Fish Oil Tablets and Omega-3

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Postby JeffN » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:23 am

Hi Gail

Thanks for your response and most especially for your honesty in your story.

gail f wrote: It probably goes without saying that my motivation was 100% based on fear....unlike people who chose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle in a calm and deliberate way.


It is true that many people do make casual decisions to become vegan and/or vegetarians and do so without any health emergencies. However, those are usually not the people I see or work with or choose to adopt a diet like this one. And, someone correct me if you think I am wrong, they are also not the ones who choose to go to a 10 day program or anyone else like this one.

Most people who make changes and are directed to programs like this one, usually do it for the same reason you did. As others have discussed, this is not a vegan/vegetarian program though it can be. However, the principles are almost exclusively plant based. BTW, by either percentage of calories, or percentage of servings, so are the USDA, ADA, AHA, NHLBI, DASH, WHO guidelines mostly (though not as much as this one) plant based.

This is a health supporting program. And, as I mentioned, by the time most people make it to me, they are not in the best shape, medically or health wise. Often they come because they are on their least leg.

You, are actually in much better shape then most people who come to me for help. I have rarely found the person who tried to adopt a program like this because they woke up one day and had nothing better to do. :)

gail f wrote: I suppose that I am now looking to numbers and tests in order to see whether I really am at high risk, or whether I can put the bulk of my fear behind me.


I have nothing against any test. And, am a fan of information and numbers. However, they are really not going to change anything about the best and optimal diet and lifestyle recommendations. That is why programs like this one, are SO effective towards so many issues. For most of the reasons we get sick and die from diet and lifestyle related issues, the problem and the solution is the same. The only difference is the degree to which you are willing to apply the principles.

But, in the end (and I am really glad you say it below) most people are really not trying to find out what they have to do and how far they have to go, they are really trying to find out how much they can get away with and how little they have to change.

Realize, that if you live in America, and eat anywhere near a typical diet, or what most Americans think is a healthy diet, then you are not only at risk, but at high risk and all the numbers prove this. In another thread I posted the study that showed that the lifetime risk of getting HTN in American, even if you are in your 50s or 60s and don't have it yet, is over 90%. Also, I will have to find the exact quote but one of the recent editors of one of the leading medical journals just said that doctors should assume that if their patients live in American they are at high risk for heart disease.

So, the only difference between you and them, is you now have confirmation.

gail f wrote: I will be honest and say that I would like to be able to eat a less restrictive diet. I also want to be able to share in the meals that my friends offer. I live in a shellfishing community and I have a commercial shellfish license myself, which I used occasionally to provide my own shellfish. I love to be out on the tidal flats. We have clean waters and safe shellfish. While, I can easily live without dairy and meat, I am having touble with the thought that I will never be able to return to eating my beloved oysters and clams (and I wouldn't mind eating avocado daily(':?')).


I appreciate your honesty and when push comes to shove, this is what I find most people are really arguing for. Not about fish, or fish oil, or coffee or tea, or chocolate or wine or anything else, but just for evidence that they can somehow (Please!!) continue whatever it is they are enjoying that they are being told to (or fear will have to) give up. The real fear is not heart disease or having to take medication, but their real fear is the quality of life that perceive they may have to give up and the one they may have to settle for.

gail f wrote: But, I am prepared to do what I have to do to not compromise my health, and if that means no meat, no fish, no oils, then that is what I will continue to do. However, I would rather it be a decision based on reaching out for improved health, than one based 100% on fear.


I have never seen anyone, whether it be I, or Dr Mcd or Dr Ornish or the Pritikin Center, or anyone I know in relation to health, having said anywhere that this is only "all or none". Now, maybe some vegan, or raw food, or vegetarian, or animal rights advocates may say that, but I have never ever heard someone from a pure health perspective say that, and if they have, know it is simply not true.

