Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Celeste: Consistently, you seem enamored with mainstream dogma. However, I still ask: Why should anyone listen to the opinions of the AHA? These are the people who lead us into the saturated fats scare and told us that hydrogenated fats were good for us. Generally, they are about twenty years behind the most current information. My opinion is that our health would take a giant step if the AMA, AHA, and all of the government agencies that support them such as the FDA were abolished. Having read your opinions over the last several months, I am beginning to think that you must work for one of them. a1thighmaster wrote: > The following article is from the October 2005 issue of " Nutrition > Action Healthletter " (published by Center for Science in the Public > Interest). > > Best regards, > Celeste > > The hook: Iceland Health Maximum Strength Omega-3 fish oil is > recommended by the American Heart Association, and studies have proven > that it prevents heart attacks and strokes, cleans out arterial plaque, > and prevents blood from clotting in the heart, according to the ad in > USA Today > > The truth: Maximum Strength Omega-3 isn't recommended by the Heart > Association, and it hasn't been tested in any scientific studies. > > How does a company persuade consumers to pay 10 times more than > comparable brands for its fish oil pills? By naming its product > " Omega-3 " and trying to make it look like all the excitement over > omega-3 fatty acids is really about its own Omega-3. And, of course, by > exaggerating what fish oil can do. > > The two main omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, eicosapentaenoic acid > (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), appear to reduce the risk of dying > from sudden cardiac arrest by about 30 percent. Beyond that, there's no > good evidence that they clean out arterial plaque, prevent strokes, or > stop blood from clotting in the heart. Ditto for conferring more energy, > better sleep, or improved memory. > > The American Heart Association does suggest that heart patients discuss > with their physicians taking fish oil pills if they can't eat fatty fish > regularly. But the AHA doesn't recommend Iceland Health's oil. The > company, in its USA Today ad, even doctored a quote from the Archives of > Internal Medicine, making it look like the prestigious medical journal > was talking about Iceland Health's product, when it was only referring > to fish oils in general. > > The only thing that's " Maximum Strength " about Iceland Health fish pills > is its price. The dosage recommended on the bottle--500 milligrams of > DHA and EPA combined--is only about half of what experts recommend to > protect the heart. Yet a month's supply costs $50, plus $10 shipping and > handling. A comparable amount of Natrol Omega-3 purified fish oil, for > example, costs about $4. > > Fish oil may be good for your heart, but you can throw Iceland Health > back overboard. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Hi: In the March 23, 2005 Journal of Neuroscience, Greg Cole and Team at UCLA report that Alzheimer's-susceptible mice fed diets high in DHA had only 30% of the level of deposits of beta amyloid compared to mice fed low levels of DHA. In addition, UCLA Neurosurgery professor Gomez-Pinilla in his experiments with rats found recently that " Eating a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids could have some of the same [neurological] effects as exercise. " The rats fed Omega-3 had higher brain concentrations of the protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). The rats performed better in maze tests and in recovering from head trauma, as measured by maze tests and levels of BDNF in controlled studies. Although I agree that Iceland Health's claims that their particular brand of Omega-3 is good enough to warrant the exaggerated price, it is usually wise to also question the contrary claims of avowed debunkers, who always exaggerate in the opposite direction. At 06:55 PM 6/4/2006, you wrote: >The following article is from the October 2005 issue of " Nutrition >Action Healthletter " (published by Center for Science in the Public >Interest). > >Best regards, >Celeste > >The hook: Iceland Health Maximum Strength Omega-3 fish oil is >recommended by the American Heart Association, and studies have proven >that it prevents heart attacks and strokes, cleans out arterial plaque, >and prevents blood from clotting in the heart, according to the ad in >USA Today > >The truth: Maximum Strength Omega-3 isn't recommended by the Heart >Association, and it hasn't been tested in any scientific studies. > >How does a company persuade consumers to pay 10 times more than >comparable brands for its fish oil pills? By naming its product > " Omega-3 " and trying to make it look like all the excitement over >omega-3 fatty acids is really about its own Omega-3. And, of course, by >exaggerating what fish oil can do. > >The two main omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, eicosapentaenoic acid >(EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), appear to reduce the risk of dying >from sudden cardiac arrest by about 30 percent. Beyond that, there's no >good evidence that they clean out arterial plaque, prevent strokes, or >stop blood from clotting in the heart. Ditto for conferring more energy, >better sleep, or improved memory. > >The American Heart Association does suggest that heart patients discuss >with their physicians taking fish oil pills if they can't eat fatty fish >regularly. But the AHA doesn't recommend Iceland Health's oil. The >company, in its USA Today ad, even doctored a quote from the Archives of >Internal Medicine, making it look like the prestigious medical journal >was talking about Iceland Health's product, when it was only referring >to fish oils in general. > >The only thing that's " Maximum Strength " about Iceland Health fish pills >is its price. The dosage recommended on the bottle--500 milligrams of >DHA and EPA combined--is only about half of what experts recommend to >protect the heart. Yet a month's supply costs $50, plus $10 shipping and >handling. A comparable amount of Natrol Omega-3 purified fish oil, for >example, costs about $4. > >Fish oil may be good for your heart, but you can throw Iceland Health >back overboard. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Jim, It looks like you got hung up on some details and missed the point of the article. Also, I didn't realize that prejudice was required here or that there is some sort of " party line " that we must adhere to on this list. Best regards, Celeste Jim wrote: > I still ask: Why should anyone listen to the opinions of the AHA? These > are the people who lead us into the saturated fats scare and told us that > hydrogenated fats were good for us. Generally, they are about twenty > years behind the most current information. My opinion is that our health > would take a giant step if the AMA, AHA, and all of the government > agencies that support them such as the FDA > were abolished. > > Celeste wrote: > > The following article is from the October 2005 issue of " Nutrition > > Action Healthletter " (published by Center for Science in the Public > > Interest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Celeste: The 'article' was not my problem. I am sure that many in this group understand that. We just see things from a very different viewpoint and obviously the 'facts' that attract our attention are quite different. I read Drs. 's & . West's newletters and books written by people like Drs. Wallach, Max Gerson, and Flanagan who are more concerned with empirical results and you read mainstream articles written by mouth pieces of AMA, FDA and similar organizations.who rely on an evolved theory and often biased studies designed to prove their supposedly rational point of view. a1thighmaster wrote: > Jim, > > It looks like you got hung up on some details and missed the point of > the article. Also, I didn't realize that prejudice was required here > or that there is some sort of " party line " that we must adhere to on > this list. > > Best regards, > Celeste > > Jim wrote: > > I still ask: Why should anyone listen to the opinions of the AHA? These > > are the people who lead us into the saturated fats scare and told us > that > > hydrogenated fats were good for us. Generally, they are about twenty > > years behind the most current information. My opinion is that our health > > would take a giant step if the AMA, AHA, and all of the government > > agencies that support them such as the FDA > > were abolished. > > > > Celeste wrote: > > > The following article is from the October 2005 issue of " Nutrition > > > Action Healthletter " (published by Center for Science in the Public > > > Interest). > > > > > > > > Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but > under no circumstances should any information published here be > considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified > physician. -the owner > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 I think it's important to continually note, until everybody knows it, that flax oil's omega-3 is NOT converted to DHA or EPA in significant amounts, and that it apparently has NO OTHER FUNCTION in the body than that tiny conversion. I coach my clients to make sure they get adequate EPA and DHA. I'm not buying into the krill oil; we have very good omega-3 supplements on the shelves already that are made from existing waste streams, so we don't need to also mine out the bottom of our food chain. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 I'm not familiar with any of the names you've mentioned, but if they are concerned with empirical results then I will try to find some of their articles. Mostly I'm concerned with results from carefully controlled clinical trails on human beings. I think I know what I can and can't trust from any particular source. I do not trust everything. And I do know what works best for me. I have too often been burned by alternative practitioners . . . much more often than by mainstream practitioners. I think it's probably because alternative medicine is not well regulated (or, worse yet, not regulated at all) so it's difficult to find good and scrupulous practitioners. Best regards, Celeste Jim wrote: > We just see things from a very different viewpoint and obviously the > 'facts' that attract > our attention are quite different. I read Drs. 's & . West's > newletters > and books written by people like Drs. Wallach, Max Gerson, and > Flanagan who > are more concerned with empirical results and you read mainstream > articles written by > mouth pieces of AMA, FDA and similar organizations.who rely on an > evolved theory > and often biased studies designed to prove their supposedly rational > point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 The Center for Science in the Public Interest is right about some things, but really off base most of the time. They attack coconut oil and omega 3, two healthy fats, and push dangerous vegetable oils and a dangerous high carbohydrate diet on their website. I wonder how much the director of teh " non-profit " makes? Hans On Jun 4, 2006, at 7:55 PM, a1thighmaster wrote: > The following article is from the October 2005 issue of " Nutrition > Action Healthletter " (published by Center for Science in the Public > Interest). > > Best regards, > Celeste > > The hook: Iceland Health Maximum Strength Omega-3 fish oil is > recommended by the American Heart Association, and studies have proven > that it prevents heart attacks and strokes, cleans out arterial > plaque, > and prevents blood from clotting in the heart, according to the ad in > USA Today > > The truth: Maximum Strength Omega-3 isn't recommended by the Heart > Association, and it hasn't been tested in any scientific studies. > > How does a company persuade consumers to pay 10 times more than > comparable brands for its fish oil pills? By naming its product > " Omega-3 " and trying to make it look like all the excitement over > omega-3 fatty acids is really about its own Omega-3. And, of course, > by > exaggerating what fish oil can do. > > The two main omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, eicosapentaenoic acid > (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), appear to reduce the risk of > dying > from sudden cardiac arrest by about 30 percent. Beyond that, there's > no > good evidence that they clean out arterial plaque, prevent strokes, or > stop blood from clotting in the heart. Ditto for conferring more > energy, > better sleep, or improved memory. > > The American Heart Association does suggest that heart patients > discuss > with their physicians taking fish oil pills if they can't eat fatty > fish > regularly. But the AHA doesn't recommend Iceland Health's oil. The > company, in its USA Today ad, even doctored a quote from the Archives > of > Internal Medicine, making it look like the prestigious medical journal > was talking about Iceland Health's product, when it was only referring > to fish oils in general. > > The only thing that's " Maximum Strength " about Iceland Health fish > pills > is its price. The dosage recommended on the bottle--500 milligrams of > DHA and EPA combined--is only about half of what experts recommend to > protect the heart. Yet a month's supply costs $50, plus $10 shipping > and > handling. A comparable amount of Natrol Omega-3 purified fish oil, for > example, costs about $4. > > Fish oil may be good for your heart, but you can throw Iceland Health > back overboard. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Hi: Then, I assume you also believe that eggs with Omega 3 from chickens fed flax oil provides little beneficial Omega 3 as well? ...or is there a conversion process in the chicken that makes the EPA and DHA more available for those that consume such eggs? At 10:25 AM 6/6/2006, you wrote: >I think it's important to continually note, until everybody knows it, >that flax oil's omega-3 is NOT converted to DHA or EPA in significant >amounts, and that it apparently has NO OTHER FUNCTION in the body than >that tiny conversion. > >I coach my clients to make sure they get adequate EPA and DHA. I'm not >buying into the krill oil; we have very good omega-3 supplements on >the shelves already that are made from existing waste streams, so we >don't need to also mine out the bottom of our food chain. > >Duncan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Which " dangerous " high-carbohydrate diet does CSPI " push " ? I have not visited their web site. Best regards, Celeste Hans Conser wrote: > The Center for Science in the Public Interest is right about some > things, but really off base most of the time. They attack coconut oil > and omega 3, two healthy fats, and push dangerous vegetable oils and a > dangerous high carbohydrate diet on their website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 > Brown wrote: > is > there a conversion process in the chicken that makes the EPA and > DHA more available for those that consume such eggs? ... Right, some animals are btter at converting the useless omega-3 linolenic acid into the more useful DHA and EPA. Omega-3 eggs contain lots of EPA and DHA, although they aren't fed it. Similarly, cows milk also contains EPA and DHA, although they are not fed it. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 > Celeste " a1thighmaster " <thighmaster@...> wrote: > > Which " dangerous " high-carbohydrate diet does CSPI " push " ? I have not > visited their web site. > > Best regards, > Celeste Celeste, I agree with Hans. CSPI information is often wrong, sloppy, skewed, or all three on key points (cholesterol, carbs, oils); a tainted site such as this one is not a good source of information, and the deeper you dig the more it looks like an opinion/agenda site, which we as a rule avoid unless we go in ready for such deception. I did a google keyword search on the CSPI site thusly: site:cspinet.org carbohydrate diet In the listings that come up you find, on the page that critiques several popular diets http://www.cspinet.org/nah/5_00/diet.htm that with the comment " too low in whole grains " . We know that provided the balance is otherwise there, a diet without whole grains and other overt carb sources is healthier than one with; however the diet that promotes pasta whole grains and cereal gets higher marks from CSPI. Duncan > > Hans Conser wrote: > > The Center for Science in the Public Interest is right about some > > things, but really off base most of the time. They attack coconut oil > > and omega 3, two healthy fats, and push dangerous vegetable oils and a > > dangerous high carbohydrate diet on their website. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 For an active person I would agree with including more grains as carbohydrate sources. There's nothing " dangerous " about it. Duncan Crow wrote: > In the listings that come up you find, on the page that critiques > several popular diets http://www.cspinet.org/nah/5_00/diet.htm that > with the comment " too low in whole grains " . We know that provided the > balance is otherwise there, a diet without whole grains and other > overt carb sources is healthier than one with; however the diet that > promotes pasta whole grains and cereal gets higher marks from CSPI. > > Celeste wrote: > > Which " dangerous " high-carbohydrate diet does CSPI " push " ? I have not > > visited their web site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 > > Posted by: " a1thighmaster " thighmaster@... a1thighmaster > Date: Thu Jun 8, 2006 9:38 am (PDT) > > For an active person I would agree with including more grains as > carbohydrate sources. There's nothing " dangerous " about it. > You might feel that all those nice carbohydrate dishes might not be as dangerous to you personally as to the overweight half of the population, but in the the long run the glycation that carbs cause is dangerous enough to possibly kill you in the end, particularly if you are planning a degree of longevity. And you are on a longevity list. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.