Eating a Dog

[KWED]

That's because such recommendations have more to do with feasibility than what is the ideal intake.

Two servings of oily fish a week is entirely feasible. Yet it recommends one. If one did not provide sufficient omega 3 to have a beneficial effect, they would recommend two.

Tell me, what happens to people if they miss your RDI occasionally?
And what happened to them if they never achieve it?

 

[Koldo]

I have no idea, but enough of the goalpost-moving. Your argument was that people can't/don't get omega 3 from other dietary sources. They can and do.

Nope. My argument was never that people can't get Omega 3 from other dietary sources. Merely that they generally don't get enough daily.

The NHS do not recommend a "daily intake". They recommend at least one serving of oily fish per week.
One serving of oily fish contains 4-5000mg omega 3. The NHS considers this sufficient. If they also eat seeds, nuts, beans, vegetables and eggs, they are likely to by fine, omega 3-wise.

You most certainly wouldn't have a hard time finding the basis for such guidelines, right? I mean, it must certainly involve a lot of studies stating that eating fish twice a week is just as good as having a daily intake of Omega 3. Right? Please provide the papers.

 

[Koldo]

Two servings of oily fish a week is entirely feasible. Yet it recommends one. If one did not provide sufficient omega 3 to have a beneficial effect, they would recommend two.

Tell me, what happens to people if they miss your RDI occasionally?
And what happened to them if they never achieve it?

Better than that: What happens if you completely ignore Omega 3?

 

[KWED]

Nope. My argument was never that people can't get Omega 3 from other dietary sources. Merely that they generally don't get enough daily.

In response to a post claiming that two servings of oily fish was feasible, you replied...
"And the rest of the Omega 3 you need is coming from.... where exactly?"
Which implies that it isn't going to come from anywhere.

You most certainly wouldn't have a hard time finding the basis for such guidelines, right? I mean, it must certainly involve a lot of studies stating that eating fish twice a week is just as good as having a daily intake of Omega 3. Right? Please provide the papers.

This is a perfect example of deferring to expertise. If you wish to challenge the NHS's recommendations, knock yourself out.

(Are you claiming that taking a supplement pill every day is better than eating oily fish twice a week?)

 

[KWED]

Better than that: What happens if you completely ignore Omega 3?

I can tell you. You are fit and healthy. (I never think about omega 3. I just eat what I like, which includes many of the things which happen to be high in omega 3, but that isn't why I eat them)

Also, it would be impossible to have no omega 3 in your diet, if that was the implication of your question. You would die of malnutrition before any serious adverse effects of omega 3 deficiency.

But way to dodge the questions, btw! Let's try again...
Tell me, what happens to people if they miss your RDI (whatever that figure is) occasionally?
And what happened to them if they never achieve it?

 

[Koldo]

In response to a post claiming that two servings of oily fish was feasible, you replied...
"And the rest of the Omega 3 you need is coming from.... where exactly?"
Which implies that it isn't going to come from anywhere.

Nope. That's your misunderstanding. I wanted the other poster to mention the other sources for a very specific reason: they are compatible with a vegan diet.

This is a perfect example of deferring to expertise. If you wish to challenge the NHS's recommendations, knock yourself out.

(Are you claiming that taking a supplement pill every day is better than eating oily fish twice a week?)

So you mean you have no idea on why the two servings of fish are recommended, right?
Meaning you don't know if it is grounded on what you should ingest daily or if it is grounded on what is a feasible guideline, right?

 

[metis]

Well, it would certainly make you look centuries younger.

Is this a good time for me to remind you of one of the, you should pardon the expression, cardinal rules of our act? You are the straight man. I get to say the funny stuff and then you get to laugh.

When are you going to start?

 

[Koldo]

I can tell you. You are fit and healthy. (I never think about omega 3. I just eat what I like, which includes many of the things which happen to be high in omega 3, but that isn't why I eat them)

What? Are you really saying that you are fit and healthy if you ignore Omega 3?

Also, it would be impossible to have no omega 3 in your diet, if that was the implication of your question. You would die of malnutrition before any serious adverse effects of omega 3 deficiency.

I meant 'ignore' as in not bothering with Omega 3, pretending it is not a thing.

But way to dodge the questions, btw! Let's try again...
Tell me, what happens to people if they miss your RDI (whatever that figure is) occasionally?
And what happened to them if they never achieve it?

Let me do better than that: If you completely ignore Omega 3, nothing in particular happens, you just don't gain the full extent of the purported benefits. I don't know if you have ever checked studies concerning Omega 3 but there is a certain trend: they consider daily consumption of Omega 3 when evaluating its' benefits, and not twice a week.

 

[KWED]

Nope. That's your misunderstanding. I wanted the other poster to mention the other sources for a very specific reason: they are compatible with a vegan diet.

So it was just a challenge. You already knew that sufficient omega 3 could come from other sources.
Fair enough.

So you mean you have no idea on why the two servings of fish are recommended, right?

Wrong. I would assume that it's because of the research done by the relevant departments of the NHS. I do not feel the need to challenge their work. You clearly do. I am looking forward to your findings.

Meaning you don't know if it is grounded on what you should ingest daily or if it is grounded on what is a feasible guideline, right?

Again, the reasonable assumption is that it is the base level required. After all, eating oily fish every day is feasible.

Still avoiding my two questions, I see. Hmm...

 

[Koldo]

So it was just a challenge. You already knew that sufficient omega 3 could come from other sources.
Fair enough.

Wrong. I would assume that it's because of the research done by the relevant departments of the NHS. I do not feel the need to challenge their work. You clearly do. I am looking forward to your findings.

Again, the reasonable assumption is that it is the base level required. After all, eating oily fish every day is feasible.

Still avoiding my two questions, I see. Hmm...

What? How is eating oily fish every single day feasible to the average person? I haven't ever met anyone that likes eating fish that much.

 

[pearl]

This has been an interesting, but utterly pointless diversion.

Hemochromatosis, if not taken seriously, is deadly! And a prime source of iron is red meat.
Liver disease — The liver is one of the main organs where iron is stored. Accumulation of iron in the liver can cause abnormal liver function, liver fibrosis (scarring), and cirrhosis (extensive scarring of the liver) (figure 1). About 75 percent of people who have symptoms at the time of diagnosis have abnormal liver function.
Patient education: Hereditary hemochromatosis (Beyond the Basics) - UpToDate
One is free to eat all the meat they desire, with frequent visits to the phlebotomist.

 

[KWED]

What? Are you really saying that you are fit and healthy if you ignore Omega 3?
I meant 'ignore' as in not bothering with Omega 3, pretending it is not a thing.

Yes. If I was not aware that omega 3 existed, I would eat the same stuff as I do now. I like mackerel and herring and tuna. I have always eaten Flora. Turns out is is fortified with omega 3. Who knew?

Let me do better than that: If you completely ignore Omega 3, nothing in particular happens, you just don't gain the full extent of the purported benefits. I don't know if you have ever checked studies concerning Omega 3 but there is a certain trend: they consider daily consumption of Omega 3 when evaluating its' benefits, and not twice a week.

So eating oily fish twice a week does not provide significant health benefits? You'd better inform the NHS.

Scandinavian herring fishermen 50 years ago would never have heard of omega 3. They "completely ignored" it, as you call it. Do you think they didn't get any benefit from all the oily fish they were eating?

 

[Koldo]

Yes. If I was not aware that omega 3 existed, I would eat the same stuff as I do now. I like mackerel and herring and tuna. I have always eaten Flora. Turns out is is fortified with omega 3. Who knew?

So eating oily fish twice a week does not provide significant health benefits? You'd better inform the NHS.

Scandinavian herring fishermen 50 years ago would never have heard of omega 3. They "completely ignored" it, as you call it. Do you think they didn't get any benefit from all the oily fish they were eating?

You are missing the bigger picture here.
The crux of my position is to argue against the claim that a vegan diet is not healthy simply because it might lack the proper quantity of something like Omega 3.

This ideal diet where you have the ideal intake for every single thing is simply not feasible. People simply won't tune their eating habits to conform with such a high standard. Therefore, even if the average vegan diet might be lacking something, such is also the case with the average omnivore diet.

 

[KWED]

You are missing the bigger picture here.
The crux of my position is to argue against the claim that a vegan diet is not healthy simply because it might lack the proper quantity of something like Omega 3.

This ideal diet where you have the ideal intake for every single thing is simply not feasible. People simply won't tune their eating habits to conform with such a high standard. Therefore, even if the average vegan diet might be lacking something, such is also the case with the average omnivore diet.

Well, that's the argument you should have made then.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is not.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends fish as part of a healthy diet for most people. But some groups should limit the amount of fish they eat. Most adults should eat at least 8 ounces or two servings of omega-3-rich fish a week. A serving size is 4 ounces or about the size of a deck of cards."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...ext=The U.S. Food and Drug,of a deck of cards.

 

[Koldo]

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends fish as part of a healthy diet for most people. But some groups should limit the amount of fish they eat. Most adults should eat at least 8 ounces or two servings of omega-3-rich fish a week. A serving size is 4 ounces or about the size of a deck of cards."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/in-depth/omega-3/art-20045614#:~:text=The U.S. Food and Drug,of a deck of cards.

You most certainly wouldn't have a hard time finding on what grounds such recommendation is being made, right?

You can probably point the papers that reach the conclusion that eating fish a twice grants the optimal intake of Omega 3, right?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You most certainly wouldn't have a hard time finding on what grounds such recommendation is being made, right?

You can probably point the papers that reach the conclusion that eating fish a twice grants the optimal intake of Omega 3, right?

Look you asked me why I say we only need a couple days of fish (or one day with a lot of fish). My answer was conventional medical science. I provided documentation of this. Now it's your turn. You need to prove your claim that we need to eat fish every day. Try not using a website that isn't trying to market Omega 3 pills.

 

[Koldo]

Look you asked me why I say we only need a couple days of fish (or one day with a lot of fish). My answer was conventional medical science. I provided documentation of this. Now it's your turn. You need to prove your claim that we need to eat fish every day. Try not using a website that isn't trying to market Omega 3 pills.

I don't see actual documentation, which is exactly what I asked for... What I want you to do is to provide the actual papers that back up your claim.

If you check the studies concerning Omega 3, such as this one: Long chain omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review | British Journal of Nutrition | Cambridge Core , you will realize that the consumption of Omega 3 taken into consideration happens daily. Not only that, almost always in a higher quantity than what two servings of fish will grant you in a week.

The reasoning behind the guideline you are standing by has more to do with feasibility and other health concerns as you will soon find out, and nothing to do with whether that diet will achieve the optimal intake of Omega 3.

 

[metis]

What? How is eating oily fish every single day feasible to the average person? I haven't ever met anyone that likes eating fish that much.

Yoo-hoo, here I am.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't see actual documentation, which is exactly what I asked for... What I want you to do is to provide the actual papers that back up your claim.

Do YOU have a peer reviewed journal study to back up YOUR claim? I think not. You simply want to hold me to a higher standard than yourself. You have yet to provide any evidence at all.