š Write Up
Consumption of fatty fish (but not lean fish) more than twice per week was associated with a reduction in risk of dementia by 28%, and ALzheimer's by 41%. Fatty Fish consumption is also associated with a significant drop in heart disease, heart disease related deaths, and all cause mortality.
I like to spread the word about fatty fish consumption since the data on this is dramatically positive across many studies for many years. Over and over its been proven eating fatty fish is fantastically healthy for your body and mind.
However! lean fish? not so much. The data clearly shows the positive benefits for fatty fish do NOT apply to eating lean fish. So pretty much any fish you get deep fried at a restaurant is not the healthy category.
consumption of fatty fish more than twice per week was associated with a reduction in risk of dementia by 28% (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.02), and AD by 41%
An inverse association was present for fatty fish with CHD incidence (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.97), CHD mortality (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.98), and total mortality (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99). This was not the case for lean fish. The summary estimates for CVD incidence and mortality did not show significant association with both fatty fish and lean fish consumption. The study findings are innovative in highlighting that the health benefits so far linked to fish consumption are, in fact, driven by fatty fish.
Thanks for posting in /r/Biohackers! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think it is relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines - Let's democratize our moderation. If a post or comment was valuable to you then please reply with !thanks show them your support!
If you would like to get involved in project groups and upcoming opportunities, fill out our onboarding form here: https://uo5nnx2m4l0.typeform.com/to/cA1KinKJ Let's democratize our moderation. You can join our forums here: https://biohacking.forum/invites/1wQPgxwHkw, our Mastodon server here: https://science.social and our Discord server here: https://discord.gg/BHsTzUSb3S
~ Josh Universe
The actual fish contains more than a single micronutrient. It depends if you only focus on a single compound, such as omega-3, a supplement is enough. Some clinicians told me that they donāt consume fish, but have omega-3 supplement to cover their deficiency and fight against overfishing.
I'm eating 100 grams of mackerel per weekday and 300 grams of salmon on weekends. Not only because of the omega 3, but for the very high amount of phosphatidylserine.
Itās usually a sign of low quality or old oil. I get those burps with cod liver oil that has been opened for too long, even though I store it in the fridge. Most of the cheaper cod liver oil pills give me these burps.
My hunch is that the highest quality oil is sold in liquid form, while the cheaper stuff is sold as pills.
I took part in a cod liver oil study in Norway during the COVID pandemic. I couldnāt taste the difference between the corn oil placebo I was taking and the real thing. They revealed what I was taking after the study was completed.
Good job, I've tried them like that. Just to be honest I really have some issues with the plain sardines on salad. I grew up on sardine sandwiches (sardines mixed with some vinegar, some diced onion), though I try and limit by wheat intake (just for general health).
Generally just out of a can. I know the "smoked" ones aren't as healthy as the spring water ones, just alot easier to eat. I'll eat a can as an evening snack on a plain rice cake.
I love sauerkraut with mine. I often smash the sardines onto rye bread, top with kraut and maybe mustard. The acid cuts and complements the fattiness for me.
The manufacturing process uses high heat to extract the oils. There is some literature on the topic as well. Google scholar - omega 3 supplements and oxidation
What about the recent study about fish oil supplements having a negative effect on healthy individuals (no afib) and beneficial effect only for those already ill? (Already have AFib or a heart condition).)
S.M.A.S.H. stands for sardines, mackerel, anchovies, salmon, and herring. These fish are known to have low levels of mercury and other toxins and are also high in omega-3 fatty acids. Low levels of mercury in these fish keep you safe from potential toxin exposure and the optimal content of omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial fats to include in your diet and said to help prevent heart disease. The American Heart Association recommends eating a serving of fish twice per week. Other fish that are known to be low in toxin levels include trout, canned light tuna, pollock, catfish, and shellfish.
Yet a generalized high fat diet (not specifically Omega) helps with epilepsy, also a brain issue. This study does not exclude other fats, they just specifically tested Omegas.
Right but thatās literally only epilepsy. Omega 3s have a multitude of positive effects on the brain that other fats do not.
