Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: majormark on December 01, 2009, 03:03:52 am
-
I Just listened to an interview about how Fish Oils are bad for us and I'd like to know your opinion on this:
http://www.oneradionetwork.com/health_-_podcasts/diet_and_nutrition/professor_brian_peskin_-_the_24-hour_diet_efa,_peos,_cancer_and_heart_disease_-_10.27.09_200910271346/
Brian Peskin claims two interesting things:
1. These are bad:
- DHA & EPA (because it's messing with the insulin response - unless you exercise)
2. These are good - PEOs (parent essential oils):
- Parent Omega 3 & 6 are the right stuff to get - the body makes DHA or EPA as needed
He also seems to be advocating a low carb type of diet.
If we were to believe the oils are bad than what alternatives do we have for vitamin D except for sunshine?
-
that's really an interesting topic indeed. i just ordered 2 fish oil from blue ice company and that's ( fermented) for $43 each. i found the same one on dr. ron's web is more expensive. i don't know the differences. i don't exercise... and definitely get some positive result from consuming regular whole food's cod liver oil. i found that contributed tremendous weight gains on me.
-
Why is it then that aboriginal tribes were constantly seeking to secure the preformed long-chain n3 fatty acids, instead of pressing/consuming nuts/seeds?
Copy nature...
-
What do you mean MrBBQ? In what way they were doing that?
-
I think a person should eat whole fish. Then think about what would be available in their location by a natural means with simple tools. There are many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin. Rivers seem to freeze over. But lake Michigan doesn't, but how could you get fish out of a lake in winter? Well Eskimos actually have collected fish that washed up on shore and immediately frozen. I enjoy the taste of ocean fish, but I don't think many are paleo. The ones I do are the ones close to shore or the surface of water. Also the ones that swim up stream to spawn like salmon. Maybe we should consider eating the ones close to shore and surface of water locally and in season. Indians couldn't eat salmon all year round. You know? So fish is a hard subject. By the way, Lake Michigan is very polluted from what I see and what people say, and from what factories are doing.
-
Isn't vitamin d in egg yolks, and all animal livers?
-
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml
-
I think a person should eat whole fish. Then think about what would be available in their location by a natural means with simple tools. There are many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin. Rivers seem to freeze over. But lake Michigan doesn't, but how could you get fish out of a lake in winter? Well Eskimos actually have collected fish that washed up on shore and immediately frozen. I enjoy the taste of ocean fish, but I don't think many are paleo. The ones I do are the ones close to shore or the surface of water. Also the ones that swim up stream to spawn like salmon.
Fish oil supplements, personally for my consumption, have always seemed ridiculous. I think mostly vegans take them who are and always were and always will be particularly against natural. They probably think at best that they are taking less karma by only eating oil instead of a whole liver or whole egg or whole fish. If they cared about ethics for real, they wouldn't leave the carcass squeezed out of oil for someone else to eat and subsequently become nutritionally deficient in the same nutrients they were. They don't make sense. Maybe it's because they starved their brains.
-
Fish oil supplements, personally for my consumption, have always seemed ridiculous. I think mostly vegans take them who are and always were and always will be particularly against natural. They probably think at best that they are taking less karma by only eating oil instead of a whole liver or whole egg or whole fish. If they cared about ethics for real, they wouldn't leave the carcass squeezed out of oil for someone else to eat and subsequently become nutritionally deficient in the same nutrients they were. They don't make sense. Maybe it's because they starved their brains.
I agree. Fish oil supplements aren't as good as eating the whole carcass and it's nutrients in a whole.
-
Isn't vitamin d in egg yolks, and all animal livers?
Yes, but the vit. D levels in yolks and livers are much lower than cod liver oil.
