The traditional diet of Greece and cancer.

[R.B.]

Hi Andi

I love your positive outlook and smiley posts.

Both fish oils and krill oils are high in Omega 3. The amount of long chain Omega 3 also called EPA and DHA per 1gram (1000mg) of oil depends on the marine source of the oil, as well as the extraction and refining process used in the particular oil product, and varies hugely; so check the label when considering which brand to purchase.

The primary difference between fish and krill oil are the structures to which Omega 3 is attached, which affects the way and location in which it is mainly used in the body. To understand this you need to know a little about how fats are organised in different tissues.

Fat is most commonly attached to another substance most commonly in either pairs or sets of three; image toast in toast racks, the toast is the fat and the rack the binding substance. In cell membranes fats are generally found in pairs, two slices of 'toast' to a 'rack' (phospholipids). Fat in fat cells is always found in threes, three slices of toast to a rack (triglycerides).

The toast racks used in cell membranes and fat storage are different designs; and to make things more complicated whilst there is only one design of rack for fat storage there are several models used in cell membranes.

Fish oil are extracted from fish, and crustaceans like Krill, by a combination of pressure and solvents. The ratio of storage fat to membrane fat in the krill or fish body will determine the ratio of phospholipids to triglycerides.

Krill do not contain much body storage fat compared to oily fish, and so krill oil contains mainly membrane fats (phospholipids). Oily fish contain lots of storage fat so fish oil contains mainly triglycerides.

Cell membrane fat is less resistant to oxidation than storage fat, so when they process oily fish they generally remove the cell membrane fat from fish oil products because it is easier to produce a stable product with a good shelf life; so even though membranes fats were present in the fish they do not make it into fish oil.

Krill are processed into other food products, such as protein etc, which involves removing the oil, so they started at looking at ways to process and conserve the oil rich in cell membrane fats as an Omega 3 rich product, and found ways to do so. They were helped because the krill contained a powerful antioxidant that helped protect these membrane fats from oxidation. The result is Krill oil, which contains omega 3 and other fats, and is mainly in the form of fats found in the cell membrane rather than storage fats.

Once they are in the body, the fats in cell membrane form can be directly used in the structure of cell membranes. In contrast storage fats would first have to be broken down and remade into cell membrane fats. Omega 3 rich membrane based fats are important to the function of many tissues, (and particularly the brain) which is why Krill oil may have some advantages over fish oil in so far as cell membrane function goes.

Omega 3 rich storage fats have important roles in the body too. The body will also use the Omega 3 fish oil storage based fats, but in different ways, and some of the storage fats will be converted to membrane fats for use in the cell membranes.

There are still more layers to this; not all the oil you eat ends up in the same form once it has been digested. When storage fats and cell membrane fats are digested, they are stripped down to the toast rack structure with just one fat attached, and either one or two free fats. A proportion of what is digested then gets put back together again in the original structure, but a proportion is also used as building blocks for other products including storage fats. So after digestion only a proportion of the Omega 3 rich cell membrane fats from the Krill oil eaten will be available directly for use in cell membranes in the body, while in comparison storage fats that remain in the same form after digestion would need to be reprocessed and adapted before they could be used in the cell membranes.

So krill oil is a very useful supplement along with fish oil; both provide much needed Omega 3s albeit in different forms. But they are generally both ‘solvent’ extracted so may not contain the full spectrum of fats and structures that would be found in whole food. It is also important to be cautious about miracle claims for one or other, and the advantages for krill over fish oil; they are going to do slightly different things, benefits of one over the other are not as clear cut as reports would suggest, as results depend on tissues examined, dosages, form of Omega 3s, exactly what you are looking at etc. Krill oil tends to be more expensive too, but does usefully provide the fats largely in Omega 3 rich membrane form, which you will not get in fish oil (because of the way it is processed) but will get to varying extents in fish and other marine products.

So if you are going to supplement some of both would seem a reasonable strategy, and as previously identified do not loose sight of the importance of the humble plant based Omega 3 rich foods such as flax.

Natural foods have to be the best source. Some oily fish and interestingly offal etc are good sources of membranes fats; but because we feed our livestock on grain they do not have the Omega 3 levels they should, as well as potentially containing too much Omega 6; and in reality we do not tend to eat offal any more. Brain was a traditional source of membrane Omega 3s but that is off the menu on a precautionary basis due to potential uncertainties as to the origin of neurological conditions in cattle that occurred some while ago (certainly in the UK).

