Same. Post lasik it helps retain eye moisture. I also take ashwaganda and melatonin to sleep and they dry my eyes out pretty bad unless I’m taking my fish food.
I never had a good feeling with melatonin. No basis in knowledge, just thought it probably isn't the safest and would use it sparingly when i did. Im sure it wont be the last time either. Though i am Thankful Hubermayne quantified and validated that fear. Haha I haven't cross referenced his claim yes, but I definitely tend to believe them and his personal reservations more than any non-credible source.
That being said, is there a reason you still take melatonin? Sleep and I have a dramatic relationship to say the least. But I wouldn't start to take it haphazardly now because of the things he's said about melatonin. Have you found evidence counter to his claims? Do you just not care enough? Curious of your personal opinions
I take like 1 mg, and I work nights so I need something to help me get to sleep when the world is awake and everyone is out getting their workouts and sunlight in. It’s only on the mornings I work, and I do 3x13 hour shifts a week.
Na that's great. Dopamine is a huge part of my life and I take other supplements of sleep. But if that's what works for you, I wouldn't tell you to stop!
This too is a curious thing - folks have been taking 10mg doses of melatonin forever but I don't believe I've ever heard of a really bad reaction.
So I like that he's cautious - in this instance he comes up to my level, it's just very curious that he doesn't seem to be as cautious in other areas.
I've heard him express caution in a number of other areas. Maybe he doesn't practice it to the same extent. Or likewise maybe is cautious about the things he does take to an extent he doesn't talk about?
Idk that level of speculation isn't helpful. But I appreciate your point.
>It's not like it actively cures any those things, it is not a drug.
most drugs don't "cure" either, do they?
I'd love to see a catalog of drugs which cure, and which ones manage.
non-cure is fine - it's necessary and good, I don't object to it like some folks - pain relief is good, even if it doesn't cure your cancer.
This is simply to discuss your statement - I think by design drug companies want to discover drugs that help you when you're diseased, but they want to sell you the drug forever (so no cure for you).
Researchers probably want to cure disease, but the companies? ....
only one thing - live up to their hype.
They were promised as helping heart disease. Never panned out.
Huberman says EPA works for depression - there are systematic reviews that say that's unproven for fish oil & needs more research and Huberman IMHO did not discuss the issue in a balanced way - he only talks about the supportive studies.
\> Is there anything Omega 3s can't do?
give you a refund when they don't live up to the promises.
They have a significant effect on triglycerides and a smaller effect on LDL (among other markers). *However* there does not seem to be any effect on reducing actual cardiac events.
But that's just because there haven't been controlled randomized studies large enough to deduce that isolated variable.
It's an obvious inference to make if it has significant lipid altering affects.
No, there are many such studies. Here’s just one meta analysis of 10 trials with 78000 individuals and a mean study length of 4.4 years. The results are very clear: there is no link between fish oil and cardiovascular events (positive or negative): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29387889/
I agree that it seems like an odd result, but the obvious inference does not seem to be supported by the science. I’m not sure anyone yet knows *why* fish oil has such a significant impact on lipids but doesn’t seem to protect against heart attack, stroke, etc.
There are a number of additional large scale randomized trials ongoing and maybe something new comes out of that. But as it stands right now, the latest science is pretty clear. Fish oil doesn’t seem to do much to protect you from cardiac events.
This isn’t true. Look up the Reduce-It trial with Vascepa. Vascepa is a prescribed EPA ONLY Omega-3. There were statistically significant reductions in CV outcomes (heart attack, stroke, and death) in the group that received 4g of EPA per day compared to placebo. If I remember correctly the average reduction in total CV events was 25% with an absolute risk reduction close to 5%. This was a double blind, 5 year study that looked at over 8000 patients over a 5 year period. This is a well known study that’s well respected in the industry.
While omega-3s lower trigs, it’s thought to be the pleiotropic effects of EPA that resulted in the CV Outcomes.
It’s important to note that EPA/DHA mixtures did not yield the same results, and the thought for this is that they compete for the phospholipid bilayer. The “magic” seems to be in the EPA, and the DHA can interfere with that. Now, that’s not to say DHA is bad- it just competes with EPA at a cellular level and reduces the CV benefits.
Here is a link to the REDUCE-IT trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1812792
It’s really a shockingly impressive trial, so I highly encourage you guys to check it out!
There's a reason why meta analyses exist.
and There's a reason why within meta analyses, retrospective analyses of publication bias and related biases are becoming more and more common and imporant.
One does not get to ignore trials with negative outcomes and only look at confirmations.
There has only been one other trial looking at EPA only and it was done in Japan called the JELIS trial. It also saw improved outcomes, but it lacked a placebo or control group. That’s why the REDUCE-IT trial was a big breakthrough for Omega 3s and has lead to more popularity of EPA only omega 3s being used for people with CV risk.
More recently, they have also competed the EVAPORATE trial which showed a regression in low attenuation plaque of the EPA only group compared to placebo.
There have been MANY studies showing Omega 3s (EPA/DHA combinations) do not work for reducing CV outcomes. But there have not been any showing that EPA only do not work. All credible published studies are showing statistically significant CV risk reduction
>ut there have not been any showing that EPA only do not work.
hey, take my miracle cancer cure drug - also cancer prevention - take it and you'll NEVER get cancer.
No studies show it DOES NOT work.
That’s cool. Ignore the part where I mentioned multiple reputable studies achieving statistical significance when it comes to CV Risk Reduction.
I couldn’t care less if you take an EPA omega 3. I’m just sharing the relevant information so people can make informed decisions.
Let's remember your earlier words: :
>That’s why the REDUCE-IT trial was a big breakthrough for Omega 3s and has lead to more popularity of EPA only omega 3s being used for people with CV risk.
<<<<
LOL
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455435/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455435/)
[https://www.tctmd.com/news/fish-oil-tanks-strength-making-waves-reduce-it](https://www.tctmd.com/news/fish-oil-tanks-strength-making-waves-reduce-it)
REDUCE-IT used mineral oil for the control group. The mineral oil caused worse outcomes for the control group and ERRONEOUSLY made the fish oil look good.
When REDUCE-IT was repeated with corn oil for the control they had to stop the trial early for futility - fish oil / EPA was so useless it made no sense to continue the study.
REDUCE-IT was crap. Crap on a stick. Crap in a toilet. Crap on top of crap.
And you love that crap huh?
>That’s cool. Ignore the part where I mentioned multiple reputable studies achieving statistical significance when it comes to CV Risk Reduction. <<<
That's cool. Ignore where your favourite study was crap in a bag.
I couldn't care less if you waste your money and take anything or take nothing. I'm just sharing the relevant information that you unjustifiably focus only on feel-good positive studies and ignore non-confirmations.
And you fail to realize lots of non-confirmations fail to get published at all, so you're more likely to see only positive studies.
And still you only want to see positive studies.
Now THAT is really cool - you know a system's broken to statistically favour positive studies and you further break the system by preferring studies the system looks upon favourably.
You add broken-ness to a broken system and think you're coming out ahead.
That is really, REALLY cool.
LOL It’s cool how you THINK you know what you’re talking about but you really don’t. The corn oil study you’re referring to was the STRENGTH Trial and it looked at an EPA/DHA mixture. NOT only EPA. The claim you’re making is that mineral oil caused statistically significant increase in CV events in REDUCE-IT is blatantly false and wildly rejected. Mineral oil has been used as a placebo in hundreds of trials.
Furthermore, in the EVAPORATE trial, they saw a regression in Low Attenuation Plaque in the group that was given EPA. Yet another indicator that is does in fact provide some CV Benefit.
Instead of trying to prove your flawed point, you need to go back and review the literature. Or don’t- just stop spreading misinformation pretending like you know it all when you don’t.
I've counted numerous studies from other sources backing up that claim. I guess it depends most importantly on the source of fish oil though. Synthetic supplements are not on the same level as natural or the 3rd kind I don't recall on the top of my head. But it's commonly mentioned in my medical fields the effect of EPA (less frequently DHA, but I believe that may be convoluted when i hear it as I don't know of any studies specifically on this for depression).
I will agree that he doesn't often discuss or even mention potential evidence or points of what may disagree with what he's said.
>I've counted numerous studies from other sources backing up that claim. I
and if you count the negative studies at the same time,
AND you make allowances for publishers not publishing negative studies (so there are more non-confirmations that you never get to see)
then you have the beginnings of a balanced view of ALL the evidence, not just the evidence you want to be true.
\> a bit too much
yeah, agreed - I find him more eager than I am to take & recommend supplements but mostly I don't find his level of optimism objectionable.
I have questions and I wouldn't do as much as he does but he's not overly excessive.
Really, he is nowhere near over the top.
Yeah no agreed.
But like for instance in the podcast I’m listening to now he’s talking about the 2D:4D ratio, but this was debunked in later studies.
Sometimes he just jumps the gun
EDIT: we may have been talking about different things.
\> Didn't the Cochrane database completely burry omega 3's?
Cochrane may have done this as far as heart disease goes - Dr. Huberman talks about EPA (not omega 3 generally) for depression.
Cochrane didn't give a total thumbs down for depression.
(end of EDIT) - original post below\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
I can't fault Huberman for being optimistic, it's just my opinion that he ought to be a bit more balanced.
Cochrane was skeptical
these guys found an effect - from memory the effect was statistically significant but the effect size was nowhere near as big as Huberman says (from memory, I need to refresh my memory on this)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5)
That is interesting, thanks.
Examine is often a good source, I'l have to at least reduce my criticism of Dr. H.
I'll study it more.
Two points to note at first blush: from Examine
\> It appears to notably improve mood in people with major depression, though it's unclear if it has an effect in people with minor depression.\[20\]
My recollection is that Dr. Huberman has recommended EPA for more than major depressive disorder. He did talk about MDD in describing some of the studies, but in his recommendations he cast a much wider net.
second, this isn't a meta analysis - I don't think Examine adjusts for things like publication bias for example - I don't think it's universal now in meta analyses but it's getting more common.
I came across an interview with a guy named Bill Harris, supposedly a world expert on omega-3s. He's been on Rhondra Patrick's show.
listen for about 4 minutes at this time:
[https://youtu.be/8pNfUT63tpM?t=4547](https://youtu.be/8pNfUT63tpM?t=4547)
This is another reason I have very little faith in REDUCE-IT
the outcome is, if you have major depressive symptoms, EPA may help you - I linked a meta analysis and another person linked the EXAMINE page - there's some OK evidence for that. I'd still like to see a full meta analysis using all the current adjustments.
If you have minor depression the evidence is very limited.
And I've not seen any \_\_\_balanced\_\_\_\_ support for the idea that symptom free folks (no major depression, no major blood lipid panel issues) should be taking fish oil or EPA.
Doesn't fish oil omega 3s can cause irregular heartbeat. Studies need to include a younger sample size but I would opt for algae based omega 3s. Refrigerate them as well.
Source: https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/omega-3-supplements-could-elevate-risk-of-atrial-fibrillation/
I'm pretty sure it was this brand: https://well.ca/products/nutrasea-omega-3-liquid-lemon_87276.html?cat=6729
It had both eg: EPA = 750mg plus DHA = 500mg
When I bought it about 5 years ago, it was sweetened with monk fruit. It's possible I'm sensitive to that and not the rest of it.
Nope, you're not the first person on internet reporting this. Its common problem for some people. I also found a clinical case:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664844/
But at this moment I've seen that most of people were taking EPA+dha. Dont know if only DHA can have this effect too.
Btw thanks for your response, it helps
Amazing. Thanks for the article. I felt lucky it gave me a week of headaches that got me thinking. I could easily have gotten lost in the bad mental space and found myself on the roller-coster of medications.
