Prof. David Ma has discovered that marine-based omega-3s are eight times more effective at inhibiting tumour development and growth.
"This study is the first to compare the cancer-fighting potency of plant- versus marine-derived omega-3s on breast tumour development," said the professor in the Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences. "There is evidence that both omega-3s from plants and marine sources are protective against cancer and we wanted to determine which form is more effective."
[...] Published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, the study involved feeding the different types of omega-3s to mice with a highly aggressive form of human breast cancer called HER-2. HER-2 affects 25per cent of women and has a poor prognosis.
[...] Ma found overall exposure to marine-based omega-3s reduced the size of the tumours by 60 to 70 per cent and the number of tumours by 30 per cent.
However, higher doses of the plant-based fatty acid were required to deliver the same impact as the marine-based omega-3s.
Source: https://news.uoguelph.ca/2018/01/choose-omega-3s-fish-flax-cancer-prevention-study-finds/
Journal Reference: Jiajie Liu, Salma A. Abdelmagid, Christopher J. Pinelli, Jennifer M. Monk, Danyelle M. Liddle, Lyn M. Hillyer, Barbora Hucik, Anjali Silva, Sanjeena Subedi, Geoffrey A. Wood, Lindsay E. Robinson, William J. Muller, David W.L. Ma. Marine fish oil is more potent than plant based n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the prevention of mammary tumours. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2017.12.011
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Wednesday January 31 2018, @11:57PM (25 children)
Choose flax over fish for the prevention of the suffocation of aquatic organisms. Canola oil has decent amounts of omega-3 and 6 as well and is often cheaper than flax.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:04AM (14 children)
Could you explain further please?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:14AM (13 children)
It was my slightly snarky way of promoting a vegan diet. Flaxseed or canola oil are commonly included in vegan diets because the body needs the fatty acids. I did think they were involved in the lubrication of joints but I can't find a reference for this so maybe that's wrong.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:21AM (12 children)
from my perspective, you're promoting a terrestrial diet; the primary source of marine PUFAs are from marine algae [nih.gov], which can be produced on an industrial scale. [sciencedirect.com]
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:30AM (11 children)
That's interesting but TFS specifically mentions "Marine fish oil" and it looks like your links are more concerned with fish feeding on the algae rather than humans although algae could be tasty. Nom nom nom!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Informative) by boltronics on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:08AM (9 children)
I heard that fish get their Omega 3 from the algae, so it's probably better to go straight to the source and get your Omega 3 derived directly from algae. You can purchase it in tablet form (which I do), but it's expensive.
As a vegan, I'm not going to purchase fish oil tablets so it doesn't matter to me (in a practical sense) if that's incorrect.
I know a lot of people say Omega 3 tablets are a waste of money and are completely unnecessary, but there's a lot of conflicting information out there.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:33AM (7 children)
Those capsules... are they vegan? Most of the time, they'll contain gelatin... a thing obtained from animal sources, pork skin mainly.
E.g. Blackmores [blackmores.com.au] - scroll down to "A clear, yellow, oblong, soft gelatin capsule"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:44AM (3 children)
vegan capsules are made from cellulose.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:44AM (2 children)
I doubt cellulose is the only ingredient - human guts cannot break cellulose, therefore it needs to contain a binder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:59AM (1 child)
Nothing suggests the binder need to contain animal products: Water soluble cellulose derivatives exist, and could dissolve readily in the stomach fluids without enzymatic activity e.g. Hydroxyalkylcellulose is used as a binding agent, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, Hydroxyethylcellulose are used as gelling agents.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:29AM
Neither did I suggest that.
I only said that one cannot exclude formulations of soft gel capsules that contain animal products.
+Informative.
Add to the above hydroxypropyl methylcellulose [wikipedia.org] if my understanding is correct [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:59AM (2 children)
This is the one I current get.
http://primalcollective.com/project/omega-3-marine-algae-oil-capsules/ [primalcollective.com]
https://www.optimoz.com.au/collections/primal-collective/products/omega3-epa-dha-marine-algae-oil-supplement [optimoz.com.au]
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:41AM (1 child)
Other than the 'for vegans' promise, I see no mention about the substance the capsule is made of.