The best options are the marine foods themselves, which raises the issue of the sustainability of supply. . .

I hope that helps. Thank you for your kind words they are appreciated.

P.S. Look for the phospholipid and Omega 3 content on Krill oil labels because it varies a lot between products - hopefully with both a decent phospholipid and Omega 3 content a good proportion of the phospholipids will be high in Omega 3.

P.P.S. For those unable to afford Krill a good quality fish oil is still an excellent way to get Omega 3s - but as ever fish and marine products contain a much wider range of important nutrients; but not everybody has access to or can afford fish and fish oil is a much better option than a significant Omega 3 / 6 imbalance.

P.P.P.S The amount of Omega 3 that people may want to take at the outset of a dietary change to rebalance these fats in the body might sensibly be higher, but taking large quantities for years is probably not a good idea for a wide range of reasons.

P.P.P.P.S Very very very importantly it is in significant part ultimately about balance between Omega 3 and 6. It is equally important to reduce the Omega 6 intake; the amount of omega 3 needed rises with rising Omega 6. Ultimately it is simply not possible to compensate for an excess of Omega 6 even by taking excessive amounts of Omega 3.

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

Thanks RB. So thorough and complex. Will process. Appreciate you sharing. A little Omega 3 and a little Krill is what I think I'm seeing. So interesting. So essential to everyone's life!!!! My nephew takes this and he's healthy and in his 40s. My husband has consented to take it. I am working on my dghtrs.

Plus co-enzyme Q10, plus Carnitine, plus Alpha Lipoic Acid, plus D, plus B's (especially 12 for energy!!!!!), calcium, C. Basic to wellness...

So kind of you to take the time to respond, RB...

[AlaskaAngel]

RB, thank you for taking the time to give us a better description and mental picture of how it all works. I understand it a bit better for that.

A.A.

[Becky]

Never told you guys this but I think I have told you I am a sales rep. However, in more detail, I am a sales rep for a major chemical company. I sell for many divisions of the company but only to our distributors who then sell to small and medium sized end users who can't meet our minimum orders (hence they buy from our distributors). Last year our Human Nutrition group decided to put their products into distribution and I have the one National distributor that does this. Hence - training. I just got back from a big training seminar (2 days) on Omega 3 (we are a huge producer). So, I asked the question on how to sell our products more effectively over Krill. The big answer is don't. They are different products and you do need to take both. As RB stated, there is virtually no way to get the phospholipids that Krill provides. Phospholipids are also important. Also, if you are not sure of the Fish Oil source you are buying from, buy the higher strength softgels (usually named "Triple Strength" etc). These softgels use the highest purity fish oil. They are highly refined (with membrane separation not chemical separation) and are heavy metal free. Do not buy salmon fish oil as they use salmon (duh) which is a large fatty fish and could have heavy metal contaminates. Most fish oil (if not all) use anchovy or sardines fished off the Peruvian coast. These are small fish hence far, far less natural heavy metal contamination.

On the flip side, I also sell sodium nitrate for hot dogs

[karen z]

RB
Can you recommend name brands/dosages for those folks who want to get seriously started on taking both Krill and Omega 3?

[NEDenise]

Becky,
I've found that if I spread the fish oil on the hotdogs...I get a nice anti-oxidant buzz going!
Denise
PS - India relish is also good!

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

Denise -- you spread the Fish Oil on hot dogs??? Huh?

Sounds weird but if you say so, I'm thinking...

How about on the zucchini pancakes I have for dinner?

You actually cut open the capsule? I am lost here. Please explain ...

[NEDenise]

Joking! Hello! Remember who you're talking to my friend!

Wouldn't crack open that capsule on a bet!
Denise

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

I think you had me with THE ANTI-OXIDANT BUZZ GOING...

Thanks for clearing that up. (I'm sooo literal... Silly...)

Andi

[NEDenise]

You crack me up!

How about dishin' up the recipe for those zucchini pancakes though. I LOVE zucchini anything!
Denise
I'm not planning to put fish oil on them!

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

Ok, Denise (and all interested in zucchini pancakes)...!

First -- you go to Costco.

Buy GABELIA'S ZUCCHINI PANCAKES from freezer section.

I am laughing. But this is the recipe.

Keep in freezer till ready to cook. Put extra virgin olive oil (of course) in pan. Saute 2 minutes on each side. Serve. Eat.

