to a constant battle of self experimentation and who to believe?
I have a built in bias that I always tend to oppose the hype, advertising, and status quo. However, it always seems like I come out ahead right since the opposite is typically true.
[quote]oldskinnyfat wrote:
How many studies have been done on the long term effects of constantly worrying and stressing and over analysing every single little detail of every single thing you consume?[/quote]
And that is EXACTLY my point to the poster who is worried about the various studies on fish oil!
In regards to Biotest promoting their products, and it seeming to be biased, I think one point has been missed and that’s the fact that they’ve been recomending fish oils long before Flameout came out, and that goes the same with their Creatine.
They often recomend what works, then they find a way to make it with as high a quality as what’s out there, or higher and it’s able to be sold cheaply from this site.
They seem to be the most honest supplement company I’ve ever read an ad for. Maybe their just real good at deception, or I’m really gullable, but I doubt it.
I’ve also never seen so many RECENT references in their articles compared to most other studies who reference material that is 10-20 years old.
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
In regards to Biotest promoting their products, and it seeming to be biased, I think one point has been missed and that’s the fact that they’ve been recomending fish oils long before Flameout came out, and that goes the same with their Creatine.
They often recomend what works, then they find a way to make it with as high a quality as what’s out there, or higher and it’s able to be sold cheaply from this site.
They seem to be the most honest supplement company I’ve ever read an ad for. Maybe their just real good at deception, or I’m really gullable, but I doubt it.
I’ve also never seen so many RECENT references in their articles compared to most other studies who reference material that is 10-20 years old.[/quote]
LOL There ads are almost as good as Dr. Mercola’s! Amazing how all the research supports a higher ration of EPA as being most beneficial (2:1 or higher), yet Flameout claims the exact opposite.
[quote]PaleoMuscle wrote:
LOL There ads are almost as good as Dr. Mercola’s! Amazing how all the research supports a higher ration of EPA as being most beneficial (2:1 or higher), yet Flameout claims the exact opposite.
[/quote]
Does Dr. Mercola specify which sex benefits from which ratio?
The ads/Q&A for Flameout say their ratio is best for men, not women. Women have asked if it’s still fine to take Flameout, and they answered yes, but they never claimed that it’s optimal for them.
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
PaleoMuscle wrote:
LOL There ads are almost as good as Dr. Mercola’s! Amazing how all the research supports a higher ration of EPA as being most beneficial (2:1 or higher), yet Flameout claims the exact opposite.
Does Dr. Mercola specify which sex benefits from which ratio?
The ads/Q&A for Flameout say their ratio is best for men, not women. Women have asked if it’s still fine to take Flameout, and they answered yes, but they never claimed that it’s optimal for them.[/quote]
Mercola says nothing about the ratio for men. Dr. Barry Sears has written an entire book on the topic and no mention of differences between sexes. Are there studies in the Flameout ad that prove this?
[quote]PaleoMuscle wrote:
Mercola says nothing about the ratio for men. Dr. Barry Sears has written an entire book on the topic and no mention of differences between sexes. Are there studies in the Flameout ad that prove this?
[/quote]
Be careful about using the word “prove”. “Support” would be a better word. Nothing is ever proven in science, it’s more of a mathematics term. 