"Are dietary recommendations for the use of fish oils sustainable?"

[veganjiujitsu]

I came across this last week; thought it was interesting:

Are dietary recommendations for the use of fish oils sustainable? -- Jenkins et al. 180 (6): 633 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

ANALYSIS
Are dietary recommendations for the use of fish oils sustainable?
David J.A. Jenkins, MD DSc, John L. Sievenpiper, MD PhD, Daniel Pauly, Dr rer nat, Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Dr Polit, Cyril W.C. Kendall, PhD and Farley M. Mowat, OC DLitt
...
The main problem with this advice is that, even at current levels of fish consumption, fisheries globally have reached a state of severe crisis (Figure 1).5

 

[canadapride**]

that's why agricultural animals should be grass-fed.

 

[turbozed]

I've been thinking about this too. If *everyone* in the world ate with proper nutrition, perhaps this would not be sustainable. Grass fed animals takes a lot of grazing land. Furthermore, there's already a food crisis around the world. Even empty caloric foods can be at least life-sustaining in places where poverty and hunger are problems.

We recommend everyone take fish oil to supplement, but imagine if it *really* caught on. Fisheries are already being strained to their max and we'd have to fish the oceans bare to do so.

I liken it to what would happen if everyone at my gym decided to embrace an S&P style of weight training instead of doing body-building and monotonous cardio. There's only one power rack in the place and I'm there 80% of the time I'm there. It would suck if everyone started fighting over it.

 

[MKashew]

I've always wondered. I take Country Life fish oil and it says to take 2 softgels (total of 1,000 mg EPA and 150 mg DHA) daily, does that mean take the 2 softgels at one time in the day? Or does it mean 2 softgels per day but one in the morning and one in the evening or something like that.

 

[canadapride**]

for people to get their animal fat requirements, I'd imagine people would eat less meat but use more dairy ala India.

Organ meat would become more popular as price of meat goes up, like how it is in asian and hispanic countries.

A lot of the population problems have to do with people not having proper birth control. They don't have access to it but at the same time people gotta be sexual. A lot of the native populations in industrialized countries are actually decreasing, but are being maintained by immigration.

 

[joshetc]

I've always wondered. I take Country Life fish oil and it says to take 2 softgels (total of 1,000 mg EPA and 150 mg DHA) daily, does that mean take the 2 softgels at one time in the day? Or does it mean 2 softgels per day but one in the morning and one in the evening or something like that.

It means take 2 one time. If they want you to take 1 two times it will tell you that. Regardless, you might as well take 2-4 softgels 2-4 times.

 

[veganjiujitsu]

I've always wondered. I take Country Life fish oil and it says to take 2 softgels (total of 1,000 mg EPA and 150 mg DHA) daily, does that mean take the 2 softgels at one time in the day? Or does it mean 2 softgels per day but one in the morning and one in the evening or something like that.

it means my honda fit can turn corners tighter than what you got in your picture there.

 

[jodka]

I've been thinking about this too. If *everyone* in the world ate with proper nutrition, perhaps this would not be sustainable.

I think this is the key. If "everyone" in the world ate with proper nutrition, the world would look very different. There are billions of people now living on what we would consider malnutrition.

It's only our over-abundance that allows us to be picky and worry about things like carb to protein ratios and good carbs vs. bad carbs. When you are starving, all carbs are good carbs.

Time will tell. It wouldn't shock me at all if fish oil were outrageously expensive by the time I am 50. Course, the world will be very different in 20 years.

 

[oyaji poi]

Canadapride lit up this thread. First post was exactly what I was thinking, instead of having a supplement to account for a lack of proper nutrition in our own diet, to take care of our current diet by ensuring proper nutrition all through the food chain.

Humans evolving on the plains of Africa and the Middle East? Not really big fish eaters.

Population control and sufficiency economy ftw.

 

[Monger]

Humans evolving on the plains of Africa and the Middle East? Not really big fish eaters.

It's believed that evolving humans ate brains, bone marrow, and other cool stuff to get DHA. I don't think just eating wild/grass-fed cow meat would have any impact in regards to having to consume less DHA from fish. The ALA ratio of fats in the meat would certainly be higher, but then again, the total fat content would be lower (wild game tends to be leaner) so would the absolute amount of ALA even be increased? I don't know. Regardless, research has shown that human's ability to convert ALA to DHA and EPA is fairly shitty and this conversion ability probably wasn't heavily relied on during evolution.

I guess my point is that we'd have to start introducing organs and specifically brain into our diets to get DHA if it weren't for fish. Well, if we wanted optimal to elevated DHA levels anyway.

 

[XMoker]

Maybe it won't just be people taking the fish oil...

Specifically, including 2 percent fish oil in the diet of cattle reduces flatulence, apparently due to the omega 3 fatty acids in the oil. The study was a small one, however. The technique cut methane output of three cows by 21 percent, said Lorraine Lillis of the University College Dublin.

They should "do a study" on other diets too. Take 'em off the grain, and put 'em on grass like they were meant to be or see how cows convert ALA and give 'em flax. What are they doing feeding this to herbivores anyway?


Fish Oil Could Curb Cow Flatulence | LiveScience

 

[romistrub]

This thread is one of my favourite threads that sherdog has ever created. Prepare for the bomb:

We're fucked. Not humanity, but us -- the "healthy eaters". Why? Because humanity outnumbers us.

Let me explain the following simple process:

1) A bunch of scientists proposed that the first human to live to over 1000 years has already been born. This isn't even a little bit difficult to imagine. All it takes is some thought regarding human augmentation and what is defined as "life". I'm inclined to believe that "immortality" (basically rebuilding or replacing our "parts" faster than they deteriorate) is perfectly within the reach today's youth. Of course there are major economic, social, and political variables; I'm not going to pretend I can take them into account.

2) Major scientific advancements are made for profit. This is no less true for government-funded research.

3) Profit is maximized when the greatest number of people are affected by the research, product, etc.

4) We are an extremely small minority.

5) Unimaginably tremendous scientific advances will be made within our lifetime.

6) Biological augmentation mechanisms must be tailored to the recipient of the augmentation (by whatever algorithm or mechanism).

Therefore, the best-case scenario (for us) is that we are brought up to par with the Augmented Unhealthies, who will recieve treatment first, since the first scientific developments will be targeted towards them.

Even worse is that the rate of augmentation will far exceed the rate of "natural" development of athletic ability (via training) and hence the gap will grow ever-wider, and we will be left in the dust.

Solution? Become rich. The one group that has access to technology before "the masses" is the rich. If you can become rich and keep up this lifestyle, you will be far ahead of the technological curve and your willpower might (until they figure out how to augment that) give you a temporary advantage.

 

[veganjiujitsu]

This thread is one of my favourite threads that sherdog has ever created. Prepare for the bomb:

We're fucked. Not humanity, but us -- the "healthy eaters". Why? Because humanity outnumbers us.

Let me explain the following simple process:

1) A bunch of scientists proposed that the first human to live to over 1000 years has already been born. This isn't even a little bit difficult to imagine. All it takes is some thought regarding human augmentation and what is defined as "life". I'm inclined to believe that "immortality" (basically rebuilding or replacing our "parts" faster than they deteriorate) is perfectly within the reach today's youth. Of course there are major economic, social, and political variables; I'm not going to pretend I can take them into account.

2) Major scientific advancements are made for profit. This is no less true for government-funded research.

3) Profit is maximized when the greatest number of people are affected by the research, product, etc.

4) We are an extremely small minority.

5) Unimaginably tremendous scientific advances will be made within our lifetime.

6) Biological augmentation mechanisms must be tailored to the recipient of the augmentation (by whatever algorithm or mechanism).

Therefore, the best-case scenario (for us) is that we are brought up to par with the Augmented Unhealthies, who will recieve treatment first, since the first scientific developments will be targeted towards them.

Even worse is that the rate of augmentation will far exceed the rate of "natural" development of athletic ability (via training) and hence the gap will grow ever-wider, and we will be left in the dust.

Solution? Become rich. The one group that has access to technology before "the masses" is the rich. If you can become rich and keep up this lifestyle, you will be far ahead of the technological curve and your willpower might (until they figure out how to augment that) give you a temporary advantage.

ah, but that's if technological curves grow exponentially and certain huge leaps happen.

I can't imagine linear growth in biotech giving us augmentations like that.

besides, a singularity is exactly that -- can't predict.

I'm trying to ward off your pessimism before it gets me! : )

 

[romistrub]

ah, but that's if technological curves grow exponentially and certain huge leaps happen.

I can't imagine linear growth in biotech giving us augmentations like that.

besides, a singularity is exactly that -- can't predict.

I'm trying to ward off your pessimism before it gets me! : )

Evolution hasn't hit a wall in the billions of years it's been at it. It's not about to stumble upon some mystical scientific stop sign.

What most people don't realize is that Moore's Law (although I hate to call it a law) is just as applicable in biotech as it is in electronics/photonics. It deals with computation in general, and greater computational power allows more accurate modelling of brain and muscle development, anatomy, evolution, etc.

The difficult part about augmentation is developing a safe and functional interface (use kettlebells! ... sorry) between conventional computers / hardware and the human body. The way to do this succesfully requires nothing super-special: just highly accurate imaging technologies combined with highly accurate sensors. The latter is being worked on extensively in the field of nanotechnology; the former is a function of Moore's Law.

What's more? By late next year, a home computer should have the computational power of the human brain (albeit less elegant and efficient) and ten years after that, a similarly-priced computer should have the computational power of the entire human species. / sound byte

I'm not pessimistic. I enjoy eating the way I do. Just make sure to stay on top of shit, or you will get trampled by technocrats in your lifetime.

 

[oyaji poi]

It's believed that evolving humans ate brains, bone marrow, and other cool stuff to get DHA. I don't think just eating wild/grass-fed cow meat would have any impact in regards to having to consume less DHA from fish. The ALA ratio of fats in the meat would certainly be higher, but then again, the total fat content would be lower (wild game tends to be leaner) so would the absolute amount of ALA even be increased? I don't know. Regardless, research has shown that human's ability to convert ALA to DHA and EPA is fairly shitty and this conversion ability probably wasn't heavily relied on during evolution.

I guess my point is that we'd have to start introducing organs and specifically brain into our diets to get DHA if it weren't for fish. Well, if we wanted optimal to elevated DHA levels anyway.

Your point was exactly the point I was making, so kudos to you. we might have read the same articles. My brain is telling me this has something to do with humans and even many high level predators not eating the meat so much as the organs and marrow. I know that wolves only eat fish heads in Northern BC. Anyways, the omega 3-6 ratio in the meat would have been much more equal, (I guess) but mainly it was the bones, brains, eyeballz, and organs they ate that gave them the evolutionary fuel. So there are two things we're trying to make up for by consuming fish oil. First is the transition to mainly meat from mainly gross body parts. The other is that the meat we used to eat had a much more even ratio of Omega's than now due to teh animals eating teh grass like they're supposed to instead of popcorn and other animal parts.

romistrub, your post was too long and too closely related to my day job. If I started to write a response, it would be massive. Interesting stuff though, certainly not the angle most policy researchers would look at.