fish once a month helps, study shows
Question:
This post not CC’d by email >I’ve often wondered how that worked, as it’s often said that half the people >who have heart attacks, don’t have high cholesterol.
G’day G’day Jere, Statistics are tricky things at the best of time. If only a small percentage of people have high cholesterol and they make up half the people who have heart attacks then it would unwise to dismiss cholesterol as being causative. The following is a collecting of ficts. These are things that seem to be supported by the evidence I have been able to collect. Like any solid "fact" today they might make a pretty fine custard tomorrow. Which if any are applicable to you is something you really need to discuss with some qualified medical practitioner. Low folic acid and Vit B12. Not eating enough vegetables and not eating enough vegans <grin> Metformin reduces the absorption of Vit B12 so don’t be complacent. Folic acid and Vit B12 reduce the levels of homocysteine which is somehow involved in putting the holes in the arteries the cholesterol then attempts to plug. Elevated fibrinogen, a blood clotting substance. The nutritional remedies I am aware of are turmeric, fish or fish oil. Fish oils also raise the blood levels of tissue plasminogen activator (TPA). This is the same substance given to patients in the emergency room when they are having a heart attack. It is colloquially known as the "clot buster" People who eat FISH have lower levels of fibrinogen and Factor VIII, two substances that promote blood clots. Elevated Lipoprotein (a) Lp(a) solely caused by "bad" genes. People with the wrong genes tend to get early age onset heart attacks. Lp (a) is like LDL with teats. The teats bits get mistaken for clotting protein and the whole blob gets stuck to the artery walls. The last thing anyone wants is plague with clots on top. When they break lose there is hell to play. A nutritional remedy is flax FIBRE or freshly ground flax. Elevated triglycerides. Tricor, Lopid and Niaspan are/were commonly used to reduce triglycerides. Adler and Holub reported 3.6 grams of omega-3 per day reducing triglycerides by 37%. Hope this helps. The bottom line is eat vegetables and fish, shellfish, prawns, lobster if you can. If you can’t eat fish make sure you eat nuts. Flax fibre and turmeric are cheap investments that might help some people. I must be off the Farmer’s Market before the best stuff goes. Bye. — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
This post not CC’d by email >The rule-of-thumb is: > Triglycerides/HDL ratio should be less than 3.0 when measured as mg/dL, >(U.S.) > or less than 1.3 when measured as mmol/L (Europe, Oz?)
Oz and NZ. > (can somebody check the math on that 1.3? > Triglycerides: multiply mg/dL by 0.0113 to get mmol/L. > HDL: multiply mg/dL by 0.0259 to get mmol/L)
Let TG:HDL = 3.0 in mg/dL Then TG:HDL = 3.0 x 0.0113 / 0.0259 = 1.308…. in mmol/L The 1.3 is fine. Better than the 1.33 I have sometimes seen. Thanks, Al, for the conversions. — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > . . .(snip)., , , He’s recommending I take a statin because of > high triglycerides. This seems gung ho to me, as my total cholesterol is > 131 and I do think women tend to naturally have higher triglycerides. > Jere > Diabetics have increased risk from heart attack. One reason is thought > to be higher than average triglycerides. > The rule-of-thumb is: > Triglycerides/HDL ratio should be less than 3.0 when measured as mg/dL, > (U.S.) > or less than 1.3 when measured as mmol/L (Europe, Oz?) > (can somebody check the math on that 1.3? > Triglycerides: multiply mg/dL by 0.0113 to get mmol/L. > HDL: multiply mg/dL by 0.0259 to get mmol/L) > A high ratio of Tris to HDL correlates with small-sized particles of one of > the lipids. The small-sized particles can somehow work their way into the > lining of the arteries. Once there, they don’t come out readily. Then, > sooner or later they oxidize and they’re there forever. > (The above courtesy of a particularly scary article in Diabetes Forecast)
I’ve often wondered how that worked, as it’s often said that half the people who have heart attacks, don’t have high cholesterol. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Regards > Old Al
Response:
. . .(snip)., , , He’s recommending I take a statin because of >high triglycerides. This seems gung ho to me, as my total cholesterol is >131 and I do think women tend to naturally have higher triglycerides. >Jere
