Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Drug trials usually sample a small number of people at a does they assume is adequate to cause effects - so since as you say as it focuses on side effects it is probably a little better than your standard clinical trial, though it is still far from being conclusive on the matter.
Like I said, I don't want to discuss the nature of science here. But you keep implying that science "proves" things....and it doesn't. It provides inductive evidence for empirical claims....and doing this for "a negative" is the same process as "a positive".
Drug trials have to produce strong evidence that their drugs lack adverse effects before they can be approved. Supplements don't have the same burden, they are allowed on the market without studying their side effects and as a result people don't conduct studies on side effects....just benefits. But studying the benefits isn't the same as studying side-effects, therefore you can't use studies on supposed benefits to support the lack of adverse side-effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
Therefore we have to use the data that we have available to make an assessment. I do not agree with your viewpoint that because a clinical trial is not focused on side effects that it provides no information about them.
That isn't my viewpoint, my viewpoint is that they provide insignificant evidence to make a meaningful conclusion one way or another. They, at best, hint at the lack of adverse effects...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
Simply because you cannot see a "case for fish oil" does not mean it does not exist. The "immaturity of science" as you put it works both ways where it also prevents you from making an accurate "evolutionary" assessment.
Umm...yeah...which is precisely what I stated:
"The case for fish oil, evolutionary wise, makes no sense..... That doesn't mean its not beneficial....just that it would be unlikely"
Also, evolutionary biology is 150+ years old....not exactly an immature science. Therefore, when something conflicts with evolutionary thinking its a good reason to be very suspicious. Not only that, but these supplement fads all tend to have the same history: 1.) A sequence of studies showing benefits, 2.) Widespread popularity in the general public, 3.) #2 results in more research...that discounts much of #1, 4.) The supplement loses popularity overtime. We appear to be in phrase #3 now, the research on fish oil supplementation is becoming increasingly negative.
Furthermore, my position has nothing to do with my "perspective" on evolution...its straight evolutionary biology.
"The case for fish oil, evolutionary wise, makes no sense..... That doesn't mean its not beneficial....just that it would be unlikely"
Also, evolutionary biology is 150+ years old....not exactly an immature science. Therefore, when something conflicts with evolutionary thinking its a good reason to be very suspicious. Not only that, but these supplement fads all tend to have the same history: 1.) A sequence of studies showing benefits, 2.) Widespread popularity in the general public, 3.) #2 results in more research...that discounts much of #1, 4.) The supplement loses popularity overtime. We appear to be in phrase #3 now, the research on fish oil supplementation is becoming increasingly negative.
Furthermore, my position has nothing to do with my "perspective" on evolution...its straight evolutionary biology.
You can't just say because supplements typically follow this path, and fish oil is a supplement that it too will follow this path!! This is called prejudice and it means your opinion on fish oil has nothing to do with fish oil itself, but rather your general opinions about supplements.
And I can tell from your response about evolutionary biology that you either did not read or do not understand what I wrote. To be blunt - you are using this field of science to justify your own opinions about life. Do you have any scientific writings anywhere connecting evolutionary science to fish oil? Or is your argument: the lack of scientific articles in this area is proof that fish oil is non-evolutionary. Stop pushing your opinions on people who come here seeking information or at least come with a source of information from which you can derive an opinion from. Telling people not to take fish oil because you don't like it doesn't help anyone.
You can't just say because supplements typically follow this path, and fish oil is a supplement that it too will follow this path!!
Umm....I didn't. You seem to routinely distort probabilistic assertions....into something they aren't. The fact that these supplement fads have, in the past, proved to be ill-founded provides evidence that similar fads will prove to be ill-founded as well. That isn't logical entailment....its a statement about probabilities. Namely, given the past history of supplement fads one should be suspicious.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
To be blunt - you are using this field of science to justify your own opinions about life. Do you have any scientific writings anywhere connecting evolutionary science to fish oil?
No I'm not, instead I'm deriving my opinions from this field of science.
And, as I said, evolutionary biology provides a good reason to be suspicious of fish oil supplementation. It doesn't show that its worthless....just that there are good evolutionary reasons to be suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
Telling people not to take fish oil because you don't like it doesn't help anyone.
Except of course....that I never told people "not to take fish oil". I was pointing out that the article you quoted didn't support your contention about adverse effects.
