omega 3 fish oil capsules

hello



anyone take these?

im starting 1000mg a day i think, am i right in saying that these capsules are 'good fats' to have? because on the pack it says for healthy bones and joints etc.

on a cut at the moment so taking 1 capsule a day be enough for my good fats?

sometimes have salmon to eat though

Here is a good read on EFAs:

http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-essential-fatty-acids.aspx

It's not necessary to supplement fats to be healthy, even on a cut it's very unlikely that you will be deficient in fats.

Shame we don't have a supplements or diet forum for these.

I have anywhere from none to 10,000mg a day

yes i struggled into which category i should put this in. Would you say though that 1000mg a day of omega 3 is enough on a cut

i know that the body needs good fats, put i dont want too much by having a 1000mg of omega 3 capsule and 1 tbsp of p.butter

You can have a supp if you think you are likely to be deficient in these oils,
given the low amount of fish consumption for the average Brit, many people are borderline or deficient.

If you do supplement remember to get capsules that are from fish body oil not liver oil - to avoid any potential contaminants.

jimmy2404


yes i struggled into which category i should put this in. Would you say though that 1000mg a day of omega 3 is enough on a cut

i know that the body needs good fats, put i dont want too much by having a 1000mg of omega 3 capsule and 1 tbsp of p.butter

1000mg = 1g = 9 cals so don't stress over it!

I usually take between 5g-10g a day plus flax powder.

hamiltonsfitness
It's not necessary to supplement fats to be healthy, even on a cut it's very unlikely that you will be deficient in fats.

Are you going to be a fat-dodger all your life, Stu?

Please learn about small LDL. Ignorance is bliss. Until a potential one third of the population gets CHD. See http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/disastrous-results-of-low-fat-diet.html
We don't have NMR lipoprotein testing in the UK. There are hardly any EBCT CAC heart scanners in the UK either.

To jimmy, please see http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/fb.ashx?m=2698563

Cheers, Nige.

You can have a supp if you think you are likely to be deficient in these oils,
given the low amount of fish consumption for the average Brit, many people are borderline or deficient.

given the low amount of Persea for the average Brit , many people are borderline or deficent 

R3261

You can have a supp if you think you are likely to be deficient in these oils, given the low amount of fish consumption for the average Brit, many people are borderline or deficient.

given the low amount of Persea for the average Brit , many people are borderline or deficent 

What?

ever green tree

because somewhere else someone else is eating something else is not what a deficency is

Yes and no.

When you can look at a diet and say "they eat a lot more burgers and chips than they do fresh fish compared to 30 years ago" you can formulate which direction a group of people are heading.

Are you going to be a fat-dodger all your life, Stu? Please learn about small LDL. Ignorance is bliss. Until a potential one third of the population gets CHD. See http://heartscanblog.bl...lts-of-low-fat-diet.html We don't have NMR lipoprotein testing in the UK. There are hardly any EBCT CAC heart scanners in the UK either.

I don't see the point of supplementing something that you are not deficient in. It is almost impossible to be deficient in fats however low you can get them.

This is also another example of bad science. If you find a population that is deficient in the ability to absorb a particular nutrient then find a symptom that they also have it does not prove a causal relationship.

Also, if you do find a causal relationship between deficiency and that symptom and prove that supplementation removes that symptom, it doesn't mean that supplementing that nutrient in a normal population will have any benificial effect.

Yes and no.

When you can look at a diet and say "they eat a lot more burgers and chips than they do fresh fish compared to 30 years ago" you can formulate which direction a group of people are heading.

that is not what a deficiency is

A deficiency in medical terms is when you have so little of a nutrient in your diet that you have a specific negative medical effect. This IMO negates the massive spread of nutrient intakes that can have other positive effects, but are ignored. Vitamin deficiencies are a great example of this.

My point was in support of Les as he made a valid point - as a population our oily fish intake isn't exactly great. If your is worse then it's likely that you could do well to increase it.

Bearing in mind of course that if your seed oil intake is sorted, then fish oil intake is irrelevant

Stuart - the point is as per my first paragraph. Deficiency as a definition ignores levels where you thrive. If you go about life just staying away from being deficient in all your nutrients, you aren't going to have a great life. It leaves no margin for error, and no option for additional benefits.

Deficiency as a definition ignores levels where you thrive. If you go about life just staying away from being deficient in all your nutrients, you aren't going to have a great life. It leaves no margin for error, and no option for additional benefits.

But if your experimental proof of efficacy is based on cases of deficiency being resolved with supplementation then that in itself is not proof that supplementing will be beneficial to a normal population, which is the point I was making.

Are you going to be a fat-dodger all your life, Stu? Please learn about small LDL. Ignorance is bliss. Until a potential one third of the population gets CHD. See http://heartscanblog.bl...lts-of-low-fat-diet.html We don't have NMR lipoprotein testing in the UK. There are hardly any EBCT CAC heart scanners in the UK either.

I don't see the point of supplementing something that you are not deficient in. It is almost impossible to be deficient in fats however low you can get them.

This is also another example of bad science. If you find a population that is deficient in the ability to absorb a particular nutrient then find a symptom that they also have it does not prove a causal relationship.

Also, if you do find a causal relationship between deficiency and that symptom and prove that supplementation removes that symptom, it doesn't mean that supplementing that nutrient in a normal population will have any benificial effect.

Define "deficiency".
I strongly disagree (obviously!).

So Stu, do you know how much of your LDL is small LDL? Do you know what your CAC agatston score is? If your answer is "no" and "no", you have no idea whether you're one of the lucky 2 out of 3 or one of the unlucky 1 out of 3. Good luck with that. I have a pretty good idea (from blood tests) what group I'm in (the unlucky group that produces small LDL on high-carb, low-fat diets). Forearmed is forewarned.

If the only symptom of insufficient omega-3 intake was dropping dead from a heart attack, that alone would be reason enough to ensure a higher omega-3 intake. However, I've provided evidence before, showing that there are other benefits to higher omega-3 intakes. We've been down this road before and I'm not going down it again.

If GPs, cardiologists, nephrologists, pharmacists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc are banging on about the benefits of increased omega-3 intake (ditto for Vit D3), when are you going to take the hint?

Big Les

If you do supplement remember to get capsules that are from fish body oil not liver oil - to avoid any potential contaminants.

Does this refer to cod liver oil also?

I drink it straight from the bottle. An acquired taste I know, but I've found that some capsules  contain (absurdly in a supposed health product) hydrogenated fats.

So Stu, do you know how much of your LDL is small LDL? Do you know what your CAC agatston score is? If your answer is "no" and "no", you have no idea whether you're one of the lucky 2 out of 3 or one of the unlucky 1 out of 3. Good luck with that. I have a pretty good idea (from blood tests) what group I'm in (the unlucky group that produces small LDL on high-carb, low-fat diets). Forearmed is forewarned. If the only symptom of insufficient omega-3 intake was dropping dead from a heart attack, that alone would be reason enough to ensure a higher omega-3 intake. However, I've provided evidence before, showing that there are other benefits to higher omega-3 intakes. We've been down this road before and I'm not going down it again. If GPs, cardiologists, nephrologists, pharmacists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc are banging on about the benefits of increased omega-3 intake (ditto for Vit D3), when are you going to take the hint?

Yes, we have been here before and you have still not learned anything by the sound of it. Yes, you appear to have specific medical problems but don't be a evangelist and try to make everyone else take your cure. This is a bodybuilding forum, not a Nigel forum. Come back when you have some experience of bodybuilding.