Claim: Fish oil helps diabetics and helps prevent diabetes and its complications.
Truth: Resting blood sugars are consistently higher for fish oil users.8,9,10 Insulin amounts had to be consistently increased in diabetics who were using fish oil. Glucose tolerance decreased significantly, and the insulin response was significantly blunted (a bad outcome).
To be continued…
Read more at http://www.brianpeskin.com
We will look at three of the most egregious claims by fish oil advocates. There are many more, but let’s focus on these three claims, and then the true data:
Fish oil helps give you the long-chain fats in which you are deficient.
EFA derivatives (like DHA/EPA) are normally made in extremely small percentages by a human being.1,2,3 Scientists at the USDA used very precise analysis to measure and discovered only 0.05% of ALA was converted to DHA and only 0.2% of ALA was converted to EPA. However, fish oil gives you 20x–500x the amounts of DHA/ EPA—its active components—that your body would naturally produce on its own.
These are supra-physiologic amounts and reason for great concern. Contrary to popular belief, highly accurate current analysis shows the average person (even babies) is able to convert ALA (parent omega-3) into EFA derivatives without problem.4,5,6,7
To be continued…
Learn more at http://www.brianpeskin.com
This is written for that strong, hardcore scientist that lives among us—the person who is not swayed by hype or marketing. This is the person who asks the hard questions, and doesn’t stop digging and prodding until the truth is uncovered. This is the person who asks the simple question, “How could this work be based on the science that we already know?” Are you that rare person that wants the science, and nothing but the science? If so, please read on.
Fish oil manufacturers and their advocates have claimed many things that fish oil accomplishes when included in your daily regimen. Our purpose is not to address each claim made by fish oil advocates since that will be a never-ending exercise in futility. Each time one outlandish claim is exposed, another will appear in its place. Instead, the approach we will employ is to enumerate the obvious problems in fish oil consumption by humans based solely on the biochemistry and physiology of the human being. Have you ever wondered why a human would suffer from a fish oil deficiency?
To be continued…
Learn much more about fish oil, cancer prevention, parent essential fatty acids and more at http://www.brianpeskin.com
Fish oil use has many advocates and a ridiculous number of studies that apparently support the use of fish oil prophylactically, as well as to treat a laundry list of ailments.
Are over 15,000 studies showing the miraculous benefits of fish oil enough? It doesn’t look like it since countless more fish oil studies are continuously being conducted. Do you get the impression they are “trying a little too hard”? The eminent physician/statistician John Ioannidis, MD, DSc, heading Stanford University’s Preventive Research Center, has voiced his concern on more than one occasion.
Simply put, high numbers of “studies” alone can never be substituted for the incontrovertible proof and consistency that is required and exists in the hard sciences. Science is not swayed by the latest fad or poorly conceived study. However, medical scientists are human, and as such suffer from normal human weaknesses. They want to find a solution to the myriad of medical problems facing all of us today, and for the most part, want to help those around them.
Unfortunately, in their zeal to advance science, they all too often inadvertently compromise the scientific standards that have stood for centuries.
Always remember to distinguish the often inflated, well-intentioned latest findings from the unwavering rock-solid science that is at the core of the uncompromising scientist.
To be continued…
“Contrary to popular belief, fish oil is scientifically proven only to cause pharmacological overdoses to blood plasma DHA/EPA levels. IF these overdoses were anything good, one would certainly see the supposed positive enhanced “brain effects” and positive cardiovascular/anti-cancer effects were quickly. This October 2010 Wall Street Journal article shows fish oil failure once again…..pregnant women should not consume fish oil unless they wish a caesarean section. Again, would a proper nutritional supplement be excellent for both mom-to-be and baby-to-be? Of course, it should. Fish oil is out once again…..”
By SHIRLEY S. WANG
Fish-oil supplements don’t appear to help pregnant women prevent post-partum depression or boost the baby’s brain development as previously believed, according to a large trial published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The 2,400-woman, randomized study complicates the advice for pregnant women. It adds to a body of mixed research on some potential benefits of the popular omega-3 fatty acid known as DHA, or docosahexaenoic acid. DHA, which can move from the mother to the baby during pregnancy, accumulates in the brain and is thought to be involved in helping brain cells communicate.