My family like raspberry jam w/these. But they are excellent with nothing. They are 120 calories each. I had 1 last night -- without spreading any omega 3 on it. LOL... My husband had 1 and 1/2 (which he split w/my son-in-law who'd already eaten his 1). My dghtr ate 1. I could have eaten 2 for sure.

Really yummy delicious!! **** 4 stars!!!!

(Aside: I swallowed my Omega 3 and alllllllll my other supplements with a gallon of filtered water an hour before and ate a banana.)

This is how I "cook"...

Much love,
Andi

[NEDenise]

Yay Costco! I love that place!
This recipe is VERY do-able!
You got me! Now we're even!

Don't know how I've never been there on a day these were 'sampled'...but your recommendation is good enough for me! Now what will they be topped with? chopped tomatoes? butter? cheese? krill oil?

Denise

[R.B.]

Hi Karen Z

I will respond to your question re products brands etc in the next day or so.

This is a great interview by Martie Whittekin a passionate health radio show host of many years standing, of one of the leading research lights in the Omega 3:6 field Artemis Simopolous, whose name you will see on some of the papers cited.

Martie is a charming knowledgeable passionate and very active proponent of the importance of diet to health, who also promotes health conferences and events.

The interview is about Omega 3 and 6 generally.


http://www.radiomartie.com/archives/2013.shtml

3rd item down in Martie's archive (-:

http://www.hbnarchive.com/2013/052513.mp3

[karen z]

R.B.
Thanks. I look forward to receiving the information.
Best wishes,
Karen z

[R.B.]

AndiBB emailed me about the report that Omega 3 increases prostate cancer risk and particularly high grade cancer, which seems to have caused considerable concern.

Karen z sorry about the delay - I have started but not yet finished a response - things have been a bit hectic.

This was the paper, http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...jt174.abstract
which I consider in more depth below. The title of the press release of the nested Select trial was:

“Study confirms link between high blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids and increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer - Consumption of fatty fish and fish-oil supplements linked to 71 percent higher risk ”

This was the press release
http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/release...te-cancer.html

Sadly publicity is often important to research organisations; the media respond to ‘results’ that people will talk about and are clear cut or appear as such; human nature dictates in consequence media departments; self evidently non-specialists, are at risk of over egging results, and the result is public ends up getting very confused by potentially misleading messages.

Apart form a few basic truths about the need for essential nutrients for life, the reality is things in cell biology are very rarely simple.

There is a lot of work that suggests that Omega 3 intake is associated with lower rates of prostate cancer. There are a number of biological mechanisms that would explain why Omega 3 may reduce prostate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3676993/ and some other cancer risks, and a number of observations suggest this is the case. In contrast some papers do not support this generality as is the case in this paper and its predecessor, but closer reading of the Select paper raises a host of questions as to the conclusion, some of which I raise below.

My first thought based on wider reading of reports from the mid 1900s, was that cancers were low in historic populations on non-western diets, which prompted the thought do people like Inuit who eat loads of Omega 3s have higher prostate cancer rates; the answer is no; they actually appear to have very low rates of prostate cancer. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/12/9/926.long In the summary this paper includes the following statement “the prevalence of latent carcinoma is extremely low among Inuits compared with other populations”. The introduction includes the following comment "In Greenland, the age-standardized incidence rate for the 1969–1988 period was 1.7/100 000, and only four cases were diagnosed." Intriguingly the one prostate cancer case they found in the study was in a man with an unusually (for Inuit) poor Omega 3:6 ratio.

Historically population groups on non-western diets who ate significant amounts of fish also had relatively low rates of prostate cancer, and this paper, although having limitations, looking at 6272 Swedish men over 30 years found men that ate no fish had a two to three times greater risk of prostate cancer . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...40673600048893 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/77/3/532.full

There is also a genetically created mouse called fat1, that unlike normal mammals can convert Omega 6 to Omega 3, and even if fed Omega 6 tends to make enough Omega 3 to balance the Omega 6 in it's diet. Prostate cancer invasion and proliferation was significantly inhibited in fat1 mice. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fa...fflb&gws_rd=cr Ok this is in rather special mice but the generality of the result goes against the suggestion that Omega 3s increase prostate cancer risk.

The fact traditional fish eaters appear to have very low or low incidence of prostate cancer suggests that whatever the Select trial was picking up, it is not as simple as dietary Omega 3s increases the risk of prostate cancer.

