http://extremelongevity.net/wp-conte...-oil-death.pdf
AA, WonderPug, in10city and other nutritonal sages, what say you? Do we have to OD on antioxidants to reap the benefits of fish oil or are we gonna die if we don't supplement with antioxidants as well?
|
-
10-07-2011, 03:37 AM #1
-
10-07-2011, 03:45 AM #2
-
10-07-2011, 05:46 AM #3
-
10-07-2011, 06:40 AM #4
-
-
10-07-2011, 06:59 AM #5
-
10-07-2011, 07:18 AM #6
-
10-07-2011, 07:22 AM #7
-
10-07-2011, 08:56 AM #8
-
-
10-07-2011, 09:15 AM #9
- Join Date: Apr 2005
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 30,435
- Rep Power: 119193
According to the methods, the mice were given free access to food while in their cage. That leaves the question, how much of their diet was composted of fish oil? Unless you establish the percentage of food/bodyweight that is composed of fish oil then we can only speculate how much they're ingesting. Based on most mice studies (like all the scare studies with aspartame, etc) I'm guessing that it was some ridiculous amount and that was the cause of their shortened life span.
-
10-07-2011, 09:24 AM #10
-
10-07-2011, 09:29 AM #11
-
10-07-2011, 09:48 AM #12
- Join Date: Oct 2005
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 24,222
- Rep Power: 34135
In order to understand how this does or does not apply to humans, you really need to understand a little something about the SA prone strains. Having used them in research, I can tell you in layman terms that they basically begin to fall apart after a certain age - eg decrease in mitrochondrial proteins, mitochondrial dysfunction, possible increased ROS, reduced endogenous enzymes like SOD and GPx and possible impaired hormetic response in various tissues. Since the genetic and molecular basis for their downfall is incompletely understood, and while certain mechanisms are attractive it's difficult to draw cause-effect conclusions (ie the increased lipid peroxidation decreased lifespan) and even more difficult to extrapolate this to humans perhaps with the exception of advanced age (not to mention the increased body of literature that refutes the free radial theory of aging).
It says how much they ate per day and how much they weighed.
4.1 g/d eaten and 50 g per 1000 g of chow was fish oil = 0.21 g fish oil
mice weight = 37.1 g
bw dose = 5.7 g/kg
HED based on BSA = ~ 0.62 g/kgLast edited by in10city; 10-07-2011 at 09:59 AM.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-
-
10-07-2011, 10:10 AM #13
-
10-07-2011, 10:24 AM #14
-
10-07-2011, 11:12 AM #15
-
10-07-2011, 11:34 AM #16
-
-
10-07-2011, 11:49 AM #17"Training is 100 percent, Nutrition is 100 percent, and Mental approach is 100 percent. It is like a tripod, you take one of the legs away and they all fall down. " - Dorian Yates
"You will not be impatient; the grind is where character is made. Focus on what you have to do TODAY to make tomorrow better. This is a lifelong project." - Jim Wendler
TATW
-
10-07-2011, 02:01 PM #18
-
10-07-2011, 02:08 PM #19
-
10-07-2011, 02:12 PM #20
^^^Great response, seconded - along with all other responses in here implying that nutrient effects in rodents are generally not reliable predictors of human effects.
To the OP -- In the absence of human data, rodent data can serve as food for thought. However, in the case of fish oil, the human data thus far has for the most part been neutral or beneficial, not adverse. When human data conflicts with rodent data, guess which has more weight?
-
-
10-07-2011, 02:18 PM #21
Bookmarks