- This topic has 17 voices and 69 replies.
-
Posts
-
The studies I cited was in peer reviewed journals. Explain why you think they (and Kiefer) are incorrect?
The same reason why people and institutions have been wrong (and will continue to be wrong) about many things. They are basing their research on the foundation of an unproven model. Its called Cell Membrane Theory for a reason. If the fundamentals are not correct its pure hubris to believe everything that follows is going to stand up to scientific rigor and time.
Contemporary studies also indicate that much less of the plasma membrane is “bare” lipid than previously thought and in fact much of the cell surface may be protein-associated. In spite of these limitations, the fluid mosaic model remains a popular and often referenced general notion for the structure of biological membranes
If we are talking science I think its worth keeping an open mind to the possibility that we probably dont know everything and may be very wrong about a lot of things we think we know.
I am not a biology expert nor do I have any interest in the subject. I will simply accept what is generally considered to be true by most of the scientific community. The stuff you posted all seems like it is not.Anyways there are many things in science that are not true, but are still useful as models, like Classical Mechanics. I wouldn't discount the studies I posted for our purposes if you have yet to read them.
The studies I cited was in peer reviewed journals. Explain why you think they (and Kiefer) are incorrect?
The same reason why people and institutions have been wrong (and will continue to be wrong) about many things. They are basing their research on the foundation of an unproven model. Its called Cell Membrane Theory for a reason. If the fundamentals are not correct its pure hubris to believe everything that follows is going to stand up to scientific rigor and time.
Contemporary studies also indicate that much less of the plasma membrane is “bare” lipid than previously thought and in fact much of the cell surface may be protein-associated. In spite of these limitations, the fluid mosaic model remains a popular and often referenced general notion for the structure of biological membranes
If we are talking science I think its worth keeping an open mind to the possibility that we probably dont know everything and may be very wrong about a lot of things we think we know.
I am not a biology expert nor do I have any interest in the subject. I will simply accept what is generally considered to be true by most of the scientific community. The stuff you posted all seems like it is not.Anyways there are many things in science that are not true, but are still useful as models, like Classical Mechanics. I wouldn't discount the studies I posted for our purposes if you have yet to read them.
Healthy skepticism is needed in all fields. Nothing should be sacred and unquestionable. Especially the basics. Thats the problem with this kind of stuff. All it takes is one person "of authority" to say "it is what it is" to a student, who then goes on to research his own stuff based on "it is what it is" and teaching others that "it is indeed what it is", and a few generations later everyone is completely off course.
"I will simply accept what is generally considered to be true by most of the scientific community"
Science is not religion. It must be questioned. Maybe you havent come across anything to make you suspect that something you believe in could be wrong. Thats fine. Thats not exactly willful ignorance. Just uninformed. I have however pointed you to something you could use as a counterpoint if you saw the potential importance. In regards to fishoil the phrase follow the money applies. Is fish oil healthy or have we just swallowed a line hook, line and sinker? (LOL sorry, had to) It is essentially a waste product (whether you believe its healthy or not is irrelevant to that fact) that has been made (marketed) into a health food in order to maximise someones profits. Surely those people have a vested interest in marketing their product in the best light possible. When moneys involved it is a lot easier to "prove" something is good than it is to show its shortcomings.
The studies I cited was in peer reviewed journals. Explain why you think they (and Kiefer) are incorrect?
The same reason why people and institutions have been wrong (and will continue to be wrong) about many things. They are basing their research on the foundation of an unproven model. Its called Cell Membrane Theory for a reason. If the fundamentals are not correct its pure hubris to believe everything that follows is going to stand up to scientific rigor and time.
Contemporary studies also indicate that much less of the plasma membrane is “bare” lipid than previously thought and in fact much of the cell surface may be protein-associated. In spite of these limitations, the fluid mosaic model remains a popular and often referenced general notion for the structure of biological membranes
If we are talking science I think its worth keeping an open mind to the possibility that we probably dont know everything and may be very wrong about a lot of things we think we know.
I am not a biology expert nor do I have any interest in the subject. I will simply accept what is generally considered to be true by most of the scientific community. The stuff you posted all seems like it is not.Anyways there are many things in science that are not true, but are still useful as models, like Classical Mechanics. I wouldn't discount the studies I posted for our purposes if you have yet to read them.
Healthy skepticism is needed in all fields. Nothing should be sacred and unquestionable. Especially the basics. Thats the problem with this kind of stuff. All it takes is one person "of authority" to say "it is what it is" to a student, who then goes on to research his own stuff based on "it is what it is" and teaching others that "it is indeed what it is", and a few generations later everyone is completely off course.
