Did not read the paper but did not find any reference to omega 6 nor the ratio of omega 6 to 3. There are studies showing that the ratio is more important than the amount of omega 3 [1]. Because humans typically eat 16:1 (6 to 3) increasing 3 is actually just making the ratio more even which is what matters. A good food for this is flaxseed which is 1:3.5 which is less than fish which can be 1:30 or higher but does not come with the problems of consuming fish. In this reference frame, one can think of avoiding bad ratio foods instead of eating fish. Turns out that basically the most common oils and red meat have ratios of 20:1 (the wrong way) and so just avoiding oil and red meat ends up accomplishing the same goal. As always, nutrition causality is hard to establish, but trying to cut way back on oils and red meat is going to pay much larger dividends than eating more fish.
Omega-3 index is better correlated with overall health than O3/O6 ratio. Also, flaxseed is a source of ALAs whereas early all O3 health benefits come from DHA/EPA. A great source of info is Dr Rhonda Patrick's interviews w/ Dr Bill Harris. Here is a short clip - https://share.descript.com/view/2w6WidsYZlT
Yes, I know, we can keep going down this rabbit hole. Turns out that a completely vegan diet, which has no DHA, is completely sufficient to sustain the body [1]. The human body is incredibly adaptive and increases its efficiency of converting ALA to DHA/EPA. This conversation I think will shake down how the heme iron/non-heme iron efficacy research. A study long ago showed that non-heme uptake was much poorer than heme iron and so the conclusion was something like "you need to eat 10x the non-heme iron" which has since become "conventional" wisdom. When you remove heme iron (stop eating meat), your body is able to absorb non-heme iron at the same rate. We call this a "smart drug" which changes uptake based on concentration levels. Basically, the study participants at the time ate so much meat that their iron levels were so high that non-heme iron is not processed.
Edit: The other thing I wanted to say is 1 tbsp of flaxseed has 2.4g of ALA and that the adequate intake of ALA is 1.6g and 0.3g of DHA/EPA. If we assume a 10% conversion rate for both (depends on many factors and a tad high), you get 0.24g of DHA/EPA. So, 2 tbsp of flaxseed and you're good. I put it in my smoothie in the morning.
The study linked by you has shown that the concentrations in blood of DHA and EPA for vegans were less than half of those for omnivores.
Therefore this study is also one of the many which have shown that the human body has only a limited capacity of converting ALA into DHA and EPA, so that the nutritional supplements with DHA and EPA are beneficial for vegans (e.g. from oil of Schizochytrium, a non-plant non-animal unicellular living being, which is falsely named as "algae" by vendors, to sound more like a vegetable to vegan ears, if the cheaper fish oil is deemed to be unacceptable).
This study certainly does not support your claim that "a completely vegan diet, which has no DHA, is completely sufficient to sustain the body".
Yes, it is enough to have ALA in your food to avoid a quick death, but ALA is not enough to ensure a good health and a long life.
>e.g. from oil of Schizochytrium, a non-plant non-animal unicellular living being, which is falsely named as "algae" by vendors, to sound more like a vegetable to vegan ears
You seem to be implying here that Schizochytrium is not a vegan product, even though "non-animal" is completely sufficient to meet that criterion.
I agree that, as you say, being non-animal is sufficient.
Nevertheless, I find it funny that the vendors have felt the need to use the word "algae" for marketing this product.
It is true however that while "algae" is incorrect, there is no appropriate word to name them that would be easily understood by the general public.
At most they might be called "protists", as in many biology manuals, which is a word that I strongly dislike as meaningless.
("Protists" means "the first", but among which and according to what ordering criterion? "Protist" is a word normally used with the meaning "unicellular eukaryote" a.k.a. "unicellular nucleate", but one should better use the words that are meant.)
They say this and then don't address the elephant in the room: the huge fall-out rate concerning vegans going ex-vegan.
Additionally, "completely sufficient to sustain the body" is about the lowest barrier to entry one can set. People aren't interested in sustenance alone, even if you take away cultural factors.