But don't do it out of fear, do it out of love. For love of exuberant health. For love of life. For love of a healthy future with your family and children and grandchildren. For love of things you enjoy so you can keep doing them longer and in good health.

BTW, there are several published studies on people who have had to adopt very strict diets either by choice or because they had to, and they have been followed for a year or more and in almost all cases they report a greater quality of life in every measure. Same thing in the National Weight Control Registry, as over 98% reported an improved quality of life even after having to make the most dramatic changes to get the best results then ever before.

But don't do it out of fear, do it out of love. Don't be afraid of what you will lose. Look forward to what you will gain.

Once last point. Lets say you had a very dear friend who you used to go out with every week for dinner. Then suddenly they disappeared for a month or two, and you finally called them to see what was up. They told you that they had a health scare and decided to go away for a few weeks to a place like the McDougall Center and now were staying away as they didnt want to impose on you or go out with you anymore because they had to be careful about what they eat. What would you say to them? Oh great, I never liked your company anyway? :) Or would you say, Hey, I am your friend, and love you, and will do whatever it takes to accommodate you, let me know how I can help?

Think about it.

They may even say, hey, tell me about what you learned because it turns out I also have high cholesterol and high BP and just never say anything.

gail f wrote: Thank you again. Best, Gail


No, thank you.

It's been a great discussion.

I wish you only the best of health.

You deserve no less.

For love.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Quality of life

Postby JeffN » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:41 am

JeffN wrote:BTW, there are several published studies on people who have had to adopt very strict diets either by choice or because they had to, and they have been followed for a year or more and in almost all cases they report a greater quality of life in every measure. Same thing in the National Weight Control Registry, as over 98% reported an improved quality of life even after having to make the most dramatic changes to get the best results then ever before.


Here are some of the studies I just eluded to...

This first study was published on the effects of a "very" intensive lifestyle changes on men after one year. The program, included daily exercise, a low fat vegan diet (so there was NO animal protein) and daily yoga/meditation/stress mgmnt. The QOL (Quality of life) in all scores (physical, social, mental,emotional, etc) went up in the men on the intensive lifestyle program.

The second one was published in 2003 on the effects of a low fat, whole foods, plant-based diet (again, with little or no animal protein) on women after one year. The program also included exercise, and stress management. The women showed significant improvement in quality of life.

I am also including one more, which I think is relevant. It is from a review about the impact of obesity on the ability to perform activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Many of the same arguments about QOL are made in regard to trying to help people lose weight. While this one is on obesity, it also applies to heart disease and other lifestyle related diseases as the study does address QOL, and i think we can all agree that the more ADL is limited, the lower the QOL. Its not just about living long, but living long and well. Again, we see similar results.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD


Lifestyle and health-related quality of life of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):125-30. Daubenmier JJ, Weidner G, Marlin R, Crutchfield L, Dunn-Emke S, Chi C, Gao B, Carroll P, Ornish D.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of lifestyle on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), perceived stress, and self-reported sexual function in men with early-stage prostate cancer electing active surveillance.

METHODS: A total of 44 intervention and 49 usual-care control participants were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial examining the effects of lifestyle changes on prostate cancer progression. The intervention consisted of a low-fat, vegan diet, exercise, and stress management. Participants
completed the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Status Survey (a measure of mental and physical HR-QOL), the Perceived Stress Scale, the Sexual Function subscale of the University of California, Los Angeles, Prostate Cancer Index, and measures of lifestyle behaviors (to yield an overall lifestyle
index) at baseline and 12 months. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance for repeated measures. The relationship between lifestyle and QOL was also analyzed using multiple linear regression analyses.

RESULTS: Intervention participants had significantly improved their lifestyle compared with controls at 12 months. The quality-of-life scores were high across groups and time points. However, a healthier lifestyle was related to better QOL at
baseline. Participants in both groups who reported a healthier lifestyle also reported better mental and physical HR-QOL and sexual function.
Furthermore, participants whose lifestyle improved over time showed enhanced physical HR-QOL and decreased perceived stress.