What might the above Select paper and its predecessor actually have detected? Unfortunately that is a pretty big question; the studies did not look at participants diet they just assumed that changed levels of long chain Omega 3 EPA and DHA in the blood must be the result of dietary intake of fish or fish oil, but these two fats are also made in the body from the plant based Omega 3 linolenic acid. As discussed below men do this pretty poorly but a host of things could alter conversion rates including hormonal changes. So the results could be down to a host of reasons excluding dietary intake, or may be due to dietary intake, as we have no idea what these people ate we simply do not know. Let us look at things in a bit more detail.

The latest Select trial was a subset of the original Select Trial which looked at the question did a particular form and dosage of Vitamin E (synthetic all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate), and or a particular form of selenium reduce prostate cancer http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=183163 . The result was that no real change was seen for the type of selenium selected, and those that took the form of vitamin E chosen had higher rates of aggressive prostate cancer.

The particular form is important because different forms may be differently absorbed and act in different ways in the cells. Other papers have shown other forms of Vitamin E and Selenium to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/24/2018.short The dosage may also be an important factor as positive results have been seen with lower doses of some forms of vitamin E.

In the Select trial they selected those with high grade prostate cancer from all participants, including those taking selenium and vitamin E. They did not breakdown those with high Omega 3 in the blood high and high grade prostate cancer by treatment group, so we do not know if most or conversely few of the them were taking vitamin E, but we do know from the main trial that vitamin E was found to increase the risk of high grade prostate cancer, and the majority of the participants were taking vitamin E. We also know that there were more people with high BMIs in the high grade cancer group, and a greater number were taking asprin. We also know that vitamin E can block http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/57/12/2410 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...71531799001554 or sometimes increase the process of apoptosis (cell death) depending on what type it is and what the dosage is.

Some forms of vitamin E at high dosages may reduce cell death because they protect polyunsaturated fats from oxidation; the oxidation of polyunsaturated fats have important roles in process of cell death, so reducing oxidation may reduce cell death, which may be great in some circumstances, but not so good if you are wanting to kill damaged or cancerous cells.

The conclusion to the Select paper should maybe have been vitamin E in the synthetic all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate form at the dosage selected, increases high grade prostate cancer, and the increase in high grade cancer was also linked with high levels of Omega 3 in the blood, but the groups were not separated out to determine if the effect of high Omega 3 was dependent on the presence of either Vitamin E or selenium in the forms selected – which would not have grabbed much media attention ! The trial is telling us something but exactly what is not clear. It is clear the press release headline should not have been the bald simplistic press statement that dietary Omega 3 increases the risk of high grade prostate cancer.

The predecessor trial looking at Omega 3s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride and its original primary purpose was to look at the use of a product called finasteride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride to reduce prostate cancer. The result was that finasteride may reduce prostate cancer but also may ? increase the risk of high grade cancers. Again the researchers used the same study population group including those who took the finasteride and looked at their Omega 3 status; again they found a link between Omega 3s and high grade cancers, but consideration of the effect of Omega 3 on prostate cancer risk is tainted by the fact at least part of the selected group was taking finasteride which may? increase the risk of high grade prostate cancer; did Omega 3 add to the finasteride risk; maybe, but we do not know from the information available; we cannot separate out and quantify from the information the effects of finasteride and long chain Omega 3s (be that from the diet or improved conversion) so the observed result cannot justify a conclusion that Omega 3 on its own increases the risk of high grade prostate cancer, or even that or that higher amounts of long chain Omega 3s in the plasma originated in the diet rather than by increased conversion.

As neither trial actually asked people what they were eating let alone if their Omega 3 came from fish or fish oil, we cannot even begin to differentiate the effects of fish intake or supplementation in the form of fish or krill oil on prostate cancer risk, or indeed determine if the higher levels of long chain Omega 3 in the blood was due to dietary intake, or some metabolic differences in the rate of conversion of plant based Omega 3 to long chain Omega 3. Interestingly one of the factors that affect the rates of conversion of the plant based to the longer chain Omega 3s and 6s is hormonal status; women convert much better than men, with oestrogen primarily with help from progesterone arguably increasing, and conversely testosterone arguably decreasing, conversion rates. So we do not actually know why these men had higher long chain Omega 3 in the blood; higher EPA and DHA could even for example be a marker of hormonal changes such as falling testosterone or rising oestrogen due to treatment protocols or changes in metabolism with onset of prostate cancer, or it might be what they ate, or a combination of both.