Diabetics have increased risk from heart attack. One reason is thought to be higher than average triglycerides. The rule-of-thumb is: Triglycerides/HDL ratio should be less than 3.0 when measured as mg/dL, (U.S.) or less than 1.3 when measured as mmol/L (Europe, Oz?) (can somebody check the math on that 1.3? Triglycerides: multiply mg/dL by 0.0113 to get mmol/L. HDL: multiply mg/dL by 0.0259 to get mmol/L) A high ratio of Tris to HDL correlates with small-sized particles of one of the lipids. The small-sized particles can somehow work their way into the lining of the arteries. Once there, they don’t come out readily. Then, sooner or later they oxidize and they’re there forever. (The above courtesy of a particularly scary article in Diabetes Forecast) Regards Old Al
Response:
>>> FWIIW I have noticed several food trials where men and women had >> different outcomes. Fruit consumption was a strong predictor of >> health for women but not men in one study. It could have been that >> men didn’t eat enough fruit to make a difference or it could be … >> shock horror … that men and women are metabolically different. > FWIIW I eat some fruit. Berries I eat regularly, almost every > morning. fresh in season, frozen in Winter. Avocados I eat when > they’re in season. Pears I might eat one a day for a while. Cherries > I pit and put in salads. Mandarins I eat whole when the mood takes > me. Occasionally I eat a dried apricot or two before driving. > Olives I hardly remember are fruit and I do enjoy the better flavoured > ones.
Most of the fruits you mentioned have been touted in mainstream medical reports as being beneficial…i.e. berries for colon cancer prevention, etc. I have insulin resistance so I was surprised when my doctor handed me a diet that included bread and pasta, which I’d been avoiding but told me to eliminate fruit. I told him I’d read numerous reports of fruit being helpful in decreasing hypertension. He said this wouldn’t help. I don’t know if this is because my hbp is an adjunct to my hyperthyroidism but. in any case, I can’t see myself eliminating fruit from my diet. I haven’t read your studies but would surmise that the jury might still be out on the place of fruit in our diets. > Issues relating to breast cancer, HRT generate more angst than I would > know what to do with. That breast cancer research should generate so > much angst amongst women and prostate cancer so little amongst men > when the death rates from these two cancers is similar is an enduring > mystery to me. Whatever, the fallout is that something like ten times > as much money is/was spent on breast cancer research as prostate > cancer research. IMHO women are politically much better organised > when it comes to medical matters these days. My only reason for > making such comments is to express the thought that men should take > their health issues as seriously. When they do, then they will be > able to look at the experiences women have had with HRT and breast > cancer and recognise some at least of the pitfalls that await them on > the journey to better health care.
You might remember, Michael Korda wrote a remarkable book on his experience with prostate surgery, a few years back, which left me profoundly impressed by his agonizing account. Then a few of our friends experienced prostate cancer and surgery and I was surprised with the equanimity with which they faced their ordeals. They may have just been sucking it in, but I truly doubt it. I think men should be given more credit for the level-headed way they approach illness. It’s often said that men can’t express feelings but I think that in the matter of facing physical hardship, they truly are more philosophical than women. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Best wishes,
Response:
This post not CC’d by email > FWIIW I have noticed several food trials where men and women had > different outcomes. Fruit consumption was a strong predictor of > health for women but not men in one study. It could have been that > men didn’t eat enough fruit to make a difference or it could be … > shock horror … that men and women are metabolically different. >Meat and potatoes still seems to be the main fare for men. I know a fruit >would have to jump up and bite my husband before he’d bite back.
