Posted by Larry Hoover on April 21, 2003, at 14:46:14
In reply to Re: I experience results similar to Noa's., posted by Ron Hill on April 21, 2003, at 13:44:37
> > I read about the research that found 1 gram of EPA effective, but not 2 grams. But when I found positive effect from the fish oil, my pdoc suggested I take more, based on his experience with other patients. And it turned out that I definitely felt increased improvement with more fish oil, despite what the study says. If I remember correctly, it was a small study, and I am sure more research is needed about fish oil anyway.
> >
> > I now take about 2 tablespoons a day of fish oil, which gives about 4800 mg of EPA.
>
> As chance would have it, I take the same brand of fish oil as Noa (i.e.; Carlson). I have experimented with my dose over the past year or so that I have been taking fish oil and, like Noa, I find added benefit as I increase the daily dose above and beyond the 1 g/day of EPA level.
>
> I currently take three teaspoons (i.e.; one tablespoon) which contain 2400 mg EPA, 1500 mg DHA, and 900 mg of "other omega-3 fatty acids". I think I'd experience further benefits by taking even more, but this stuff is kind of spendee.
>
> I've been buying the Carlson fish oil at a local nutritional store and I like to give them my business because they have a very helpful and knowledgeable staff. However, they charge $19.90 (US) for the 200 ml bottle. At my current three teaspoon dose, it costs me $1.50 per day. I'd like to increase the dose, but I think I need to shop around on the internet for a more competitive price.
>
> Bottom line: For me, more is better.
>
> -- RonI am glad you guys weighed in with your personal experiences. I always had two serious problems with the ethyl-eicosapentaenoate study: 1)They assumed a substantial equivalence between ethyl-eicosapentaenoate and fish oil; 2)They tested a derivative of fish oil that was patentable.
The first concern seems to have been substantiated by your individual experiences. There is more in fish oil than just EPA, and I would be majorly surprised to discover that none of the rest had any activity, let alone synergistic effects with EPA.
The second concern is the money-making scam. You can't patent fish oil, and I'm sceptical of the motives of any researcher employing a patentable derivative in clinical trials.
I would never accuse the authors of the dose-ranging study of E-EPA of falsifying data, but it does seem that there are limitations to the generalizability of their findings. The ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid seems to be less effective than is fish oil.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:216908
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030417/msgs/221214.html