In conclusion there is no doubt the Select and Finasteride papers are telling us something; maybe long chain Omega 3 plus vitamin E, higher BMI, and aspirin use together, increase the risk of prostate cancer, or finasteride and Omega 3 further increase the risk of prostate cancer in those taking finasteride, or hormone levels change in aggressive cancers, or treatments affect hormones, so impacting on Omega 3 and 6 plant based fat conversion to long chain fats; but I suggest the basis of the trial and consequent results simply do not justify the bald title of the press release namely “Study confirms link between high blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids and increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer - Consumption of fatty fish and fish-oil supplements linked to 71 percent higher risk” which in the circumstances is not a conclusion which can in anyway be definitely drawn from the study.

It is important not to forget that Omega 3 and 6 along with many other nutrients are fundamental to cell function, and in nature are more of less in balance in the diet. Many men are very poor converters, and some population groups are genetically less efficient converters. If you are not very good at making long chain Omega 3 from plant based Omega3 you have to get it from food or supplements.

Our massive intake of Omega 6 fats increases the requirements for Omega 3s; reducing Omega 6 intake is a better strategy that taking lots of Omega 3 to compensate. Taking higher amounts of Omega 3s in the short term may be a good way to initially try and help rebalance the bodies Omega 3 / 6 status, so reducing inflammatory, replenishing tissue, displacing Omega 6s etc, but as ever the body is complex and ultimately there are down as well as upsides to all supplementation, and particularly so large amounts in the longer term.

In summary looking at the biology of the body you cannot escape the fact Omega 3 is essential to cellular function, nervous system and brain function, vision, and indeed arguably life; on which basis there is no question that in the absence of adequate dietary supply, supplementation will be of benefit. Based on a raft of reasons I recommend marine whole food sources over fish oil; but many do not eat fish, and pressure on fish populations is a fast increasing issue. Ultimately there is no question that marine oil supplementation has a place; taking fish oil is better than being Omega 3 deficient due to dietary deficiencies, and or genetic or other common dietary factors leading to poor conversion of plant based to long chain fats. Many do not get adequate dietary plant based Omega 3, even if they could efficiently convert it, and I repeat men are generally very poor converters.

In conclusion long chain Omega supplementation definitely for some has a place, because it is a healthier option than being deficient; but not as good as getting adequate long chain Omega 3s from whole foods ( and this really means quite a lot of marine foods as the way we grow our animals means they too are often low in Omega 3s eg eggs, and we no longer eat the Omega 3 rich parts like brain)


PS Martie Whittekin, impassioned health journalist, and talk show host, includes some excellent links on the Omega 3 prostate issue in the second section of her weekly diary

http://www.radiomartie.com/newsletter/2013/072513.htm

(One of the papers suggests an increased risk of prostate cancer with fried fish, which on the balance of probabilities may actually contain little Omega 3 and a lot of Omega 6 if fried in vegetable oil, and more if in batter. Fried foods absorbs considerable amounts of frying oils)

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

RB, You're the best! Important info ladies -- for the man in your life.

The CNN report caught many of us offguard. It was alarming news. So I went to the source on Omegas.

I suppose many studies are flawed, unfortunately. And we need to investigate further.

Remember when they warned us about carcinogens in our lipstick? I have really dry lips. Chapsticks don't quite do it for me. That was decades ago. And, I'm still here...

Thanks, RB.

[NEDenise]

Oh! How I cherish the man in my life!
Fortunately, I already have him on Omega 3s and CoQ10 for heart health.

The idea of him having to deal with cancer from the patient side of the fence is revolting! Horrifying! More than a just God would allow!

So...I hope the supplements do the trick!
Denise

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

A doctor friend of my my husband's said he thinks that omega study and prostate cancer was based on the same science as -- if you play basketball, you'll grow taller...

Paul is on omega, co-enzyme, carnitine, alpha lipoic acid, b12. let me see, did I leave something out?

ANDI

[Jackie07]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23872953

[R.B.]

Whilst this thread is primarily about Omega 3 and 6, many are also vitamin D deficient, iodine insufficient, and lacking in one or more minerals, and may have other deficiencies in other essential nutrients, and these deficiencies ultimately inevitably must impact on cell function and most likely in a negative way.

I would strongly recommend the videos on the vitamin D thread, and in particular those by Dr Holick and Dr JoEllen Welsh.

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=43711


There is also a fascinating talk by Dr Flechas on iodine on this thread

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53928