Its odd how you systematically distort everything.......
Umm....I didn't. You seem to routinely distort probabilistic assertions....into something they aren't. The fact that these supplement fads have, in the past, proved to be ill-founded provides evidence that similar fads will prove to be ill-founded as well. That isn't logical entailment....its a statement about probabilities. Namely, given the past history of supplement fads one should be suspicious.....
No I'm not, instead I'm deriving my opinions from this field of science.
And, as I said, evolutionary biology provides a good reason to be suspicious of fish oil supplementation. It doesn't show that its worthless....just that there are good evolutionary reasons to be suspicious.
Except of course....that I never told people "not to take fish oil". I was pointing out that the article you quoted didn't support your contention about adverse effects.
Its odd how you systematically distort everything.......
Didn't you say this in the other thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
How about testing it? Stop the fish oil and start a weight-loss program and see what happens with your pains.
Anyways - back to our thread and let me ask you a question - do you know why there are no studies that specifically look at fish oil and side effects?
And going back to evolution and using it here -- you are making an incorrect assumption that eating foods we have evolved to eat will increase our lifespan. However, you are confusing lifespan with survival. Our goal of making our bodies last as long as possible may run counter to the "goals" of evolution. Aging is appearing more and more to be a biochemical process - as such - it would have evolved. Why would such a process evolve? Maybe the population as a whole is stronger if evolutionary tested progeny do not have to compete with their elders for resources. The "Goal" of evolution is survival to reproduce not lifespan extension. Towards our goal of making our bodies healthier for longer we may have to do things that our caveman, primate, multicellular organism, etc, predecessors never did - such as consume extracted fish oil.
Obviously you have no interest in honest debate. You are taking a comment of mine from another thread out of context, a comment that was made after you claimed I was telling people not to take fish oil, to support the idea that I have told people not to take fish oil in this thread.
The point of that comment was simple, the author of that thread is taking fish oil to deal with joint pain and claimed that his weight (260) had nothing to do with his joint pain. I suggested he test this hypothesis....by losing weight and not taking fish oil supplements.
But I'm glad you brought this up, it provides a good example of the sort of logic common in the supplement industry. The supplement of the day, currently fish oil, becomes a cure-all for numerous conditions which are often linked to obesity and distract from the real underlying issue, namely the obesity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
do you know why there are no studies that specifically look at fish oil and side effects?
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Yes...and I explicitly addressed this. People aren't looking at the side-effects because supplements don't need provide such evidence before they can be sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
you are making an incorrect assumption that eating foods we have evolved to eat will increase our lifespan. However, you are confusing lifespan with survival.
Except of course....I'm making no such assumption. Can you please respond to what I've actually said?
The article you quoted didn't even talk about lifespan, furthermore anything that effects survival will automatically effect lifespan.... You're lifespan ends when....you die
Obviously you have no interest in honest debate. You are taking a comment of mine from another thread out of context, a comment that was made after you claimed I was telling people not to take fish oil, to support the idea that I have told people not to take fish oil in this thread.
You didn't see the smiley face? Just having a little fun there
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Yes...and I explicitly addressed this. People aren't looking at the side-effects because supplements don't need provide such evidence before they can be sold.
Actually no that is not correct. The reason I bring this up is because this effects the pool of information we must use to decide whether fish oil is safe or not. You've repeatedly said that there are no studies specifically looking at the side effects of fish oils. You are right, and the reason why is not because companies aren't required to provide that evidence - it is because you cannot ethically run a human trial where the goal is to take a healthy person and make them sick. Drug trials are ethical because the greater good is achieve in trying to make sick people healthy. So the type of information you want on supplements just doesn't exist. Therefore we have to make an assessment of the risk of the supplements from the various trials that have their own purposes.
On the basis of these other studies the website I posted wrote
Quote:
The Tufts EPC concluded that adverse events related to consumption of fish-oil or ALA supplements appear to be minor and can be managed by reducing the dose or discontinuing the supplement. It noted, however, that adverse event data are incomplete because many studies did not adequately report this information, especially for subjects who withdrew before study completion.
Which is clear to anyone but you that on the basis of other studies fish oil is safe. Quit trying to scare everyone with your pseudoscience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Except of course....I'm making no such assumption. Can you please respond to what I've actually said?