CONCLUSIONS: Men who choose active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer are able to make comprehensive lifestyle changes. Although the average QOL was already high in this sample, individuals who improved their lifestyle enhanced their QOL further.



Improvement in medical risk factors and quality of life in women and men with coronary artery disease in the Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jun 1;91(11):1316-22.

This study examined medical and psychosocial characteristics of 440 patients (mean age 58 years, 21% women) with coronary artery disease at baseline and at 3-month and 12-month follow-ups. All patients were participants in the Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project, aimed at improving diet (low fat, whole foods, plant-based), exercise, stress
management, and social support. Spousal participation was encouraged. Both genders evidenced significant improvements in their diet, exercise, and stress management practices, which they maintained over the course of the study. Both women and men also showed significant medical (e.g., plasma lipids, blood pressure, body weight, exercise capacity) and psychosocial (e.g., quality of life) improvement. Despite their worse medical, psychosocial, and sociodemographic status at baseline, women's improvement was similar to that of men's. These results demonstrate that a multi-component lifestyle change program focusing on diet, exercise, stress management, and social support can be successfully implemented at hospitals in diverse regions of the United States. Furthermore, this program may be particularly beneficial for women with coronary artery disease who generally have higher mortality and morbidity than men after a heart attack, angioplasty, or bypass surgery



Reynolds SL, Saito Y, Crimmins EM. The impact of
obesity on active life expectancy in older american
men and women. Gerontologist. 2005 Aug;45(4):438-44.

Active life expectancy, however, is significantly
shorter and disabled life expectancy significantly
longer for obese persons at older ages. Our results
are also consistent with the literature indicating
that obesity has a deleterious effect on older adults'
ability to function (Peeters et al., 2004; Visscher et
al., 2004).

Our approach to estimating the effect of obesity
allows us to conclude that at age 70, when compared to
a non obese woman, the average obese woman can expect
to live 2.4 years less being able to perform all ADLs
without difficulty and 2.6 years longer with ADL
problems. The average obese man lives 1.4 fewer active
years than a nonobese man at age 70 and 1.5 more
disabled years.

Public health policy for older adults should be
concerned with the prospect of growing numbers of
longer-lived disabled obese adults (Arterburn et al.,
2004), particularly since obese respondents in AHEAD
also had high levels of hypertension, diabetes, and
arthritis, conditions also associated with disability
in old age. In addition to further study on the impact
of obesity on functioning, disability, disease, and
death, future research should also focus on effective
means of reducing obesity. While this study presents
further evidence that obesity has decidedly negative
effects on the quality of life for adults aged 70
years and older,
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby gail f » Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:47 pm

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for posting the studies on quality of life. I have copied them for my own growing collection of " J.Novick resources ".

I thought that I had said all that there was to say, but I find my self compelled to try to explain one more thing (I suppose you could call it: "from the other side of the desK").

Speaking from my own experience, ie. being new to the sudden deprivation of many of the foods and habits I have known and loved, I want to say that when I have prodded you for reasons and statistics about such things as olive oil and coffee, I believe that it was only because I did not want to blindly, and unnecessarily, give up more than I really had to. It was a bit like kicking the tires. For someone like me (analytical by nature) it is way easier to accept and live with what I can question and thereby, understand.

This is the important part of what I am trying to share: I believe that when I, as a newbie, question things and effectively kick the tires, it is REALLY about trying to live with the diet, and it is not about looking for a reason to undermine it. I just need to try to gain insight so that I can decide for myself what is important and what isn't... so that I can put my questioning behind me, keep what comfortable habits I can without undoing any benefit, and eventually settle in.

I hope that that makes sense.

Best to you, Gail
gail f
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:56 am
Location: Cape Cod

Postby Jaggu » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:38 pm

Interesting discussion and I'd like to add my 2 cents

If somebody said, A) limit your shower to 10 mins and in return your risk of having heart attack or cancer will be 30% less akin to someone saying B) eat low fat, plant based, whole food vegetarian diet and your risk of having deadly disease will be reduced by 50%. And let's say there was some evidence to backup both of the above assertions.