G’day G’day Jere, That sounds typically male … if there is such a thing as a typical male and I doubt it. What I don’t know is whether men not eating fruit is good or a bad thing. With vegetables the evidence is pretty clear, eating vegetables is good for men. The epidemiology with men and fruit eating is spotty. If one goes through Pubmed looking at one specific disease such as prostate cancer one find various citrus positively and negative correlated with prostate cancer in different countries. FWIIW I eat some fruit. Berries I eat regularly, almost every morning. fresh in season, frozen in Winter. Avocados I eat when they’re in season. Pears I might eat one a day for a while. Cherries I pit and put in salads. Mandarins I eat whole when the mood takes me. Occasionally I eat a dried apricot or two before driving. Olives I hardly remember are fruit and I do enjoy the better flavoured ones. Whatever, I personally eat a much greater volume of vegetables than fruit. The Okinawans in the longevity program eat surprisingly little fruit averaging about two serves a day. They do however eat seven to thirteen serves of vegetables a day. > Perhaps political correctness blinkers researchers from putting such > conclusions in their results even when such conclusions are as valid > as the ones they do draw. >It would seem to be the opposite, judging from the latest HRT study. >Just prior to the study and for a half century before, women were fed >hormones as being necessary to good health and everything else. Although the >propensity of hormones to cause cancer was somewhat acknowledged over this >time, it was mostly ignored as it was somehow theorized that other benefits >overrid the concerns of women inrespect to breast cancer. >Jere
Issues relating to breast cancer, HRT generate more angst than I would know what to do with. That breast cancer research should generate so much angst amongst women and prostate cancer so little amongst men when the death rates from these two cancers is similar is an enduring mystery to me. Whatever, the fallout is that something like ten times as much money is/was spent on breast cancer research as prostate cancer research. IMHO women are politically much better organised when it comes to medical matters these days. My only reason for making such comments is to express the thought that men should take their health issues as seriously. When they do, then they will be able to look at the experiences women have had with HRT and breast cancer and recognise some at least of the pitfalls that await them on the journey to better health care. Best wishes, — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I had to have one of those fast cat scans of the lungs, which also gives > the condition of the arteries of the heart. My score for atherosclerosis > was zero but this didn’t impress my doctor, any. He says a heart attack can > be caused by soft plaque, too. He’s recommending I take a statin because of > high triglycerides. This seems gung ho to me, as my total cholesterol is > 131 and I do think women tend to naturally have higher triglycerides. > Jere
I am not so sure. I *did* have a course of statins with some rather alarming "side effects". (BTW, this reaction only affects about one in 10,000. It’s only because so many people are now being treated with this class of drugs that the actual numbers of people so affected becomes significant). So I looked to other ways of reducing my trigs, with diet and exercise. It worked, and with the lowering of the triglicerides, some drop in LDL, and a rise in HDL, I also gained a reduction in insulin resistance, a result worth having when one has T2 diabetes. If such a result can be obtained without any apparent ill effect, I personally see no reason to presume that women are different in this respect. As to total cholesterol, that is a different case, and I have no conclusions to draw at this time – mine remains stubbornly much the same. I continue to experiment. We’ll see next blood test if there is any change. Annette
Response:
> Even the physiology of the blood vessels apparently is different. I > saw an interview with a cardiac surgeon in the US, who performs > by-pass operations etc as a regular part of his work. He was saying > that although the blood vessels that supply the vital supply to the > heart muscles of men are somewhat pipe-like, with considerable > rigidity, the same vessels in women are very soft, almost jelly > like, and very delicate, and easily damaged. The vessels are finer, > as well. Women are literally "soft hearted". The inference is that > surely different factors will impact on the prevalence of coronary > strokes in the different sexes.
I had to have one of those fast cat scans of the lungs, which also gives the condition of the arteries of the heart. My score for atherosclerosis was zero but this didn’t impress my doctor, any. He says a heart attack can be caused by soft plaque, too. He’s recommending I take a statin because of high triglycerides. This seems gung ho to me, as my total cholesterol is 131 and I do think women tend to naturally have higher triglycerides. Jere – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Annette > A Lil Ol Lady from Oz.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This post not CC’d by email > Even the physiology of the blood vessels apparently is different. I > saw an interview with a cardiac surgeon in the US, who performs > by-pass operations etc as a regular part of his work. He was saying > that although the blood vessels that supply the vital supply to the > heart muscles of men are somewhat pipe-like, with considerable > rigidity, the same vessels in women are very soft, almost jelly > like, and very delicate, and easily damaged. The vessels are finer, > as well. Women are literally "soft hearted". The inference is that > surely different factors will impact on the prevalence of coronary > strokes in the different sexes. > G’day G’day Annette, > Thanks. I wasn’t aware the differences were so observable. > FWIIW I have noticed several food trials where men and women had > different outcomes. Fruit consumption was a strong predictor of > health for women but not men in one study. It could have been that > men didn’t eat enough fruit to make a difference or it could be … > shock horror … that men and women are metabolically different.
