Supplments

[jamiedolan]

HI,

I've been reading alot about supplments. I realized that I have some supplments that were given to me recently, (they are fresh, only a few weeks old and brand new) I have:

Magnesium Chloride in a liquid form.
Vitimin D3
Salmon Oil Caps
B Complex

I normally only take a regular D vitimin and melatonin as supplments. I am strongly considering adding in the addition supplments I found, espically the magnesium after reading the chaper about it in PP.

What do you think?

Jamie

[gitfiddle]

Jamie, I've loaned my PP book out, but I'm sure the suggestion was for chelated magnesium, which is more easily absorbed and not so likely to cause "gastric discomfort". The chelated versions are labeled with an "-ate" at the end. Magnesium Citrate, Maleate, Asperate, etc. (your spelling may vary)

Magnesium Oxide is the typical grocery store offering and I've never had any experience with Magnesium Chloride.

[LisaS]

can't beat the price. I'd say give them a go. the salmon caps might not be the same EFA/DHA amounts that you'd get in other fish oils but it will be more than you had yesterday, right? On the Mg - I think if you are getting liquid, choride will be one of your only choices and it's probably fine. Again - more than you were taking yesterday, right?

[maxlharris]

The specific recommendation in PP(LP) is for magnesium malate. Also, all minerals should be chelated, for better/easier digestion. Also, no iron in your multi. It has been discussed that Mg citrate is acceptable, since malate can be hard to find without internet shopping. I do not know why malate was the recommendation and not just any old chelation, but that's what was in the book (If I recall correctly). As to the value of Mg Chloride, I can't say one way or the other.

On the Salmon Oil, the research is that you want it for the DHA and EPA. Some research suggests you want 3g of some combination of DHA and EPA daily. Other research suggests less. Other research suggests more. Unless you eat fish regularly (or grass fed beef, eggs, etc) you probably haven't seen anything like this level. A note here about botanical sources: They provide ALA, which your body can convert to DHA and EPA. But, the conversion rates are bad to terrible... 2-15%, depending on what, I have no idea. So, it's better to get from sources high in DHA/EPA. Like fish oil. And Krill oil. Probably whale meat and dolphin too (hard to get in the US, easier in Japan, at least on the whale). At any rate, I wouldn't recommend going over 3g combined, all sources, if you take aspirin or warfarin.

[Songwriter]

Good likelihood the products are cheap. Meaning of questionable value. The salmon oil, Dr. Eades recommends biting into any fish oil every week or so to test to see if it is rancid. He says if it is rancid, you will know. If it's good, it will taste somewhat fishy but not yucky.

If you do use them, once you buy again, IMO, you are best served buying high-quality stuff. Meaning not cheap.

Until the dust settles and I come to a safer understanding of the mercury problem in fish, my next purchase after I run out of fish oil will be krill oil.

[jamiedolan]

The specific recommendation in PP(LP) is for magnesium malate. Also, all minerals should be chelated, for better/easier digestion. Also, no iron in your multi. It has been discussed that Mg citrate is acceptable, since malate can be hard to find without internet shopping. I do not know why malate was the recommendation and not just any old chelation, but that's what was in the book (If I recall correctly). As to the value of Mg Chloride, I can't say one way or the other.

On the Salmon Oil, the research is that you want it for the DHA and EPA. Some research suggests you want 3g of some combination of DHA and EPA daily. Other research suggests less. Other research suggests more. Unless you eat fish regularly (or grass fed beef, eggs, etc) you probably haven't seen anything like this level. A note here about botanical sources: They provide ALA, which your body can convert to DHA and EPA. But, the conversion rates are bad to terrible... 2-15%, depending on what, I have no idea. So, it's better to get from sources high in DHA/EPA. Like fish oil. And Krill oil. Probably whale meat and dolphin too (hard to get in the US, easier in Japan, at least on the whale). At any rate, I wouldn't recommend going over 3g combined, all sources, if you take aspirin or warfarin.

I don't eat much fish. I just don't care for the taste. 90%+ of my meat is from grass fed sources. So it should be higher in omgea 3 than most peoples meat.

I don't take ASA or warfarin, but I do take 1,000 to 1,500mg of Naproxen a day.