The biuret test [wikipedia.org]** will indicate if there is any protein in it, it won't say however if those proteins are of animal origin.
** Just in case you want to play with:
Sodium hydroxide and copper sulphate available at Bunnings. Sodium potassium tartrate - cream of tartar in layman speak - available at Coles/Woolworths in the baking sector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:59AM
This is the perennial scourge of anyone that chooses to follow a strict diet. You can choose to prepare all your meals from only the most basic ingredients (which incidentally often makes for more enjoyable and sometimes more cost effective, even healthier, meals) and often this is the path of least resistance for most food shopping, or else you're completely reliant on the honesty and accuracy of the food manufacturers and their suppliers.
I strongly suspect that huge numbers of food products have ingredients that do not reflect the labels. People have been bred to instinctively trust big business as authority figures. The whole thing becomes a pragmatic best guess process depending on what the particular consumer is comfortable with.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:44PM
This is probably because many Omega 3 supplements have rancid oil. Rotten fish oil is unlikely to be as good for you as fresh fish oil.
I've broken open fish oil capsules from different suppliers and some smell rotten and some smell like fresh fish oil (should smell like fresh fish - e.g. faintly/slightly fishy, not strong and smelly).
See: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07928 [nature.com]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681158/ [nih.gov]
Probably similar thing for Flax seed oil- lots of polyunsaturated fats go rancid quite quickly.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:29AM
Marine fish oil is obtained up the food web by predators consuming other predators who consume algae. As with the terrestrial food web, the primary producers in the marine ecosystem are plants, and the primary source of energy in the tropic marine ecosystem is from the sun.
(Score: 3, Informative) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:16AM (6 children)
What is the ratio of PUFA's in canola vs. flax. vs. lipids derived from marine sources, though? there's research that indicates it's the ratio between essential PUFA, rather than just the presence of PUFA in diets, that have downstream effects to human health. [nih.gov]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:00AM (5 children)
You know, you guys put an awful lot of work into this. Just eat what your mother puts on the table. And there's nothing wrong with Bacon/sausage and fried eggs sunny side up, and don't forget the buttered toast, slightly burnt.... Yummy!
As a matter of fact, all of a sudden I got the munchies.
I think all of you should just enjoy what you eat, and not think about getting hit by meteors. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go make me some hot butter grits to go with that plate.
PS. As for oil mix, I believe the ratio is still 50:1. It was back when I used to fill up the tanks.
(Score: 4, Informative) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:41AM (4 children)
perhaps you're just being funny, but a ketogenic diet minimizes sugars and carbs to to be effective in treating epilepsy, and was the primary treatment for epilepsy until big pharma. There is evidence that a ketogenic diet can help with the treatment of type II diabetes. [nih.gov] from the perspective of someone eating a ketogenic diet, the worst thing on your list for you is the toast, and the filler in the sausage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:32AM (3 children)
perhaps you're just being funny
Perhaps... but all those epileptics, diabetics, and other sick people wouldn't survive a week in our house. Here the taste buds write the rules, and we'll live to be a hundred. Eating isn't supposed to be a chore. If you can't enjoy your food, there's little point in living.
(Score: 3, Touché) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:47AM (2 children)
What's poison to one culture is dinner to another.
Your household diet is likely a 'chore' to someone else who isn't you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:06PM (1 child)
Yeah, sure, life for sick people is high maintenance and not so much fun for all the things they can't do, and eat. I'm just saying healthy people can eat what they want with little consequence, aside from some heavy farting, which is also healthy. Keep the system loose, and you'll longer than a naked mole rat. Eating should make you feel good, not anxious about every little thing that can kill you.
If there is a problem with our diet, it has more to do with the way we process food with all those chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, etc, and of course the poor sanitation. That's where the poison and resulting cancers, and the setting off all those blood pressure and glucose alarms come from. It's what made all those people sick to begin with.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:11PM
it's not just healthy vs. sick; it's that we have a wide biodiversity within our species, and everybody has different things they're allergic to, cannot eat, and do not find palatable. i'm specifically referring to our own individual biology, not just 'healthy vs. sick'.
