Thermogenesis and thyroid function in rats with fish oil?

[lvysaur]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19793640

What do you make of this?

"liver thyroid hormone receptor (TR) β1 protein expression was higher in the FO group"

"activity of hepatic mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase, the enzyme involved in thermogenesis and a well-characterized target stimulated by T3 via TRβ1, was higher in the FO group, suggesting enhancement of thyroid hormone action"

(FO = Fish Oil)

 

[Blossom]

In the abstract the authors state that they are hypothesizing the long term effects of fish oil in the diet. The study was only 11 weeks long and some of the other PUFA research of similar length does show results that can be interpreted as positive in such a sort time period. I would personally prefer the researchers conduct longer studies to get a more accurate view of what fish oil does in the body before such claims are made.

 

[lvysaur]

In the abstract the authors state that they are hypothesizing the long term effects of fish oil in the diet. The study was only 11 weeks long and some of the other PUFA research of similar length does show results that can be interpreted as positive in such a sort time period. I would personally prefer the researchers conduct longer studies to get a more accurate view of what fish oil does in the body before such claims are made.

11 weeks is a long time for rats, though. If their lifespan is 2 years, then 11 weeks around a decade in human years. Not sure if that's relevant.

The other issue, of course, is that there were only O6 and O3 groups, no MUFA/SFA groups.

 

[j.]

11 weeks is a long time for rats, though. If their lifespan is 2 years, then 11 weeks around a decade in human years.

Maybe how long it takes typically for a rat to change all its fats is relevant. Peat says it's 4 years in humans.

 

[Blossom]

Yeah, I wish there would be a better study. It seems a lot are turning up these days and they are all about 10-12 weeks if memory serves me correctly. I kind of doubt that you can really make much of these studies really, when you comparing crap oil with another crap oil IMO. I wonder who's funding them? Even the American Heart Association came out recently and admitted omega 3 oils showed no heart benefit. I guess probably the fish industry has to keep coming up with creative ways to get rid of their waste(oil). It's working for them, at least for now. I think that study is just propaganda disguised as science.

 

[Blossom]

I think initially the numbers appear to improve when it's really the metabolism working harder to get rid of a toxin! I don't think it sustainable long term or desirable/healthy. IMO

 

[lvysaur]

Yeah, I wish there would be a better study. It seems a lot are turning up these days and they are all about 10-12 weeks if memory serves me correctly. I kind of doubt that you can really make much of these studies really, when you comparing crap oil with another crap oil IMO. I wonder who's funding them? Even the American Heart Association came out recently and admitted omega 3 oils showed no heart benefit. I guess probably the fish industry has to keep coming up with creative ways to get rid of their waste(oil). It's working for them, at least for now. I think that study is just propaganda disguised as science.

Is fish oil actually a waste product? I thought it was produced primarily for the health claims.

If someone knows a good link detailing how seed oils/fish oils/other stuff was transformed from a waste product into a "health" product, don't hesitate to post it.

 

[Mittir]

Yeah, I wish there would be a better study. It seems a lot are turning up these days and they are all about 10-12 weeks if memory serves me correctly. I kind of doubt that you can really make much of these studies really, when you comparing crap oil with another crap oil IMO. I wonder who's funding them? Even the American Heart Association came out recently and admitted omega 3 oils showed no heart benefit. I guess probably the fish industry has to keep coming up with creative ways to get rid of their waste(oil). It's working for them, at least for now. I think that study is just propaganda disguised as science.

RP has mentioned that many studies have good data and experiment but their conclusion is different
than the results. He takes the information from the data, not the conclusion.
I have seen several health bloggers ( with PhD, MDs etc) complaining that RP cites study that does not
support his claim. I was following a health blogger, with a PhD in neurobiology,
complaining about a particular RP study.Then i checked the study and found
that the RP cited information from the body of the article but not from conclusion or abstract.
In most cases, reading the full text carefully answers a lot of question.
There are studies that require a lot of expert level knowledge, those are beyond
average people's reach.RP once mentioned that writers often change the language in
their conclusion to get published. Few days ago i was reading a study RP mentioned about
salt and blood pressure. I think he was talking about DASH study. They showed how blood pressure
is changed in a low salt, moderate salt and high salt DASH diet, which is high in potassium,calcium
and magnesium. The study only compared potassium and sodium intake.
If you read the full study you will see that high potassium lowers blood pressure
significantly. But the abstract is focused on sodium intake , no mention of potassium.
For people like RP, this study is a proof that potassium, magnesium and
calcium are good at lowering Blood pressure. For average person it means stay away from salt.

 

[aguilaroja]

The other issue, of course, is that there were only O6 and O3 groups, no MUFA/SFA groups.

The study compares equal quantities of soybean oil and fish oil. Dr. Peat has laid out the general criticism in the past. If a less toxic substance is compared to a more toxic one, it will look like an improvement. Less toxic is different from beneficial.

 

[mas]

from Mittir
RP has mentioned that many studies have good data and experiment but their conclusion is different
than the results. He takes the information from the data, not the conclusion.
I have seen several health bloggers ( with PhD, MDs etc) complaining that RP cites study that does not
support his claim. I was following a health blogger, with a PhD in neurobiology,
complaining about a particular RP study.Then i checked the study and found
that the RP cited information from the body of the article but not from conclusion or abstract.

Thanks for this important distinction between the data and conclusion. I have read several Phds blogs too and was puzzled because some of them stated that no RP cites were given for the relative material or even that RP was citing material that had nothing to do with the subject!

Another issue is that Ray mentions that much science has been "disappeared" progressively since the early 1900s, and what studies have been done since then to more recently have been funded by special interest groups and fraudulent. So even an honest study may have a conclusion that doesn't reflect the facts. People today rely on quick sound-bites and have no time for introspective reflection and determining facts for themselves!

 

[lvysaur]

Another issue is that Ray mentions that much science has been "disappeared" progressively since the early 1900s, and what studies have been done since then to more recently have been funded by special interest groups and fraudulent. So even an honest study may have a conclusion that doesn't reflect the facts. People today rely on quick sound-bites and have no time for introspective reflection and determining facts for themselves!

Do you have a link to where he says that? I'd like to read/listen to it if you can find it, just for my own interest.

 

[mas]

Ray Peat
Stem cells, cell culture, and culture: Issues in regeneration
approx 10th paragraph

The disappearance of the field concept in developmental biology was one of the strangest events in the history of science. It didn't just fade away, it was "disappeared," in a massive undertaking of social engineering. In its absence, stem cells will seem to be a profitable technological marvel, rather than a universal life function, with a central role in everything we are and everything we do and can become.