The article you quoted didn't even talk about lifespan, furthermore anything that effects survival will automatically effect lifespan.... You're lifespan ends when....you die
What you actually said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The case for fish oil, evolutionary wise, makes no sense.....
Therefore, when something conflicts with evolutionary thinking its a good reason to be very suspicious.
Furthermore, my position has nothing to do with my "perspective" on evolution...its straight evolutionary biology.
No I'm not, instead I'm deriving my opinions from this field of science.
And, as I said, evolutionary biology provides a good reason to be suspicious of fish oil supplementation. It doesn't show that its worthless....just that there are good evolutionary reasons to be suspicious.
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of what you write yourself. When you say something makes sense evolutionary wise you are saying its pro-survival. The case of fish oil you are saying it doesn't make sense so fish oil is therefore - anti-survival. What I am telling you is: Survival is not at issue here - lifespan is. Survival in the evolutionary sense means living to the point you are able to reproduce. Lifespan is the total amount of time the organism is alive. Fish oil may have the potential to extend both.
You've repeatedly said that there are no studies specifically looking at the side effects of fish oils. You are right, and the reason why is not because companies aren't required to provide that evidence - it is because you cannot ethically run a human trial where the goal is to take a healthy person and make them sick.
Hogwash, people are already running studies on fish oil supplementation....they just aren't tracking adverse effects. Never, even with drug trials, do researchers knowingly make people sick. You only test a drug on human populations after it has been tested by other means and is know, up to that point, to be safe...
So, to say it again and as noted by the author of that article, the studies on fish oil did not look into adverse effects therefore they do not provide strong evidence for the lack of adverse effects. That isn't pseudoscience...its elementary logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciameriken
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of what you write yourself.
Translation: I'm not going to bother to understand what you mean, instead I'm going to interpret your comments how I want...
As for as fish oil and evolution goes, its pretty simple. Fish oil is believed to be beneficial due to its DHA and EPA, omega-3 fatty acids found in few foods. But the body has the ability to convert ALA into DHA and EPA, therefore, if greater amounts of DHA and EPA had truly beneficial effects on the body....why doesn't the body produce more? Why does the body only convert a small amount of ALA into DHA and EPA? There would have been massive selection pressure for the body to produce more DHA and EPA...
Its going to be amusing to see how you distort and twist this!
if greater amounts of DHA and EPA had truly beneficial effects on the body....why doesn't the body produce more?
I dunno. Why doesn't the body produce its own oxygen?
Why doesn't the body produce its own vitamin B12? Why don't plants produce enough vitamin B12 to sustain the human body on a modest amount of food, and instead, require that the human do research into finding out what it needs, and then stuffing mass quantities of plant substances into their mouth, when, instead, a nice slab of steak will provide just enough B12 instead?
Why doesn't the body convert excess starch into waste that gets squeezed down into the toilet? Why doesn't the body automatically get up and do a few jumping jacks whenever the body notices that it's a pound heavier than it was yesterday?
The answer to all of these questions (and more):
Because the body is not self-sufficient. Because the body is not an automaton, nor does it have the means to make adjustments to intake to sustain good health.
I have taken heavy fish oil supplementation at times to lower my cholesterol, and I have noticed unexpected bruising on my arms and legs. I assume that is due to the blood thinning effects. No other ill effects, but I backed off a bit.
As an aside, I have lowered by LDL Cholesterol from 230 to about 170 on Red Yeast Rice and Fish Oil, so I think it is a pretty good supplement, taken in moderation.
I dunno. Why doesn't the body produce its own oxygen?
Why doesn't the body produce its own vitamin B12?
These, and your other questions all have obvious answers. We don't produce oxygen because its readily available in the environment. We actually do produce b12, we have b12 producing bacteria in our lower intestine, but like oxygen b12 is readily available in the environment and we traditionally got it via water and soil. It is only in modern times, where we sanitize everything, that b12 supplementation is needed. Note as well, that b12 supplementation is important for the entire population, in particular once you get older as the body loses the ability to digest b12 that is attached to protein.
Regardless, you're just distracting from the real issue. The body does produce DPA and EPA from ALA, it just does it in low quantities. If increased levels of DPA and EPA were so beneficial there would have been massive selection pressure for increased conversion of DPA and EPA from ALA. But you don't find that...therefore its unlikely that increased levels of DPA and EPA have major general health benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
