Hi all!

Ok, I am learning that if a fish oil is processed using EE, according to The Zone, it is suppoed to be better than the other kind which is ... trig-thingie. I can't spell!!!!!

I'm really confused. Does the EE versus the trig involves how well the fish oil is absorbed? Or, what happens during the process of EE and trig that makes the two processes different?

Can someone walk me through this? I tried reading online but it's confusing for someone like me!

Thanks,

Sarah

Sarah, I can't answer the question, but I did a quick web search and found quite a few articles that triglyceride-based fish oil over ethyl ester fish oil. It is hard to sort it all out, because you have to be careful who is writing the article (and who is paying him/her to write it). Best answer is going to come from a neutral source.

[quote]
Posted By Sarah on 13 Apr 2012 06:48 PM
Hi all!
Ok, I am learning that if a fish oil is processed using EE, according to The Zone, it is suppoed to be better than the other kind which is ... trig-thingie. I can't spell!!!!!
I'm really confused. Does the EE versus the trig involves how well the fish oil is absorbed? Or, what happens during the process of EE and trig that makes the two processes different?
Can someone walk me through this? I tried reading online but it's confusing for someone like me!
Thanks,
Sarah
[/quote]
I don't really know the difference, I've seen articles saying the TG (Trigyceride) form is better, and I've sen articles that the EE (Ethyl Ester) form s better.
And I saw a study that showed no difference between the two forms.
Like CranCat, You'd have to find a neutral source. Not just worth my time digging into, nor worrying about.

There will always be an ongoing debate concerning the efficacy of omega-3 ethyl esters vs. triglycerides. The omega-3 products provided by Dr. Sears are ethyl esters. .First, ethyl esters are safe despite some manufacturers misleading claims. To say that the triglyceride form is more absorbable is inaccurate. The honest comment should address the “absorption speed.” See: http://www.minami-nutrition.com/web...rption.php
There is a lot of misconception concerning EPA/DHA concentrates. Natural fish oils are generally very low in EPA and DHA. For example, only 15% of the fatty acids in cod liver oil consist of EPA and DHA. The only way to increase the potency of EPA and DHA is to convert them to ethyl esters and then distill over EPA and DHA at low temperature to increase their concentration. In the process, you also remove much of the inherent contaminants, such as dioxins and PCBs. The higher the potency of an EPA/DHA concentrate, the lower the levels of the contaminants it contains. Furthermore, it is the ethyl ester form of EPA and DHA that has been used in the vast majority of clinical trials that have demonstrated the remarkable benefits of omega-3 fatty acids as nutritional supplements. Some manufacturers try to synthetically reconvert these ethyl esters back into a triglyceride form touting it as “natural”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reconstituted triglyceride molecule has a totally different positioning of the EPA and DHA as found in low-potency natural fish oils. More ominously, during the conversion process, some of the EPA and DHA are polymerized to make a sludge that cannot be removed from the mixture. When you are taking a product consisting of a reconstituted triglyceride, that polymerized sludge is part of your supplementation.
If you want truly pure EPA/DHA concentrates that have been clinically tested, then insist on ultra-refined ethyl esters like omega-3 products provided by Dr. Sears. They consist of a fatty acid attached to an ethyl alcohol molecule. The empirical formula of EPA ethyl ester is C22H34O2 and the empirical formula of DHA is C24H36O2. The molecular weight of EPA is 330.51 and DHA is 356.55.
Here’s a previous email response you may find of interest.

"Fish Oil, The Natural Anti-Inflammatory" (Dr. Maroon, Nordic Naturals' spokesman) states that "the ethyl ester form has been shown to be fifty times more resistant to enzymatic digestion than the triglyceride form. ...... the body absorbs the triglyceride form up to 300 percent better than the synthetic ester form" Do you know if this research used ethyl esters that had benefited from the retriglyceride process? As you’re experiencing for every Ph.D there’s always an equal and opposite Ph. D. Interesting, LOVAZA a prescription omega-3 ethyl ester medication has been clinically proven to dramatically reduce very high triglycerides in adults. Dr. Sears said., “I know Joe (Dr. Maroon) and unfortunately he’s wrong.” This debate will continue forever… was Dr. Maroon aware that there can be a 24 hr. delay in the absorption of EE.

Dr. Maroon states, " In Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the UK, only fish oil with EPA and DHA in triglyceride form can be sold due to the stability and absorption issues". Do you know this to be true? If a triglyceride is more than 30% epa/dha this can lead to problems. Given the geographic areas mentioned, I can imagine possible political involvement in such a decision. Could be, however, Lovaza an ethyl ester, is produced in Norway. See: http://www.lovaza.com/

Are there any positive nutritional values to eating the skin of salmon and other fish? No added value. In fact some of the toxins reside in the skin. Best to consume fish for its protein value and supplement with a high quality fish oil for the omega-3’s.

Due to "oxidation", is it preferable to cook fish, meat, etc. first and eat it within a few days or store the product and cook portions as needed. Oxidation of fats occurs when cooking, more so at high heat. Have the fats in ground meat and poultry been oxidized more compared to non ground products? No Is any of this oxidation important? Relax, following the Zone, supplementing w/ OmegaRx and practicing daily meditation is more important.

I found it difficult to read the Lyon Heart Study and I read articles in med. journals regarding the study but none mentioned the AA/EPA test. The AA/EPA data is within the charts/tables. Can you site one that does? Sorry, only this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...d_RVDocSum

Is there AA in Omega-3 supplements? Yes If so, is anyone measuring it? We do, but it is internal information that I don’t have. Dr. Sears reviews the data to be sure it falls within an acceptable range that is less than 2% of the fatty acids. The range of AA in most fish oil is around 10-12 %. I understand AA is higher in farm raised fish compared to wild - last year the Dept. of Ag reported the AA in farm raised salmon was a high as in a "hamburger". This is probably correct.

Additional information regarding Zone Labs OmegaRx.
Where does Zone Labs get its fish?
The answer to this question is important, and it’s one of the many reasons that Zone Labs’ Ultra-Refined Omega-3 Concentrates are three times fresher and contain less than 1/10th the mercury than what is allowed by both the Norwegian Medicinal Standard and the European Pharmacopoeia Standard.
Clean sources. No farmed fish. No large fish. Pristine waters.
Zone Labs starts with wild sardines and anchovies fished from cold, pristine waters off of South America where there are less environmental impurities. When the refining process is complete, Zone Labs uses a proprietary validation and testing processes to achieve an IFOS (International Fish Oil Standard) 5 star rating.
Quality Assured.
8 Step Manufacturing Process for Ultra-Pure Omega-3 Concentrates
1. Extraction of fish oil
2. Winterization – remove limited amounts of saturated fats
3. Absorption – remove heavy metals
4. Preliminary Molecular Distillation – refining "touch up" to reduce contaminants
5. Oil conversion to ethyl esters
6. Ethyl ester thermal fractionation – remove additional saturated fats
7. True Molecular Distillation – final refining to remove pcb’s and long-chain monoenes
8. Rigid Processes – proprietary validation, inspection and encapsulation methods. Independent lab verification of IFOS requirements and certified 5 star rating.
IFOS Approved.
Zone Labs adheres to the International Fish Oil Standard (IFOS), and uses an independent third party laboratory to test every batch to ensure each batch receives the highest rating (5 star) before it ships.
• No company in the world runs more tests with IFOS than Zone Labs.
• Zone Labs receives a 5 out of 5 star rating for every batch it ships.
• Zone Labs tests the final bottled product to the IFOS standard, not the bulk refined fish oil before it enters the encapsulation process. The encapsulation process can introduce additional oxidation, but our proprietary encapsulation process guards against this. When you use Zone Labs’ ultra-refined omega-3 concentrates, we ensure that the product you are actually ingesting meets the IFOS quality standard. If you take a competitor’s fish oil, you should find out about its purity standard and if the finished product is actually tested.

good info, although I am not sure that I can truly understand it all. As John said in his post, it is probably not worth worrying about. My take on it is that if one is using a certain fish oil and is having good results from taking it, then it is working. Tech says most of the research that has been done has been done on EE-based fish oil, but that doesn't mean that the TG fish oil is not effective.

It would be interesting to hear from people who have done the EPA/DHA testing, that are taking a TG based fish oil--but we probably don't have any people like that around here.

Tech's post does raise a question in my mind, something that I had not thought about in a long time. If EPA and DHA exist in much smaller amounts naturally in fish, then why are we recommended to take such high doses of fish oil? Is this practice going against nature?

Just thinking about it as I typed it up, I can see the rationale behind taking higher doses due to the current poor condition of the typical American diet. However, it seems odd to me that Zoners (who are hopefully eating more cleanly) would need higher doses of the concentrated fish oil. This is just something that has baffled me for years... if humankind has existed for thousands and thousands of years eating fish as their source of these fatty acids, then why is it not good enough today?

Well, we are not eating a lot of fish (and some of this comes down to the safety of our fish supply), and it takes a larger amount of these fatty acids depending on the amount of AA that we also consume. Still, it really seems very odd to me that SO MUCH more is recommended.

Guess I have to go back and do some homework!

IN the meantime, I will continue to do what I am currently doing...

Hi Everyone,

Reading "Tocix Fat" and "The Omega Rx Diet" will give a better understanding of the reasons behind Dr. Sears fish oil recomendations. Dr. Sears based his maintenance his fish oil dose recommendation on the amount of fish oil that the healthiest populations in the world with the least inflammation eat on a daily basis.

For clarification, in my previous posting I meant to write it's based on the amount of EPA and DHA in the fish they eat (not in the fish poil they eat).

Sue,

taking into account that other populations eat much more fish than we do (and yes I have read those books and have read the same info), if what techie states is true that fish oil in its natural state is not highly concentrated, then why would we need to be taking in SO MUCH extra? It is literally impossible to eat enough fish to get THAT MUCH of the EPA and DHA.

As I mentioned in my other post, I am sure that part of it has to do with the current condition of our diets today. But, if you really think about this, why is SO MUCH MORE required?

It does make a good case for frequent testing of EPA and DHA, though!

Sue you have it right... a great recommendation to Dr Sears books.

I believe there is also a concern among researches that our oceans have more and more toxins and if you eat the amount of fish to obtain the levels of Omega3's (2.5g/d that research has shown to be a healthy maintenance dose) you would be exposing yourself too to much toxins.

Cranberrycat - your right ! You can go out and eat 6 lbs of Cod per day or 2 lbs of Tuna or .5 lbs of Salmon each day to equal that 2.5g/d recommendation. Oh ! and don"t forget to get an analyses by a third party.

Most of us can't afford to eat that much fish and then get it tested. So for us who don't eat or want that much fish each week, or can not afford that much fish each day, and don't have the funds to test the fish. Answer is; Ultra refined OmegaRX

[quote]
Posted By Tech Support on 16 Apr 2012 03:43 PM
Sue you have it right... a great recommendation to Dr Sears books.

I believe there is also a concern among researches that our oceans have more and more toxins and if you eat the amount of fish to obtain the levels of Omega3's (2.5g/d that research has shown to be a healthy maintenance dose) you would be exposing yourself too to much toxins.

Cranberrycat - your right ! You can go out and eat 6 lbs of Cod per day or 2 lbs of Tuna or .5 lbs of Salmon each day to equal that 2.5g/d recommendation. Oh ! and don"t forget to get an analyses by a third party.

Most of us can't afford to eat that much fish and then get it tested. So for us who don't eat or want that much fish each week, or can not afford that much fish each day, and don't have the funds to test the fish. Answer is; Ultra refined OmegaRX


[/quote]



Techie,
My point exactly! NO ONE EATS THAT MUCH FISH!!! So why is the need for THAT MUCH so high? Suppose I am from Japan and my diet is fish all day every day. Am I eating 2.5g per day? Probably not. So, why is the recommendation for fish oil supplementation so high?

