(08-11-2013, 15:59)djt-d Wrote: Thanks AbiDrew
I can't see where it says "10:1 ratio of Vitamin's A and D" - I can only see "source of vitamins A and D" under "Other Ingredients". Please can you point it out for me, thanks.
I still can't see or understand how you can tell they're not a good buy. So, for my future buys, what does the label actually have to say so I know it is a trusted brand?
Also, does this apply for all supplements/herbs? Because, I've just started taking EPO to hopefully achieve some growth. The EPO I'm taking is this one -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002GJRKL0/re..._M3T1_dp_1
Many thanks
You have to look at the vitamin A and D numbers and do some quick math, since it IS 10:1 A
you can tell right away. 5:3 is the NATURAL ratio.
Uhm. For CLO:
http://www.westonaprice.org/cod-liver-oi...oil-basics
For other supplements it depends... unfortunately you picked another under performer brand for your EPO, they use very little EPO and fill it with soybean oil.
It won't be BAD if you're not allergic to soy, but it's hardly the best pick either.
Basically you've gotta do your homework on the brands. The info is out there...
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: Your insane if you believe cold pressed is best because of ensuring good sources. Technically, all fish now are contaminated.. how much is the question. Thr fish that oil manufactures use is material rejected for whole food consumption and borderline fit for human consumption but not bad enough for pet foods. So taking to consideration everyone needs to be careful on how they are consuming of oily fish (exactly why you say 2x a week) is for that reason. So MD is still the best and safest approach to fish oils. Period.
Name one, JUST ONE brand that uses MD and doesn't put synthetic vitamins A and D in after OTHER than Carlson's. Carlson's step one IS MD. It's the step 2 that's different from anyone else that uses MD. Everyone else just puts synthetics in, Carlson's separates the Vitamins from the Minerals and puts the NATURAL vitamins back in.
Also, while you are correct, you'd be surprised just how pristine SOME waters are still. There's a certain very deep trench off of Norway that's somehow due to the way the currents flow or something, still very clean. Yes, there's contaminants still, but not nearly to the dangerous levels of other waters.
My point against MD is the use of synthetic vitamins. If they didn't use synthetic vitamins and just left them alone with the vitamins destroyed that'd be fine. But they don't.
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: Especially if fish oil is the only source fish in your diet and you choose to do so over a long period of time! As for the proprietary method... Yeah everyone with their own inhouse method says that... Hardly makes it fact (eye roll).
Talking about Carlson's method of putting natural vitamins back in or about Green Pastures encapsulation method?
Again, if there's even just ONE brand out there that uses MD and doesn't put either synthetics OR natural vitamins back in, I'd recommend that even more than either cold process fermented OR Carlson's method.
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: Vitamin D (Eye roll) - go outside and open your unshaded eyes for 15mins. Get a blood test if your concerned and then supplement according. Hardly any reason to consider fish oil as a source of vitamin d. That's complicating an issue for no reason.
That's my WHOLE POINT. Putting synthetics in is BAD BAD BAD, yet that's what everyone doing MD (except Carlson's) is doing! Also with Vitamin A, most of us are fine on it if we're eating remotely healthy, and vegetarian sources of vitamin A are superior to animal sources are superior to synthetic vitamin A!
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: Capsules slowing digestion.. By how much - you probably haven't a clue??? I personally did a study comparing the dissolution rate of tablets, to 2 piece gelatin capsules, to 2 hpmc capsules to Softgel capsules using USP methods at a FDA registered facility. I wrote the protocol, design and analyzed the data. Wanna know what... At 80% dissolution, the difference between all of then was less then 5mins! Once any capsule achieved a break point (did not require for dissolved state) all the content began fast evacuation. The study was done to create a marketing claim. That's hardly a reason for any real world consideration of faster or slower absorption.
LOL, here we go again with you working in a million different specialty fields. My god, how old are you to have at least like 4 different Masters degrees and a couple PhD's?
And that was kind of my point... Not REALLY any consideration to really worry about.
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: If you believe farm raised gmo feed salmon oil is better then wild caught sardine or mackeral then so be it. Its up to individuals to make informed decisions based on data given to them and their own research. Even then even wild caught its nearly the same but for me. I'll take a sardine meal anyday since you can eat the bones for additional benefits.
Except your sardines and mackerel are even more toxic than wild salmon, only provide half as much EPA and DHA per serving size, and contain added salt and other harmful nasties.
I didn't say farm raised salmon was good, did I? I said wild caught. Wild caught salmon is better than wild caught sardines or mackerel.
Want my sources?
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4706?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&qlookup=salmon&offset=0&sort=&format=Full&reportfmt=other&rptfrm=&ndbno=&nutrient1=&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=&totCount=&measureby=&_action_show=Apply+Changes&Qv=1&Q8994=6.0&Q8995=0.5
A 6 oz serving of wild coho salmon provides nearly 700mg of EPA and more than a gram of DHA.
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4668?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&qlookup=salmon&offset=0&sort=&format=Full&reportfmt=other&rptfrm=&ndbno=&nutrient1=&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=&totCount=&measureby=&_action_show=Apply+Changes&Qv=1&Q8925=6.0&Q8926=0.5
Wild Atlantic salmon same EPA, twice the DHA.
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4551?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=&qlookup=sardines&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=
A can of sardines had as you can see, only about 400-500mg.
And take a look at all those nasty salts!
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4510?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=&qlookup=mackerel&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=
Mackerel, 400 and 600, but at least it doesn't have all the nasties of sardines.
Compared, though, WILD SALMON IS STILL THE BEST.
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: I have no problem with green pastures. I use their butter oil. That said, I still maintain that the liquid form is the ideal one and that the encapsulated version is more like to go off quicker.
Liquid is ideal? Encapsulated "go off quicker?" What the hell are you on about? I agreed liquid is better, but not if you can't stomach fish. I told them to eat salmon, they still wanted supplements, which told me they can't stomach fish. If by "go off quicker" you mean go bad? No... As I said before, Green Pastures encapsulation process does not use heat and is perfectly fine.
(08-11-2013, 17:31)LookingForward2NBE Wrote: As for ALA - there is nothing wrong with it and has many benefits. Making such bold statements when there is a lot of research abouts its benefits is silly. not the ideal souce for omegas yes, but still has useful benefits.
It is an omega 3... All it's "benefits" are in lieu of getting proper omega 3's.
Omega 6's are another matter, and EPO is a good omega 6. IF YOU AREN'T GETTING ENOUGH IN YOUR DIET.