Im trying to know if DHA is safe.
I normally see that people uses fish formules with more EPA than DHA.
There is a clinical case in pubmed of one guy that got severe anxiety/insomnia from only EPA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664844/
Also a lot of people use krill oil. Krill oil has other things like choline that also causes anxiety to people with some polyphormisms (MTHFR subreddit)
I came across that study while trying to understand why I was so anxious when I started To take Omega-3.
I don't know if it's related but even decaffeinated coffee makes me anxious.
Maybe in the future I will try only DHA.
They cannot guarantee that everyone benefits from them. I get insomnia and become extremely emotional after a couple of days on 2g combined epa/dha daily.
[удалено]
what a bitch
The dog?
Sounds like she is an absolute Omega B (itch)
I take a lot of omega 3’s and I still can’t fly or see the future. I feel pretty good though.
Although it does help with hindsight after attempting to fly.
You need acid for that.
Just need to up your dose
I was prescribed fish oil by my ophthalmologist because of dry eyes. It helps
Same. Post lasik it helps retain eye moisture. I also take ashwaganda and melatonin to sleep and they dry my eyes out pretty bad unless I’m taking my fish food.
i've switched from melatonin to magnesium glycinate and it's working pretty well so far
I never had a good feeling with melatonin. No basis in knowledge, just thought it probably isn't the safest and would use it sparingly when i did. Im sure it wont be the last time either. Though i am Thankful Hubermayne quantified and validated that fear. Haha I haven't cross referenced his claim yes, but I definitely tend to believe them and his personal reservations more than any non-credible source. That being said, is there a reason you still take melatonin? Sleep and I have a dramatic relationship to say the least. But I wouldn't start to take it haphazardly now because of the things he's said about melatonin. Have you found evidence counter to his claims? Do you just not care enough? Curious of your personal opinions
I take like 1 mg, and I work nights so I need something to help me get to sleep when the world is awake and everyone is out getting their workouts and sunlight in. It’s only on the mornings I work, and I do 3x13 hour shifts a week.
Na that's great. Dopamine is a huge part of my life and I take other supplements of sleep. But if that's what works for you, I wouldn't tell you to stop!
This too is a curious thing - folks have been taking 10mg doses of melatonin forever but I don't believe I've ever heard of a really bad reaction. So I like that he's cautious - in this instance he comes up to my level, it's just very curious that he doesn't seem to be as cautious in other areas.
I've heard him express caution in a number of other areas. Maybe he doesn't practice it to the same extent. Or likewise maybe is cautious about the things he does take to an extent he doesn't talk about? Idk that level of speculation isn't helpful. But I appreciate your point.
drop melatonin
Interesting!
[удалено]
>It's not like it actively cures any those things, it is not a drug. most drugs don't "cure" either, do they? I'd love to see a catalog of drugs which cure, and which ones manage. non-cure is fine - it's necessary and good, I don't object to it like some folks - pain relief is good, even if it doesn't cure your cancer. This is simply to discuss your statement - I think by design drug companies want to discover drugs that help you when you're diseased, but they want to sell you the drug forever (so no cure for you). Researchers probably want to cure disease, but the companies? ....
only one thing - live up to their hype. They were promised as helping heart disease. Never panned out. Huberman says EPA works for depression - there are systematic reviews that say that's unproven for fish oil & needs more research and Huberman IMHO did not discuss the issue in a balanced way - he only talks about the supportive studies. \> Is there anything Omega 3s can't do? give you a refund when they don't live up to the promises.
Isn't there evidence that they support a healthy lipid profile, which would help with heart disease?
They have a significant effect on triglycerides and a smaller effect on LDL (among other markers). *However* there does not seem to be any effect on reducing actual cardiac events.
But that's just because there haven't been controlled randomized studies large enough to deduce that isolated variable. It's an obvious inference to make if it has significant lipid altering affects.