I took like 5 grams a day of omega 3 for a little while in liquid form, but stoped because I just could not stand it. It was a mix of fish oil and flax, but I think it was primarly flax. I remember my doctor thinking that 5 grams was a little high, but when I told him a lot of it was from flax, he didn't seem nearly as concerned. So I know that conversion issue you talk about is deffinatly something that affects things if you use flax.

I remember a study, maybe onthe mayo clinic site that looked at people using 5 grams a day of fish oil from triglicrides with very good results...

Thanks
Jamie

[jamiedolan]

Good likelihood the products are cheap. Meaning of questionable value. The salmon oil, Dr. Eades recommends biting into any fish oil every week or so to test to see if it is rancid. He says if it is rancid, you will know. If it's good, it will taste somewhat fishy but not yucky.

If you do use them, once you buy again, IMO, you are best served buying high-quality stuff. Meaning not cheap.

Until the dust settles and I come to a safer understanding of the mercury problem in fish, my next purchase after I run out of fish oil will be krill oil.

What brand of Fish oil do you perfer? Do you foresee any problems with the krill oil? Isn't there an issue of possiably getting too much vitimin A from Krill oil or am I thinking of something else?

I belive that Barleans makes a very good quality products, any thought on them?

Jamie

[LisaS]

you have to read dosage recommendations from various articles on fish oil VERY carefully - many times the dosage will tell you 6-10g meaning 6-10g worth of capsules, not 6-10g of actual EPA+DHA.

I think it is better to find a recommendation based on the actual EPA + DHA and then check your source's dose to see how much to take to get that.

--
re Vit A - I think it is cod liver oily you are thinking of that is a natural Vit A source not the krill oil.

[Songwriter]

What brand of Fish oil do you perfer? Do you foresee any problems with the krill oil? Isn't there an issue of possiably getting too much vitimin A from Krill oil or am I thinking of something else?

I belive that Barleans makes a very good quality products, any thought on them?

Jamie

I don't know anything about Barlean's but the one I saw at vitacost is orange flavor and the spec list looks good. The one I have been taking is made by Melaleuca and it has polyphenols in it, too and it has a nice flavor. But I'm about to switch to one made by Formor that is Omega 3-6-9 blend. Then I'll add krill oil for a sea-based source.

Dr. Eades has a fish oil on his site, it's probably high quality.

[LisaS]

just curious - what is making you switch to a 3-6-9 blend of all things?

[goingssh]

So I read recently, can't remember exactly where, I've been reading a lot, that you can only use up to a certain amount of straight DHA/EPA because your body needs certain enzymes to break it down and your body produces those enzymes when it sees ALA (omega 3), since that's what DHA/EPA comes from. Also the conversion rate of ALA to DHA/EPA is highly effected by how much LA (omega 6) you eat, because ALA and LA share the same enzymes and you only have so many of them. So, if this is all true, it seems like it would be important to eat more ALA in ratio to LA, AND then take perhaps a smaller amount of fish oil? Anyone know more details about this?

[maxlharris]

Going:

Better to take what you need in DHA/EPA than worry about ALA/LA balance. Again, the rate of conversion for ALA to DHA/EPA is 2-15%. Even at 15%, to get 3 grams of DHA/EPA you need 20g of ALA. And that's at the ideal conversion rate, assuming you are getting low amounts of LA and keeping your Omega-3:6 ratio in place.

Remember the goldilocks principle: You can have to little and you can have too much. So, if you can only metabolize a certain amount of straight DHA/EPA, what you don't utilize, must not be needed (thoughts of remedial omega-3 consumption to the side). So, why not just take it in the form of fish oil/krill oil?

[dvdmon]

Remember the goldilocks principle: You can have to little and you can have too much.

There is also this alternate theory that we only need very small, perhaps even no O-3 or O-6, and that our bodies produce an analogue called mead oil, when it is needed. Or at least that we need only very small amounts of O3/O6, and that many of the studies done that show improved health with added O3 are simply due to it counteracting some of the harm that O-6 does, but that an overall decrease in both will actually be just as beneficial if not more. The theory behind this is that both of these are very unsaturated and unstable oils - we all know how careful we need to be with fish oil (and flax oil) to make sure they don't become rancid. But getting the O6 (as well as some O3) out of the picture would also require us to remove food sources that have any significant amount of PUFA's, and stick to those foods where the fats are primarily MUFA's or SFA's..., which is not easy!