Meat and potatoes still seems to be the main fare for men. I know a fruit would have to jump up and bite my husband before he’d bite back. > Perhaps political correctness blinkers researchers from putting such > conclusions in their results even when such conclusions are as valid > as the ones they do draw.
It would seem to be the opposite, judging from the latest HRT study. Just prior to the study and for a half century before, women were fed hormones as being necessary to good health and everything else. Although the propensity of hormones to cause cancer was somewhat acknowledged over this time, it was mostly ignored as it was somehow theorized that other benefits overrid the concerns of women inre to breast cancer. Jere
Response:
>Would I get a pointy wizard hat and appear on television?
You’d have to change your handle to .. Cheech Wizard .. ? Who loves ya. Tom Jesus was a vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com Jesus was a vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman Moses was a mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html
Response:
This post not CC’d by email >Even the physiology of the blood vessels apparently is different. I >saw an interview with a cardiac surgeon in the US, who performs >by-pass operations etc as a regular part of his work. He was saying >that although the blood vessels that supply the vital supply to the >heart muscles of men are somewhat pipe-like, with considerable >rigidity, the same vessels in women are very soft, almost jelly >like, and very delicate, and easily damaged. The vessels are finer, >as well. Women are literally "soft hearted". The inference is that >surely different factors will impact on the prevalence of coronary >strokes in the different sexes.
G’day G’day Annette, Thanks. I wasn’t aware the differences were so observable. FWIIW I have noticed several food trials where men and women had different outcomes. Fruit consumption was a strong predictor of health for women but not men in one study. It could have been that men didn’t eat enough fruit to make a difference or it could be … shock horror … that men and women are metabolically different. Perhaps political correctness blinkers researchers from putting such conclusions in their results even when such conclusions are as valid as the ones they do draw. — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
This post not CC’d by email >Quentin! You sure you wouldn’t like to migrate? >Quentin of Oz has a nice ring to it. (Smile).
G’day G’day Annette, Oz is a great country. I’d be proud to be born there. Migrating there must be the next best thing. Would I get a pointy wizard hat and appear on television? — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
This post not CC’d by email >It seems that Co-enzyme Q10 is a relevant factor as well as far as >cardovascular health is concerned. All seafoods are a good source >for this and it’s precursors.
OK. There is another possibility. CoQ10 gets all the publicity but hey it only got to be Q10 because there is a whole raft of coenzymes some of which don’t get much attention. — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
> This post not CC’d by email >> Dr. He’s study also deepened a mystery that has flummoxed >> nutritionists: it was believed for years that fish wards off heart >> disease and stroke because it is rich in omega-3
polyunsaturated fatty – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> acids, and sales of fish oil capsules soared on this assumption. But >> this study, like other recent ones, found no definitive connection: >> fish with larger amounts of omega-3 fatty acids did not confer larger >> protection against stroke. >Sales of fish oil capsules soared. I’m as gullable as the next >person. Pure marketing, exploited by greedy money grubbing >corporations. My Walmart Spring Valley Fish Oil bottle suggests >taking 3 capsules a day. Don’t tell Quenten of Oz about this study. >He may Flip out. > G’day G’day Wandoo, > Totally unflipped. Sorry to disappoint anyone but there it is. > Actually I had a little chuckle to myself. The Australians at least > wait till New Zealand actors, sportsmen, racehorses are famous before > claiming them as their own.
I also laughed when I read "Quenten of OZ". (BTW, his name is spelled Quent-I-n). We’d love to claim him as our own, but I doubt If you are wondering what the fuss is all about, Canadians feel the same about being presumed to be American citizens. Much in common, but definitely a different country with it’s own unique values. > Most people don’t even think about strokes, the subject of this study.