What do you think is likely to happen?

Most people will adopt lifestyle (A) without much debate, discussion. Why? There is nothing much for you to lose by limiting your shower to 10 mins. besides little inconvenience. It can be done easily.

You won't find people debating over whether poison is good or bad or whether drop of poison has same risk as Tbsp of poison and how much of poison I can get away with. Why? You can clearly demonstrate time and gain the result of consuming poison and there are no conflicting, contradictory research or expert views. All leads to one conclusion which is , if you take poison , it will kill you. period. When you take poison is sufficient quantity, there are no ifs and buts, there are no risk factors. You won't find people survive if they consumed poison in sufficient quantity. We do see lots of people who eat meat, diary, oil, high cholesterol, obesity survive and not have any issues. That's why this lifestyle, dietary change is not as easily adopted by people across the board.

So why don't people adopt (B) so easily? because it is lot harder to make the changes and there is no guarantee or assurance that after making all these changes, what's in store from them. When it comes to life science, there are risk factors which are derived statistically. They are not in absolute terms. Like you did 1,2 and 3, you will have this problem.

If a guy smokes a pack of cigarette everyday, no doubt his risk of having lung cancer is higher. Is he going to get a lung cancer? not necessary. We don't know? Is the guy who never smoked, is never going to get a lung cancer? again No Guarantees there. Risk may be lower. If you never smoked and still got a lung cancer, you risk is 100% much higher than the lot of smokers.

So that's why when people have to make so many modifications, they want to be sure that the benefit is there and it's there in absolute terms and you are not doing this just to feel good. Now if it was limiting your shower to 10 mins then it is not a problem even if in worse case the reward was zero. What you give up far outweighs the fear of inflicting with deadly diease.


When you are absolutely certain that no oil, dairy, no meat, no eggs, no nuts, no fried food will in return provide you a absolutely good health and disease free life then I think it won't be hard for any one to give up those things. Believe me it's not all that difficult to give up when you know the other options like cut open your chest, surgical procedures, doctor visits, chemo etc etc.

This was devils advocate speaking, I'm all for plant based, natural, healthy vegetarian diet and believe that I benefited from it and would like to learn and do more.(grew up eating vegetables, beans, legumes, rice, oil, milk and yogurt, can't eat anything differently other than vegetables, beans, lentils, legumes, learned bad things about oil, dairy and hydrogenated snacks, fried food etc and simple sugars and trying to eliminate that as far as possible...in nutshell, this is coming from someone who doesn't have to make huge changes in what their food preferences are unlike for those going from a meat/poultry/fish/cheese based western diet to a vegetarian diet is a huge adjustment) The reason for playing devils advocate is because there are so many variables and permutations and combinations that could give you a totally different result than the one you had hoped for.
Last edited by Jaggu on Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:37 am

Hi Jaggu

Thanks.

There is nothing that is absolute. As you said, we know some people who smoke who never get lung cancer and those who get lung cancer and never smoked. True, and that exists in everything. It is a given.

However, if you were diagnosed with lung cancer would you

a) start smoking thinking it may not matter, knowing there are no absolutes

b) quite smoking if you were smoking,

c) if you were smoking a pack or two a day, try to figure out how many cigarettes you could get away with, without quitting

If you were a health care professional speaking to the above client, what would you recommend? What would be your moral and ethical obligation? Sure, you would have no absolute answer for either of the choices as everyone could always find an exception, but based on what was known, and the odds, which one would give your patient the best odds of survival?

Which do you think the patient would want to know?

