Flax, fish oils, or Udo's - Page 4 - UK-Muscle Body Building Community

**Nytol** · 24-08-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andr0lic

Mercola is known to be overpriced from what I've read around the boards, and anyone who knows him, knows he is a snake(or so i hear).

Google: Source Naturals NKO. their product is the best IMO and is usually one of the cheapest krill around if sourced through the proper reseller.

The cheapest best source of NKO on the net though would have to be NOW's brand on BB.com. unfortunately this isnt an option for most of you because of the shipping, but they offer the same amount of NKO for about USD10 cheaper, so maybe int'l shipping would be moot. Most of my staples are from NOW because they are such a huge company(c-GMP certified), they have the buying power to cut everyone elses throat on prices with equal or better quality.

BTW, props to Tony for informing us of his affiliations.

Thanks mate, I'll have a look at them.

I've never heard anything bad said about Mercola, I find his site interesting.

Tony Barnes · 24-08-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackskii

My bad, It was something I read years ago, thanks for clearing that one up.
Thanks Tony.

Fish oils will also decrease arachidonic acid formation and therefore also decrease PGE2 formation.

My understanding was their main mode of action is to prevent release of AA from membranes, such that it can't be used for series 2 prostaglandin formation. This is mediated by the series 3 prostaglandins

Tony Barnes · 24-08-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thestudbeast

I looked into this after reading many, many good logs on x-factor and decided against when looking into AA. The makers of x-factor suggest you don't take any omega 3 on it as it suppreses the inflamitory effect of AA. The call it the component of red meat that makes you grow but it seems to be more present in liver. I also saw AA linked to cancer? Well that was the end of my research into this product.

So Tony can I ask why you think AA is not a good idea supplemented? Is it for the reasons above or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

IMO to recommend supplementation with AA, at the same time as a reduction in omega 3 is bloody moronic.

If you want to set yourself up for inflammation, sure, go for it.

If you want your body to keep working for longer, don't.

It may well cause better growth - series 2 prostaglandins are indicated for their fight or flight benefits, i.e. making sure you don't die in a given scenario. It's possible they have a slightly longer burn effect in muscle growth, in order to power people away from a dodgy diet source, but this is hugely speculative on my part!!!

Remember, good red meat, that is grass fed, will have some omega 3 in it too - not massive amounts, but it's there.

Tony Barnes · 24-08-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andr0lic

While I can't hang with Tony's technical savvy, I will say that I have always ascribed to the theory of taking your omegas seperately as they counteract one another(omega-9 is discluded). That is not to say that they cannot be absorbed at all if taken with the 6's, but why not be sure? We already take in so much 6 through so many food sources that it would seem prudent to take the 3 seperated by a period of hours. I always have and always will, but again, that's just me, and the relevance of me saying this is that udo's is blended oils, and that is a flawed formula for this reason alone.

An interesting thing I just learned six months ago, is that bioavailability of 3 is increased when taken with additional fat. A SMALL amount of butter is excellent as it has next to no 6's, as is ex. virgin olive oil as it is predominantly 9's which do not interfere with absorbtion rates. I always used to take my fish oil with a basically fatless meal as to avoid any decreased availability but now I take it with said fats at mealtime as this is a very delicate substance we're talking about, and we want to maximize its assimilation and utility in the body.

-Andy

The logic of taking both at the same time, is that as they use the same enzymes for elongation and desaturisation, by balancing the amounts at intake, you get balanced amounts getting converted. By taking them seperatly, you could potentially get more net conversion (of both omega 3 and 6), however you would also be putting your body in a see-saw world of inflammation / anti-inflammation. It makes more sense to keep it as constant as possible, slightly favouring the anti-inflammation.

I haven't heard the increased bioavailability via co0ingestion with other fats. Omega 3's are absorbed at about 97% efficiency anyway (i.e. you'll **** about 3% out), and I don't think that the levels of other fats in the system at the time would affect the volume that get burned versus the amount that get sent off for other roles. I'd be interested in anything you have to read on that though.

Tony Barnes · 24-08-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andr0lic

Mercola is known to be overpriced from what I've read around the boards, and anyone who knows him, knows he is a snake(or so i hear).

lol, I've heard some things about him in the past, personally I don't really rate a chunk of what he says

BTW, props to Tony for informing us of his affiliations.

No worries

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/diets-nutrition/23595-flax-fish-oils-udos.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	31-08-2007 06:49 PM
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	26-08-2007 09:08 AM
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	25-08-2007 10:59 PM
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	25-08-2007 10:57 PM

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
oil chart	Peg	Food, Diet and Nutrition Info	43	23-08-2007 11:19 PM
Dr Dave on Flax Seed Oil vs Fish Oil	miami797	Food, Diet and Nutrition Info	16	26-06-2007 10:44 AM
Atkins what a joke & con	ONE SMART COOKIE	Nutrition & Diet Articles	41	02-06-2006 08:15 PM
Fish oils to Enter Weight Loss Category?	ChefX	Nutrition & Diet Articles	5	18-02-2005 01:46 AM