[goingssh]

I certainly agree that it is better to get something you need than not, but I'm always a little leary to jump on whatever the next supplement bandwagon is, one because they're expensive, and two because 5 years later we often find out either that supplement didn't do what it was supposed to or worse, did something bad.

Quick question, are Poly, Mono, and Saturated the only kinds of fats there are? As in if in fitday some food says it has 10g of fat, but the poly, mono, and sat. only add up to 5, does that mean fitday is missing something? I know there can be a lot of rounding error (how hard would it really be for fitday to display things with 1 decimal place? Really?), but sometimes even accounting for that the numbers don't add up...

[dvdmon]

IQuick question, are Poly, Mono, and Saturated the only kinds of fats there are? As in if in fitday some food says it has 10g of fat, but the poly, mono, and sat. only add up to 5, does that mean fitday is missing something? I know there can be a lot of rounding error (how hard would it really be for fitday to display things with 1 decimal place? Really?), but sometimes even accounting for that the numbers don't add up...

Yeah, I don't know. No, if you are counting between types of fat, that's it. Now there are additional levels of course, like short-chain vs. medium chain vs. long chain, as well as specific fatty acids (butyric, lauric, stereic, oleic, etc.), but if you are showing only showing MUFA's, PUFA's, and SFA's, then those are the high-level ones, there wouldn't be any others...

As far as fitday, it's a nice tool to occasionally figure out how much a given food has of a nutrient, but in general for me it's been a dissapointment. I got an account on it back when I started PP back in 2000! I made some suggestions and at the time they even answered me, but really the site's functionality has not changed at all since then. It's as if no one did any work on it in all these years. I would gladly pay a small fee for it if they actually would add some functionality, but whoever owns it instead seems to have put all their resources into developing a stand-alone windows app. That's fine for those who want that, but to totally ignore the web app, I think, was a shame...

[LisaS]

if you look at either nutritiondata.com or the USDA database, for many foods they have the FA breakdown (if you are interested).

[goingssh]

Yeah I've used their web app on and off over the last few years, and I finally got sick of it and bought the stand-alone thing about a month ago, it is definitely much better, but I still want so much more, I think there's a market out there just waiting for something better to come along...

[jamiedolan]

I don't know anything about Barlean's but the one I saw at vitacost is orange flavor and the spec list looks good. The one I have been taking is made by Melaleuca and it has polyphenols in it, too and it has a nice flavor. But I'm about to switch to one made by Formor that is Omega 3-6-9 blend. Then I'll add krill oil for a sea-based source.

Dr. Eades has a fish oil on his site, it's probably high quality.

I found the Barleans Fish oil at a local store today, but the store messed up and had the oil out on there shelf (there distributor said it was OK). It should always be in the refridgerator accourding to Barleans customer service. So I didn't get any to try... I'll have to wait for it in the mail.

I have talked to Barleans at legenth, and I am convinved that it is very high quality. I've been taking a high dose of there total omega the last few days now and I have been feel pretty good. I have not used quite as much naproxed the last couple days. So I think it is helping a bit already.

The Barleans staff has been very kind to me with answering all my oil related questions (we exchanged a number of e-mails yesterday). They are sending me out a sample bottle of there fish oil. If anyone has questions for Barleans, e-mail me and I will send you the contact information for the person I have talked with over there.

[Alex]

There is also this alternate theory that we only need very small, perhaps even no O-3 or O-6, and that our bodies produce an analogue called mead oil, when it is needed. Or at least that we need only very small amounts of O3/O6, and that many of the studies done that show improved health with added O3 are simply due to it counteracting some of the harm that O-6 does, but that an overall decrease in both will actually be just as beneficial if not more. The theory behind this is that both of these are very unsaturated and unstable oils - we all know how careful we need to be with fish oil (and flax oil) to make sure they don't become rancid. But getting the O6 (as well as some O3) out of the picture would also require us to remove food sources that have any significant amount of PUFA's, and stick to those foods where the fats are primarily MUFA's or SFA's..., which is not easy!

I've encountered an anti-PUFA zealot online who claims that there is no need for O3 and O6 and has suggested that grain-fed beef may be superior to grass-fed because it contains more saturated fat. Personally, I avoid modern vegetable oil as much as I can, but I figure that the ubiquity of at least some PUFA in many natural whole foods means that small amounts were part of paleo diets and are therefore a normal part of our natural diet and not something to be fanatically avoided.

