Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Benefits of using Udo's oil?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
You didn't understand? Cool! That's one all.
Science Nerds 1 - 1 Tax Bores
FB - Agreed. Silly money, but encouraged by the Gov't, so they get to recoup a significant proportion of it (even before it becomes profit). Small companies can't compete, but we try to bring a bit of sunshine where we can!
ok Im not a chemist, Dr, Physicist, snake oil salesman, pharmaceutical lobbyist or in fact a very good runner
Ive read the thread and understood 20% coz Im tired and too lazy to think
is this stuff
Yes or no or maybe is good enough ta
Hah, actually one of the reasons I was googling forums!!
Suffice to say we're fuming about it - I've never heard such a biased interview on Radio in my life. To have 1 person who was defending the position to be interviewed earlier, then have 3 people from the same lobby group attack something for over 10 minutes, crazy...
The guy who seems to be spear heading things, Michael Crawford, is a real supporter of fish oils - to the point where in '89 he wrote about "the aquatic ape" - a poor idea at best that tried to explain some human evolution with fish stocks. Widely discredited, it seems he is still grinding the same axe. Confusingly he also contradicts himself in other stuff that he has contributed to by commenting on the need for ALA.
As a vegan you would quite simply be screwed if you did not convert ALA to EPA/DHA - that is an irrefutable fact. When looking at the conversion rates, in experiments where the 3 : 6 ratio was slanted more to 6 than it should of been, men convert 5-10% to EPA, 2-5% to DHA and women roughly double that.
There is a negative feedback mechanism in place that stops the conversion if DHA is present. Why on earth would the body have a negative feedback system to stop conversion if DHA was the ultimate use for n3's, and their sole raison d'etre?
There is going to be a portion of the population who cannot convert ALA to its long chain derivatives, law of averages, some people just don't have great enzymes. Typically they exhibit skin complaints and other issues as a hint for this. Only they HAVE to have preformed EPA/DHA in their diet, but it's something like 2% of the population, so not a worry for the majority.
DW - lol, I avoid knowing much about taxes, they anger me too much...
I take 150mg three times a week.
Many thanks for your answer Tony. In that case, I can stop looking at the highly priced algae-derived oil which is the one plant source which has high levels of EPA and DHA.
I've been vegan for 15 years so if I wasn't converting properly to EPA and DHA, I should know by now.
@ Mike - what is your diet like, are you keeping to low carb, nice & complex?
@ Eva - yes, you certainly would by now!
@ goldbeetle - erm, are you posting here, I've had a couple of emails to say you've added a post, but I can't see them... I might of clicked ignore member whilst swapping between tabs, can I undo that..?
there was a suggestion a couple of years ago that ALL men over 50 should take small doses of aspirin to reduce the risk of stroke and heart disease (which can also be caused by blood clots) but I think it was felt to be overkill (sic)
similarly there is now a suggestion that us over 50s should take a daily statin to control our cholesterol levels
if I took every suggestion to heart I'd be flaming rattling with pills!!
n3s will cater for both of those issues - if you call high cholesterol an issue in the first place..!!
HATE statins, miss the point a lot IMO.
No, not very low carb... what with all this running and cycling and stuff, I feel I need my carbs...
I just wondered what was behind your statement about NSAIDs being proven to block muscle recovery?
= = = = =
My diet for today:
Breakfast: 2 rashers bacon, baked beans, on buttered toast (but would usually have eggs)
Snack: 1 apple
Lunch: canteen: roast pork, cabbabge, sweetcorn, a very few chips (honest), apple crumble+custard
Afternoon: casein powder "pudding" plus salad of beans, brocolli, red cabbage, peppers plus apple,satsuma
Dinner: dont know yet, might be fried bean curd and brown rice and mushrooms.
Oily fish about three times a week.
Beer is often a feature as well.
next - cigarettes...........
Edit: the above was to TB
for reference - and bear in mind I'm over 16 stone - my diet today
breakfast: piece of buttered toast (spelt bread), banana
lunch: homemade tomato soup, buttered brown roll
evening: a thick beany veg stew of some sort after a turbo session
there will also be a beer and some wine - drinks today have been one mug tea, 2mugs coffee, another tea later
Mike - diet isn't perfect, but certainly not shocking. 3 : 6 ratio is going to be ballpark 1 : 15 (too many foods I don't have on my calc, and not enough time) - this isn't ideal, certainly not for a diabetic for longevity.
