|
[ Essential Fatty Acids Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Did anyone see the story during the holidays on a study about eating fish? The study showed:
> eating fish just a few times a month is enough to get all the benefits.
> Eating tuna was just as beneficial as other fish (which suprised me)
If all this is true, would there by any reason for daily fish oil supplmts?
Thanks for your thots.
In Reply to: Recent News Item > posted by PeterB on January 03, 2003 at 12:22:25:
There is for me, Peter. I hate fish. The thought of eating food items that have been soaking in a toxic marinade really turns me off. When I see a restaurant advertising seafood, I go the other way. I walk double time through the seafood section of the local market. In the case of seafood, processing makes sense--process the oils from the toxins. The only fish I am likely to eat is an itty-bitty native trout from a stream atop the great divide.
In Reply to: Recent News Item > posted by PeterB on January 03, 2003 at 12:22:25:
What else is new? :D
I think both this country and this board believe too much in supplements, fish oil included. In my opinion, eating fish is far better than taking fish oil. Anything that's processed, denatured, and isolated from its natural state is not as healthy as whole foods. Law of nature? Perhaps.
To cris: why does fish have to be marinated in toxins? You can easily get fresh salmon and trout (the only non-frozen seafood available) and prepare them yourself WITHOUT any toxins. Squeeze some lemon/lime on the fish--that's one of the best marinate.
In Reply to: Re: Recent News Item > posted by cris on January 03, 2003 at 16:37:50:
thanks Chris, i was more wondering about the frequency since the study contradicted the usual recommendation we get to consume fish once or twice a week. This result says 2-3 times a month is enough. Anyway, I relate on the "taste" issue, however I have changed quite a bit since I was in my 20's. I now enjoy salmon, tuna, mahi mahi, tilapia and orange roughy. We always had perch and halibut when I was a kid, and I still don't care for them. Too fishy for my taste.
In Reply to: Re: Recent News Item > posted by bing on January 03, 2003 at 17:00:22:
bing, you wouldn't want to think of fish oil as denatured because it isn't processed, just EXTRACTED. Its a 100% naturally-occuring fatty acid complex unique to the fish it came from. My question, though, was more about the frequency of consumption, whether in supplement form or otherwise. I'm debating cutting back in light of the study. Of course, it's just one study, but it seemed very convincing.
In Reply to: Recent News Item > posted by PeterB on January 03, 2003 at 12:22:25:
When I spoke of a marinade of toxins, I was referring to the oceans, rivers and lakes, full of human and animal excrement and industrial runoff.
In Reply to: Re: Recent News Item > posted by cris on January 03, 2003 at 20:38:32:
Got it. I wouldn't worry about the "human and animal excrement" part as much as the "industrial runoff," and try not to think too much about this. Otherwise there would be nothing left that's safe enough to eat.
In Reply to: Re: Recent News Item > posted by bing on January 03, 2003 at 17:00:22:
Hi, Bing.
Remember LeChatelier's Principle (the basis of Orthomolecular Medicine). There is a big difference between the nutritional levels of nutrients and the therapeutic levels (pharmacologic). One would have to eat mountains of fish to get anywhere near the therapeutic levels in less than many years.
Wal;t
In Reply to: Re: Recent News Item > LECHATELEIR'S PRINCIPLE (Archive in EFAs.) posted by Walt Stoll on January 04, 2003 at 10:09:11:
Walt,
If there were any significant difference between you philosophy and mine, this would be it: the use of supplements to promote health. I'm not familiar with LeChatelier, nor his principle (I'll do a search on them later). But I do believe disease can be cured through food (and the other "legs") instead of using supplements. People have been doing that for thousands of years, and still doing it. Even in this country, some people have realized the benefits of food-cure and started practicing it, with remarkable success. (see Paul Pitchford "Healing with Whole Foods")
The problem with supplements or any concentrates(like what you said about mountains of fish) is similar to the allopathic approach to health, although as a milder version--aiming at one aspect of the issue instead of an attempt to bring an overall harmonious balance to the bodymind.
The other problem is people become dependent on it, even after they are cured of the illness. So tablets, capsules, and concentrates etc become part of the daily diet of the average person--an idea I can't accept. A healthy body is able to absorb every nutrient needed from the food, water, air, sunlight, etc. To fool our body with processed extracts sounds too alienated from nature, and therefore, unhealthy. JMHO.
In Reply to: Challenging the patriarch--the real master ;) posted by bing on January 04, 2003 at 21:47:15:
bing, whole food supplements can be used to augment the diet and compensate for the lack of nutrients in stale agriculture grown in depleted soils. Things have changed in the last 100 years. A LOT.
In Reply to: Challenging the patriarch--the real master ;) posted by bing on January 04, 2003 at 21:47:15:
Thanks, Bing!
I enjoy a challenge. Let me know what you learn from LeChatelier's Principle. The human genome project has proven how widely humans differ in their needs for different nutrients and more is learned every day.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Challenging the patriarch--the real master ;) posted by PeterB on January 04, 2003 at 23:42:45:
Peter, I think the whole idea organic farming is to restore the soil into its rich, fertile state so the soil is not depleted in microorganisms and minerals and other soil nutrients. So, yes, I agree that "things have changed in the last 100 years. A LOL." But for the last 30 years, organic farming has been prospering. THAY is making a big difference.
In Reply to: Re: Challenging the patriarch--the real master ;)--depleted soils posted by bing on January 05, 2003 at 21:10:49:
i'm not aware what organic farmers do to mineralize soil or how their produce would compare with crops 100 yrs ago. Let us know if you have more details on this.
In Reply to: Re: Challenging the patriarch--the real master ;)--depleted soils posted by PeterB on January 06, 2003 at 12:07:31:
I don't know exactly what organic farmers do in this country do, but I do know that adding organic matters/compost/green fertilizer to the soil can make it rich, fertile, and "alive" with living organisms, all of which benefit the crops like miracles. That's what farmers had been doing for thousands of years before chemical farming took over. You don't need to "mineralize" the soil since soil and rocks ARE made of different minerals.
In Reply to: Re: Challenging the patriarch--the real master ;)--depleted soils posted by bing on January 06, 2003 at 14:46:53:
of course, even if soil treatment on organic farms produces a product nutritionally equivalent to those of a hundred yrs ago, the question remains as to whether the delays in shipping and consumption diminish that quality. Another question is whether supplements can make up the shortfall.
|
[ Essential Fatty Acids Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |