I think eating rotten, oxidized oils is always a bad idea.
The remainder is an unjustifiable, egotistical power struggle
At the expense of the American dream, American dream
Of the American
We don`t give a damn about your world
With all your global profits
And all your jeweled pearls
We don`t give a damn about your world
Right now, right now!
I don't know about cancer, but for someone who eats a serving or two of fatty fish once or twice a week, it's probably not necessary. I had a bad reaction (vomiting) to some anchovies a little over a month ago after starting to take fish oil supplements. I'll never know for sure if that batch was bad or if the supplements were over-kill, or what caused it. I do know that 10 days after stopping the supplements, I tasted anchovies again (purchased at the same time from the same seller and manufacturer), and they were just the delicious salty goodness I'd always known. I'm trying to figure out some kind of art to make with the supplements since I bought a large jar of them.
"Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine
Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.
I've been saying this for...the past year...
They are horribly toxic drying oils. They are long-rancid highly oxidized trans fats before you consume them. You cannot separate the oil from the fish. They are an order of magnitude more prone to rancidity than soybean oil. Fish oil is worse for you than any vegetable oil on planet Earth because EPA and DHA oxidize far more rapidly than omega-6!!!!
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
Kinda fishy.... bwahahaha
I mean this whole article is weak sauce really. It really is not reliable in making any determination for or against. Hell the researches don't even know if the subjects ate fish or fish oil tablets or whatever else! They are measuring blood levels. So many confounders that I wouldn't know where to start.
You also got this out of the comments section:
"If you look them up, you'll notice that they are a "non-profit" with an annual budget of $430M. They have also been accused of unethical research on cancer patients in the past. You'll also find this source of funding: "The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center also receives funding through licensing and partnership agreements via pharmaceutical companies such as Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline directly and also indirectly through the center's membership at The National Comprehensive Cancer Network"
So biased review of data in a relatively small population set. Coorelation without causation.... yada yada yady. Yeah, nothing to see here.
Because I absolutely DESPISE how shitty a job the media does of reporting "science" here is a link to the actual study for those interested:
Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-11-2013 at 08:07 AM.
"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.
In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."
- Ray Peat
Here is just one of a million question I would like to ask the researchers....
Is it possible that a coorelation between high blood levels of O3 and prostate cancer are more a product of an individuals incapacity to properly process said O3 due to other various lifestyle and genetic factors or do you really think all of these people are eating this much fish and taking these many supplements? I actually would find the former (reduced capacity to properly process PUFA due to other lifestyle related injury) to be more likely. So these higher circulating O3 levels in these individuals are just a downstream effect of metabolic and liver disease that predisposes the person to cancer.
^I'll admit thats all just me shooting from the hip. But, I think you do have to consider these high levels in several ways.