I am not sure about that. A lot of people I know view it with the same horror as they do other physically limiting handicaps – kind of *worse* than death. It isn’t viewed as a life threatening event, more as being put in a position of helplessness and dependancy. They are less frightened of a heart attack, which they see as sure death. That, of course, doesn’t mean that they are willing to take steps to avoid the possibility of either. > There are a couple of very good reasons why the Harvard nurses’ study > and Dr He’s study should come up with different results. The most > obvious is that the participants of the Harvard study were women and > those in Dr He’s study were men. We are so used to there being > differences between men and women with CHD why should we be in the > least bit surprised that there are differences in the rates of > ischemic strokes between men and women with fish intake.
Even the physiology of the blood vessels apparently is different. I saw an interview with a cardiac surgeon in the US, who performs by-pass operations etc as a regular part of his work. He was saying that although the blood vessels that supply the vital supply to the heart muscles of men are somewhat pipe-like, with considerable rigidity, the same vessels in women are very soft, almost jelly like, and very delicate, and easily damaged. The vessels are finer, as well. Women are literally "soft hearted". The inference is that surely different factors will impact on the prevalence of coronary strokes in the different sexes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Dr. Daviglus did agree with the general conclusion Dr. He’s study >> reached: something in fish is good for the arteries and everyone >> should eat at least some fish each month. > This isn’t exactly news though it may appear to be for some. > Fish are a good source of the amino acid complex called taurine. > There are several good reasons for diabetics to want to ensure good > supplies of taurine. It stablises sorbitol in the eyes so that it > does less damage. It is better than glycine at forming bile to remove > the reject cholesterol. Fresh is best where cholesterol is concerned. > Taurine however can be found in meat so taurine is unlikely to be the > determining factor. Taurine was originally isolated from shellfish. > It is one reason I endeavour to eat shellfish once a week. > Pyroglutamate.
It seems that Co-enzyme Q10 is a relevant factor as well as far as cardovascular health is concerned. All seafoods are a good source for this and it’s precursors. Iodine is something that is easily obtained all in seafoods, and is involved in the healthy function of the thyroid gland. So more than one factor is undoubtedly involved. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Dr. He adjusted his figures for factors like smoking, age, aspirin >> use, lack of exercise, high cholesterol and use of high blood pressure >> medicine, and concluded that men who ate one to three meals of fish a >> month had a 43 percent lower relative risk of ischemic stroke than men >> who ate fish less than once a month or never. Men who ate fish five or >> more times a week did not fare significantly better; their relative >> risk was 46 percent better. >An amazing conclusion. Everything we read is based on marketing HYPE. >Pure propaganda. Amazing. > Marketing hype is pervasive. No doubt about that. > What one needs to entertain some doubt about IMHO is the relevance of > Dr He’s research to diabetics. The facts are in the details. He > eliminated all those with a previous history of strokes, heart disease > and DIABETES from the study. The one group of people we most want to > know about were eliminated from the study. IMHO the lesson that seems > to have been absorbed by the scientific community around the year 2000 > is that it is really dangerous to extrapolate conclusions from > non-diabetics to diabetics.
Or to dismiss anomolies as non-relevant. A "good" researcher or scientist finds investigating anomolies and exceptions the most interesting and rewarding of their work. In the health field, both the ill and the well may gain considerable benefit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Many people who come to asd have high blood triglycerides. Elevated > triglycerides are an independent risk for heart attacks. Fish oil > supplementation lowers blood triglycerides. As I see it Dr He went to > some trouble to eliminate people who were likely to have elevated > blood triglycerides. > The women who are reading have good reason to follow the results of > the Harvard study. Anyone male or female who is seriously overweight > needs to remember that belly fat contains an enzyme that converts > testosterone back into a particularly potent form of estrogen. For > them there is no great certainty which study is more relevant. > For me the take home message is about the same as always. > 1. Don’t make the typical complex equivalent error eg "coffee is > caffeine … fish is EPA and DHA" Coffee has about a dozen active > ingredients and only one or two the attributes of coffee are explained > by the caffeine content. Fish IMHO is similar. > 2. The healthiest people in the world frequently eat fish eg the > Shetland Islanders, the Okinawans, people of Crete. They don’t bother > with fish oil capsules.