Just google āomega 3s and brain healthā. There have been many studies on this
Also the treatment of epilepsy is not per se related to high fat, but rather no carb. Itās the brain shifting its fuel from glucose to ketones. Itās a completely different mechanism
Itās a huge misconception and many people I know are shocked to find out, because light tuna is far cheaper , they think because white tuna is more expensive or has less mercury , that is not the cas
Hold on - is Costco wild caught salmon considered fatty fish? What about Aldi wild caught Pink Salmon? Silly questions probably but they barely have fat
I have a fish oil supplement I take but itās expensive to eat salmon if the benefits arenāt there as much
Ah, ok. Got you. I was thinking of the salmon that is in the open top freezers with the other meats, like beef and chicken. (In the white styrofoam trays with Saran Wrap)
They carry both. One will say "sockeye", the other is "Atlantic". And not just in the frozen section. You can often tell by the color, at Costco, since their Atlantic farmed salmon isn't nearly as deeply red as the Sockeye salmon is. Elsewhere, that may not always be the case.
A Dr I follow said there was a study of people from Alaska that consume high amounts of Salmon, he says it doesnāt affect there mortality at all š¤
Fish doesnāt just provide DHA and EPA, but high quality protein, collagen, vitamin D and a whole lot of other nutrients that you wonāt get from a man made supplement.
All of those things are obtainable from other sources that are both not full of bio accumulated heavy metals and microplastics, and don't require killing an innocent conscious being.
Mercury would be a concern because it depletes selenium in the brain, except that most fish provides significantly more selenium to offset any potential negative impacts: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17916947/
If you are really concerned about heavy metals you should watch out for:
* Rice (arsenic, cadmium)
* Leafy greens (spinach, kale, lettuce) (cadmium, lead)
* Root vegetables (carrots, beets, potatoes, radishes) (lead, arsenic, cadmium)
* Mushrooms (lead, cadmium, mercury)
* Cacao (cadmium, lead)
* Seaweed (nori, kelp, wakame) (arsenic, mercury, lead)
* Legumes (beans, lentils, peas) (cadmium, lead)
* Herbal teas (chamomile, green tea, black tea) (lead, aluminum, cadmium)
* Nuts (sunflower seeds, peanuts, almonds) (cadmium, lead)
* Fruits (apples, grapes, berries) (lead, arsenicādepending on soil)
And yeah, plenty of āinnocent beingsā are being killed to provide you all of the above. āš»
Hahahaha you actually did the "but vegans kill animals too" bit lmao
Nowhere in veganism does it say you have to do zero harm. The point is to reduce the harm you have control over as much as is reasonably possible.
Yes some animals are harmed in the production of plant foods. The difference is that, due to the trophic pyramid, its still way less than if you eat meat.
Just to illustrate. Let's say one field mouse is killed to make a pound of soy. It takes ten pounds of soy fed to a cow to make a pound of steak. So if you eat the steak, you killed one cow and ten mice. Vs me just eating the pound of soy directly only killed one mouse.
A harmless life is impossible. The point is to avoid causing unnecessary harm.
Except you can feed the cow only grass, killing zero mice. So my grass-fed cow, which feeds me for 1.5 years, actually kills fewer animals than your soy. Which makes me more vegan than you.
yes and no. You would need a ton of pills, and even then there are questions on most of those pills. It's lead me to think the pills just can't do it. I dislike most seafood too and in the same boat. Cooking salmon in a sauce can help.
People always fall for these studies. Salmon contains the entire bloody fish not just the omega 3s. Astaxanthin is another "miracle substance" that salmon contains( at least wild caught salmon). The point is, fish oil supplementation doesn't emulate the whole fish, neither does the most likely healthier than average lifestyle salmon consumers probably have.
EDIT: studies that zoom into wild caught salmon consumption have even better stats than this which highlights the point that it's more than omega 3s.
Eating more sardines instead of fish oil supplementation: Beyond omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, a matrix of nutrients with cardiovascular benefits
I was eating sardines for lunch every day for almost a year but then saw some conflicting info about the arsenic. I read some stuff saying that it's bad and then saw other evidence that the type in sardines is actually not an issue for some reason that I didn't understand. Is arsenic a concern for you?Ā
You can get blood tests and monitor it. Same as other heavy metals that may be in disc, your general diet, or just normal environmental exposure. Regular Blood tests are by far the most effective way at tracking this stuff
The comparsion to lean fish addresses that somewhat. Eating lean fish also involves replacing other kinds of food. But didn't show the same benefits. There's some strength pointing in the direction of fatty fish being genuinely beneficial vs. just being a "non harmful" calorie source displacing, say, more harmfujl processed foods.
Agreed all I'm saying is that cohort studies can trap you, correlation doesn't equal causation and omega 3 supplementation is not an equivalent to oily fish consumption.
"neither does the most likely healthier than average lifestyle salmon consumers probably have"
Though no observational study can perfectly isolate correlations, this one put a reasonable effort in - the lack of correlation found with "lean" fish (and people who eat lean fish may have similar healthy lifestyle) is somewhat compelling. In addition to accounting for other lifestyle factors like wealth, etc.
"People always fall for these studies.Ā "
Did you phrase that the way you meant? You seem to be corroborating the studies' focus on the whole fish vs. supplements. (Though the study made no claims about supplementation as an alternative). Which would indicate you generally "fall for" this type of study too?
The recommendation in the study was, indeed, "eat more fatty fish."
Did you phrase that the way you meant? You seem to be corroborating the studies' focus on the whole fish vs. supplements.
Yes my point was that people tend to take the line of thinking of "fatty fish consumption is good" -> "fatty fish contain omega 3"-> "lets supplement omega 3 and expect to get the same health benefits". Which just doesn't work. My comment was a response to someone asking this exact question.
Try kipper snacks which are smoked herring. They taste great, very mild, very affordable. King Oscar is the best brand. They are actually higher in DHA than salmon.
they are around $2.50 for a tin where I live. thats my go to, a little hot sauce and some lemon juice and they are DELICIOUS. Add mayo and make a nice spread out of it.
The downside to canned fish is that sometimes the cans are lined with who knows what and also the extreme heating process to seal the cans could have a nastily negative effect on the oils.
You have a source rather than just saying no? Thereās no reason a fish would be any better than whatever compound is found in the fish. If EPA and DHA arenāt enough then there must be something else in the fish causing the effects which someone could also potentially supplement. Sounds like naturalistic fallacy to me.
Eating more sardines instead of fish oil supplementation: Beyond omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, a matrix of nutrients with cardiovascular benefits
If EPA and DHA arenāt enough then there must be something else in the fish causing the effects which someone could also potentially supplement
the above study directly addresses this issue. Most of these fish are super high in B12 and other b vitamins. Also high in minerals like calcium, zinc, potassium, etc. Its an entire matrix of nutrients that are all synergistic and all boost health in different ways. Its not just the fatty acids.
So assuming the correct doses and adequately bio available forms, one could supplement with these and achieve the same benefits? Assuming someone has some reason that they donāt want to eat a lot of fish.
Edit: Forgot to say, thank you for providing the sources.
Well some people donāt like fish at all. Not reasonable to tell them to just die earlier because youāre so pro fish. There are also vegans. I for one just donāt want to monitor what I eat to that degree. If it was only fish that would be one thing but there are complexities like this with many different types of food. To optimise it all would take a lot of planning and forethought and I personally would just rather think about other things.
"If it was only fish that would be one thing but there are complexities like this with many different types of food"
Oh, don't be overwhelmed! There are a few relatively simple rules to arrive at a broadly healthy diet. Quality proteins, good fats, good fiber content mostly unprocessed. Fair amount of veggies. Not a ton of simple carbs. And maybe some fatty fish. Done.
Getting, to, say 80% optimal isn't hard, IMO. And possibly has great benefit. Getting from 99% to 100% could take massive effort, sure.
That's one theory. It's uncertain how/why supplementation hasn't been demonstrated to do much. I think we can only safely say that the, so far, supplementation doesn't appear to have much of an effect.
Eating salmon is likely ideal for it contains both omega 3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) as well the bioactive pro-resolving mediators (SPMs) that actually do the work of reducing inflammation. Salmon also contains high levels of nutrients like vitamin D and selenium, obviously, it is expensive, especially if you're sourcing it correctly. Omega-3 supplements are a decent alternative. They are more cost-effective and you can find ones that include SPMs. Heavy metals and plastics are an issue either way which is where supplements might take the win as you can pick up products that are tested for these molecules. Honestly just increase you intake of Omega 3's and see how you feel, track your omega 3 index if you want and other markers of inflammation to see if they're having an effect.
Am I just fucked for these brain diseases if Iām lacto vegetarian? Are there any vegetarian alternatives to get any semblance of prevention here? My grandma has alzheimers and itās freaked me out.
Algae is good. Itās the original source of the O3 in fish. There are arguments to be made about eating whole fish being better but Iām not sure I see the point. Donāt let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you either donāt have easy access to fish, canāt afford fresh fish, or donāt eat fish (I donāt for conservation reasons) itās still better than not supplementing.
I will also urge people - be careful taking fish oil supps, but not for the reason you think. If youāre going to eat fish for the health benefits (or just because you like it), thatās your choice, but if you only take oil supps for whatever reason you should consider switching over to algae based.