[dvdmon]

I've encountered an anti-PUFA zealot online who claims that there is no need for O3 and O6 and has suggested that grain-fed beef may be superior to grass-fed because it contains more saturated fat. Personally, I avoid modern vegetable oil as much as I can, but I figure that the ubiquity of at least some PUFA in many natural whole foods means that small amounts were part of paleo diets and are therefore a normal part of our natural diet and not something to be fanatically avoided.

I agree, Alex, and I think we probably ran into that same Zealot! I ended up leaving his Yahoo! Group because I perceived there was no flexibility (and not a whole lot of civility) in his stance. Still, I think there are questions concerning PUFA's. The main question seems to be (for me), is how far do we go in trying to avoid them. I generally try to opt for beef and lamb when available (although I still continue to get all of our meat that we cook at home from a farmer who raises his cows and exclusively grass-fed diet) and lower-fat fish/shellfish over chicken, pork and fatty fish, but when chicken, pork, or fatty fish are the only choices, I will certainly eat them! I continue to do what I've always done around vegetable oils, except that I've now opted to avoid walnut oil, which has a fair amount of overall PUFA, and instead consume macadamia nut oil with salads (or olive oil when macadamia nut oil isn't available).

I also try to avoid excess fat when eating foods, which is not what I've done in the past. Part of this is because I do still need to lose weight and creating a calorie deficit (even with a metabolic advantage) is sometimes hard for me since I'm not always that active and I'm on the smaller size, so I get to my caloric threshold for losing sooner. The other part, though, is that especially for those meats that have more PUFA's in them (pork and chicken specifically), those PUFA's are going to show up in their most concentrated form in the higher-fat parts - chicken skin and dark meat chicken, fattier cuts of pork, like ribs, sausage, etc.

As far as the whole paleo thing, I think it is a good metaphor for choosing what to eat, but I also have the thought that it may not be everything. I've been a big paleo advocate since reading PPLP, however recently I've just reconsidered it slightly, in the sense that while we evolved to eat this diet, we also evolved primarily to spread our genes (procreate) and perhaps raise our young to a point where they could fend for themselves. Given our biology, this means that we simply needed to stay in good health until, what, our mid-30's give or take? So, perhaps while a paleo-style diet may be good for us until this age, who knows what may be best at advanced ages which evolution didn't necessarily have to deal with? Also, given the fact that we do not have the same lifestyle as paleolithic man in so many ways, we don't have the same environment, etc., then mimicking their food intake may or may not be the optimal way to eat in our current environment. It may be our best guess currently, but I think we just can't categorically say anything. As fascinating as the anthropological evidence is, when it's fairly clear and we can draw decent conclusions from it, we really need to do more studies on how a paleo diet will effect us in our modern world...

[Alex]

Yes, we're definitely talking about the same zealot; I saw your parting post a couple weeks ago. I mostly just lurk there, and I make a point of not getting drawn into debate.

That's interesting about paleo nutrition not taking longevity into account; I never thought about it in those terms. My own diet is not purely paleo, but it is certainly a lot less agrarian than it was when I was eating a largely grain and bean "feedlot" diet, foolishly thinking it was good for me. A few months ago, I cut out the only remaining wheat in my diet (a couple slices of sprouted whole grain bread each day), and last week, I stopped eating cheese because it was gluing me up with mucous. Pretty much the only grain I eat now is granola or oatmeal on the three mornings a week I do weight training, and the only dairy I'm eating is whey protein isolate. As for meat, I'm slowly shifting away from grain-fed.

[dvdmon]

Luckily I don't seem to have any real problem with dairy. I eat quite a bit of it right now, but it's all raw, which I know some people say they have fewer problems with. As far as grains, I don't go near them and haven't for most of the past 7 years. I'm not a big grain person anyway, and the whole Leaky Gut Syndrome chapter of PPLP made me wary enough that I only have grains very occasionally, or at least the ones detailed in the book. The "safer" grains, rice in particular, I don't have very often either, but probably consume it more than the more potentially problematic grains... I don't weight-train, so getting carbs in to fuel muscle increase is not an issue for me...