> 3. We aren’t the healthiest people in the world. Some of what we do > is remedial in its nature. If you are considering taking fish oil > capsules then it make sense to consider it as part of a medication > regime.
As usual a well thought out and reasonable reply, Quentin! You sure you wouldn’t like to migrate? Quentin of Oz has a nice ring to it. (Smile). Annette A Lil Ol Lady from Oz.
Response:
This post not CC’d by email – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dr. He’s study also deepened a mystery that has flummoxed > nutritionists: it was believed for years that fish wards off heart > disease and stroke because it is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty > acids, and sales of fish oil capsules soared on this assumption. But > this study, like other recent ones, found no definitive connection: > fish with larger amounts of omega-3 fatty acids did not confer larger > protection against stroke. >Sales of fish oil capsules soared. I’m as gullable as the next >person. Pure marketing, exploited by greedy money grubbing >corporations. My Walmart Spring Valley Fish Oil bottle suggests >taking 3 capsules a day. Don’t tell Quenten of Oz about this study. >He may Flip out.
G’day G’day Wandoo, Totally unflipped. Sorry to disappoint anyone but there it is. Actually I had a little chuckle to myself. The Australians at least wait till New Zealand actors, sportsmen, racehorses are famous before claiming them as their own. Most people don’t even think about strokes, the subject of this study. There are a couple of very good reasons why the Harvard nurses’ study and Dr He’s study should come up with different results. The most obvious is that the participants of the Harvard study were women and those in Dr He’s study were men. We are so used to there being differences between men and women with CHD why should we be in the least bit surprised that there are differences in the rates of ischemic strokes between men and women with fish intake. > Dr. Daviglus did agree with the general conclusion Dr. He’s study > reached: something in fish is good for the arteries and everyone > should eat at least some fish each month.
This isn’t exactly news though it may appear to be for some. Fish are a good source of the amino acid complex called taurine. There are several good reasons for diabetics to want to ensure good supplies of taurine. It stablises sorbitol in the eyes so that it does less damage. It is better than glycine at forming bile to remove the reject cholesterol. Fresh is best where cholesterol is concerned. Taurine however can be found in meat so taurine is unlikely to be the determining factor. Taurine was originally isolated from shellfish. It is one reason I endeavour to eat shellfish once a week. Pyroglutamate. > Dr. He adjusted his figures for factors like smoking, age, aspirin > use, lack of exercise, high cholesterol and use of high blood pressure > medicine, and concluded that men who ate one to three meals of fish a > month had a 43 percent lower relative risk of ischemic stroke than men > who ate fish less than once a month or never. Men who ate fish five or > more times a week did not fare significantly better; their relative > risk was 46 percent better. >An amazing conclusion. Everything we read is based on marketing HYPE. >Pure propaganda. Amazing.