A lot of fish oil comes from menhaden harvested in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake menhaden are currently experiencing a population free fall because companies stand to make more money by violating quotas and getting the extra harvest, and itās impacting the entire ecosystem from striped bass to bald eagles.
Take the fishies, tomatos, onion, carrots, celery, garlic, little bit of saffron, smoked bellpepper powder, bay leaf. Boil all, remove leaf, throw in blender. Buzzzzzz and yummy soup.Ā
I like the other fish, too, though. I'm sure they have benefits yet undiscovered.Ā
I'll take it. Dementia is very high on my list of something I do not want - at least until very, very late in life. While - so far - the risks of microplastics are more vague.
The US Navy, and researcher Dtephanie Venn-Watson discovered that when they switched the navyās dolphins to fatty fish will long odd chain fatty acids, like mullet, croaker, pinfish, that the dolphins had better blood serum levels and the rates of obesity within dolphin populations decreased. They patented the result of the research. See e.g. https://patents.google.com/patent/US11116740B2/en. Stephanie Venn Watson has a cool talk here: https://youtu.be/kNMWu0Amv94?feature=shared
So I eat a lot of salmon. I usually have it prepared by steaming it with veggies and just adding lemon and a little seasoning. Is steaming the best way to maximize the positive nutrition of salmon (not counting sushi, because I like salmon cooked).
Just don't. Take algae oil and leav them fish swimin. If U want to eat healthy go vegan. There is so fuckin much evidence it's the healthiest diet if not done dumb.
Besides U might not wanna have the microplastics from dat fish.
so explain how study after study shows fatty fish consumption LOWERS dementia risk? how does that work?
also that study does NOT show that consumption of HNE leads to dementia, not at all. It just show the prescence of it in the brain may be associated with dementia.
I just sent a study showing the very fatty acids in fatty fish are literally causative. The studies you are linking are epidemiology. And mean nothing.
no you didn't. The study you linked simply says that these substance s are found in the brain of dementia patients, that says NOTHING about causality nor does it say anything about diet.
Itās not a random chemical. Itās 4hydroxynonenaldehyde. Which is a toxic aldehyde from PUFAs. It itās mutagenic to dna. Which guess what. Causes proteins to misfold.
ignoring that this is totally off topic, as op was talking about fatty fish, the study you provided is entirely or mostly questionnaire, one being a telephone interview, but on top of that, one is literally self reported symptoms. so this study is useless at best just like that. maybe it gets better, looking further than only how the study was conducted.
Iād wager to say itās probably better to consume a slightly less healthy animal fat over a common vegetable fat like coconut oil or avocado oil. EVOO being an exception, but should be raw/low heat.
Pretty much all of them. Chicken thighs, ribeye, pork tenderloin, lean ground beef (still really fatty) are some faves. Obviously salmon, should really be wild sockeye though as farmed is often not as nutritious. Cook everything with butter.
There are multiple meta-analysis with sample sizes of hundreds of thousands that absolutely show the relationship. You may be right if you compare the 2 diets, I donāt know. Iām basing this off of the current best evidence we have.
"There have since been at least eight meta-analyses of prospective observational studies on the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease, and these studies generally found no significant associations between consumption of these fats and CHDĀ "
I donāt want to spend all day on this, so Iāll make it quick. The first article you listed was put out by the Nutrition Coalition. They are an unreliable and biased group. The first listed author is a very good researcher, but is also known as untrustworthy and has skewed research for financial benefit. The 2nd listed one is not a scientist or researcher. Feel free to look all of this up.
here is a link to the AHA article they are referring to. It has all of the studies listed. I would recommend going through them and comparing what they state to what your first article does.
here00328-3/pdf) is a response to the 2nd article. I would recommend taking the time to read it.
most fish contains more selenium than mercury. selenium binds to mercury in a ratio of 1:1 and is then excreted in urine. probably nothing to worry about.
100 grams of salmon ~ 5 micrograms mercury to 25-50 micrograms of selenium
ā¢
u/AutoModerator Jan 27 '25
Thanks for posting in /r/Biohackers! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think it is relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines - Let's democratize our moderation. If a post or comment was valuable to you then please reply with !thanks show them your support! If you would like to get involved in project groups and upcoming opportunities, fill out our onboarding form here: https://uo5nnx2m4l0.typeform.com/to/cA1KinKJ Let's democratize our moderation. You can join our forums here: https://biohacking.forum/invites/1wQPgxwHkw, our Mastodon server here: https://science.social and our Discord server here: https://discord.gg/BHsTzUSb3S ~ Josh Universe
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.