Now, knowing that, lets adapt the 2 choices in relation to diet/health

You are diagnosed with heart disease...

choice a

go on a modified diet that asks you to reduce the intake of several things (fat, sat fat, cholesterol, sodium, salt, sugars, etc) but nothing too drastic and when you challenge any one of them, they say you don't have to do anything you don't want, because after all, we don't really know. They tell you they can probably lower your numbers and possible your risk around 5-10%. They also offer you medications and/or supplements that in addition to the minor changes in diet, can decrease the numbers/risks more but also have some serious side effects. They also tell you wine is good because of the French, and olive oil is good because of the Greek, and soy is good because of the Chinese and green tea and fish is good because of the Japanese and don't forget, coconut may also be good because of those in Polynesia, and cocoa may also help, so have a piece of chocolate every day also.

When you ask which is the most important aspect to focus on or to remove, they say, we dont really know, so just try them all and if there is one your really like, don't worry about giving it up as we don't really know everything.

Now, if your MD is really honest with you, he will tell you the only proven evidence is a lowered risk and, that in controlled studies, it only slowed down the progression of the disease, it didn't stop it, or reverse it.


Choice B

a very intensive aggressive program that asks you to dramatically remove and/or eliminate all oils, added fats, saturated fat, hydrogenated fat, cholesterol, etc and dramatically increase the amount of plant foods, and fiber. Add in daily exercise and rest. Avoid coffee, oils, chicken etc. You are told you can expect drops in numbers and risk around 20-30%.

When you ask which is the most important aspect to focus on or to remove, they say, we dont really know, so just try them all EVEN if there is one your really like, because we don't really know everything and that one may be important, so lets just try it and see..

Now, if your MD is really honest with you, he will tell you that while this may be more difficult at first, as it requires a bigger change, but it is the only proven way to reverse heart disease.

Now, what would be the harm in trying choice b for 21 days, and doing it 100%, just for those 21 days?

For 10 years, each Sunday evening, every week, I welcomed around 75 people to a program like choice B. It was a controlled environment where there was no option but they volunteered to be there. They had all the same arguments and debates/discussions as are discussed here on why there was no coffee, oil, caffeine, nuts, seeds, etc etc.

I asked them one thing. Being you have nothing to lose, and you came here because of a major health concern, why not just try this for the next 14, to 21 days. 100%. when it is over, if you want your coffee, or oil, or nuts when you go home, no one will stop you. When will you ever have this chance again? what have you got to lose?

Days 1-3 were pretty hard for most of them, irritable, cranky, miserable. Withdrawals, headaches, aches and pains, etc. Days 3-5 started to level off for most. By day 5-7, things changed, quickly and dramatically. Almost 100%, by days 5-7 or 7, they were running around saying they have never felt better and had more energy, clarity. And, their numbers plummeted, on average around 20-30% with many seeing drops of 50% or more. About 80% were off their medications, never to have to go on them again.

Choice A can never offer this. Choice B can. It is a tougher choice and harder and yes, it may not always work 100%

Now many health professionals believe that choice b is too hard and most people wont do it. So, they offer choice A.

If you were a health professional and had a patient with heart disease, which would you offer? which would be your moral and ethical obligation?

If you were a patient, knowing that yes, nothing is absolute and there are exceptions to everything, which would you choose?

How would you feel, if they never told you about B or told you its not worth discussing because no one can really do it.

But, my question is, what does anyone have to lose by trying it for 21 days, except maybe some old habits?

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Jaggu » Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:31 am

JeffN wrote:Hi Jaggu

If you were a health professional and had a patient with heart disease, which would you offer? which would be your moral and ethical obligation?

In Health
Jeff


You would offer nothing short of absolutely best recommendation especially when someone had already suffered a HD.

Jeff,

I applaud your efforts and persistence in presenting facts as you know them to be true and repeatedly backing up your assertions.

I think entire humanity should be grateful to people who tells you exact science and their findings as opposed to what people can or can not do and then adjust their recommendations accordingly. If AHA wants to recommend 30% fat diet and 200 Cholesterol, they also can write a footnote saying 30% diet is based on what we think is practically achievable, otherwise 10% is optimal especially for those who wants to reverse or stop the progression of CAD and other chronic ailments. Once you know your target, no matter how stringent it is, you will be amazed as to how many people can and will achieve it. awareness is the key in healing.

So we are grateful and indebted to those who stood up and questioned whether what is considered as good enough was indeed good enough.
Jaggu
 

Postby auntemmy » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:24 am

Jeff - I read all the posts here - for information, for insight, for giggles (and I have a few of those) and clarification. Your responses to gail f and jaggu are by far the most persuasive reasons to continue this program I have heard so far. I read in Dean Ornish's earlier books that he allowed non fat dairy products because he didn't think people would be able to follow the program otherwise. And of course reading between the lines he wasn't really recommending dairy but .....so for me the whole comparison between A & B and possibly never hearing about B because it's too hard to follow just really hit home for me. Thank you so much for the clarifcation. I'm more determined than ever to succeed!
~Emmy

What's taters, precious?
***************************************
Po-ta-toes? Boil 'em. mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew?
User avatar
auntemmy
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:04 am
Location: Southern California

Postby Quiet Heather » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:41 am

auntemmy wrote: I read in Dean Ornish's earlier books that he allowed non fat dairy products because he didn't think people would be able to follow the program otherwise. And of course reading between the lines he wasn't really recommending dairy but .....so for me the whole comparison between A & B and possibly never hearing about B because it's too hard to follow just really hit home for me. Thank you so much for the clarifcation. I'm more determined than ever to succeed!


I was reading one of the studies that Jeff told me about on another thread, and there was this quote in it that really struck me:

"Rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) tend to be low in populations consuming high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets. These diets, however, are unpalatable to many people and alternative diets are needed."
http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/26/2/194

I suppose very low fat/high carb diets might be unpalatable to many people, but that is no reason to not give us the knowledge and therefore the choice to eat such a diet. I feel like the mainstream health organizations are letting us down big time by assuming that people simply will not eat this way and only focusing on these much "needed" (yet not as effective) alternative diets. :(
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/weight-loss/w1MwQ22/]
[img]http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/w1MwQ22/weight.png[/img]
[/url]
User avatar
Quiet Heather
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Jaggu » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:07 pm

Quiet Heather wrote:
auntemmy wrote:
I suppose very low fat/high carb diets might be unpalatable to many people, but that is no reason to not give us the knowledge and therefore the choice to eat such a diet. I feel like the mainstream health organizations are letting us down big time by assuming that people simply will not eat this way and only focusing on these much "needed" (yet not as effective) alternative diets. :(


Being on the both side of isle, I can tell you that western diet and plant based diets are radically different. I grew up eating cauliflower, okra, cabbage, brinjals, lentils, beans, legumes, rice, potato, barley, millet, whole wheat flower etc. In the absence of proper knowledge we screwed it up by adding added fat such as oil, butter, whole milk, simple carbs and fried carbs.

So I can perfectly reason with why the plant based diet would be unpalatable. Just like if some one had asked me to switch to animal based high protein diet. I don't know how to cook it properly and don't have a taste for it. And since this is unpalatable, I think that is playing a large role when physicians and other national health organizations put out their recommendation. One good thing here is that we have choices and we can choose wisely, have all sorts of options like skim milk, 1%, 2%, whole(Just to give an example), people can choose whatever they want.

It is easy to control what you do inside your house, once you step out it's different story. Even when you ask for vegetarian wrap without any oil or mann, dressing etc, they still stick in it. It's impossible for them to conceive that someone could eat it without oil/dressing/man. :-)
Last edited by Jaggu on Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jaggu
 

Postby auntemmy » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:11 pm

I suppose very low fat/high carb diets might be unpalatable to many people, but that is no reason to not give us the knowledge and therefore the choice to eat such a diet. I feel like the mainstream health organizations are letting us down big time by assuming that people simply will not eat this way and only focusing on these much "needed" (yet not as effective) alternative diets. _________________
This was quiet Heather's quote, but well said just the same.
~Emmy

What's taters, precious?
***************************************
Po-ta-toes? Boil 'em. mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew?
User avatar
auntemmy
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:04 am
Location: Southern California

Postby TominTN » Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:31 pm

Something that has amazed me is how the "unpalatable" way of eating has become yummy over time.
Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're probably right.