"I will simply accept what is generally considered to be true by most of the scientific community"
Science is not religion. It must be questioned. Maybe you havent come across anything to make you suspect that something you believe in could be wrong. Thats fine. Thats not exactly willful ignorance. Just uninformed. I have however pointed you to something you could use as a counterpoint if you saw the potential importance. In regards to fishoil the phrase follow the money applies. Is fish oil healthy or have we just swallowed a line hook, line and sinker? (LOL sorry, had to) It is essentially a waste product (whether you believe its healthy or not is irrelevant to that fact) that has been made (marketed) into a health food in order to maximise someones profits. Surely those people have a vested interest in marketing their product in the best light possible. When moneys involved it is a lot easier to "prove" something is good than it is to show its shortcomings.
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
Exactly. And do you know whats actually increased in the diet over the years along with increasing obesity? Its not saturated fats (which have seen a small dip in recent decades) its not sugar and its not even a carb. Polyunsaturated fats have increased.
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
Exactly. And do you know whats actually increased in the diet over the years along with increasing obesity? Its not saturated fats (which have seen a small dip in recent decades) its not sugar and its not even a carb. Polyunsaturated fats have increased.
think there is still a lot of research to be done on PUFAs.. for example having a dose of canola vs having a handful of walnuts.. it's similar to the whole fructose debate and taking extracted fructose as an additive vs having it naturally in fruits and how each effects the body
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
Exactly. And do you know whats actually increased in the diet over the years along with increasing obesity? Its not saturated fats (which have seen a small dip in recent decades) its not sugar and its not even a carb. Polyunsaturated fats have increased.
think there is still a lot of research to be done on PUFAs.. for example having a dose of canola vs having a handful of walnuts.. it's similar to the whole fructose debate and taking extracted fructose as an additive vs having it naturally in fruits and how each effects the body
The only difference (thinking fructose here too) would be in quantity and the ease of which it would be to consume in abundance in oil vs a whole food. Once in the body the effects are the same. You can mitigate the damage of polys by offsetting them with saturated fats, but even so their cumulative build up is going to cause issues. Theres quite a lot of old research on PUFAs. Heaps on farm animals etc. i.e. how to get animals to gain weight with a minimum cost/input of food. The supressive effects of PUFAs on the thyroid/metabolism.
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
Exactly. And do you know whats actually increased in the diet over the years along with increasing obesity? Its not saturated fats (which have seen a small dip in recent decades) its not sugar and its not even a carb. Polyunsaturated fats have increased.
think there is still a lot of research to be done on PUFAs.. for example having a dose of canola vs having a handful of walnuts.. it's similar to the whole fructose debate and taking extracted fructose as an additive vs having it naturally in fruits and how each effects the body
The only difference (thinking fructose here too) would be in quantity and the ease of which it would be to consume in abundance in oil vs a whole food. Once in the body the effects are the same. You can mitigate the damage of polys by offsetting them with saturated fats, but even so their cumulative build up is going to cause issues. Theres quite a lot of old research on PUFAs. Heaps on farm animals etc. i.e. how to get animals to gain weight with a minimum cost/input of food. The supressive effects of PUFAs on the thyroid/metabolism.
that's assuming the chemical structure of the substance is exactly the same after they extract it.. chemically treating something to extract a compound can change it.. look at synthetic vitamins for example many have been shown to not have the same effects on the body as the naturally occurring ones
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
Exactly. And do you know whats actually increased in the diet over the years along with increasing obesity? Its not saturated fats (which have seen a small dip in recent decades) its not sugar and its not even a carb. Polyunsaturated fats have increased.
think there is still a lot of research to be done on PUFAs.. for example having a dose of canola vs having a handful of walnuts.. it's similar to the whole fructose debate and taking extracted fructose as an additive vs having it naturally in fruits and how each effects the body
The only difference (thinking fructose here too) would be in quantity and the ease of which it would be to consume in abundance in oil vs a whole food. Once in the body the effects are the same. You can mitigate the damage of polys by offsetting them with saturated fats, but even so their cumulative build up is going to cause issues. Theres quite a lot of old research on PUFAs. Heaps on farm animals etc. i.e. how to get animals to gain weight with a minimum cost/input of food. The supressive effects of PUFAs on the thyroid/metabolism.
that's assuming the chemical structure of the substance is exactly the same after they extract it.. chemically treating something to extract a compound can change it.. look at synthetic vitamins for example many have been shown to not have the same effects on the body as the naturally occurring ones
Which is ironic because fish oil oxidizes quicker than hydrogenated oils!
this is similar to what has happened with the growing obesity problem.. what is crazy is there is over a 100 years of research proving what is known today as "scientific common knowledge" and is taught to medical students is complete bullshit in regards to fats, cholesterol, and things like heart disease.
Exactly. And do you know whats actually increased in the diet over the years along with increasing obesity? Its not saturated fats (which have seen a small dip in recent decades) its not sugar and its not even a carb. Polyunsaturated fats have increased.
think there is still a lot of research to be done on PUFAs.. for example having a dose of canola vs having a handful of walnuts.. it's similar to the whole fructose debate and taking extracted fructose as an additive vs having it naturally in fruits and how each effects the body
The only difference (thinking fructose here too) would be in quantity and the ease of which it would be to consume in abundance in oil vs a whole food. Once in the body the effects are the same. You can mitigate the damage of polys by offsetting them with saturated fats, but even so their cumulative build up is going to cause issues. Theres quite a lot of old research on PUFAs. Heaps on farm animals etc. i.e. how to get animals to gain weight with a minimum cost/input of food. The supressive effects of PUFAs on the thyroid/metabolism.
that's assuming the chemical structure of the substance is exactly the same after they extract it.. chemically treating something to extract a compound can change it.. look at synthetic vitamins for example many have been shown to not have the same effects on the body as the naturally occurring ones
Which is ironic because fish oil oxidizes quicker than hydrogenated oils!
very true which is another reason i don't buy fish oil anymore
God dammit, now i cant even be sure if my supposelly good fish oil caps are good or not!I have opened one cap the 1st time i buyed them and they smelled my sardine fat and not rancid fat, they have vitamin E on it and 1g of it are 550mg of EPA+DHA,Maybe there is a difference between these caps to the regular ones, since taking N-3 has helped me with my inflamatory problem and join pain/recovery,Or maybe all of this is placebo effect,yay now i dont know if my money is wasted or not o/
God dammit, now i cant even be sure if my supposelly good fish oil caps are good or not!I have opened one cap the 1st time i buyed them and they smelled my sardine fat and not rancid fat, they have vitamin E on it and 1g of it are 550mg of EPA+DHA,Maybe there is a difference between these caps to the regular ones, since taking N-3 has helped me with my inflamatory problem and join pain/recovery,Or maybe all of this is placebo effect,yay now i dont know if my money is wasted or not o/
Lack of smell or taste means little as far as rancidity goes. They usually treat it to help hide that. And even if eaten from a freshly killed fish they still oxidize and breakdown into toxic products within the body. Acrolein is one of the more nasty ones.
God dammit, now i cant even be sure if my supposelly good fish oil caps are good or not!I have opened one cap the 1st time i buyed them and they smelled my sardine fat and not rancid fat, they have vitamin E on it and 1g of it are 550mg of EPA+DHA,Maybe there is a difference between these caps to the regular ones, since taking N-3 has helped me with my inflamatory problem and join pain/recovery,Or maybe all of this is placebo effect,yay now i dont know if my money is wasted or not o/
Lack of smell or taste means little as far as rancidity goes. They usually treat it to help hide that. And even if eaten from a freshly killed fish they still oxidize and breakdown into toxic products within the body. Acrolein is one of the more nasty ones.
So I am assuming you are against fatty fish consumption as well?
http://www.unuftp.is/static/fellows/document/pak05prf.pdfBeen reading this article, about the fish oil used in bottles, and even in that case the rancicity inst immediate,If the capsule fish oil is well treated and encapsulated without oxidation, the health issues are less that those who are rancid and masked of it,The fish oil i take is this one : http://www.bulkpowders.co.uk/assets/coa/SSFishOil.pdfby the data they put there, if true, wich is likely, the oxidation process was controlled,Again, i wont drop my DHA and EPA supp without hard proven evidence that all the beneficts it brings are untrue and that they harm me more than help me,If this was such a big issue, i wonder why Kiefer hasnt pronounced about that when he commented about the issue of prostate cancer with fish-oil.
http://www.unuftp.is/static/fellows/document/pak05prf.pdfBeen reading this article, about the fish oil used in bottles, and even in that case the rancicity inst immediate,If the capsule fish oil is well treated and encapsulated without oxidation, the health issues are less that those who are rancid and masked of it,The fish oil i take is this one : http://www.bulkpowders.co.uk/assets/coa/SSFishOil.pdfby the data they put there, if true, wich is likely, the oxidation process was controlled,Again, i wont drop my DHA and EPA supp without hard proven evidence that all the beneficts it brings are untrue and that they harm me more than help me,If this was such a big issue, i wonder why Kiefer hasnt pronounced about that when he commented about the issue of prostate cancer with fish-oil.
I agree. I think Gl;tche has good reasons to be against fish oil, but I am personally not buying it. Until I see more evidence, I do not believe eating fish or taking fish oil is harmful. I am not being ignorant (I once thought gluten intolerance was in people's heads, but I believe differently now), but I need to see empirical results or some sort of personal observations.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.