Flax Seed oil VS. Fish Oil

This forum was for people who undertook the IBD Remission Diet. It was active for 4 years, so there is a huge body of support and advice here that you can search and find the answers to your questions. Remember, whatever you're going through, someone has likely already posted a question about it and the answer is here - just use the SEARCH function.

NOTE: This forum is now LOCKED. If you want to have Jini Patel Thompson, Nicole Paull, or Dr. Silvio Najt answer your question, or receive ongoing support from them, you need to become a Platinum Member of JPT Wellness Circle and use the private forum at that website: http://www.jptwellnesscircle.com

Flax Seed oil VS. Fish Oil

Postby Cynthia on Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:05 pm

I have been on the elemental diet for 4 weeks now and I am improving quite a bit. I have had ulcerative colitis on and off for 20 yrs. I wish I had found this 20 yrs ago! javascript:emoticon(':(')

However, reading Dr. Mercola's site, he says that flax seed oil is NOT the best oil, that fish oil is much better. Any thoughts? Here is the article:

Dr. Mercola's Comment

Nearly everyone seems to benefit from omega-3 oils, as most Americans are deficient in this nutrient. The sad tragedy, however, is that nearly all fish are contaminated with mercury so it is not safe to consume fish as a source of these oils. Instead, we are forced to seek molecularly refined sources of omega-3 fish oil.

Some people choose flax seeds for their source of omega-3 oils. This is not the optimal source for most though, because the ALA found in flax seeds needs to be converted to long-chain omega-3 fats, and this conversion process is impaired in many.

More importantly, ALA is not equivalent in its biological effects to the long-chain omega-3 fats found in marine oils. Experimental studies suggest that intake of 3 to 4 grams of ALA per day is equivalent to 0.3 grams (300 mg) of EPA per day. EPA and DHA are more rapidly incorporated into plasma and membrane lipids and produce effects more rapidly than does ALA.

Further, there are relatively large reserves of omega-6 linolenic acid in your body fat that tends to slow down the formation of long-chain omega-3 fats like EPA and DHA from ALA.

So in addition to consuming omega-3 fat you will want to lower your intake of most omega-6 fat as nearly all of us consume far too much, causing the delicate omega 6:3 ratio to become unbalanced.

As mentioned above, our culture has long since passed the point where it is healthy to obtain omega-3 from most commercially available fish. I now highly recommend routinely consuming fish oil/cod liver oil instead, as they are purified of mercury and other toxins.

Mercury is rampant in the waterways of the world, and, as the article expresses, mercury is not just in the fat of the fish -- it is in all of the tissues.

Clinically, I use hair analysis on most of my patients as a way to determine mercury levels. While many view this as a controversial test, very few would deny its utility as a sensitive screen for heavy metal exposure. A person's mercury level in their hair is almost always related to their consumption of fish.

There are exceptions, of course, as there are other environmental exposures to mercury. I recently tested a dentist who was not eating fish but was still actively removing mercury amalgams, and he had very high mercury levels in his system. This is not typical, though, as the mercury measured in the hair analysis is usually related to mercury exposure in the last three months, and most mercury from a person's amalgams is low level and will not exceed that consumed in fish.

Nonetheless, the mercury from amalgams is still a problem as it accumulates over time, but it rarely shows up in the hair unless you have had amalgams removed in the three months prior to the hair analysis and a large mercury exposure resulted from the removal.

It is a tragedy that we have virtually devastated fish, previously one of the healthiest foods on the planet, with mercury toxicity. We have polluted the environment with hundreds of millions of tons of mercury by burning coal for electricity. The mercury eventually finds its way into the waterways where it is bio-accumulated to very high levels in most fish. Generally the larger the fish, the more mercury it contains. In fact, some mercury levels in fish have been unbelievably high.

Tragedy is an understatement.

Some fish have less mercury than others, but nearly all fish are contaminated with mercury. I have done thousands of hair mineral analyses on patients and can confidently state this as truth. Patients who don't eat any fish are the only ones who have immeasurable levels of mercury in their hair. In my experience, anyone eating fish has mercury in their system, and it is nearly always in direct proportion to the frequency of their fish consumption.

So here is my recommendation:

Avoid eating all fish, unless you know the fish has been tested and shown not to contain harmful levels of mercury and other toxins.

Almost all fish has mercury that will absolutely compromise your health. The one apparent exception are very small fish like sardines or anchovies that haven't been in the ocean long enough to accumulate much mercury. Presently, I am also searching the market for safe sources of other fish, perhaps those caught from more pristine water sources that may still exist.

We all need the omega-3 fats found in fish -- in the case of most Americans, in fact, omega-3 is desperately needed -- but you should get them from a clean source. Most fish oil supplements, like the Carlson brand of fish oil/cod liver oil that I highly recommend and offer on this site, go through a molecular distillation process to clean out the mercury. The Carlson brand is also routinely tested using standard international protocols in an independent, FDA registered laboratory; this testing not only ensures freedom from detectable levels of mercury, but also cadmium, lead, PCBs and 28 other contaminants. If you are using a brand besides Carlson, you should definitely contact the manufacturer to confirm they go through this process and testing.

Another reason I specifically recommend Carlson fish oil/cod liver oil is that I have seen clear and often substantial improvements in my patients who use it. For instance, the Carlson brand has helped them get high cholesterol back to appropriate levels, and it has also shown particularly positive benefits in those with rheumatoid arthritis, Raynaud's and Scleroderma. Meanwhile, the Costco brand of fish oil I now advise against, but at one time recommended for its low cost, did not show these same results; indeed, many patients who switched from Carlson to Costco fish oil showed a relapse in their original improvements. I do not yet know what to attribute this to in the Costco brand, but I now strongly suggest you use caution when choosing your brand of fish oil/cod liver oil.

You can find the Carlson fish oil/cod liver oil in my "Recommended Products" section; your local health food store may also carry Carlson, and usually they are very helpful in recommending any other trustworthy brands. :(
Cynthia
Cynthia
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Nicole on Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:16 pm

Hi, Cynthia.

Well, that's one of those follow-your-gut things.

Jini herself and many other people (I'm one of them) have been successful using flax oil for its anti-inflammatory benefits.

On the other hand, it's absolutely true that cod liver oil free of contaminants is a wonderfully beneficial oil for the body.

Your body will give you the very best answer you can get. If you're improving on the flax oil + shakes, don't let what someone else says dissuade you from continuing. If, on the other hand, you feel that you wish to try cod liver oil, as long as you have a pure product, it can only benefit you.

I will say that taste-wise, you will almost certainly find the flax oil or Udo's Choice oil much more pleasant in your shakes.....

Don't hesitate to write back with any other questions or concerns.

Nicole
Nicole
Site Admin
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: New England

Postby Jini Admin on Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:28 am

Hi Cynthia,

I take both cod liver oil and Udo's oil. The reason I recommend Udo's for the shakes is due to cost and possible palatability/tolerance issues at high doses (some people consume up to 9 shakes a day = 9 tbsps of oil).

However, fish oil is a WONDERFUL thing, so personally I recommend both. If you can only take one, then I think the cod liver oil is more important. I sell and recommend Nordic Naturals on the Holistic Health Shoppe (they are also committed to preventing overfishing).

take care,
Jini
Please Note: Jini Patel Thompson is a health writer and consumer advocate. She is not a registered health professional nor doctor of any sort. The information in this posting is simply her own personal opinion. Any action, or inaction taken as a result, is entirely at your own risk and liability.

Listen To Your Gut: http://www.listen2yourgut.com
All the supplements mentioned in this post: http://www.HolisticHealthShoppe.com
Colicky Baby? http://www.colicinfant.com
Listen To Your IBS: http://www.listen2ibs.com
Jini Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:12 am


Return to The IBD Remission Diet

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron