Posted by larryhoover on June 18, 2011, at 18:48:16
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 17, 2011, at 17:10:10
I wanted to give this subject a little bit of separation from the subject of fish oil oxidation.
If you read the literature on dioxins/PCBs, you'll find that the most toxic structure is known as TCDD, and that other similar structures are given TCDD-equivalent doses related to their own toxicity when compared to TCDD.
But when we actually look at human exposures to TCDD and equivalents, moderate exposure is protective against cancer. And when we look at people exposed to dioxins/equivalents via fish intake, their all-risk and specific risk mortalities are better than "normal" people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648613
When they mention a J-shaped dose-response curve, the incidence of cancer falls below zero (no exposure to dioxin), and only rises back to zero at some undefined higher exposure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18579573
If you open this second link, you can get full-text access to all of the data, and further interpretations, including: "In the present study, the fishermen had decreased mortality from all-causes, ischaemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, dementia and Alzheimer's disease, diseases of the respiratory system, alcohol-related diseases and accidental poisonings by alcohol and suicide compared with the general male population. Further, they had almost 2-fold fish consumption, 1.6-fold fish-derived omega-3 PUFA intake, 1.4-fold serum vitamin D concentration and 2-fold serum EPA, DHA (those are the good fish oils: Lar), dioxin and PCB concentrations compared with the males of the general population sub-sample."
So, despite twice the PCB and dioxin concentrations, they are much "healthier".
Lar
poster:larryhoover
thread:904699
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110610/msgs/988716.html