These are the numbers for standard egg and liver at NutritionData; I don't know the #'s for pasture-fed:
Egg, whole, raw, fresh 85.1 IU
Beef, liver, raw 4.5 IU (chicken liver is more, but it wasn't listed)
So you'd have to eat a lot of eggs (or egg yolks) and liver to get the recommended 5,000 - 8,000 IUs that Dr. Harris, Stephen Guyenet, PhD and others recommend when not getting much sunshine and vit.-D deficient. Call me crazy if you like, but after reading the sources that Lex also happened to read, and reading Lex's and Tyler's posts on the subject, I decided to give raw cod liver oil and even an additional straight vitamin D boost (note: Tyler doesn't recommend the latter) a try, because I don't want to wait years for my dental health to improve further, and vit. D along with other key nutrients are claimed by many to have many important benefits, and I can't get as much sunlight as Lex does. I'm not completely sold myself, but I'll report any results or lack thereof.
-
I wish I had you guys and gals here. It seems so nice to have humans around who understand nutrition. About the closest I've had to that is a double date I went on about a year ago. I got habra nayyeh (without the onions), and my husband's friend's beautiful normally very sophisticated fiance dug into my plate and ate half. She loved it, I guess she never saw that in a restaurant. She moved far away right after. Anyway, I wish I could share meals with you too, often. I'm taking a break now for some liver or small Vitamin D dose, whichever name you prefer.
-
Can't help but post this for thoughts...from a guy called Christopher:
I think you should probably read Peter's new blog post http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2...n-oil.html
Quote:
To me the message is clear. In the presence of ethanol the determinant of your liver pathology is the amount of corn oil you "drink". Fish oil does the same, the next few posts all use fish oil.
I'm not going to lie, I think it's kinda funny and Ironic that your fear of basic zerocarb not providing you with everything you need has led you to supplement with a lot of fish oil and to make sure you get enough organ meats every week. Then this study comes out possibly showing that all that fish oil you take on a daily basis to "balance your omega 3's with your omega 6's from grain fed meat" has probably been hurting and possibly running your liver into overdrive which in my opinion would explain how bad your dark circles under your eyes are.
Oh ya and I also think you have digestion problems but you are too stubborn to actually give HCL a try which is kinda weird since you have no problem taking other supplements.
http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=1272&page=316
Nicola
-
After I asked him more details via email, he pointed me to this video where he describes several experiments (not studies) that proved Fish Oil to very unhealthy:
http://pinnacle-press.com/Fish-Oil-2/index.html
He did not comment on the Vitamin D issue.
-
Yes, but the vit. D levels in yolks and livers are much lower than cod liver oil.
These are the numbers for standard egg and liver at NutritionData; I don't know the #'s for pasture-fed:
Egg, whole, raw, fresh 85.1 IU
Beef, liver, raw 4.5 IU (chicken liver is more, but it wasn't listed)
So you'd have to eat a lot of eggs (or egg yolks) and liver to get the recommended 5,000 - 8,000 IUs that Dr. Harris, Stephen Guyenet, PhD and others recommend when not getting much sunshine and vit.-D deficient. Call me crazy if you like, but after reading the sources that Lex also happened to read, and reading Lex's and Tyler's posts on the subject, I decided to give raw cod liver oil and even an additional straight vitamin D boost (note: Tyler doesn't recommend the latter) a try, because I don't want to wait years for my dental health to improve further, and vit. D along with other key nutrients are claimed by many to have many important benefits, and I can't get as much sunlight as Lex does. I'm not completely sold myself, but I'll report any results or lack thereof.
i completely understand what paleophill saying, b/c my little baby suffers the lack of vit D3 until i give him enough of cod liver oil. i just don't have that much access to get enough sunlight on winter time. i can't take that risk again. my baby doesn't like the liver and he vomits after that. he loves the egg yolks and i'm giving now 5/6 of them. but he absolutely likes cod liver oil which i'm giving him 2 tbsps daily. if i would live in tropical country, i absolutely cut off those cod liver oil, but at this point i can't take the risk.
-
...http://pinnacle-press.com/Fish-Oil-2/index.html
He did not comment on the Vitamin D issue.
Yeah, and there's no mention of cod liver oil, or raw fermented cod liver oil, which I take. I take it for the A and D3, not for the omega 3s, which I figure I get enough of from grassfed and wild meats and seafood. Plus, just as the negative meat and fat studies might be due to the cooking (or error, poor methods, etc.), so too with negative fish oil studies. Don't hate the fish/animal fats, hate high-heating, and other processing like refining.
-
I don't see why I should take supplements like fish oils.
The reason I go around looking for the ultimate diet is so I don't need to take any supplements whatsoever.
When I want fish oil I eat raw fish.
-
The reason I go around looking for the ultimate diet is so I don't need to take any supplements whatsoever.
When I want fish oil I eat raw fish.
Same here. I've done herbs up the kazoo! I'm done with supplements and such. I would take them if I absolutely had too, but I don't feel like supplementing when I feel better eating good food.
but he absolutely likes cod liver oil which i'm giving him 2 tbsps daily. if i would live in tropical country, i absolutely cut off those cod liver oil
He likes the cod liver oil?!? Wow. I didn't think anyone liked that. That's wonderful! I guess his body knows it needs D.
-
several experiments (not studies) that proved Fish Oil to very unhealthy:
But what kind of Fish Oil? This commercial, heated up to 170 degrees C, rafinated?
Do you know how Lysi cod liver oil is made? They heat it up to 160-170 degrees C, thoroughly rafinate, so that all the vitamins (A and D) are mostly anihilated; and then they add synthetic ones!
They told me that they heat it under very low pressure, so that EPA and DHA stay intact, but I don't believe that it is ok.
So there is very big difference between heated, rafinated cod liver oil and Blue Ice. I'm sure that those experments haven't been made on Blue Ice, which is the only one, that is genuinly raw, unheated and natural.
-
Here's one suggestion that CLO may not have the negative concerns of straight fish oil from Peter at Hyperlipid:
"I've seen studies where the A and D content of CLO undo the potential damage of high dose omega 3s but again, not to hand."
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Cirrhosis and fish oil
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and-fish-oil.html
-
The key concept seems to be that the body needs the parent omega form not derivatives. Peskin describes the reason here:
http://www.brianpeskin.com/NEXUS%20Hidden%20Story%20Article.pdf
"Most parent omegas do not get converted to derivatives – they remain in the cell membrane and tissues in original parent form."
The raw, unheated oil may be better than others due to the lack of transfats but it still contains the derivatives which constitutes a pharmaceutical overdose, according to the link above.
The other interesting thing about EFAs is that they help with cellular oxygenation a lot.
-
The Peskin article at that link also condemns whole fish:
"Consuming whole fish instead of fish oil failed, too.13 That’s why the Japanese have greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans."
Yet Peskin recommends canned wild fish, rich in omega 3 FAs in his list of recommended products: http://www.brianpeskin.com/recommendations.html. Why?
Animal brains also contain high levels of omega 3 FAs. I'm skeptical of claims that omega-3-rich whole foods like whole fish and animal brains would be highly cancer-causing given that raw brains are one of the earliest staple foods of hominids and remain a favorite food of HG people today. For example, the traditional Inuit ate lots of whole fish and brains, yet were noted to have much lower rates of cancer than modern food consumers.
That link also doesn't address the reportedly positive benefits of vitamins A and D3 from cod liver oil, which Peter mentioned may make it much superior to straight fish oil. Peskin also recommends a vitamin D book on his website.
Does anyone here take straight fish oil with no vitamin D3 and not much sunlight?
> If so, then you may want to consider getting some vitamin D3, and you may not need straight fish oil if your diet is not high in omega 6s anyway.
> If not, then what are we worrying about?
-
Good question about the canned fish recommendation. I'll send and email to ask about that.
Somehow I feel that eating the fish may be better than taking fish oils. I cant say that from experience though.
-
"Consuming whole fish instead of fish oil failed, too.13 That’s why the Japanese have greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans."
That's ludicrous statement. There are hundreds or even thousands things that can have impact on somebody's health.
Correlation does not imply causation!
-
Good question about the canned fish recommendation. I'll send and email to ask about that.
Somehow I feel that eating the fish may be better than taking fish oils. I cant say that from experience though.
I agree, which is why I was surprised that Peskin bad-mouthed whole fish in that article you linked to. Personally, I get the mild-euphoria feeling from wild salmon--sometimes even from cooked--not just from raw GF red meat.
That's ludicrous statement. There are hundreds or even thousands things that can have impact on somebody's health.
Correlation does not imply causation!
Exactly, and it is well known that the Japanese smoke more than Americans, although they apparently have a lower rate of lung cancer. They also eat lots of rice, which is linked to different cancers than wheat, but still also linked to cancer.
I don't like to criticize much, but I have to say that I'm not very impressed with Mr. Peskin's articles so far, though they're not the worst I've seen, and do contain a few interesting points.
-
I must admit that I've had no opportunity to get on here recently so haven't read the Peskin article. However, clicking on the link and seeing the Nexus Magazine header is hugely distracting to me as my past experience of it is that it's littered with rather new-agey junk science. Of course, I may well be wrong in this instance. The comments about dangers of eating whole fish doesn't fill me with any confidence though.
But what kind of Fish Oil? This commercial, heated up to 170 degrees C, rafinated?
Do you know how Lysi cod liver oil is made? They heat it up to 160-170 degrees C, thoroughly rafinate, so that all the vitamins (A and D) are mostly anihilated; and then they add synthetic ones!
They told me that they heat it under very low pressure, so that EPA and DHA stay intact, but I don't believe that it is ok.
So there is very big difference between heated, rafinated cod liver oil and Blue Ice. I'm sure that those experments haven't been made on Blue Ice, which is the only one, that is genuinly raw, unheated and natural.
I agree Hannibal. As is often the case with these studies, they're using food sources that we wouldn't dream of using. The raw fermented Blue Ice oil is altogether different and I wouldn't be convinced of any study results unless they were conducted using a raw traditionally made product.
I am disturbed at this sudden negative attention regarding fish oils at PaNu, Hyperlipid etc particularly as I'm ensuring my breast-feeding partner and soon-to-be-introduced-to-solids 6 month old are taking the Blue Ice FCLO (I'm not giving it to him yet). Unfortunately, it's come at a time when I'm really busy with other stuff that I can't read up properly on the whole issue. However, with lack of other sufficient Vitamin D food sources and lack of sufficient sunlight - particularly at this time of year in the UK - I will be continuing to take and give the oil to my family as I'd consider the lack of Vitamin D more destructive.
-
Peskin is talking nonsense For example japanese have been shown as having lower rates of CHD than in America:-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7581-4C9R7K1-4Y&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1123579934&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=77f7741d3eeb33f7c0c4826a1403b811
-
Peskin is talking nonsense For example japanese have been shown as having lower rates of CHD than in America:-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7581-4C9R7K1-4Y&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1123579934&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=77f7741d3eeb33f7c0c4826a1403b811
Although, again, I haven't read Peskin's article it did strike me as peculiar that he should state (as quoted by PaleoPhil) that Japanese have higher rates of cancer and CHD than America?! It sounds as though the article is up to the usual Nexus quality!! ;) I do vaguely recollect a discussion about the Japanese having higher rates of a particular form of cancer (was it stomach cancer?) possibly linked to their soya consumption (or similar) but that's not quite the same statement is it?!
-
Although I consider Blue Ice as a healthy product, I think that consuming fresh wild raw fatty fish, such as mackarels, sardines, herrings or salmons is better.
-
Although, again, I haven't read Peskin's article it did strike me as peculiar that he should state (as quoted by PaleoPhil) that Japanese have higher rates of cancer and CHD than America?! It sounds as though the article is up to the usual Nexus quality!! ;) I do vaguely recollect a discussion about the Japanese having higher rates of a particular form of cancer (was it stomach cancer?) possibly linked to their soya consumption (or similar) but that's not quite the same statement is it?!