As before, what you find palatable and tasty other people may find inedible and unsustainable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DrkShadow on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:26AM (2 children)
Canola oil: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/12/09/1631213 [soylentnews.org]
This was an article about how little is known about canola oil. It was only one of the two you listed, but I'm taking it that sometimes animal-sourced products are better for me. Flax I don't know about, but what's lying in wait.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:22AM
With the flax? Probably not mercury.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:56AM
For one thing, it's easier for an omnivore/carnivore diet to cover all the needed macronutrients A carnivore could choose to eat red meat, chicken, fish (as in this study), eggs, milk products, which contain high concentrations of essential amino acids, which your body cannot produce. these proteins are needed to create hormones, enzyme, build muscles, and maintain body organs and tissues. Beans are usually the go-to for plant based diets, but are typically lower density compared to, say, red meat. they also are relatively low in tryptophan and methinonine. red meat is also high in B12, which should be supplimented in some types of vegatable based diets.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:31AM (5 children)
Could the benefits of fish based omegas be canceled out by the higher mercury and other pollutants content?
(Score: 4, Informative) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:34AM (2 children)
Murcury and other pollutants are bioaccumulated over time, and concentrated upstream in the food web. If you ate nothing but apex predators such as tuna, swordfish, shark, etc., you would also get a large lump of pollutants. this is why pregnant people are advised against eating too much tuna.
OTOH if you eat prey fish such as herring, or fish with relatively short lifespans such as a salmon (3-6 years), those animals, while predators, do not have the opportunity to accumulate as many pollutants in their tissue over time. avoiding bottom feeders (crabs, flatfish) can further reduce the amount of pollutants in your fish.
At this time you can still obtain the appropriate nutrients and avoid much of those concentrated pollutants if you make seafood choices based on the behaviour, lifespan, and trophic niche within the food web.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:33AM (1 child)
Oh, the ethics. Doing the opposite will clear the environment of pollutants and concentrate them in the cemetery. What to do, what to do?
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:19PM
In the case of your particular dilemma over marine food choices, follow your conscience.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:22PM (1 child)
Today I have signed an executive order directing the FDA to reclassify Mercury as an important mineral and develop a US RDA for it so that Americans should know how much to take daily.
It's a mineral. One of the best, and trust me, I know my minerals, its one of the very best minerals, I promise. I can personally assure you that daily use of small amounts of mercury will increase your brain function. Believe me. I'm like a stable genius.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:40PM
So you're the https://soylentnews.org/~realDonaldTrump/ [soylentnews.org] guy? Grats! :)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @12:32AM (15 children)
These dietary/nutrion "medical news" are no better than the traditional herbal medicine, probably worse - a few years later, a few decades later, they would have a complete opposite "findings" - at least the traditional medicine stay consistent.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hartree on Thursday February 01 2018, @01:01AM (1 child)
I mostly agree, but it's a handy excuse for eating fish sandwiches (which I like regardless of health benefits. ;) ).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @01:18AM
Catfish porboys are great. Mackarel sandwich at Istanbul is great. Hell, even McFish is pretty good. You don't need no excuse for fish sandwich.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 01 2018, @01:51AM (3 children)
Speaks more to the miserable state of scientific/medical journalism than to any defects in actual science. Often enough when you see the actual medical journal article that is transformed into a puff piece by the popular press there's loads of caveats and maybes and hedges that tentatively reach for a conclusion that is puffed into some kind of ridiculously conclusive panacea by the popular press. And then later another paper gets published in refutation of those findings, and the cycle continues. This is what a true scientific controversy looks like: the data and experiments have not yet converged into some form of consensus on what is most likely true, and you'll see research arguing a hypothesis one way and then another, and it's usually only after several years that the scientific community sees that the most reliable and best supported research shows that the facts point to things being a certain way. Trouble is this process tends to take a long time, generally years, and by the time that the scientific community has done enough research to come to that kind of consensus (it has to be emphasised that this is a consensus of scientific research results, not of scientists!) the popular press has mostly forgotten. For example, the original paper [sciencedirect.com] from the article states in the abstract that it's based on an animal model using mice. To go from an animal model to human physiology is a long way indeed.
(emphasis added)
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:08AM (1 child)
I agree, but shouldn't the science establishment try to stop this sensational nonsense? Instead, they (uni PR dept, researchers) encourage the outlandish claims so as to encourage further research funding. No wonder why we have so many skeptics who deem "science" is as corrupt as Vatican.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:53AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:37AM
It really is just a flawed method of drawing conclusions from data that nearly guarantees nothing of value is learned. Look up NHST controversy and youll find people complaining about it since the 1950s. Andrew Gelman has a pretty good blog that discusses it quite a bit.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:54AM (8 children)
Define "traditional medicine".
Trepanation, heroin to treat children's coughs and colds, lobotomy, phrenology, female hysterical neurosis, seem to have fallen by the wayside, yet they were all considered to be mainstream, medical treatment in the past two hundred years.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:18AM (7 children)
Meh, I pray to the alter of science. That means modern medicine, even though it's not perfect and mistakes will be made at times. At least I know that it's the best that science has to offer _at this time_.
ObXKCD: https://xkcd.com/836/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:25AM (5 children)
i think if we are deifying science, we run the risk of running into ideology. Scientists often fall into the trap of becoming attached to their own ideas, and the anathema of evidence based practice is the apotheosis of science into scientism.
be careful what you worship, and which altar you pray to, even if it has the dressing of science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:12PM (1 child)
LOL! I always chuckle when people say "Don't trust science", yet are ignorantly blind that science gave them everything to live in this comfortable, wonderful, & easy modern world.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:16PM
My first response was to an AC that mentioned their claim that they'll stick with "traditional medicine". my comments were directed to the fictional construct of "traditional medicine".
My second response was directed to the poster that claimed they worship the alter(sic) of science". I pointed out the hazards of worshiping science as an ideology. i expressed no doubt in science; rather reinforcing the second responder's point that science is fallible. feel free to laugh, but it's likely you're caricaturizing my replies rather than wanting to engage with them.
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 01 2018, @10:16PM (2 children)
If scientists fall into the trap of becoming attached to their own ideas, despite strong evidence that points to those ideas being false, then they have, in as far as they do so, stopped doing science and stopped being scientists. Science works by testing theories against evidence, and goes where the evidence leads, and if they aren't doing evidence-based practice then what they are doing is not science, by definition.
This is the true test of a scientist: ask them what it would take to make them change their minds about something. A scientist will be swayed by evidence and arguments from evidence. In contrast, nothing will sway an ideologue.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:20PM
You are being a bit naive. Scientists are people, too, with all the human frailties - ambition, career concern, economic concern, human relations, jealousy, etc.
Bet on science (i.e., empirical verification), not scientists.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:54PM
I agree with this - Scientists must be extremely comfortable when they are wrong, as it should happen continuously and on a daily basis. It's called "research" for a reason. Scientists should always be willing to throw out ideas when the data does not support them. As you point out, nothing sways the ideologue. When the previous poster suggested he "prays" to the "alter of science", i felt we crossed from data analysis and into ideology.
I think, however, the AC's and the posters that are responding in this subthread actually all more-or-less agree, but the semantics of religious ideology seemed a bit over-the-top for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:24PM
People should still wait for clear scientific consensus before reaching a conclusion, however. One or even several studies are not enough.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:49PM
Is this really about where the omega-3 acids come from, or which one they are?
I know of 3 major dietary omega-3 acids: alpha-linoleic acid (the one in flaxseed) and docosohexaenoic acid eicosapentaenoic acid, which are the usual "fish oil" omega-3s. The thing about ALA is it has to be upconverted to DHA or EPA by the body, which process is very inefficient.
But don't the fish bioaccumulate these things from eating algae or things that eat algae anyway? This implies that the ultimate source of DHA and EPA is still plant-based, not some magical fish elixir. I'm sure we can get marine algae farmed on an industrial scale, and someone upthread mentioned he's vegan and takes a vegan omega-3 supplement made this way.
So is there something magical about getting your O-3s from fish I'm missing here, or is the headline misleading?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by pD-brane on Thursday February 01 2018, @10:08PM
I don't believe this, because there are many more studies with a negative finding (which are of course much less often popularised).
Apropos, the consumption of fish oil has a huge negative impact on the environment, mainly because you neeed up to 100 kg of fish to produce 1 liter of fish oil, which is not really "fish oil" because the fish ddon't even produce it; they just store it from the plankton they eat.