Talk:Fish oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fish oil is within the scope of WikiProject Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the assessment scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.


Contents

[edit] IFOS inactive

The International Fish Oil Standards website has been inactive for some time now. Are there other independent fish oil testing services the article could list?

The IFOS website is not inactive. Check out the consumer reports section. They are constantly adding new fish oil tests. There is no other independent fish oil testing organization! 68.202.40.162 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the process used to extract fish oil from fish. Is the fish oil that goes into supplements a byproduct of another process? --LostLeviathan 06:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This link is Broken 01:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quality fish oil supplements start with raw fish (sardines especially, since they are abundant and cheap), extract the oils then refine them to remove cholesterol and heavy metals. The remainder mostly goes into cat food or cattle supplements. Perhaps some are a byproduct of other processes, but in quality products the EPA/DHA comes first, not second. JohnSankey 12:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is written as a "how to", not an encyclopedia article. It needs work. --Macrakis 20:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia needs work! Join in instead of just knocking things. JohnSankey 12:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article contains a number of unsourced assertions:

  • "It is beneficial to eat fish once a week (or more) ...": says who?
  • "Many experts recommend...": which experts? Cites? Done by amy van Vlaanderen

-- The Anome 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"The list of fish includes:" - what list is this referring to, the species that are prone to contain contaminants? --Awcga 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Grammar

The article uses the term "fishy reflux". It also has some grammar issues in the very first problem, although I'm not sure if it really is incorrect grammar.

[edit] SPAMMING Wikipedia

fishoilblog.com is clearly a commercial site selling fish oil that the owner keeps editing into Wikipedia related articles to promote his website

[edit] This is not spam

fishoilblog.com does clearly have advertising for fish oil, but the content of the site is very informative and non-commercial. There is nothing wrong with an educational site having advertising as long as there is a clear distinction, and in my opinion, this site is primarily educational with clear distinctions about what is advertising. I have in fact clicked the ads requesting a free fish oil report and have received nothing, so I'm not sure if that part of the site is even still in use. You are welcome to try it yourself.

Furthermore, All of the IPs that keep removing this link are from Boulder, Colorado. This is the same person that added fishoilreview.com to the fish oil entry, while simultaneously removing fishoilblog.com. Fishoilreview.com is clearly primarily a commerical site aimed at selling Dr. Sears fish oil for Zone Net. I'm guessing they have an ax to grind because their fishoilreview.com site was removed. I would also watch the other site they added, cellmedicine.com.

I am going to restore the fishoilblog.com link as I see absolutely no reason that it would be classified as commercial. If this person from Boulder continues, I would strongly advise contacting Zone Net to see if they condone this kind of crass behavior for their sales reps.

[edit] Proof this is SPAM

According to the WHOIS the owner of fishoilblog dot com and the owner of the website seachangenutraceuticals dot com advertising fish oil for sale on the website are one and the same in Orlando, Florida. It is clearly a commercial website selling See Yourself Well fish oil and is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

[edit] Ditto

Yeah, I also fail to see how this site is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. 65.33.198.86 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cautions

Hi. I'm never written in wikipedia before. I just want to mention that taking large quantities of fish oil can cause internal bleeding. See this article at NIH Medline Plus: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-fishoil.html. I am not disputing that fish oil has health benefits. I'm just think that a caution should be included in the article. -Scott

Scott's cite is a good one and I've added some discussion and quotes from there to the Benefits section. I also moved Scott's query to the bottom of this history page. David.Throop 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an NIH statement not backed up by studies. On what level is that good? It seems like no more than conjecture to me, personally. Not everyone agrees with the bleeding risk conjecture either... see [1]Dabuek (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Page Blanking

24.8.174.128 has edited the Talk:Fish oil page to remove all references to fishoilblog. Although I haven't made up my mind about fishoilblog, removing the history of the discussion from the Talk page is not good. I note that this same user has made similar vandalism against the talk pages for EPA, DHA and Cod liver oil. I also note that the only non-page-blanking contribution from this IP address was the addition of a link to cellmedicine.com (which one of the blanked comments on this page mentions.)

68.202.40.162 has edited the Talk:Fish oil page to remove references to fishoilblog and the attending discussion. Pushing the discussion out to an archive page seems warrented. But fishoilblog has been a repeated bone of contention here. Blanking out the Talk discussioni is not the way. I'm restoring the record. David.Throop 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC

[edit] Reason for removing commercial website

fishoilblog dot com has a large color picture of fish oil for sale on the home page. One click and you are on a page where you can put fish oil in your shopping cart. The website is clearly commerical and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. According to the WHOIS the owner of the website fishoilblog dot com and the owner of the website seachangenutraceuticals dot com which is supposedly an advertiser are one and the same in Orlando, Florida. So this person is claiming vandalism about removing his listing when he is using Wikipedia to sell products?

OK, I'll leave the link off. I've looked at fishoilblog and it's marginal - there were some decent links there but the overall style of the site is relentlessly commercial and boosterish. (Being a commerical site per se isn't inappropriate – all the science publishers like ELsiver are commercial and the first thing you see when you look at an abstract is an offer to sell you the full text. But we link anyways.)
But don't go removing discussions about fishoilblog from the Talk pages. They are a record of how the issue was handled.
In place of fishoilblog, I'll put in a link to the PUFA Newsletter at fatsoflife. It is industry sponsored, but they maintain an excellent NPOV and the writing is at a good level. David.Throop 13:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
David, I understand you might be one of the minimalist-types that wants to remove links that you consider marginal, but I think in this particular case you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia users. As a personal training and nutritional consultant, I frequent the fishoilblog.com website to stay abreast of new uses for fish oil that I can recommend to my clients. This is the most thorough and frequently-updated fish oil site that I have come across and I even link to it from my own website. The site you substituted now gives a 404 error. Furthermore, I don't have the same kind of complaints that you do about the site being "relentlessly commercial and boorish." With all that said, I am going to add the link back as I believe this site is essential to Wikipedia readers for understanding fish oil and its many benefits. Drewbaye 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch on FatsOfLife. They added a second newsletter and they changed their link some; I've fixed it. As for FishOilBlog: as I said, I think it's marginal. I wasn't the one who removed it - somebody else removed it and all the talk pages that had discussed removing it. I restored the talk pages but left the link off. IIRR; it's been a few months. BTW, I said it was 'boosterish' not 'boorish.' FishOilBlog also shows no sign of any skepticism towards any fish oil claims, near as I could tell.David.Throop 06:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Un-cyclopedic section

The last section on 'pharmaceutical grade fish oil' is not encyclopedic (it's written in the second person), and it's also ambivalent. It seems to contain some useful information though, I'd rewrite it, but I'm not quite sure what it says. Should the oil come from the skin or not? 81.104.214.224 10:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I removed the skin part (which needs to be rewritten well if accurate, and with sources please!). My Time Magazine here discusses what I left behind, but I don't know how to cite properly, so if you'd like to: TIME, January 16, 2006, subtitle of magazine: How To Sharpen Your Mind, article title: "YOU (AND YOUR BRAIN) ARE WHAT YOU EAT", by Andrew Weil, M.D. (clinical professor at University of Arizona). It talks about fish oils positively. Paragraph 3: "But for some people it may be easier and safer to rely on fish-oil supplements. The best are distilled and certified to be free of mercury and other toxins." It's a good article. Rashad9607 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

There is not much information (especially regarding health benefits) on this article that is not discussed more thoroughly on the page for Omega-3 fatty acids. I'm not going to raise the flag without other opinions- is there currently enough reason to have a separate Fish Oil article? If not, can we improve the article so that it is worthy of remaining independent? Or perhaps, should it be merged with Oily fish? --Rashad9607 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fish oil 'calms children better than Ritalin' is doubtful

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD. Some were given the capsules, while others took a placebo or dummy capsule. Within three months, the behaviour of those on the fish oils had dramatically improved and, by seven months, many of the children were less restless and doing better at school.

That was from the link that alleges that fish oil is an effective remedy for ADHD. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=30929 expands on the poorly designed study, noting that:

The parents of children who spent 15 weeks on a course of capsules containing a combination of fish oil and primrose oil reported increased attention and reduced hyperactivity, restlessness and impulsivity," says Natalie Sinn from the University of South Australia and CSIRO Nutrition.

...

The study didn't compare methylphenidate to fish oil, it compared primrose oil and fish oil to placebo. I'm removing the link and the claim unless someone can support it with a reputable American journal. --Substantiate 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to German Wikipedia

The article is linked to the German article on "Lebertran", which is cod liver oil, not fish oil, and thus not really the corresponding entry in German. Done by Amy van Vlaanderen

[edit] "Fish oil plus exercise may banish body fat"

Perhaps this study could be mentioned in the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/hl_nm/fish_oil_dc;_ylt=AmEfm29pfpKngsMHSgEx9HDMWM0F Colinsweet 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I think we need real sources (ie peer reviewed journals) for the health claims - not things such as ABC News. We need to know whether this is accepted, a press release doesn't give us that. Secretlondon 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Oil and Schizophrenia

I have not edited pages before, and I don't have a scientific journal to cite to, but this is a recent press release, in case anyone has more substantial information and would like to update the article:

A study from the Orygen Research Centre in Melbourne suggests that omega-3 fatty acids could also help delay or prevent the onset of severe mental illness, specifically schizophrenia.

URL: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Fish-oil-might-stop-schizophrenia-study/2007/11/29/1196036990650.html

128.164.132.33 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added this, as it looks very significant, but have added the caution that it does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal (at least not as reported in the link). I personally am concerned about the very short one-year delay as some of the trial subjects might have been on the verge of being diagnosed at the start. It would be interesting to see a full follow-up over a long period, which may of course come later. --Memestream (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)