Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Altered EFA due COOKING good - altered EFA due to RANCIDITY bad - why ? page 2

  1. #11
    BlissfulWriter's Avatar
    BlissfulWriter is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    14
    Primal Fuel
    I would not worry about cooking fish damaging the oils. Cooked fish is the best way to get DHA and EPA omega-3 fatty acids. It is a much better way than taking fish oil supplements. Although some people may need supplements in addition to eating lots of fish.

    You are doing the right thing by consuming grilled (broiled) mackerel, herring or sardines. Eating cooked fished is safer than avoiding fish.

  2. #12
    danandvicky's Avatar
    danandvicky is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissfulWriter View Post
    I would not worry about cooking fish damaging the oils. Cooked fish is the best way to get DHA and EPA omega-3 fatty acids. It is a much better way than taking fish oil supplements.
    WHY would you not worry about it ? What do you know about the cooking process that makes cooked oily fish safe?

    Also, what do you mean by "best way" ?

    safest ?
    most efficate way?

    This is the kind of thing I am trying to avoid - blanket statements with very vague wording such as 'best way' and 'i would not worry about it'. There needs to be reasoning or some kind of peer reviewed data behind such statements

  3. #13
    danandvicky's Avatar
    danandvicky is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Paysan View Post
    Would the fact that generations of seafaring folk and coast dwellers didn't drop dead en masse add anything to the safety of fish oils in your mind?
    NO. Not at all - firstly, can you prove that seafarers live a comparatively long life?

    Secondly, do you have any data to suggest all seafarers and coast dwellers consume lots of oily fish ?

    Thirdly, can you be certain that they cooked the oily fish ?

    I am just trying to investigate this stuff without any preconceptions. It seems followers of Marks Daily Apple are just as quick to accept or even just make up their own 'facts' or 'data' to support their own beliefs rather than actually wanting to find out real truths.

    Im pretty sure that primal/paleo followers are heading towards avoiding ALL PUFA`s for the reasons associated with my initial post ( i.e. the inherent instability of PUFA`s).

    Disclaimer : i know we need some PUFA`s which is why certain PUFA`s are dubbed 'essential oils'. Perhaps i should have stated 'heading toward avoiding ALL PUFA`s to a certain extent'.

    The fact that nobody has come up with a decent explanation yet makes me question this issue even further - its a shame others dont appear to have a questioning nature - and very surprising as they probably arrived here due to questioning their conventional information sources.

  4. #14
    Paysan's Avatar
    Paysan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    446
    OK, I'm a bit of a history buff, and have read mega-tomes over the last few decades. Along the way, I read about coast dwellers and sea faring peoples. They were not immune to ills that plague the human race, but the evidence is strong that they didn't die of heart attacks. I recently bought "The Greenland Mummies" about some mummified burials of some women and children. The only thing certain is that they didn't die of violence, and that they lived on a mostly marine diet. It might interest you to learn that they likely did consume fermented fish oils, along with raw blubber and cooked oily fish. Unlike my friend's unfortunate kid goats, they did not die of heart attacks. Cancer in one case, yes. Exposure in the infant- very possibly. Starvation and inability to get around, probably. But of their oily fish diet, no question at all. And written records of the few Norsemen that lived in Greenland at the same time as these 500 yr old mummies, indicated that botulism, or food poisoning from rotten meat sometimes did the Inuit in. But I am pretty sure they did not consume any plant-sourced PUFA's. So there you have it - you can 1, eat fish raw, fresh or rotten and take your chances. 2. you can eat fish cooked, fresh or rotten, and take your chances. Frankly , other than olichan grease which was fermented fish oil, and very stable, most natives want their fish fresh and cooked.

  5. #15
    BlissfulWriter's Avatar
    BlissfulWriter is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    14
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by danandvicky View Post
    ...

    Also, what do you mean by "best way" ?

    safest ?
    most efficate way?

    ...
    I meant that eating cooked fish is the safer and the more efficacious way of getting omega-3 than from supplements. The problem with supplements is that there is a higher chance of the omega-3 being damaged due to the high-temperature processing and forming gel capsules. Plus the supplements are not transported and stored in a refrigerated fashion. Wherea, fish are transported in a refrigerated or frozen form. The quick light steaming to cook the fish does not cause the lost of efficacy because studies have shown that people who eat fish are getting benefits that those who do not. Here are some references.

    Mercury from fish is not a problem either as long as the fish has more selenium than mercury, which most commercially sold fish has -- except sharks, pilot whale, whale meat, and possibly swordfish. . Reference in this podcast. Also watch this YouTube.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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