Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: is it best to eat fish instead of taking fish oil supplementation page

  1. #1
    genao87's Avatar
    genao87 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6

    is it best to eat fish instead of taking fish oil supplementation

    Primal Fuel
    i have been reading some of links such as from Jack Kruse website that it is best to eat the fish compare to getting fish oil. The fish oil when consuming the fish is protected and it is in its native form/structure where it is best suited for the body (especially brain and heart) to benefit from.

    i generally take carlson's fish oil.

  2. #2
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,210
    Jack Kruse is a nutter.

    That said, it is still better to eat fish rather than take fish oil pills.

    The fish oil in the pills can easily become rancid or oxidised, although that's not guaranteed, it's more likely with the cheaper brands.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  3. #3
    MeatSleepRepeat's Avatar
    MeatSleepRepeat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    121
    Fish also tastes better than fish pills...

  4. #4
    jpatti's Avatar
    jpatti is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    39
    I think the correct answer is both. Sure, fish oil in fish is probably the best source. But personally, I can't eat enough fish to get the amount of fish oil I take.

  5. #5
    genao87's Avatar
    genao87 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Jack Kruse is a nutter.

    That said, it is still better to eat fish rather than take fish oil pills.

    The fish oil in the pills can easily become rancid or oxidised, although that's not guaranteed, it's more likely with the cheaper brands.

    thank you for that. i hate eating fish but i will force myself to get used to it.

    most likely will buy fish oil too just to make sure i am getting enough omega 3s though it will be most likely no get absorbed as well.

    though jack kruse comes off as kind of forcefull or sometimes his writing is hard to understand, his work is amazing and works great. especially his cold thermogenesis routine.

  6. #6
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by genao87 View Post
    i have been reading some of links such as from Jack Kruse website that it is best to eat the fish compare to getting fish oil. The fish oil when consuming the fish is protected and it is in its native form/structure where it is best suited for the body (especially brain and heart) to benefit from.

    i generally take carlson's fish oil.
    Yes, it is. Fish oil is better than nothing. But when extracted and having sat around on shelves for who knows how long, these delicate PUFAs in it can be oxidized. Besides, better to get it along with other nutrients. Have a look at the very good videos from Dr. Broadhurst at the University of Maryland, and expert on brain chemistry, that Jack links fat the bottom of his latest blog post. You'll notice Dr. Broadhurst says quite definitively towards the end of the second video "I would prefer that people eat fish":

    Brain Gut 14: Personal Ground Zero | Living an Optimized Life

  7. #7
    genao87's Avatar
    genao87 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6
    oh wow, he came out with brain gut 14 already. dude is on a role. i actually check out the video. he mentions also that fish even with some mercury would be okay since the selenium in the fish binds with the mercury and makes it useless. it was mentioned to the point that it should be our primary source fuel, above pasture/grassfed meat.

    didnt realize our ancestors started doing this more than 100,000 years ago.

  8. #8
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by genao87 View Post
    didnt realize our ancestors started doing this more than 100,000 years ago.
    The pile of burnt shells that she was talking about were 160,000 years old, but these resources were being used much earlier. The interesting thing is that paleoanthropologists had not realized this in the past. This was coming from brain chemists: they knew what the requirements of the human brain were, and therefore what would have been required to build it in the first place and then maintain it (and here also bear this in mind.). So then people need to go back and look more carefully at remains. We're now talking about 1.95 million years ago at Turkana:

    Examples of percussion-fractured shaft fragments and bones with cut marks indicate that hominins at this site exploited terrestrial and aquatic mammals for meat and marrow, as well as the flesh of reptiles and fish (Fig. 3). The animals that these early tool users were accessing range from size class 2 (e.g., impala, suids) to size class 5 (e.g., hippopotamus, rhinoceros) animals (13) and also include crocodiles, turtles, and catfish
    Early hominin diet included diverse terrestrial and aquatic animals 1.95 Ma in East Turkana, Kenya

  9. #9
    noodletoy's Avatar
    noodletoy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    land of the glass pinecones
    Posts
    3,186
    there is a certain romance to the image of a band of groks, spears in hand, chasing down and killing large prey. that being said, it's much easier to scoop small fish, catch turtles and snakes and harvest mollusks. it's a project one could do in a scant amount of time and have plenty of food, vs. possibly coming up empty-handed after a hunt. "fishing" and small critter collecting could be easily done by women, children and the elderly too. it requires little strength and no fleetness of foot.

    yes, eat fish. i know the carlson's is a good brand, but stuff like this is way better gotten from food.
    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

    Ernest Hemingway

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,502
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Preferably wild-caught, rather than farmed. Farmed fish aren't gonna do it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •