14 replies to this topic

[Absent]

I've always heard anyone supplementing Fish Oil should supplement Vitamin E. I've noticed that when I supplement Fish Oil my skin starts to heal very very slowly, regardless of if I am supplementing E. Usually blemishes and cuts on my skin heal in a matter of 2-3 days, with redness/inflamation being gone after 2 days at most. When I take Fish Oil, even as little as 1000mg per day, those same small cuts and blemishes take up to 2-3 weeks to heal, 1-2 weeks for the redness/inflammation to go down.

Why is this? Fish Oil clearly has a positive effect on cognition but is can't be a good sign if it's having this effect on skin?

[rwac]

Fish oil is immunosuppressive. The Immune system is inextricably involved in wound healing. So it shouldn't be a surprise that fish oil inhibits wound healing.

[timar]

Those are rather limited observations with a relatively high dose of EPA though.

It is more likely that it is the anti-inflammatory effect of fish oil which could theoretically slow down wound healing. After all, wound healing requires a strong, local inflammatory response. It may be coincidence as well. What dose of EPA and DHA do you take, eon?

Edited by timar, 29 November 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

I get the same effect of delayed wound healing from PPC (polyunsaturated lecithin), which also turns down immune/inflammatory response.

The distressing aspect of this phenomenon is not so much in delayed wound healing, but with cancer suppression, or LACK THEREOF.

There's a very interesting read on PUFA's, polyunsaturated fats, fish oil, and the dramatic increase in cancer during the 20th Century here:
http://www.second-op...ml#.UpjTe8RDtBk

"Polyunsaturated Oils Increase Cancer Risk"

The increased cancer risk of immune suppression in transplant patients was intriguing as this is a known problem even today. The dramatic increase in smoking related lung cancer during the rise of vegetable oil use in the mid 20th Century was also fascinating.

"Wayne Martin likes to tell a story which suggests just how cancer-causing are PUFs. In 1930 in the USA, eighty percent of men smoked cigarettes and the tar content of cigarettes was much higher than it is today. The death rate at that time from lung cancer was very low. In 1955 doctors decided that PUFs were good in terms of heart disease protection. After this lung cancer deaths increased so dramatically. By 1980 although the number of American men who smoked had dropped to only thirty percent, three times as much PUF was being eaten — and there were sixty times as many lung cancer deaths.

In 1990, Martin called Newsholme's Oxford University office but by then Newsholme had retired. Martin spoke to his successor to find that they were still treating autoimmune diseases with PUFs. By then they were using fish oil. The doctor said the reason for the fish oil was that the degree of immunosuppression increased with the degree of unsaturation and fish oil was much more unsaturated than sunflower oil. Martin asked the doctor why they were not talking about PUFs causing cancer. The doctor replied that if he did that he would be run out of Oxford."

This is something the fish oil believers should investigate further.

Edited by synesthesia, 29 November 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[timar]

PUFAs, just like SFAs, is a much too general term to make any meaningful use of it. Someone who lumps together such physiological diverse and often opposing fatty acids as linolic acid, alpha-linolenic acid, gamma-linolenic acid, EPA, DHA, AA and CLAs in order to make up some generalizing theory isn't to be taken seriously and it would be a waste of time to investigate such a theory further.

Of course, PUFAs are more prone to oxidation than SFAs. But fatty acid metabolism is a little more complicated than that...

Regarding fish oil, I would be concerned if the Japanese and the Icelandic people had high rates of cancer. The exact opposite is the case.

Edited by timar, 29 November 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[niner]

PUFAs, just like SFAs, is a much too general term to make any meaningful use of it. Someone who lumps together such physiological diverse and often opposing fatty acids as linolic acid, alpha-linolenic acid, gamma-linolenic acid, EPA, DHA, AA and CLAs in order to make up some generalizing theory isn't to be taken seriously and it would be a waste of time to investigate such a theory further.

Of course, PUFAs are more prone to oxidation than SFAs. But fatty acid metabolism is a little more complicated than that...

I disagree... Essential fatty acids are only needed in small quantities. When we start consuming them in massive amounts, as in the industrial seed oils, the distinct chemistry of the individual fatty acids is less important, and their oxidation potential becomes a bigger factor. PUFA is a useful term, although I would separate the Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acids (EPA, DHA, possibly AA) out as a separate group, and call them HUFAs.

PUFAs and HUFAs, when consumed in large quantities are associated with some fairly ugly epidemiology.

[Absent]

Would taking straight EPA/DHA be better for my skin than Fish Oil, or even taking Krill Oil?

I have taken large doses of Fish Oil in the past, and cognitive benefits can be felt up to 30-40g, albiet, probably not the safest dosage for long-term consumption.