I have known a few vegans who developed weird health problems after a year or two of vegan diet, but I believe that this happened precisely because they had a careless attitude about the necessity of supplementing a vegan diet.
I have also transitioned to a vegan diet, but only after studying very carefully all the available information, so besides food made from vegetables I take 10 chemical substances about which there is reasonable certainty that they are either necessary or beneficial for vegans, because the plants either do not contain them or they contain them in too small quantities, and the human body either cannot make them or it can make them only in too small quantities.
Just curious, do you take creatine? It's typically a workout supplement but vegans tend to be deficient in it and can really notice measurable cognitive and physical improvements.
Just as you say, there is evidence that it is beneficial in certain circumstances, e.g. for increasing the capacity of anaerobic effort of the vegans who train for sports competitions, but it is not clear if it is beneficial unconditionally.
The evidence is very clear that it's beneficial if you have a dietary deficiency (which you almost certainly do). If not for the proven physical benefits, the cognitive benefits alone are likely worth it. Where the evidence is ambiguous is how beneficial it is for someone who meets minimum daily dietary intake to then supplement it.
I have no doubt about the effects of a creatine supplement on the muscles, as there the action mechanism is well understood, but I am more skeptical about the claimed cognitive effects, because the mechanism for such effects is not known yet.
Moreover, for substances like creatine, which can be produced in limited quantities by the human body, like also for DHA, EPA, choline or taurine, there may be large differences between individuals. Some people might not need supplements for one or more of these substances, at least when they are young, while for others supplements may be indispensable, at least when they become old.
In general, it is much more prudent to take a supplement, even when its necessity is not certain, than to not take it, because in the first case if your choice was wrong it just does not have any useful effect, while in the second case if your choice was wrong it could cause serious health problems.
I have already thought that I should try sometime in the future a creatine supplement, to see if I notice any change, but for now I cannot not see any cognitive differences between present and how I was before switching to an 100% vegan diet.
Yes it can, in very small amounts. You'd have to eat a ton of the synthesis precursors as a vegan to obtain anywhere near the optimal amount or to approach what a meat/fish-eater gets in their regular diet.
The complete list includes 4 mineral salts, sodium chloride (yes, the common salt belongs here, because salt may be not necessary for those who eat enough animal food, but an adequate amount, neither too low, nor too high, e.g. 4 to 5 g/day is mandatory for vegans), calcium citrate, potassium iodate (or iodide) and sodium selenate, then 3 fatty substances, DHA, EPA and cholecalciferol (a.k.a. vitamin D3), then finally 3 organic compounds of nitrogen, which happen to be abundant in liver, choline bitartrate, taurine and cobalamine (a.k.a. vitamin B12).
All these have been shown to have significantly lower levels in the body of the vegans who do not take the corresponding supplements.
Especially the need for a calcium supplementation is often overlooked, which leads to a higher risk of fractures.
if you really take care of your health, independent of eating meat or not, being vegan is about supplementing b12 and that is all, for the most cases.
animals on livestock are supplemented with nutrients (specially grain fed) just like you could supplement yourself
now about calcium intake, if you really take a look, most of the claims are hypothetical and require further studies to comprove, as well some findings like this;
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19350341/
Thanks for the link, but even this study, which claims to have not found large differences between vegans and omnivores, still reports that e.g. the prevalence of osteoporosis in the femoral neck (which increases the risk of hip fracture) was 1/7 among omnivores, but more than 1/6 among vegans.
A vegan does not need a large amount per day of calcium supplementation, but all the studies, including this one, demonstrate that a small amount of additional calcium is necessary to reduce the risk of bone fractures to the same level as for omnivores.
what are you doing to worry about hip fracture? are you a rock climber?
despite all the advantages of a strictly vegetarian diet, like better stamina, endurance etc. worrying about calcium intake is a bit mislead. as there is a big difference of having a slight lower bone density than omnivores and getting worried about having your bones broke.
it is like the argument of omega-3 content of flaxseeds and chia being poor translated into useful chains of acid like DHA… all you have is to increase your intake on the ballpark of 160% rather than 100% from animal sources… which translate in having to eat the enormous amount of 3 tbsp of chia per day, so you can overcome the “inefficiency”
plus not even getting into who are the vegan people being researched on osteoporosis rate. there is vegans who survive out of pasta and soda (which contributes for osteoporosis) and those who eat a superb healthy varied diet; plus vegans who do not exercise (which contributes for osteoporosis) and those who do ETC.
Those numbers are ridiculously high when considering institutes are starting to push veganism but conveniently skip the fact veganism is difficult to maintain even for upper middle class people with almost everything available to them.
It's like the Scrum/Agile debate all over again, but in the form of diets. Yes, that means the diet itself may not be the problem, but good luck changing the environment.
You can get DHA from algea sources and still eat vegan.
There is also a sex-linked difference between ALA conversion to DHA/EPA, with women, and women who are pregnant or brestfeeding converting significantly more ALA to DHA than men. Men were converting far less than 10% while women were converting more than 10%.
>" Turns out that a completely vegan diet, which has no DHA, is completely sufficient to sustain the body [1]. "
Massive claim with only one little study for a source. You are behaving like the strawman vegan right now, making ludicrous claims on nitpicked data; you are not furthering your cause by spreading disinformation online.
At least they made an effort to support their statement. I don't see why you should go through the trouble of contradicting it without providing any sources yourself.
It happens for men, just that it is a low conversion rate. The conversion rate is even higher for women who are pregnent or breastfeeding, which makes sense from an natural adaptation point of view. You can also elevate the level of DHA in chicken eggs (up to a point) by feeding the chickens flax seed in their diet. Seems like DHA is nutritious for any young, growing brains.
The key thing about the ALA conversion in women is that you're not going to OD on it. Having too much DHA gives you insomnia (though, that is not such a bad thing if by circumstances, you are already sleep deprived).
I havn't seen any papers on it, but my personal experience is that the ratio of DHA to EPA is also important for mental health. EPA seems to help with smoothing out burnout and protect against spiraling into depression.
I think there is almost no debate that eating sea food twice per week is good for you especially from high quality sources. Now you can get decent Omega 3 supplements from plankton but largely the only way these days is from fish; eggs and meat also used to be higher in Omega 3s but we feed them the wrong diets - grass fed beef is good for this too.
I think this comment conflates health arguments with vegetarian morality arguments which is unfortunate. The article is specifically talking omega 3s something the vast majority of vegetarian and vegan diets are low in (no Flax seeds don’t count). Morally speaking maybe Vegans should consider farmed oysters twice per week, they are high in Omega 3 and have no central nervous system or brain to stress out about their delicious end.
There are 3 kinds of commercial nutritional supplements with DHA and EPA: fish oil, krill oil and oil of Schizochytrium.
Fish oil, either from oily fishes or from cod liver is by far the cheapest. In Europe, a typical price is around $0.20 per gram of DHA+EPA.
Krill oil is much more expensive than either fish oil or oil of Schizochytrium, so it is a choice that does not make sense.
The oil of Schizochytrium qualifies as a vegan oil. When it has appeared on the market some years ago, it contained only DHA and a negligible quantity of EPA. Some vendors still sell this old kind of Schizochytrium oil. Then it seems that either other strains of Schizochytrium have been discovered, or they have been genetically modified, and an improved oil of Schizochytrium began to be produced, with a proportion 2:1 between DHA and EPA.
Now the only remaining disadvantage of the oil of Schizochytrium is the price. However, in the last 2 years the price of the fish oil has remained constant, while the price of Schizochytrium oil was reduced by more than 2 times, so it can be hoped that in a few years improvements in the cultivation methods might cause the price of the Schizochytrium oil to match the price of the fish oil. In Europe, the price of the Schizochytrium oil is now around $0.80 per gram of DHA+EPA, sometimes a little less than that.
Whoever buys omega-3 nutritional supplements, regardless of what kind, should better take care to always compute the price per gram of DHA+EPA. There is a huge number of shameless supplement vendors whose products have similar prices with the good products, but which contain very low concentrations of the active substances, so that the effective price per gram of DHA+EPA may be even 10 to 15 times higher than at the decent vendors.
I live in Europe, where the prices may be different.
I have selected vendors just by using Amazon and searching for "Schizochytrium" and also for "vegan omega 3", and then studying the specifications and computing the prices per gram of DHA+EPA.
After eliminating all those with outrageous prices and those where the exact content of DHA and of EPA were not specified, for the remaining I have also checked the Web sites of the producers to see if they are credible, e.g. if they show detailed chemical analyses of their products made by independent laboratories.
I prefer to buy pure oil (in bottles) instead of capsules, and that is usually a little cheaper than capsules, while also having no useless excipients.
Even if someone does not like a faint sea food flavor, the oil containing omega-3 can be mixed with another cooking oil, e.g. with olive oil, and added to a salad or any other food that is not heated after the oil is added. In that case any flavor will be masked.
Examples of brands available in Europe (which have similar prices, of about half of the $1.63/g that you pay): SinoPlaSan, Norsan, Arctic Blue, Spoon of Change.
Your supplement appears to be the old kind of vegan omega-3, including only DHA and negligible EPA. Now there are better vegan supplements where EPA is about half of DHA, which is a good ratio.
I get Nordic Naturals and just eat the oil, it actually tastes pretty nice and you can taste if it’s rancid and not consume it. Sure it’s very slightly fishy but not in a horrible way and mostly is somehow quite enjoyable with the lemon flavour they add. It’s a lot easier getting 2-4g daily than loads of pills too and much much cheaper.
You'll have to be more precise about what kind of seafood. Afaik eating larger fish is thought to overall be a negative for you due to heavy metal accumulation.
meat can be a good source of omega-3, but the animal should be fed from pasture strictly, as their unequal ratio of o3/6 comes from their food, which is mainly corn and soybeans, which are very high in o6 and not o3… you can identify grass feed meat by looking at a yellow colour spectrum in their fat… but again, vegetables are way more healthier, cheaper and _rants-in-vegan_
Not sure if you are a troll or a "hardcore" vegan. I am a vegan and I think people like you are the reason why people take issue with veganism and make fun of it. Animals shit on the ground to make manure. Guess we can't eat the plants that benefit from animal labor. Oh wait, that's organic fertilizer.
The difference between being a vegetarian and being a vegan is that the latter avoids using any animal products, no matter how trivial the amount.
Glyphosate doesn’t make vegetables non-vegan, the animal fat used in its sprayable formulations does that. Vegetables and grains come with a slight coating of animal fat that is then mixed in with whatever food is made using those ingredients.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable"
The important part being "as far as is practicable". Nobody is a perfect vegan, as that is close to impossible, but you can get very close and prevent a lot of unnecessary suffering and lower your carbon footprint.
Certainly, if one can adhere to a non-animal diet, one can also adhere to an organic non-animal diet. It’s not like it’s an impossible choice to make; the produce and products are there.
You are getting into territory where there isn't a consensus on whether it's "vegan" or not. The surface area of vegan practices is large and complex, and only certain core principles are shared by virtually all vegans. You probably won't find a lot of agreement from most vegans with your statement. Even organicly grown food uses organic pesticides, which could arguably be called not vegan due to killing insects. And there is organic meat after all.
A certain percentage of soil is made up of decomposed animals, so anything grown is not vegan by some arbitrarily strung out standard. Where do you draw the line?
not that insects do not deserve respect, as even if tiny, their brain structures are pretty complex but ha-ha-ha!
organic usually do not have any regulation and they use pesticides and herbicides and fungicide etc. plus the vast majority of organic farms underpaid labour that is a whole new treat to discuss! [0]
not even their efficiency on large scale to feed a 7 billion human population
[0] i volunteered for about a year in programs like WWOOF
edit: and ah, huge farms are using fertilizers from rocks for the vast majority of the time, it would be a big treat to spread manure over thousands of hectares/acres and not even considering the secondary treat of having to shake it from time to time so it can be good absorbed in soil… and regarding organic farms using manure etc. please, i prefer you eating meat than supporting organic farmers overexploiting poor people thinking they have sacred asses that are helping the planet that is heating less than ~1 degree Celsius each 10 years with humans at full rage in industry :]
2ndEdit: not that i am happy or not caring about global warming; i am fine being vegan for years now and my options of cycling and using the public transport, not having children etc.
but it is just about a short time (i hope) to politics roll laws about sustainability and the stuff can be more green again. as hoping on citizens being is just suicide. people are too static on their conformity of modern life, you know… what a disgrace changing excessive meat intake for some beans and 4 seat cars for some cycling and unpleasant fun on trains or buses
> Turns out that basically the most common oils and red meat have ratios of 20:1 (the wrong way) and so just avoiding oil and red meat ends up accomplishing the same goal.
It’s inaccurate and misleading to group red meat and oils together.
Beef, and grass fed beef in particular, is generally 5:1 ratio. Or less. Chicken has more omega 6 than beef. And seed oils (not all oils) have many times that. Some >50:1. Thanks for the vegan propaganda though.
>A good food for this is flaxseed which is 1:3.5 which is less than fish which can be 1:30 or higher but does not come with the problems of consuming fish
May I ask what problems there are with eating fish?
Availability - whether for the poor in many areas, or at scale, due to overfishing and the collapse of many fisheries. (Then there's the knock-on environmental damage of commercial fishing & overfishing & ...)
Thats true for most fish, but not all -- sardines have much lower levels of heavy metals, and are gererally more sudtainable. Canned sardines have been a cheap, easy way to add health fish to my diet, with (relative to salmon, etc...) has minimal environment impact.
It's of course true that eating apex predators like tuna is worse than eating sardines, but by fishing sardines you're greatly reducing the available food for species that eat sardines. The fundamental problem that we take out too much fish remains. That's also why krill oil is only a little better than fish oil: krill is an important part of the food chain and we're fishing too much of it.
You can also find vegan sources of these nutrients, such as algae oil, which keeps you from contributing to the devastation of the oceans - not to mention protecting you from being poisoned by mercury and microplastics.
You're probably thinking of land-based sources of omega-3 fatty acids, such as linseed, which are indeed composed only of ALA. Algae oil, on the other hand, is rich in EPA and DHA. In fact, fish themselves don't synthesise their own EPA but obtain it from the algae they (or their prey) feed on.
“Conclusions: We conclude that vegans have low baseline omega-3 levels, but not lower than omnivores who also consume very little docosahexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acids. The vegans responded robustly to a relatively low dose of a vegetarian omega-3 supplement.”
Specifically: "On the basis of the data available, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of ALA and the reduction of blood cholesterol concentrations."
linked to which is: "The Panel considers that the maintenance of normal blood cholesterol concentrations is beneficial to human health"
I'd encourage people to actually read the above link. It is very early days and quite far from definitive, but an encouraging attempt that's of special interest for people who are APOE-4 positive and/or have a family history of Alzheimers.
Setting aside early onset Alzheimers, which is arguably a different disease, Alzheimers has major genetic and (ill specified) lifestyle components, tends to manifest in one's ~70s but the damage is believed to start accumulating several decades earlier, hence this study on people in their 40's is of interest.
I still think regular cardio work has the best evidence behind it but if you are at heightened risk of Alzheimers, be pragmatic and make the best out of fuzzy data.
5. methylated b vitamins (~50% of the population has a MTHFR variant that generally requires you to need methylated B vitamins, versus regular B vitamins)
6. high doses of gamma linolenic acid (I use evening primrose oil and Jarrow brand is trusted)
How do you take this? I've tried broccoli supplements and they don't work all that well. There's only one direct sulforaphane supplement that I've found, though I'm not sure whether to trust the brand
I take capsules, 2x/day. I take sulphoraphane 140 mg/day.
Jarrow and Thorne Research are reliable brands. But, Thorne Research tends to be way overpriced in my opinion. As you know, you never ever buy supplements off of Amazon or places that are not well heard of.
One of those disturbing things about nootropics is that people frequently stack a large number of them so the effects of any particular one is unclear.
There are also questions about what exactly a substance is.
Years ago I bought a tub of Piracetam that felt a little bit like that stuff in the movie Limitless. No Piracetam I bought afterwards felt that way so I wonder if I'd really gotten something more like amphetamine.
> Years ago I bought a tub of Piracetam that felt a little bit like that stuff in the movie Limitless. No Piracetam I bought afterwards felt that way so I wonder if I'd really gotten something more like amphetamine.
Years ago, I bought some Piracetam when I was traveling in Asia. One of my relatives, who's an MD, didn't want me to take it and did some research in actual medical databases. IIRC, he said pretty all the articles praising it traced back to a single study.
I experimented with nootropics in the past and currently I just stick to vitamin D3 + K2 + Omega 3 (DHA/EPA). In case I need to focus I just add 300/600mg of Alpha GPC (but I don't use it frequently, once I start to become irritable it means there's enough acetylcholine in my brain).
I have more than a few neurological issues. I have 3 medication induced movement disorders. I also have 2 rare immune mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system.
Anyways, the stuff I take is to ensure adequate nutrients for my brain. But the primary goal is for neuroregeneration over the long term.
I get the co-ultramicronized palmitoylethalinomide + Luteolin from http://epitech.it, but you have to use a package forwarding service to mail to US (they don’t ship to US, even though it is Italy based and 100% legal)
As I said, I am not interested at all in nootropics or peptides. It is basically all antioxidants/natural neuroregenerative compound/omega fatty acids.
Reddit r/peptides and r/nootropics like a lot of these substances. Also u/Misteryouaresodumb of NootropicsDepot is a wealth of knowledge. There’s a long tail of YouTube and other sources you’ll find from there.
Can we have a little more context from the study. Nothing is said about diet pattern and content.
Given the fact that modern diet is mostly linoleic acid (omega6) known to be very poisonous. Known the fact the omega3 can remediate a little the negative effect of omega6 poisonous effect.
Aren’t this study just observing this remediation effect that should not exist if we were respecting natural diet for human: low in PUFA, high in SFA.
So know let’s setup a clear study between high SFA group (with zero o6) and high pUFa group.
"Poisonous" is not the right word, but at high daily intakes linoleic acid begins to have various detrimental effects, like preventing the synthesis of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids or competing with various other activities of the liver, which now has to convert the excess linoleic acid into other fatty acids.
The cheapest vegetable oils have a very high proportion of linoleic acid, so when they are used for cooking it is very easy to ingest an excessive amount of linoleic acid.
Among the oils with a good proportion for the linoleic acid are the olive oil and the so-called "high oleic sunflower oil" (not the traditional sunflower oil). The canola oil also has a good proportion, but I have no experience with using it.
Among nuts and seeds there are some with a high content of linoleic acid, e.g. pine nuts or poppy seeds, but such nuts or seeds are unlikely to be ever eaten in a so great quantity as to cause problems, unlike the cooking oils.
Many nuts, e.g. almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, cashews, peanuts, have a good proportion of linoleic acid.
It’s strange. Whenever I take liquid Omega-3s, I feel… off. It seems to make me feel mentally lethargic. I know that’s super vague but I’m not sure how else to describe it.
High quantities of omega-3s are present in fish offal.
However, in our country, we only consume the offal of a reliable, clean fish, such as "i.e. Milkfish." We cook them and eat them either "boiled pickled fish" style or in sour soups.
Cool, yet another reason to take good quality fish oil. I take a good quality Fish Oil and get yearly blood work. Noticed a DRAMATIC decrease in Triglyceride levels. Now I have yet another reason to continue keeping this ritual.
> Whether this correlation reflects a pathogenic role for omega-3s is hypothetical, and there is considerable reason to believe that this hypothesis is incorrect.
I don't have access to the full article (it isn't on Sci-hub either), but can someone check if they control for income? While I can believe the claims of this work, they might have just found a spurious correlation.
This is a problem only with fish that are relatively high on the food chain (such as tuna), as each rung on the ladder effectively acts as a multiplier for heavy metals accumulation. Also fish that are high on the food chain are usually caught older (larger) so they've had much more time to accumulate heavy metals (I just today saw a headline saying "the snapper you're eating may have been 60 years old"). You could live your whole life eating nothing but canned sardines (which are caught young and small) and you'd never have a mercury toxicity problem (at least with the levels of mercury contamination in the oceans today).