Cholesterol per se has never actual been shown to be a direct cause of heart issues, so stopping it's release via statins is bad IMO. Mostly the issue is with oxidation - oxidised LDL is the sticky problem here. Reducing total cholesterol typically has limited impact on total oxidised - i.e. the ratio doesn't drop. So what's the point when high cholesterol is typically a good thing for living a long life. Hey ho! Best theory I've come across was by Pauling, idea being that duringice ages, etc, where anti-oxidants in diet were scarce, it was better to plaque up your arteries to prolong life and have offspring then it was for them to rupture from poor collagen levels.
Sorting the cigarettes, and the oxidative stress the force on you, is a far better option as you say. For most sedentary people simply having more veg (/some fruit) and reducing refined carbs is best bet for sorting ticker.
How do you cope on that diet FB - erm, is you're BF% as your name dictates..? In which case I understand!
(10 1/2 stone female here)
With statins, while you believe they make no sense, the clinical data disagree. Eg when they are given to those in at risk groups they siginificantly reduce the chances of having a heart attack. So clearly they do some good.
You would be encouraged to change to a healthy diet get excercise etc as well. But I would by no means stop taking statins and replace with EFAs or any other supplement where the evidence is no where near as strong as to the benficial effects.
As for asprin and muscle recovery the doses used to prevent strokes are in the range of 50-100mg per day. Studies looking at muscle recovery typically havent seen any effects until your getting towards 5-10 times this amount. So your taking a low dose proven to have beneficial effects and very few detremental effects.
TB - I'm with TO on the statins - the clinical evidence is pretty overwhelming in them helping to reduce CHD and as I said cholesterol is only one part of the CHD equation - but reduce one part and you reduce overall risk. reduce 2 or 3 and the risks plummet enormously.
if people won't reduce their dietary cholesterol, then reducing it through stopping the process of them making it is a good step
Statins reduce cholesterol cholesterol formation to work - question is, why is the cholesterol being formed an issue? It's been in our bodys for a long ass time, and is an important molecule that in the past has only ever done us good (studies into cholesterol level vs longevity point at people with above average cholesterol having a longer life, underlines it's role in defense). Rather than just hitting it with a hammer, we should be eliciting and solving the actual problem, which statins will not do.
I'll have to have a look at some newer figure (do you have any?) on actual mortality reduction, as the odds on you being the one who lived because of them was never a great figure. From what you're saying this may have changed, as I said, not a topic I've ad chance to read up on in a good while.
BTW I do agree that they can be shown to be of benefit (seemingly more so nowadays), I just question the logic of the approach.
TB - as a biochemist you know the answer!
it's not an issue per se. we all need cholesterol to live so we manufacture it. the problem we have in modern life is that we also take way too much in through diet. you know all this.
so if you want to reduce cholesterol levels to reduce CHD incidence you have 2 options - reduce the dietary intake or reduce the manufacture. the latter is what statins do - ergo you stop the body making it so the only source now comes through diet.
as I said earlier if you can't control what people eat - and just look at all the porkers out there - then the sledgehammer statin approach helps these people to control their cholesterol and reduce CHD.
I think we're both agreeing that the fundamental problem is incorrect diet and how you solve this. if you could control what people eat then it's not a problem - as you can't, statins offer an easy solution to the problem. it's curing the symptoms, not the cause. it's not ideal but for a small cost the if it reduces the burden on the NHS then it has to have some value
sure - curing the cause of high cholesterol is the way forward but that's a bigger problem to solve I would suggest
"the problem we have in modern life is that we also take way too much in through diet. you know all this."
Link between dietary cholesterol intake & cholesterol = not there. This has been shown pretty clearly.
Link between fat lazy people's dodgy cholesterol & CVD = lack of activity & refined carbs (+ sats / omega 6) & other lifestyle "choices"
Yep, we are agreeing that diet/education is best option, always will be. I'm just cynical about people who will happily be told to pop a pill, but not empower themselves to do anything else.I suppose it does make sense to try and save us some money with them - just been looking at it would appear a 30% reduction in mortality is possible, with~ 2 years extra living. Not bad.
(pushes keyboard away before starting on "quantity of life" vs "quality of life" speech..!!!)
Yes not a huge deal of protein in there - which is typically fine IMO if nothing is shouting at you to increase it