[Dorian Grey]

PUFAs, just like SFAs, is a much too general term to make any meaningful use of it. Someone who lumps together such physiological diverse and often opposing fatty acids as linolic acid, alpha-linolenic acid, gamma-linolenic acid, EPA, DHA, AA and CLAs in order to make up some generalizing theory isn't to be taken seriously and it would be a waste of time to investigate such a theory further.

Of course, PUFAs are more prone to oxidation than SFAs. But fatty acid metabolism is a little more complicated than that...

Regarding fish oil, I would be concerned if the Japanese and the Icelandic people had high rates of cancer. The exact opposite is the case.

Do the Japanese and Icelandic people gobble down concentrated, highly processed and partially rancid fish oil pills? Or do they simply consume more fresh seafood than the rest of the world? How does their consumption of polyunsaturated vegetable oils compare to ours?

Doing what one can to avoid cancer should be a worthwhile topic to ponder in any health orientated/longevity forum.

Edited by synesthesia, 30 November 2013 - 12:29 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Would taking straight EPA/DHA be better for my skin than Fish Oil, or even taking Krill Oil?

I have taken large doses of Fish Oil in the past, and cognitive benefits can be felt up to 30-40g, albiet, probably not the safest dosage for long-term consumption.

Getting back to your original question about Vitamin-E, I've read Vitamin-E intake should be adjusted to intake of polyunsaturates. Low PUFA/HUFA consumption should reduce the need for Vitamin-E, with the inverse true for high consumption.

Anyone considering megadosing polyunsaturates would also be wise to keep their iron homeostasis on the low side too. Iron (and copper) are both powerful catalyst's for lipid peroxidation, and no amount of Vitamin-E will stop this if iron or copper is at all elevated.

[timar]

I disagree... Essential fatty acids are only needed in small quantities. When we start consuming them in massive amounts...

PUFAs and HUFAs, when consumed in large quantities are associated with some fairly ugly epidemiology.

Everything is associated with some fairly ugly outcomes when consumed in excessive amounts. Drink 10 liters of water a day and you will wreck your kidneys. Yet no sane person would ever drink such a toxic amount of water. It may be a bit easier to overdose on fish oil, but to achieve the average Japanese tissue levels of omega 3 HUFAs an estimated ~1.7% of total daily calories or 3.7gr of EPA and DHA would be required for the avarage American with a caloric intake of 2000 kcal.[1]

This is, of course, because the avarage American consumes way too much linoleic acid from refined vegetable oils. The avarage Japanese attains this tissue levels (~60% of HUFAs) with "only" about 0.38% of calories as EPA and DHA, which translates to 830mg, because less dietary omega 6 fatty acids compete with the omega 3s.

Once again, we have to look at the dose-response curve for every fatty acid (or at least for every group of resonably closely related fatty acids) seperately in order to determine their optimum intake levels and carefully consider epidemiological evidence from differing dietary patters around the world.

The dietary patterns associated with the highest rates of cenetarians and the lowest rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and other age related and chronic diseases are those of the Japanese and certain Mediterranean regions. Both have in common a relatively high intake of omega 3s, with a significant amount of long-chain EPA and DHA, and a relatively low intake of omega 6s (a ratio of >= 1:4 compared to the American ratio of << 1:10). The traditional crete diet is about 10% higher in fat than the avarage Japanese diet (26%) but remarkably most of that difference is made up by monounsaturated fatty acids.[2][3]

I certainly don't recommend mega dosing of fish oil (except for those having hypertriglyceridaemia) but I think almost every westerner could benefit from 0.5 to 1gr of supplemental EPA and DHA in addition to regular fish consumption, especially given the difficulty of avoiding omega 6s in our contemporary food environment.

Still, decreasing our intake of the latter to less than 10% of total calories should be at least as much of a priority as increasing omega 3s, An ideal distribution might be something like 5% SFAs, 10-20% MUFAs, 5% omega 3s and 5% omega 6s, with ~10% of the omega 3s as EPA and DHA.

[1] J. R. Hibbeln et al. Healthy intakes of n−3 and n−6 fatty acids: estimations considering worldwide diversity. Am J Clin Nutr June 2006 vol. 83 no. 6 1483S-1493S.
[2] M. Sugano, F. Hirata. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the food chain in Japan. Am J Clin Nutr January 2000 vol. 71 no. 1 189S-196S
[3] A. P. Simopoulos. The Mediterranean Diets: What Is So Special about the Diet of Greece? The Scientific Evidence. J. Nutr. November 1, 2001 vol. 131 no. 11 3065S-3073S

Edited by timar, 30 November 2013 - 01:49 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

You're a good egg timar... Thanks for the informative response and great links!

Here's one for you on another longevity factor for the denizens of Crete... Lower iron!

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17667637

"After multiple adjustments, serum levels of the markers of oxidative stress were lower in Cretan men than in men from Zutphen, as indicated by lower mean levels of hydroperoxides (33.2 versus 57.3 micromol/l; P=0.005) and gamma-glutamyltransferase (20.3 versus 26.1 U/l; P=0.003). The most pronounced difference in iron status was a twofold lower mean serum ferritin level in Cretan men (69.8 microg/l) compared with men from Zutphen (134.2 microg/l; P<0.0001)"

Get Thee to a Blood Bank!

Edited by synesthesia, 30 November 2013 - 02:09 AM.

[timar]

Here's one for you on another longevity factor for the denizens of Crete... Lower iron!

This shows the importance of analysing dietary patters in addition to isolated nutrients. What the Japanese or the Cretans show us is that relatively high levels of omega 3 HUFAs in the diet as well as in the tissues are associated with very favourable epidemiologic outcomes, within the context of their traditional dietary patterns. In this case, it is easy to see the interaction: HUFAs are prone to oxidation so you better combine omega 3s with with a diet that is rich in antioxidants and low in prooxidants. This is of course, exactly what the MediterrAsian diet is all about: low amounts of red meat (heme iron) and an abundance of phytochemicals.

So what is to be expected if you pull out the omega 3s from such a dietary pattern and implant it into the typical Western diet with its excess of omega 6s, saturated fatty acids and iron from meat and junk food and its lack of antioxidants and protective phytonutrients? Well, probably not that much, as the disappointing RCTs with fish oil have shown. Note, however, that the trials done in Japan and Italy interestingly had much more favourable outcomes than those done in the US or Northern Europe.

Therefore, it seems prudent to combine supplemental fish oil with a diet that approaches the above mentioned dietary patterns in order to reap the synergistic benetifs of omega 3s and all the other constituents of such a diet. It may be wise to add an iron-free multivitamin in order to ensure an ample intake of micronutrients. Don't think, however, that you can substitute for a healthy diet with megadoses of vitamins. It won't work, because our antioxidant defense systems are adapted to an abundance of phytochemicals, not to megadoses of isolated antioxidants like vitamin E.

Edited by timar, 30 November 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[trance]

Here's one for you on another longevity factor for the denizens of Crete... Lower iron!

This shows the importance of analysing dietary patters in addition to isolated nutrients. What the Japanese or the Cretans show us is that relatively high levels of omega 3 HUFAs in the diet as well as in the tissues are associated with very favourable epidemiologic outcomes, within the context of their traditional dietary patterns. In this case, it is easy to see the interaction: HUFAs are prone to oxidation so you better combine omega 3s with with a diet that is rich in antioxidants and low in prooxidants. This is of course, exactly what the MediterrAsian diet is all about: low amounts of red meat (heme iron) and an abundance of phytochemicals.

Lots of great information in that paper ...

http://downloads.hin...2013/707421.pdf

[Dorian Grey]

Yes, sometimes we can get so caught up in our discussions we forget to thank posters who do their homework and provide much of the heavy lifting here.

For all you do... We Salute You!

[krillin]

[1] J. R. Hibbeln et al. Healthy intakes of n−3 and n−6 fatty acids: estimations considering worldwide diversity. Am J Clin Nutr June 2006 vol. 83 no. 6 1483S-1493S.

 

Here is the full text of the 1992 paper that has the equations they used in the above. The Keep It Managed software says some constants were changed in 2002, so 0.008 should be 0.005 (HI₃), 0.5 should be 0.7 (HC₆), and 8.75 should be 3.0 (HC₃).

 

So here are the LC-PUFA predictions for me supplementing various amounts of fats:

9 g flax oil: 64% n-6, 23% EPA+DPA, and 13% DHA.

500 mg EPA/DHA: 61% n-6, 12% EPA+DPA, and 27% DHA.

500 mg EPA/DHA + 1 g flax oil: 60% n-6, 15% EPA+DPA, and 25% DHA.

1000 mg EPA/DHA: 51% n-6, 18% EPA+DPA, and 31% DHA.
 

I think 500 mg EPA/DHA + 1 g flax oil gives the best profile. (It's close to what they used in Alpha Omega so it works in practice as well as in theory.) It is the cheapest method that yields n-6 ≤ 60%, EPA+DPA ≥ 13%, and DHA ≥ 22%. The EPA+DPA target is an attempt at estimating what the best GISSI profile was. They lumped long- and short-chain n-6 together so you have to guess to convert from % of total fatty acids to % of LC-PUFA. The DHA target is based on cognitive decline studies that weren't even prospective so I won't cite them. I just wanted to find the highest level of DHA that could plausibly be justifiable.