That was my vague basic recollection as well. When I saw that Mr. Peskin had a negative comment about whole fish but nonetheless recommended a whole fish product on his Website--not even fresh or raw but canned of all things!--I lost interest and can't be bothered to check his claims further.
Although I consider Blue Ice as a healthy product, I think that consuming fresh wild raw fatty fish, such as mackarels, sardines, herrings or salmons is better.
Sure, but the problem with that is that most wild fish that is sold in markets has the vitamin-D-rich liver and other organs removed, so that you would have to eat an enormous amount of fatty wild seafood to get the same level of vitamin D from CLO or sunlight.
-
That was my vague basic recollection as well. When I saw that Mr. Peskin had a negative comment about whole fish but nonetheless recommended a whole fish product on his Website--not even fresh or raw but canned of all things!--I lost interest and can't be bothered to check his claims further.
Sure, but the problem with that is that most wild fish that is sold in markets has the vitamin-D-rich liver and other organs removed, so that you would have to eat an enormous amount of fatty wild seafood to get the same level of vitamin D from CLO or sunlight.
i agree. but if you live in other country like GOODSAMARITAN, than you can find the fresh fish organ easily. same thing you can get to live in my country. those organs are very cheap. only poor buy them.
-
Sure, but the problem with that is that most wild fish that is sold in markets has the vitamin-D-rich liver and other organs removed, so that you would have to eat an enormous amount of fatty wild seafood to get the same level of vitamin D from CLO or sunlight.
100 g of herring's flesh contains about 1600 IU of vitamin D, so it's quite good
It's not compulsory to eat vitamin-D-rich liver of the fish to get sufficient amount of vitamin D.
Besides I've got access to the whole fish, with every part inside it.
But it's better to eat small fish, as they're less contaminated
re sardines, for example -
"All sardines are very low in mercury, which is the biggest problem with much seafood. Generally speaking, the bigger the fish — the higher on the oceanic food chain — the more the mercury. Shark, tuna — and yes, salmon too — are all high in mercury. As befitting their name, sardines are small. About the lowest on the food chain, they are also among the fish lowest in mercury."
http://www.mendosa.com/blog/?p=344
-
100 g of herring's flesh contains about 1600 IU of vitamin D, so it's quite good
It's not compulsory to eat vitamin-D-rich liver of the fish to get sufficient amount of vitamin D.
I didn't actually realise herring was quite so rich in Vitamin D. I checked NutritionData and it confirmed 1628IU per 100g. I wonder if their figures are for the whole fish though rather than just the flesh commonly eaten? Irrespective, I don't think I could face eating 400g+ of herring everyday to satiate my Vitamin D needs. I'd much rather take 5-10ml raw FCLO from Blue Ice with occasional herring.
I think the matter of mercury problems from eating fish is still in dispute in some quarters but I agree that the dangers are significantly decreased by eating fish lower on the food chain or with a shorter lifespan.
That was my vague basic recollection as well. When I saw that Mr. Peskin had a negative comment about whole fish but nonetheless recommended a whole fish product on his Website--not even fresh or raw but canned of all things!--I lost interest and can't be bothered to check his claims further.
Yes, that says it all doesn't it! :)
-
Here is an answer from dr. Peskin on the whole fish issue:
" **tuna from this company and salmon from them is fine for animal-based PROTEIN. This is needed. I was referring to fish NOT being cancer protective – a very different issue.
** no one said it is cancer –causing – just NOT cancer-protecting."
So apparently it's like a neutral food, not really causing it and also not protecting either.
Note that he is not a believer in RAF, probably because he did not get to research it.
PS
And about the mercury issue: I remember Jerry Brunetti talking about how "as the fish get more mercury they start to consume more selenium" or something like that.
Are you familiar with this?
I will try to find the exact source when I have more time.
-
Here is an answer from dr. Peskin on the whole fish issue:
" **tuna from this company and salmon from them is fine for animal-based PROTEIN. This is needed. I was referring to fish NOT being cancer protective – a very different issue.
** no one said it is cancer –causing – just NOT cancer-protecting."
That's fine, yet it would help if he explained the rest of the original quote (if he doesn't mind questions--I don't wish to irritate anyone): "Consuming whole fish instead of fish oil failed, too.13 That’s why the Japanese have greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans."
What is the "why" that he's talking about that gives the Japanese "greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans"? Is just fish oil? Does something in fish-oil-containing whole fish (such as herring), overcome the negative effects of fish oil to make whole fish healthy despite the cancer-causing fish oil? Or is fish oil only cancer-causing because its processed? That's somewhat plausible and would fit in with RPD. Does he think that fermented raw cod liver rich in vitamins A and D3, like what we use here is healthy--could the A and D3 in whole fish be what offsets the cancer-causing aspects of fish oil?
He may not be aware that most of us here do not appear to take straight fish oil. Majormark, do you think someone here is using straight fish oil that you are directing your warnings to? I haven't noticed anyone here saying they take straight, heated fish oil that doesn't contain A and D3--which is what his article seems to focus on--maybe I missed something? The only reports I've seen from people here are folks eating whole fish and/or taking fermented raw CLO. I think Lex might have taken straight fish oil in the past, but that was only because he was eating all or mostly grain-finished meats. We are probably very different from his usual audience, so that article may not apply to us.
Also, didn't Tyler or someone here point out in the past some problems with canned seafood (which is all cooked, as I understand it)?
As for protein, I eat seafood more for the fat, minerals and small amounts of A and D3 than the protein (about 80% of my calories are consumed as fat, after all). If fish oil (ie, fish fat) is not healthy or just neutral, I would probably stick to land mammal meats that are much cheaper for my protein, and would only eat fish occasionally for some variation, and would probably stick to lean choices like skin-free restaurant sashimi. Other than taste variety, why eat fish for protein instead of beef, bison, venison, chicken, pork, etc.?
-
All canned and or bottle fish is heated. Cordain put out a paper demonstrating the effects of prolonged and high temp canning processes pretty much decimates the omega threes in canned fish. They all eventually shoot themselves in the foot eventually regarding cooking/heat/etc. You can only point so long at 'one' cooked item and mention the ill effects.....
-
Prof. Peskin must not know much about us, given that he doesn't seem to be aware that we don't consider canned fish particularly healthy. Maybe it would help, Majormark, if you explained what we are doing and offered to answer any of his questions, if he has the time, rather than us continuing to ask questions and raise concerns to him (because I think the latter might eventually get irritating)?
He may decide that he doesn't want to waste time on raw food nuts (which would save him a lot of bother), or he may decide that he could help us on a few things, such as this fish oil question. I do tend to enjoy opinions that are contrary to the norm, BTW, so I am open to the idea that straight fish oil could be bad, though my first guess at the culprit would be the heating and other processing.
-
That's fine, yet it would help if he explained the rest of the original quote (if he doesn't mind questions--I don't wish to irritate anyone): "Consuming whole fish instead of fish oil failed, too.13 That’s why the Japanese have greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans."
My understanding of this is that if some people exposed to disease causing conditions eat more "neutral" foods compared to another group that consumes more "protecting" foods, they will have higher incidence of that disease.
He does not provide all the reasons that lead him to this conclusion and you can email to info@brianpeskin.com and ask that question.
The important message for me, from the article, is that fat seems to be considered a food that helps with the cells oxygenation.
What is the "why" that he's talking about that gives the Japanese "greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans"? Is just fish oil? Does something in fish-oil-containing whole fish (such as herring), overcome the negative effects of fish oil to make whole fish healthy despite the cancer-causing fish oil? Or is fish oil only cancer-causing because its processed? That's somewhat plausible and would fit in with RPD. Does he think that fermented raw cod liver rich in vitamins A and D3, like what we use here is healthy--could the A and D3 in whole fish be what offsets the cancer-causing aspects of fish oil?
I remember I asked about the raw fermented oil but I dont see any reply to that in my inbox. Maybe that email got lost or there is some other reason, but I will not resend it. You can try to ask him as well.
He may not be aware that most of us here do not appear to take straight fish oil. Majormark, do you think someone here is using straight fish oil that you are directing your warnings to? I haven't noticed anyone here saying they take straight, heated fish oil that doesn't contain A and D3--which is what his article seems to focus on--maybe I missed something? The only reports I've seen from people here are folks eating whole fish and/or taking fermented raw CLO. I think Lex might have taken straight fish oil in the past, but that was only because he was eating all or mostly grain-finished meats. We are probably very different from his usual audience, so that article may not apply to us.
Also, didn't Tyler or someone here point out in the past some problems with canned seafood (which is all cooked, as I understand it)?
As for protein, I eat seafood more for the fat, minerals and small amounts of A and D3 than the protein (about 80% of my calories are consumed as fat, after all). If fish oil (ie, fish fat) is not healthy or just neutral, I would probably stick to land mammal meats that are much cheaper for my protein, and would only eat fish occasionally for some variation, and would probably stick to lean choices like skin-free restaurant sashimi. Other than taste variety, why eat fish for protein instead of beef, bison, venison, chicken, pork, etc.?
I know some people here take fish oil and that is why I posted the topic. To share your experience.
Like I said, the issue could be with DHA and EPA quantity and of course damage could be added by heating the oil.
The more interesting question to me is how can we (people without access to lab equipment) test, in a relevant and measurable way, to see if taking high doses of these substances affect us negatively or not. I don't think any of the experiments were conducted with fermented oil. That is why if we could check some of the health parameters and find that these are indeed harmful than we can conclude that DHA and EPA in large quantity are not healthy regardless of the level of processing.
About protein, I think the canned fish was an example or just his preference.
-
...The more interesting question to me is how can we (people without access to lab equipment) test, in a relevant and measurable way, to see if taking high doses of these substances affect us negatively or not. I don't think any of the experiments were conducted with fermented oil. That is why if we could check some of the health parameters and find that these are indeed harmful than we can conclude that DHA and EPA in large quantity are not healthy regardless of the level of processing. ...
I took processed regular fish oil in the past and experienced no negative effects other than nosebleeds when I took too much of it. Reducing the dosage greatly reduced the nose bleeds and going VLC eliminated them altogether.
I haven't noticed any negative effects at all from raw fermented CLO (1000 mg per day), though it's early yet.
-
I got a response for that question on how can we check for negative effects.
Immediate observation can be (as some of you reported) bleeding:
"**teeth will bleed AND bruises to skin will not heal well!
**I assure you there are more negatives. "
There are some blood tests that can be done, but he did not elaborate:
"They have EFA tests but this is blood and all it is really good for is to see how the PEOs replace the fish oil. I don’t use these tests anymore. "
On the positive effects of PEOs that can be observed:
"**how the FEEL and if they have more energy – less tired. Softer skin, better finger nails (smooth, etc.) see book for all the things that PEOs do."
As for the heated or unheated issue he mentioned this:
"** it is the wrong substance, period, so I have no interest analyzing such a thing."
Now, whether the heat is an issue or not, we have to imagine that a person having a diet book out, that also promotes cocked food, is not likely to jump on the raw bandwagon easily.
I did send him the Wikipedia link on raw foods in that email, just for information.
-
I got a response for that question on how can we check for negative effects.
Immediate observation can be (as some of you reported) bleeding:
"**teeth (he probably means gums) will bleed AND bruises to skin will not heal well!