Another thing is that fish oil supplements do not seem to suffer any heavy metal contamination; partly because the fish used for this purpose happen to be low on the food chain, and partly because of the way the fish oil is processed. There have been a couple of studies where they actually tested more than a dozen common (i.e. supermarket availability) fish oil supplements and found zero mercury or other heavy metal contamination in most of them and only insignificant trace levels in one or two IIRC.
You also excrete a lot of metals via vigorous sweating (as well as urine and stool). All the more reason to do sustained cardio (or sauna) plus drink lots of water and eat lots of fibrous food. I.e. having a well rounded 'generically healthy' lifestyle (though I am suggesting a lot more sweating than most Americans are used to).
sadly, I suffer migraines when I ingest plant fats. Except for cocos fat, which isn't very sustainable even if organic - it has been transported around the world before it gets in my diet - and usually rain-forest has been killed to plant cocos.
My hobby: arguing the arrow of causation goes in the opposite direction as the study authors want to suggest. Allow me to demonstrate.
In this case, obviously, omega-3s are merely a sign of eating expensive fish, which is a sign of affluence, which is a sign of genetically driven higher mental acuity.
> In this case, obviously, omega-3s are merely a sign of eating expensive fish, which is a sign of affluence, which is a sign of genetically driven higher mental acuity.
Except it's the cheaper low-brow canned fish like Sardines that contain more Omega-3s AFAIK.
In this case, the correlation has to do with being health-conscious which leads to better health and is linked to ingesting o3. And the reason we argue causation is the simple fact that the mechanism behind the correlation is not explained in a clear chemical way.
So health-conscious people consume more o3 because the health authorities tell them it's good, but what actually works is some other thing they do, probably just avoiding obesity and sedentary lifestyle?
Exactly, and other behavior like thinking twice before ingesting something probably offsetd whatever harm health authorities may (perhaps unwillingly) cause.
It might be a sign of better nutrition during childhood. Things like iron from 6 months and up have a pretty big effect on brain function later in life.
And if this was studied and proven to be true then all you contrarians would again reverse the arrow of causation saying that "no no no, it is not the iron supplements it is X".
Yes, of course we can not ethically proof that any one supplement has some precise effect, but instead of burying your head in the sand you can follow some general trends.
> And if this was studied and proven to be true then all you contrarians would again reverse the arrow of causation saying that "no no no, it is not the iron supplements it is X".
The point here is that this study didn't prove anything - it's an observational study. The results are consistent with a range of possibilities, not just the ones the study authors were the most interested in promoting to the public. Academic guesses about causation are often wrong, and they're often biased towards what's interesting to academics and what raises the profile of their research. So it's important to highlight other possibilities, especially the "boring" ones that wouldn't get as much attention for the study authors.
There are high-quality studies that actually prove things. For example, we know the impact of lead on IQ because of direct interventions (children who have lead above a certain threshold undergo chelation therapy, so you can compare those right below to those right above).
I was just talking to my wife about it. Her opinion is that fish in the US is more expensive than chicken and more comparable to beef in that cheap fish is similar in price to cheap beef and expensive fish like expensive beef.
When comparing fish with the meat of terrestrial vertebrates it must always be taken into account that the water content of raw fish meat is much higher, so one pound of raw fish does not have the same nutritional value as one pound of raw chicken meat or beef meat.
If the fish is bought frozen, even more of the paid weight is water, so the water content would have to be accounted when comparing prices.
Fish may be much more expensive than it seems when just looking at the price tag, even 50% more expensive per protein content (raw poultry meat has about 25% protein content, while raw fish fillet has between 15% and 20% protein content).
I wonder if fish is that cheap even in area where fishing is a big industry. Compared to meat, growing and processing fish looks more finicky and expensive, and in particular fresh fish with vitamins and nutriments still intact looks to be pretty big logistics challenge driving prices up.
For instance in Japan fish isn't cheap by any measure compared to chicken or pork for instance.
it hurts to read, but how about the ethical if you care… AND the poor-human way? flaxseeds and chia are cheap for what they provide! and dirt cheap if you have time & possibility to buy directly from a farmer
Abstract says they adjusted for potential confounders. Presumably wealth was one of them, as that seems like an obvious thing to control for in any health study.
So let's ignore all possible confounders, don't even start asking questions, and focus on some random detail because my supervisor is a huge fan of it.
>We used linear regression models to relate Omega-3 fatty acid concentrations to brain MRI measures (i.e., total brain, total gray matter, hippocampal, and white matter hyperintensity volumes) and cognitive function (i.e., episodic memory, processing speed, executive function, and abstract reasoning) adjusting for potential confounders.
I cannot access the original paper and I don't have the time for it. Was the study registered in advance? Did they also test other outcome variables and then did cherry picking? Which potential confounders did they test? How do they cope with the problem that they measured something at the end of a longer process?
When I see such studies, on closer inspection, they often turn out to be crap. It could be this really is a gem among a pile of gravels (my apologies if that were the case) but I'm sceptical.
They did adjust for confounders available in the Framington heart study.
Observational studies are less good at showing causation, sure.
Whilst I can't see the original article, the news summary insinuated a dose related effect. A sample size of >2000 is also decent.
Naturally in an ideal world you'd want a 3 arm, 20 year long, randomised placebo controlled double blinded study. But who would ever 1. Pay for it, 2. Wait that long.
The problem with large sample sizes is that random deviations show up as significant difference unless you have a responsible statistician in the team.
This is pretty much how most studies work. People get an idea that X is good or Y is bad and then set out to proof their hypothesis. That is why many papers are never even written - since the study wasn't positive.
I used to take omega-3 fish oil for about a month. My cholesterol levels went through the roof, even though I was taking only a spoon a day as recommended. For anyone who tries it, I strongly recommend to stop a blood exams before and a month or two afterwards.
I'm finding it can increase LDL in some cases apparently. I have been taking it daily for past year and my HDL and LDL levels improved though. Although, my diet and exercise regimine improved drastically.
Which cholesterol went through the roof? Because there's a lot of misinformation and myths, for example "all cholesterol is bad for you" [1] among others.
Is the "Find an expensive alternative to a substance which is easily available/cheap" uniquely an american thing ?
Milk?
Nah we have almond milk/soya milk/xyz milk.
Cottage cheese ?
Nah we have tofu,
protein through meat ?
Nah we have beans,
Omega 3 by just eating a goddamn fish which is available in the grocery store ?
These have completely different tastes and consistencies... especially if you're talking about firm/frozen tofu. Cottage cheese is not an adequate substitute. Not to mention that milk, which cottage cheese is made of comes from cows, and many people have ethical objections to factory farming of animals.
"protein through meat ? Nah we have beans"
Again, many people avoid eating animals for ethical reasons (or health reasons)... and, again, these are not equivalent in taste or consistency. There are taste/consistency reasons why burritos and chili, for example, have beans in them and not just meat.
"Omega 3 by just eating a goddamn fish which is available in the grocery store ? Nah I am gonna eat some processed capsule."
Some people have concerns about consuming too much mercury when eating fish, and want alternatives because of that, others because of ethical reasons once again.
Are these all uniquely American concerns? I don't think so. Just consider Asia, where eating tofu has been the norm for a very long time. Vegetarianism is also very popular in India and some other parts of the world.
Non-dairy milks are about the same price as dairy milk where I live.
Tofu is pretty cheap (about $2.64 - $3 where I live). It is also very versatile.
Beans are very cheap whether dried or canned. You can usually get them for about $1 / lb and the price drops of course the larger the quantity you buy.
Oh and if you think beans are a good source of protein, why don't you talk to my friend: split peas.
The only example I can see you gave that would be expensive is the "processed capsule" for omega 3 supplements.
It's only because of subsidies and economy of scale that cow milk is more expensive than plant milks. There's absolutely no reason it should be cheaper.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/