Screw The Fish Oil, Eat Your Chia Pet

You don’t have to worry about mercury poison and fish burps with chia. Eggs are also high in omega three fatty acids. And grass fed beef is the highest know land source of omega 3 fatty acids. I may give chia seeds a try. Due to it’s benefits for diabetics.

Fish don’t actually synthesize DHA and EPA, but get it from eating microalgae. So why not do what they do and go to the source? This might be worth checking out.

Gprent,

When will I get your Time Life series on Chia Pets; the under rated yet nutritiously edible collectible?

Don’t forget not only can you eat it, but they also soak up Greenhouse gasses too! So we solve the climate issue and world hunger. I nominate Gprent for a few awards!;)

PS: Do they come with a Clapper or a Flowbe?

I love it. :)

I think the logical thing to do is make chia an addition to my diet and reduce my daily fish oil from 2 capsules down to 1.

Now that my memory is a bit refreshed, the American Heart Association recommends increased intake of both marine and grain derived omega 3’s. In general, the review articles speak highly of both of them. Here is an excellent article:

http://www.meds … rticle/458440_1

There is more data on fish oil benefits, but that may only be because more studies have been done. There is definitely a lot of positive data on ALA, but a higher daily consumption is needed, probably because of the variable and inefficient conversion to EPA and DHA.

I read that fish get there omega 3’s from the food they eat, like algae, but on fish farms, they not only feed the fish algae, they also feed them chia seed.

A Norwegian study made a comparison on what farm-bred salmon ate and contained (Sverre Seierlands doctoral thesis at the Norwegian Veterinary University, referred to here http://www.svd. se/nyheter/inri … ikel_955297.svd )

Group A was fed with marine fodder, group B with a 50/50 mix of marine fodder and land grown fodder (seems like it was mostly flax, whereas the commercial fish foods are mostly flax and soy) and group C was fed with land grown fodder only. Upon being tested, Group A contained nearly three (3) times the amount of EPA/DHA compared to group C, and group A contained about 50 % more EPA/DHA than group B.

(Now flax contains a shitload of ALA, which in humans convert to EPA at a rate of 1:20 or something like that - a Finnish study of more than 10 000 people (I think) that exchanged ALL regular butter etc for flax and linseed oil and flax/linseed margarine had their blood drawn and analyzed and all in all it equaled having a salmon steak a week - not much effect.)

Next, the various salmon were killed, grilled and served to heart patients at Ullevål University Hospital in Oslo. The heart patients had 700 grams a week for six weeks, and three markers for heart health were studied. The patients that ate A-salmon (marine fodder only) had improved values for all three markers, those that ate B-salmon (50/50 marine and land grown fodder) had improved values for one marker, and those that ate C-salmon (land grown fodder only) had improved values for no markers at all.

And here is the thesis http://www.blac kwell-synergy.c … journalCode=eci

Without knowing anything about Chia, I doubt that the effect from Chia-ALA on salmon or humans would be much different than from Flax-ALA. So to me it seems a waste of money to buy anything expensive if it mainly contains ALA. There’s nothing wrong with flax, linseed etc but ALA just doesn’t convert to EPA very well in humans. And judging from the above, it seems that the same goes for fish.

My prediction is that zaneblue will say the seeds are useless because the omega-6 fatty acids cancel out the positive effects of the omega-3’s.

Of all the reading I have done, I have never heard that theory before, but I guess zane has her reasons.

I have an “AHA Scientific Statement” paper (on paper so I can’t link it), published in the Journal Circulation Nov 19, 2002, which says:

From this, I conclude that either:

1. The conversion overall is enough to have health benefits, or

2. ALA has health benefits on its own, even without the conversion, or

3. Most likely, both the above.

If you read the article I linked earlier, ALA consumption (through flax or other), has health benefits, so it would make sense that the same benefits could be gained from Chia, if it is just a different, or richer source of ALA.

note: The article I linked earlier also explains that conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA is dependent on how much Omega 6 fatty acid is in the system (specifically linoleic acid), because the enzyme that converts ALA to EPA also converts LA to Arachidonic acid. (hence the wide variation in study results).

This is interesting because it explains why Omega 3’s reduce inflammation. Arachidonic acid is used to produce prostaglandin, and ALA would reduce this synthesis.)

That’s an interesting study mgus. I never new that salmon Omega 3’s were so dependent on their diet. However, looking at your second link the salmon were fed a mix of marine oil and Rapeseed oil, not flax (linseed) oil! That is an important difference. Rapeseed oil = canola oil which has about 1.3 g omega 3’s per tablespoon vs. flax which has 8.5 g/tbspn. So the study basically says that fish fed more omega 3’s have more omega 3. It isn’t really a comparison of ALA fed fish vs. EPA/DHA fed fish.

Well, Zane didn’t say that (yet), but if she did this could be the reasoning:

Brilliant! Now all we have to do is start force feeding the fish to free range cattle and we will have the healthiest steaks in the world. Might not compete too well with Twat’s Save the Planet Chia Pet though….

Or just feed the cows marine microalgae.

Brilliant!

I feed a combination of kelp meal and diatomaceous earth to growing heifers/steers. The kelp is vitamin/ minerals portion and D. earth is a natural parasite treatment.