Cranberry.. Take a look at dr sears book The OmegaRX Zone.. You will find your answer.

and you are right that testing is the best way to find out what we need. Have you been tested ?

Yes, I have (once). At the time of testing, I was taking 2 tsp of EicoRx (now that is no longer available in liquid form so the equivalent would be approximately 8 capsules), and my diet was so-so (still eating some red meats at that time). My results were actually very good (no numbers with me at present)

Since that time, my diet consists of less sources of AA and saturated fats. My proteins are generally white meat-chicken breast, fish, or other fat free sources-egg whites, plain ff yogurt, etc. I am not able to afford another test to compare results. I am also not currently taking the same fish oil that I had been taking back then, nor the same dose. Another test would definitely be quite revealing.

I am happy to do some reading on my own regarding what OmegaRx has to say. It would be helpful to other readers of this forum if questions were addressed rather than referred to another source, in which some may not have access to. :)

In the "Omega Rx Zone" you'll find a chart with the title "Relative Intakes of Long-Chain Omega -3 Fatty Acids". It shows the intake of Eskimos to be 7-10 grams per day and the current American intake to be 0.12 grams per day.

Cranberry, interesting, so you finally did the finger prick AA/EPA that you and John were discussing here in the forums a year or two ago?

[quote]
Posted By Sue on 16 Apr 2012 05:57 PM
In the "Omega Rx Zone" you'll find a chart with the title "Relative Intakes of Long-Chain Omega -3 Fatty Acids". It shows the intake of Eskimos to be 7-10 grams per day and the current American intake to be 0.12 grams per day.
[/quote]


Thanks for the quote, Sue. So it ISN'T impossible to EAT the recommended amount?

I hope everyone can see what I am trying to get at. Is it NATURE that is telling us that we need that much fish oil? Or are we basically taking another supplement that is giving us an UNNATURAL source and amount that we would not even be able to eat, given an adequate/safe food source?

Cranberry, the books I referred to earlier will give you a better understanding.

Sue, I hope that you can understand that even if it is just me asking these questions, that there are probably others out there who are reading and may not have access to the books. So, for the benefit of others reading this, it would be appreciated to explain what the references are, rather than just posting a reference to a book that others don't have access to. Thanks! ;)

Thanks for your help/advice here, though... perhaps the answer that I am looking for is not found in a Zone book. I have supplemented for years at the recommended dosages. Just raising some questions here because there was something that techie posted which raised my eyebrows. I try to eat "naturally". I don't take supplements so that I can get MORE of something that I wouldn't otherwise get naturally. I obviously am aware that getting adequate levels of omega-3 is not easy, given that we Americans just don't eat that much fish, and that the fish supply may not even be safe to obtain adequate levels of omega-3. However, I can deal with that, knowing that this is a RECOMMENDED level. And, NO, I am not going to back off on omega-3 supplementation anytime soon. Personally, I do better with regard to inflammation, as my knee pain is controlled and function is optimized (old injury for others reading this).

Not that we are discussing this, but I will use polyphenols as an example. I don't supplement polyphenols because I would NOT be able to consume the amount of food necessary to get the same amount as in a concentrated supplement. It is not natural for the body to even be able to receive such an amount as that, and so I don't feel that it is necessary, because it is not as nature had intended.

So, back to fish oil, are we basically "super-dosing" ourselves, or is it possible IN NATURE to actually consume the recommended amount. From the info on your post, I think the question was answered, that it IS possible to consume it (although perhaps not always safe).


Oh, and to answer your question on your previous post, yes I did do the blood test a few years ago.

Again, read the books for a better understanding. They are available from this website, from Amazon adn from libraries.

Re: " Oh and to answer your question on your previous post, yes, I did do the blood test a few years ago." As I posted earlier in this thread, interesting....