Marketing hype is pervasive. No doubt about that. What one needs to entertain some doubt about IMHO is the relevance of Dr He’s research to diabetics. The facts are in the details. He eliminated all those with a previous history of strokes, heart disease and DIABETES from the study. The one group of people we most want to know about were eliminated from the study. IMHO the lesson that seems to have been absorbed by the scientific community around the year 2000 is that it is really dangerous to extrapolate conclusions from non-diabetics to diabetics. Many people who come to asd have high blood triglycerides. Elevated triglycerides are an independent risk for heart attacks. Fish oil supplementation lowers blood triglycerides. As I see it Dr He went to some trouble to eliminate people who were likely to have elevated blood triglycerides. The women who are reading have good reason to follow the results of the Harvard study. Anyone male or female who is seriously overweight needs to remember that belly fat contains an enzyme that converts testosterone back into a particularly potent form of estrogen. For them there is no great certainty which study is more relevant. For me the take home message is about the same as always. 1. Don’t make the typical complex equivalent error eg "coffee is caffeine … fish is EPA and DHA" Coffee has about a dozen active ingredients and only one or two the attributes of coffee are explained by the caffeine content. Fish IMHO is similar. 2. The healthiest people in the world frequently eat fish eg the Shetland Islanders, the Okinawans, people of Crete. They don’t bother with fish oil capsules. 3. We aren’t the healthiest people in the world. Some of what we do is remedial in its nature. If you are considering taking fish oil capsules then it make sense to consider it as part of a medication regime. — Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / / "… and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
Response:
The New York Times December 25, 2002 Small Amount of Fish in Diet Is Said to Yield Big Benefits By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. M en who eat seafood as seldom as once a month may cut their risk of the most common kind of stroke by more than 40 percent, a new study by the Harvard School of Public Health has found. Many studies over the last two decades have found that eating fish reduces the risk of stroke and heart attack. What is surprising about this one is that it shows how little fish – one to three meals a month of virtually any fish or shellfish, like salmon sushi, tuna on rye, broiled lobster or McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish – appears to produce the maximum benefit. "Previous studies found that you had to eat fish once or twice a week," said Dr. Ka He, the Harvard nutritionist who led the study, which was released yesterday by The Journal of the American Medical Association. "And they found a linear association – the more fish you ate, the more benefit you got. But in our study, we found a threshold. Further fish did not provide further benefit." A Harvard study of strokes among 80,000 female nurses followed for 14 years reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association in January found that women who ate fish five or more times a week had a 52 percent lower risk of stroke than women who ate fish less than once a month. But it found that the relative benefit dropped to only 22 percent for those who ate fish once a week and 7 percent for those who ate fish once a month. Dr. He agreed that the protocols of the two studies were roughly the same, and he said he could not explain why his study found a threshold level, while the other study found a progressive benefit. Dr. He’s study also deepened a mystery that has flummoxed nutritionists: it was believed for years that fish wards off heart disease and stroke because it is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and sales of fish oil capsules soared on this assumption. But this study, like other recent ones, found no definitive connection: fish with larger amounts of omega-3 fatty acids did not confer larger protection against stroke. "Everybody continues to bark up the wrong tree," said Dr. Martha L. Daviglus, a preventive-medicine specialist at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, who led a 1997 study of fish and stroke risk in 1,800 employees of a Chicago electric company. "Everyone wonders: is it some other component of fish, some combination, or what?" Dr. Daviglus did agree with the general conclusion Dr. He’s study reached: something in fish is good for the arteries and everyone should eat at least some fish each month. Although the study did not reach conclusions about species or cooking methods, both she and Dr. He were quick to say that they thought it would be medically irresponsible to suggest that anyone eat only deep-fat-fried fish, like that found in fish sticks and fast-food restaurants. The fried breading is full of salt and transfatty acids, which have been associated with heart disease, Dr. He said. Although fatty, dark-fleshed fish are the richest in fish oils, Dr. He’s study found that even men who ate light-fleshed shrimp two or three times a month had fewer strokes. His study used data found in the Health Professional Follow-Up Study, which includes 51,529 doctors, dentists, pharmacists and other health workers who joined in 1986, when they were ages 40 to 75. Every four years, they filled out detailed questionnaires about their habits, including fish consumption. The questionnaires ask how often the men ate fish and whether it was one of four groups: canned tuna; dark-meat fish like mackerel, salmon or sardines; other fish, like flounder, cod and hake; or lobster, shrimp or scallops as a main course. Dr. He’s group, which began its study two years ago, screened out all men who in 1986 had histories of stroke or heart disease, diabetes or obesity, leaving a pool of 43,671 men whose histories Dr. He analyzed for a 12-year period. Over the years 1986 to 1998, 609 had strokes. Ischemic strokes – those caused by clogged cerebral arteries, which account for 80 percent of all strokes – seemed to be reduced by eating fish. Rates of hemorrhagic strokes – those caused by burst blood vessels – were not affected. Dr. He adjusted his figures for factors like smoking, age, aspirin use, lack of exercise, high cholesterol and use of high blood pressure medicine, and concluded that men who ate one to three meals of fish a month had a 43 percent lower relative risk of ischemic stroke than men who ate fish less than once a month or never. Men who ate fish five or more times a week did not fare significantly better; their relative risk was 46 percent better.
Response:
Related Posts