Weight Loss Through the Magic of Calorie Density: http://wp.me/p1utH8-v
User avatar
TominTN
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:38 pm

Postby Jaggu » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:47 pm

JeffN wrote:I disagree with him only because he has no supporting evidence for his recommendation on fish oil. None. I also presented the supporting evidence showing that his recommendation is not inline with the recommendations and/or the evidence.



Dr Dean Ornish Wrote:

http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3079_217

Yes, there is an important distinction to be made between fish oil and flax seed oil. I have recommended fish oil supplements for more than five years, i.e., good fats. Alexander Leaf, MD, who was the chief of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the medical services at the Massachusetts General Hospital when I trained there, did much of the important research on the effects of fish oil on health. Dr. Leaf and I have been in discussions about this issue since 1982, and it is because of his work and that of others that I began recommending fish oil many years ago. Even the reversal diet I recommend is not fat free; it simply reduces the excessive fat.

My recommendations differ for men and women:

For Men:
Fish oil, 2 grams/day (in refrigerated one-gram capsules, MaxEPA or equivalent); provides omega-3 fatty acids.

Research from Charles Myers, MD, at the University of Virginia Medical School in Charlottesville showed that flax seed oil causes a 300% increase in the growth of prostate cancer cells. He said, 'It is the most powerful stimulus we know of for prostate cancer cells.' Consequently, I do not recommend flax seed oil for men.


Jeff,

Was wondering whether you were aware of research by Alexander Leaf and if you had any comment ?
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:29 pm

Yes, in fact, I use some of his data in my slides. It is all based on the changes in fat, saturated fat, hydrogenated fat, Omega 6, Omega 3, and their ratios that have happened over time. The solution, is not fish oil, but the dietary and lifestyle changes I have outlined here.

In addition...

On Flax and Prostate Cancer

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7974

On Dr Ornish's Recommendations for Fish Oil

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6183

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Fish OIl

Postby JeffN » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:48 am

selainefuente wrote:Hi all...
I am selainefuente aged 50 years. I am suffering from the heart disease since i was 40 years of age. Doctor had advised me some tablets which i intake on a regularly basis. I had heard that fish oil prevents from heart attack and heart diseases. Can anyone tell me from where can i should purchase the fish oil.


Greetings,

There are no recommendations in this forum for you (or anyone) to take fish oil.

However, there are several detailed discussions about the issue of essential fats, DHA, EPA, fish oil, supplements and the differing views of some of the program out there.

You can review these discussions here (including reviewing this discussion thread itself) :)

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6735

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11105

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11112

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6293

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12720

Let me know if you have any other questions.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Fish Oil Tablets and Omega-3

Postby energy_dad » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:45 pm

Jeff,

It seems there are two types of studies

(A) Long-term longitudinal studies involving large sample sizes that demonstrate associations between consumption of certain foods and mortality rates from certain diseases; and 

(B) Analyses of the content of certain foods, demonstrating that these foods contain substances that are dangerous or deadly.

When people drink more milk in a society, cancer rates rise.  When people eat more meat, rates of cardiovascular disease rise.  These are type-A studies.

Red meat contains high levels of saturated fats.  Fish contain heavy metals and bacteria.  These are type-B studies.

I am looking for type-A studies about fish.  Can you point me toward studies that demonstrated an association between fish consumption and rates of disease in a particular population?  I am looking for the most powerful, incontrovertible stuff out there.

Thanks!
energy_dad
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.