Fish Oil Supplements Revisited - briefly

     I was recently reminded that in past posts, I had shown support for the use of fish oil supplements.  My opinion has changed as newer research has failed to support an association between fish oil pills and a reduction of inflammation as it relates to heart disease, stroke and/or arthritis.  In other words, I now find the body of research that I used to make my decision less convincing.  As indicated more recently, I only 'take' vitamin D and just in the winter.  The best source of D is sun (risks duly noted).
   To the best of my knowledge, studies on the effect of fish oil supplements and the treatment of heart disease, prevention of second heart attacks and control of atrial fibrillation are still being conducted.
   I AM sure about this.  There are protective effects from the consumption of oily fish, high in omega 3s.  People who consume fish, such as salmon, once or more per week appear to have better cardiovascular health - meaning less inflammation and improved oxygenated blood flow - than those who do not consume fish. 
   Be advised, not all fish contains this good fat (tilapia does not) and some fish that does is also toxic due to mercury levels.  Fish to avoid include shark, tuna, tilefish and sword.  A newcomer for Americans is barramundi - found in Australian and South Asian waters. Barramundi is a type of sea bass.  I have found conflicting reports on its mercury content, unfortunately, at least one of them considers it in the same category as swordfish. I believe that some farm raised and thus carefully fed, barramundi is not high in mercury. Either way, my sister cooked some when I last visited her and it was quite yummy and low in calories, if you care about such things.

Fish Fraud

Searching my own blog for "fish" posts returns 8 mini pages of results.  Most of those pertain to the benefits of fish consumption in regards to the Omega 3 (good fat) content and the generally low calorie nature of fish or the risks associated with some species (i.e. preditory fish like shark and big fish like swordfish) due to high mercury content.  I am certain that buried in one of those posts is a discussion on sustainability and over fishing, as occurs with grouper and lastly or most recently, my post about the inaccurate nutrient facts labeling of my Walmart purchased salmon and tilapia. This last post noted my complaint to the government's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (who were of no help).


Imagine my intrigue then when I saw a USA Today headline regarding mislabled fish.  Consumer Reports, which is a subscription only publication, did an independent study where they purchased fish and conducted laboratory analysis.  Though they did not discuss nutrient information, at least in the news story, they did point out that the fish people buy is not the fish they think they are buying.  Of course this will directly impact the nature of calories, sustainability and mercury levels.
I can link you to the same USA Today story that I read and if you subscribe to Consumer Reports you'll have access to the full analysis.

Thus fish fraud continues... BTW - the blog post I did about grouper related to a scientist who said he never ordered it because 1) it was over fished and 2) it often was NOT grouper.  The news from today only supports his assertions.