Excellent advice that I as a nutritionist completely endorse. As a grandmother I am staggered by the amount of misinformation given to new mothers by the medical profession and well meaning nurses who seem to pick up bits of wrong information from goodness knows where and worryingly pass it on.

Of course there are some nurses (I was one myself) who take a huge interest in nutrition and can be relied on to impart very good information.

The debate about the toxicity in fish that accumulates more in oily fish is certainly worrying and its hard to know just how much is safe to eat. The guidelines that I always passed on to mothers of new babies to reduce the incidence of food allergy or intolerance in children was not to introduce fish until after 12 months.

Avoid the most polluted fish - tuna, swordfish, marlin and shark. Fish can cause reactions in many people because of the substances it produces as it ages as well as the toxins it accumulates from the sea.

It pays to make sure your fish is from the less polluted waters and is very fresh.

See my blog post about mercury and fish:

http://NaturalHealthRemediesAndDetox.blogspot.com

What about enteric coating for fish oil? I recently read it is important what do you think?

The 2 websites below disagree with your information on Omega 3s. Brian S. Peskin has written 2 books based on studies of what he considers the best research. "Science not Opinion" is his motto, which is the approach I've always respected your Co. for, so I think you'll be interested.
http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/news/latest/latest0701/omega-3-overdosing.html
http://brianpeskin.com/index.html

Hi Steve. There is little or no benefit in enteric coating fish oil. Some companies do but I have reason to believe it is done to mask any rancidity.

Hi Bill,

Well you certainly raised a good one here! I had my own views on the comments made in these websites but I thought I would also get comment from our QA manager Trevor Lyttle, BTech (BiotTech) M.Sc (Hons) and a further expert on lipids Sandra Deans.

I hope that these comments put this issue into perspective.

This is what Trevor says...

Hi Warren,

I have come across both Brian Peskin and Otto Warburg before in my explorations. In my extremely humble and unbiased opinion both their theories are a crock of horse dung.

1) I very much doubt if there is a single internationally recognised cancer specialist today who would in any way shape or form subscribe to the idea that cellular oxygen deprivation is the base cause of any type of cancer.
2) If the above were the case then the vast majority of cancers would be gastrointestinal in nature as much of the inner gut is actually anaerobic. That’s why passing wind can be so smelly, all those anaerobic gases.
3) It is widely recognised that cancer is, in its basic form, a failure of body cells to die. Not just that but their reproduction mechanism is so out of whack that they reproduce at much faster than normal rates.
4) In a 2007 article in National Geographic it was shown that in the vast majority of cancer cases this uncontrolled reproduction of cells is caused by gross morphological changes in multiple chromosomes. This will eventually interfere with the genes controlling cellular reproduction.
5) To go from a theory of cellular oxygen deprivation to the idea that we are overdosing on Omega 3 is patently ludicrous.
6) Dieticians world-wide acknowledge that a correct ratio of omega 6:omega 3 is needed to maintain proper cellular ratios. Furthermore the modern diet is far too heavily weighted in omega 6. The ingestion of 1000mg or so of omega 3 makes a significant, but relatively small, impact on the amount of omega 6 in the modern western diet.
7) Regarding his suggestion that people should rather take ALA etc, how about those people who cannot turn ALA into EPA or DHA through (genetic) enzyme deficiencies. They can’t all be cancer sufferers.

And don’t get me started on his ideas around recovery of muscles form lactic acid “burn”.

In an article as long as this is he can only render 4 references to support his ideas. That says a lot about the theories right there. In all the selected reviews of Peskins book, only 2 are from Cancer doctors. Yet again, this is a case of a little science being used to support a very dodgy theory. Something of which Peskin accuses the supplement industry.

I’ll climb off my soap box now.

------------

Sandra adds to Trevors comments by saying:

Hi Trevor,

Can I join you on that soap box….. Can’t believe that they have it so wrong.

Facts

1.The only Essential Fatty acids are ALA and LA
2.EPA and DHA are metabolites /derivatives of ALA
3.The human body is a poor convertor of ALA to EPA & DHA.
4.Because of poor conversion EPA and DHA have been coined “Conditionally” essential
5.The body needs more omega 6 to omega 3. The accepted ratio (by scientific experts) is ~4:1 w6:w3
6.Westerners because of the ease of access of w6 products consume far too much w6 more in the ratio of 20:1
7.Need to address the balance by increasing intake of w3 ( as well as trying to reduce w6 intake)
8.The body uses the same enzymes to metabolise /derivate-ise ALA a & LA (ie w3 & w6) which further impacts on poor conversion stats.
9.The metabolites of w6 are pro inflammatory whilst w3 are less so or anti-inflammatory
10.Global government health organisations not the media are promoting an increase in use of omega 3. Eg World health Organisation. American Heart Association, UK Government, European authorities etc
11.Trans fats are bad for us
12.DHA is essential to developing foetus and must be passed form mother to foetus.
13.DHA is structural fat of brain and is required in early development of infants brain. This is often passed to the infant via breast milk. Formila product generally now contain AA & DHA for this very purpose
14.DHA is essential for eye development and health – structural fat
15.EPA is helps ensure good brain signalling
16.EPA and DHA are critical for heart health
17.EPA metabolites are good anti-inflammatories and studies have proven benefits in joint health

References in the article also dated – Science is churning out articles on a daily basis. This is a hot topic and one that it is being extensively studied and reported.

Soap box deflated

Cheers
Sandra

The concern about fish oils and cancer probably stems from the potential dioxins and PCBs in fish. These substances must be fat soluble, therefore more likely to be absorbed from fatty fish. I've read that anything that is fat soluble isn't readily excreted, so high levels of consumption of any oily fish or fish oil that contains these substances would over time increase the concentration in the body, thereby leading to an increased risk of cancer.

The following link is to a health services provider website that discusses the importance of eating oily fish but warns to limit consumption due to dioxin and PCB concerns. It cites a number of references at the UK Food Standards Agency, which has a variety of reports on the subject.

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/300604fish.html

The following link is to the UK Food Standards Agency information:

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/2004/jun/oilyfishadvice0604press

-Kris

Hi Kristina,

I totally agree about the dangers of toxins from dioxins and PCB's but this was not the argument of Brian Peskin. He was working on some offbeat theory that is way out of whack.

The dioxins and PCB's along with heavy metals etc are quite easily removed from fish oil.

For those who are in doubt about Peskin's discovery, please follow this link:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/Peskin/peskin.html

Most interesting Ella....thank you for your contribution.

Fish oil is not the best source of omega 3. Brian, Otto and
Udo are right. And Ella the Quackwatch org are about to destroy all alternative medecine and practitioners and
suppliers of such.

Mmmm...that's interesting Christine. Quackwatch have been around for a long time and I agree that they are very much anti-natural remedies and very much pro pharmaceutical. They certainly do not win any accolades from me.

However, they as everyone are entitled to their opinions.

Sometimes, I find their reports quite amusing, but sometimes they dig up some interesting material. I really don't think that they have much impact on any thinking people and certainly minimal impact on legilators.

They would not be able to survive if they were not constantly fueled by questionable marketers of supplements and 'way out' therapy's and claims.

There is nothing wrong with trying out something a bit way out for themselves, but it is something else when an opinion is promoted as fact which is often wrong and to the detriment of those people who get taken in by it.

It would be interesting to know what you believe is the best source of Omega 3 if it is not fish oil? As indicated above Brian does not have the science behind him to support his assertions in spite of him claiming to have it.

For me anyway, I will stick with our Omega 3 fish oil. I wonder if Brian is as healthy as I am?? :)

To those who doubt the discovery of the great Otto warburg. Feel free to peruse the following scientific journal . No opinion, just hard core science .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16033770&dopt=AbstractPlus

Omega 3 derivatives are regarded as essential nutrients because human can convert ALA to DHA and EPA. Brian peskin is absolutely right that we need both parents omega 3 and omega 6 when it comes to supplementation. Taking only fish oil will make you prone to

1) Gum bleeding ( experienced by myself )
2) Bruising
3) Skin problem ( SKin has 99% omega 6 ) ( experienced by many acne sufferers )

4) Other more serious medical condition when the omega ratio is disrupted

http://www.healthandage.com/professional/health-center/1/article/1935/Polyunsaturated-Fat-May-Protect-Against-Stroke.html

Omega 6 deficient Japanense has higher risk of Stroke

The researchers found that, after controlling for multiple confounders, including cardiovascular risk factors, the presence of diabetes, and levels of other fatty acids, a high serum level of linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat found in vegetable oils, was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ischemic stroke - odds ratios of approximately 0.65 for a 1-standard deviation increase in the linoleic acid level. Serum levels of saturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids were not associated with an increased risk of stroke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_nutrients

Omega 3 derivatives are NOT regarded as essential nutrients because human can convert ALA to DHA and EPA. Brian peskin is absolutely right that we need both parents omega 3 and omega 6 when it comes to supplementation. Taking only fish oil will make you prone to

1) Gum bleeding ( experienced by myself )
2) Bruising
3) Skin problem ( SKin has 99% omega 6 ) ( experienced by many acne sufferers )

4) Other more serious medical condition when the omega ratio is disrupted

http://www.healthandage.com/professional/health-center/1/article/1935/Polyunsaturated-Fat-May-Protect-Against-Stroke.html

Omega 6 deficient Japanense has higher risk of Stroke

The researchers found that, after controlling for multiple confounders, including cardiovascular risk factors, the presence of diabetes, and levels of other fatty acids, a high serum level of linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat found in vegetable oils, was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ischemic stroke - odds ratios of approximately 0.65 for a 1-standard deviation increase in the linoleic acid level. Serum levels of saturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids were not associated with an increased risk of stroke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_nutrients

Role of Hypoxia on Cancer.

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/5/647

Hypoxic cancer cells occur for a number of reasons. Oxygen is only able to diffuse 100–180 µm from a capillary to cells before it is completely metabolized. Therefore, any cell located greater than this distance from a blood vessel will be hypoxic. Hypoxia may occur when aberrant blood vessels are shutdown by becoming compressed or obstructed by growth, a feature commonly observed during the rapid growth of tumors.

Cells that become hypoxic convert to a glycolytic metabolism, become resistant to apoptosis (programmed cell death), and are more likely to migrate to less hypoxic areas of the body (metastasis). Hypoxic cells also produce pro-angiogenic factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which stimulate new blood vessel formation from existing vasculature, increasing tumor oxygenation and, ultimately, tumor growth. For this reason, hypoxic tumors are the most pro-angiogenic and aggressive of tumors.

N-3 and N-6 Vs cancer

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/385

Thanks for your contributions Kenneth.

I have not had time to study in detail all the links that you have provided. However, I would point out that not everyone can convert ALA to EPA let alone DHA. There are studies that confirm this.

ALA has 18 double carbon bonds but EPA has 20, and DHA has 22. It is relatively easy to go from DHA to EPA and to ALA but not the other way.

No one is disputing that Omega 6 is important but the reality is that the majority of people get much more Omega 6 than they should and this leads to a deficiency of Omega 3. And, people who do not take fish oil or eat a good quantity of fish often have a DHA deficiency.