Luckily, I haven't had those side effects while taking fish oil or CLO--quite the opposite, actually. My gums bleed less and my easy bruising from SAD and vegetarian-oriented diets went away. While there are claims that fish oil and CLO help gums, teeth and skin, I suspect my gum, teeth and skin improvements had more to do with going Paleo, then VLC, then raw carnivore, because there were further improvements soon after beginning each of those stages. I can say that fish oil and CLO didn't reverse, stop or slow these improvements noticeably.
On the positive effects of PEOs that can be observed:
"**how the FEEL and if they have more energy – less tired. Softer skin, better finger nails (smooth, etc.) see book for all the things that PEOs do."
I do have softer skin and smoother, stronger nails with brighter white on the distal edges, and my hang nails are slowly vanishing on raw carnivore. Again, I don't know if the CLO has anything to do with these improvements, but it doesn't seem to be slowing them down any.
What food sources of PEOs does he or you recommend and should they be raw, fermented, cooked, etc.?
-
Looks like full-fat cheese, eggs, some nuts can be good sources of PEOs (maybe also other animal fats):
http://brianpeskin.com/peskinMDCTscan.pdf * Note that a check for plaque in the artery may also be a lab test worth considering.
"... eat lots of SATURATED fat enjoying lots of cheese and eggs with
virtually no fiber, add lots of salt, enjoy a big 16 oz. steak at least every other day, eat few fruits
or vegetables (just 1-serving a day (if even that) vs. the “expert’s” recommendation of 5)."
I also remember reading some studies that wallnuts (which contain both PEOs) can help reduce heart disease risk, which I understand it's strongly related to arterial plaque. Here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19458020?log$=activity
A clear definition of PEOs:
http://brianpeskin.com/PEOstheDifference.pdf
"This term “Parent Essential Oils” refers to the only two true essential fatty acids:
parent omega-6 (LA) and parent omega-3 (ALA). The term “parent” is used because
these are the whole, unadulterated form of the only two essential fats your body
demands, as they occur in nature. Once PEOs are consumed your body changes a
small percentage of them—about 5%—into other biochemicals called “derivatives,”
while leaving the remaining 95% in parent form."
"Why are the parent forms—PEOs—so important? Many of the EFAs sold in the stores
consist of manufactured EFA derivatives. Your body doesn’t need or want these
derivatives, because it makes its own derivatives out of the Parent Essential Oils (PEOs)
you consume as it needs them. Taking fish oil and other health-food-store “EFAs” often
overdoses you with derivatives, which can be very harmful. However, PEOs are
essential and must be supplied from outside the body every day, from foods and
certain oils. Your body can’t manufacture PEOs (commonly termed EFAs) on its
own—they MUST be consumed daily."
PaleoPhil: It is possible that being on a paleo diet you may not experience such adverse effects from the fish oil as those people in the experiments, because they most likely ate a standard diet.
Still, it's something worth considering.
-
Looks like full-fat cheese, eggs, some nuts can be good sources of PEOs (maybe also other animal fats):
http://brianpeskin.com/peskinMDCTscan.pdf * Note that a check for plaque in the artery may also be a lab test worth considering.
"... eat lots of SATURATED fat enjoying lots of cheese and eggs with
virtually no fiber, add lots of salt, enjoy a big 16 oz. steak at least every other day, eat few fruits
or vegetables (just 1-serving a day (if even that) vs. the “expert’s” recommendation of 5)."
I also remember reading some studies that wallnuts (which contain both PEOs) can help reduce heart disease risk, which I understand it's strongly related to arterial plaque. Here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19458020?log$=activity
...
Thanks, but I eat eggs and steak and mostly avoid plant foods already and I find I do better on whole raw seafood than I do on cheese and lots of salt. Contrarian opinions are useful, though, to make sure one's on the right track for oneself and avoid falling into a dogmatic mindset.
-
The guy people are talking about seems to recommend a lot of cooked, congealed saturated fats so this topic ought to be in the Hot Topics forum. I'll move it there now.