In general, for healthy women with normal pregnancies, “[DHA] supplementation will actually not give you a huge benefit in terms of neurodevelopmental outcomes and reducing depressive symptoms,” said Maria Makrides, an author on the study and deputy director of the Women’s and Children’s Health Research Institute in North Adelaide, Australia.
The results are “disappointing,” said Emily Oken, a professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, who wrote an editorial to accompany the paper but wasn’t involved in the study. But “it doesn’t mean we should give up on fish or fish oil during pregnancy,” she said.
Several previous studies have shown that eating fish during pregnancy helped in the baby’s brain development and in reducing the risk of post-partum depression. That research, however, typically didn’t involve randomized, controlled studies. Instead, women were asked whether or not they chose to eat fish during pregnancy.
It could be the case that eating fish is better than taking fish-oil supplements or that women who opt to eat fish are generally healthier and engage in other health-promoting behaviors, Dr. Oken said. The few trials conducted that separated participants, into a group taking fish-oil supplements and another that didn’t, weren’t well done, because the women often knew if they were getting the supplement, and in some cases there wasn’t a comparison group at all, she said.
The latest study does suggest that some subgroups of women might benefit from fish-oil supplements. For instance, those with a history of clinical depression—and thus are at higher risk of post-partum depression—who took 800 milligrams [bp NOTE: still a tremendous amount and results would show ….IF it worked, that is] of fish oil daily lowered their risk of getting depressed after the birth by about 4% compared with those who didn’t take fish oil.
However, the difference wasn’t statistically significant [bp NOTE: that is WRONG — IF it really worked only a small number are needed!] because of the small number of women in the study who had been previously depressed, said Dr. Makrides, who is also a professor of human nutrition at the University of Adelaide.
Women in the fish-oil group had lower rates of pre-term births, particularly births earlier than 34 weeks of gestation. But, there was a trade-off: More women who took the supplement needed their labor to be induced or had caesarean sections because the babies stayed in the womb longer,[bp NOTE: an awful effect!] said Dr. Makrides.
Additional research is needed to study the benefits of targeting DHA supplements to women with a history of depression or who previously had a premature baby, according to Dr. Makrides. However, all pregnant women should strive for balance [bp NOTE: weasel words] and eat a variety of foods, including fish, she said.
Omega-3 fatty acids are the fourth most common supplement after multivitamins, calcium and vitamin C, according to the Council for Responsible Nutrition, an industry trade group.
Other health benefits have been attributed to omega-3s. Research suggests they lower triglyceride fat levels [bp NOTE: irrelevant!] and are likely helpful [bp NOTE: great wording…. more weasel words] in preventing heart disease, according to the National Institutes of Health. There is some evidence [bp NOTE: i have some evidence that gravity pulls you UP….., too.] omega-3s also may help decrease blood pressure, improve thinking in kids with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, help with weight loss and reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. Fish oil doesn’t seem to help lower blood sugar for diabetics, however, and there isn’t enough research to conclude effectiveness for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, irregular heart beat and cancer, according to the NIH. [bp NOTE: jesus….help all the poor misled people ……]
The major metabolic route of ALA (parent omega-3) in the body is beta-oxidation. This means that parent omega-3 is mainly burned for energy – not incorporated into cellular structure or used for derivatives – your body requires very little and will attempt to remove an excess if it can. ONLY VERY LITTLE PARENT OMEGA-3 IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER CELL MEMBRANE STRUCTURE. However, if you are “overdosing” from supplements, based on incorrect advice [which is MOST of the current advice on the market], the excess will be forced into the cell structure as the “Lipids 2000” medical journal states:
“Linoleic acid (LA parent omega-6 FA) accumulates throughout the body of most mammals, whereas alpha-linolenic acid [ALA parent omega-3] is rarely found in those tissues to the same extent as LA”, “Increased alpha-linolenic acid [parent omega-3] intake increases tissue alpha-linolenic content [parent omega-3]” (Lipids 2000 Apr; 35(4):395-400.
This will NEGATIVELY IMPACT your cancer defense.
ALA accumultes in specific sites in the body of mammals, and only a small portion of dietary ALA is converted to DHA (Sinclair, A.J., et al., “What is the role of alpha-linolenic acid for mammals,” Lipids 2002 Dec;37(12):113-23).
The next piece of shocking information is from the “PUFA Newsletter”. “Alpha-Linolenic Acid Conversion Revisted” by Norman Salem et al., states,
“A recent article in the PUFA [Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid] Newsletter indicated that in adult men and women the ‘average estimated conversion of … alpha-linolenic acid to n-3-LC-PUFA metabolites and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] was 17.3 +/- 12.8 and 3.6 +/- 3.8 percent, respectively (mean + SD)’. This is likely to be an OVERESTIMATE of the actual overall conversion rates for several reasons. We see even with this excessive estimate of the parent omega-3 derivative conersion that theoretically no more than 37% of them are converted to derivatives.”
The article makes the case that in reality only about 5% of the parent ALA [omega-]) is converted into derivatives. Pawlosky and others calculate that less than a mere 1% goes to derivatives. The article ends with, “The best estimates of alpha-linolenic acid conversion to n-3 LC-PUFA are much smaller than those claimed…”
Omega-6 conversion is also overstated:
“… Linking LA and AA in this way also implies a direct conversion of LA [parent omega-6] to AA [omega-6 derivative] which is not the case. In fact, a very high dietary LA will reduce membrane AA [the opposite effect!].” Note: This is why it was reported in the article by S. Bunting, s. Moncada, and J.R. Vane, titled “Prostacyclin – Thromboxane A2 Balance: Pathophysiological and Terapeutic Implications,” ‘British Medical Journal’, (1983)Vo.39, No.3, pages 271-276, that “AA in the phospholipids of Eskimo [consuming lots of parent omega-6] is approximately ONE-THIRD of that in Danes.”
The above quote was taken from Crawford, M.A., “Commentary on the workshop statement. Essentiality of and recommended dietary intakes for Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids,” in ‘Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty acids 2000 Sep;63(3):131-4.
Here is the takehome to all the science above:
TOO MUCH OMEGA-3, OMEGA DERIVATIVES, OR DEFECTIVE EFAS RUIN THE CELL MEMBRANE STRUCTURE AND MINIMIZE YOUR LEVEL OF ANTICANCER PROTECTION.
Remember your goal is to MAXIMIZE the cell membrane structure so that the cells can remain fully oxygenated (cellular oxygenation), thus preventing a drop in cellular oxygenation of 30% which is the threshhold that Dr. Otto Warburg showed over and over again that healthy cells convert to cancer cells and cannot be reconverted.
So… when you are supplementing with Parent Essential Oils, PLEASE be sure you find a blend with the PROPER balance of Omega-6 and Omega-3 (2.5:1 to 1:1) or you could inevitably be negatively affecting your health and cancer prevention.
You can read more about this in much more detail in my book, “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, which can be ordered through the following website: http://www.brianpeskin.com.
Did you know that your brain is 60% fat? Much of it is supposed to be EFA-based. With a potential EFA deficiency solved (and I talk about this in my books), your brain will run with maximum speed, better focus, better clarity and improved memory.
It is expected, although we have not proven, that Alzheimer’s occurrences would decrease if EFA deficiencies were eliminated.
ADD and ADHD have become rampant illnesses with no end in sight. A significent number of ADD children (40%) had significant deficiencies of EFAs as measured in their blood in studies*.
Children with attention issues have been seen to improve dramatically when their diets are supplemented with the correct blend of omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids (2.5:1 to 1:1)
It makes good sense to have the correct combination of parent essential oils in your body as high as you possibly can for the best health in all respcts.
Read more at http://www.brianpeskin.com today or pick up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, or “The 24-Hour Diet” today.
* “Attention Please,”, by Rafael Avila, ‘Energy Times’, December 1996, pages 52-58, published in the ‘American Journal of Clinical Nutrition’.