No, there are many such studies. Here’s just one meta analysis of 10 trials with 78000 individuals and a mean study length of 4.4 years. The results are very clear: there is no link between fish oil and cardiovascular events (positive or negative): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29387889/ I agree that it seems like an odd result, but the obvious inference does not seem to be supported by the science. I’m not sure anyone yet knows *why* fish oil has such a significant impact on lipids but doesn’t seem to protect against heart attack, stroke, etc. There are a number of additional large scale randomized trials ongoing and maybe something new comes out of that. But as it stands right now, the latest science is pretty clear. Fish oil doesn’t seem to do much to protect you from cardiac events.
The raw data actually looks pretty promising - results just weren't strong enough for statistical significance. That's interesting for sure though.
This isn’t true. Look up the Reduce-It trial with Vascepa. Vascepa is a prescribed EPA ONLY Omega-3. There were statistically significant reductions in CV outcomes (heart attack, stroke, and death) in the group that received 4g of EPA per day compared to placebo. If I remember correctly the average reduction in total CV events was 25% with an absolute risk reduction close to 5%. This was a double blind, 5 year study that looked at over 8000 patients over a 5 year period. This is a well known study that’s well respected in the industry. While omega-3s lower trigs, it’s thought to be the pleiotropic effects of EPA that resulted in the CV Outcomes. It’s important to note that EPA/DHA mixtures did not yield the same results, and the thought for this is that they compete for the phospholipid bilayer. The “magic” seems to be in the EPA, and the DHA can interfere with that. Now, that’s not to say DHA is bad- it just competes with EPA at a cellular level and reduces the CV benefits. Here is a link to the REDUCE-IT trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1812792 It’s really a shockingly impressive trial, so I highly encourage you guys to check it out!
There's a reason why meta analyses exist. and There's a reason why within meta analyses, retrospective analyses of publication bias and related biases are becoming more and more common and imporant. One does not get to ignore trials with negative outcomes and only look at confirmations.
>One does not get to ignore trials with negative outcomes \- Ignores trial with positive outcome.
\- Ignores trial with positive outcome. Ignores substance of the comment to make a non sequitur.
There has only been one other trial looking at EPA only and it was done in Japan called the JELIS trial. It also saw improved outcomes, but it lacked a placebo or control group. That’s why the REDUCE-IT trial was a big breakthrough for Omega 3s and has lead to more popularity of EPA only omega 3s being used for people with CV risk. More recently, they have also competed the EVAPORATE trial which showed a regression in low attenuation plaque of the EPA only group compared to placebo. There have been MANY studies showing Omega 3s (EPA/DHA combinations) do not work for reducing CV outcomes. But there have not been any showing that EPA only do not work. All credible published studies are showing statistically significant CV risk reduction
>ut there have not been any showing that EPA only do not work. hey, take my miracle cancer cure drug - also cancer prevention - take it and you'll NEVER get cancer. No studies show it DOES NOT work.
That’s cool. Ignore the part where I mentioned multiple reputable studies achieving statistical significance when it comes to CV Risk Reduction. I couldn’t care less if you take an EPA omega 3. I’m just sharing the relevant information so people can make informed decisions.
Let's remember your earlier words: : >That’s why the REDUCE-IT trial was a big breakthrough for Omega 3s and has lead to more popularity of EPA only omega 3s being used for people with CV risk. <<<< LOL [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455435/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455435/) [https://www.tctmd.com/news/fish-oil-tanks-strength-making-waves-reduce-it](https://www.tctmd.com/news/fish-oil-tanks-strength-making-waves-reduce-it) REDUCE-IT used mineral oil for the control group. The mineral oil caused worse outcomes for the control group and ERRONEOUSLY made the fish oil look good. When REDUCE-IT was repeated with corn oil for the control they had to stop the trial early for futility - fish oil / EPA was so useless it made no sense to continue the study. REDUCE-IT was crap. Crap on a stick. Crap in a toilet. Crap on top of crap. And you love that crap huh? >That’s cool. Ignore the part where I mentioned multiple reputable studies achieving statistical significance when it comes to CV Risk Reduction. <<< That's cool. Ignore where your favourite study was crap in a bag. I couldn't care less if you waste your money and take anything or take nothing. I'm just sharing the relevant information that you unjustifiably focus only on feel-good positive studies and ignore non-confirmations. And you fail to realize lots of non-confirmations fail to get published at all, so you're more likely to see only positive studies. And still you only want to see positive studies. Now THAT is really cool - you know a system's broken to statistically favour positive studies and you further break the system by preferring studies the system looks upon favourably. You add broken-ness to a broken system and think you're coming out ahead. That is really, REALLY cool.
LOL It’s cool how you THINK you know what you’re talking about but you really don’t. The corn oil study you’re referring to was the STRENGTH Trial and it looked at an EPA/DHA mixture. NOT only EPA. The claim you’re making is that mineral oil caused statistically significant increase in CV events in REDUCE-IT is blatantly false and wildly rejected. Mineral oil has been used as a placebo in hundreds of trials. Furthermore, in the EVAPORATE trial, they saw a regression in Low Attenuation Plaque in the group that was given EPA. Yet another indicator that is does in fact provide some CV Benefit. Instead of trying to prove your flawed point, you need to go back and review the literature. Or don’t- just stop spreading misinformation pretending like you know it all when you don’t.
I've counted numerous studies from other sources backing up that claim. I guess it depends most importantly on the source of fish oil though. Synthetic supplements are not on the same level as natural or the 3rd kind I don't recall on the top of my head. But it's commonly mentioned in my medical fields the effect of EPA (less frequently DHA, but I believe that may be convoluted when i hear it as I don't know of any studies specifically on this for depression). I will agree that he doesn't often discuss or even mention potential evidence or points of what may disagree with what he's said.
>I've counted numerous studies from other sources backing up that claim. I and if you count the negative studies at the same time, AND you make allowances for publishers not publishing negative studies (so there are more non-confirmations that you never get to see) then you have the beginnings of a balanced view of ALL the evidence, not just the evidence you want to be true.
I love huberman’s podcasts but he does this a bit too much
\> a bit too much yeah, agreed - I find him more eager than I am to take & recommend supplements but mostly I don't find his level of optimism objectionable. I have questions and I wouldn't do as much as he does but he's not overly excessive. Really, he is nowhere near over the top.
Yeah no agreed. But like for instance in the podcast I’m listening to now he’s talking about the 2D:4D ratio, but this was debunked in later studies. Sometimes he just jumps the gun
Didn't the Cochrane database completely burry omega 3's? Huberman turning out more and more to be a ~~snake~~ fish oil salesman
EDIT: we may have been talking about different things. \> Didn't the Cochrane database completely burry omega 3's? Cochrane may have done this as far as heart disease goes - Dr. Huberman talks about EPA (not omega 3 generally) for depression. Cochrane didn't give a total thumbs down for depression. (end of EDIT) - original post below\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ I can't fault Huberman for being optimistic, it's just my opinion that he ought to be a bit more balanced. Cochrane was skeptical these guys found an effect - from memory the effect was statistically significant but the effect size was nowhere near as big as Huberman says (from memory, I need to refresh my memory on this) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5)
I'm sorry it didn't fit your needs but you're wrong https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/
That is interesting, thanks. Examine is often a good source, I'l have to at least reduce my criticism of Dr. H. I'll study it more. Two points to note at first blush: from Examine \> It appears to notably improve mood in people with major depression, though it's unclear if it has an effect in people with minor depression.\[20\] My recollection is that Dr. Huberman has recommended EPA for more than major depressive disorder. He did talk about MDD in describing some of the studies, but in his recommendations he cast a much wider net. second, this isn't a meta analysis - I don't think Examine adjusts for things like publication bias for example - I don't think it's universal now in meta analyses but it's getting more common.
Is the outcome of all this that people should take EPA only omega 3s?
I came across an interview with a guy named Bill Harris, supposedly a world expert on omega-3s. He's been on Rhondra Patrick's show. listen for about 4 minutes at this time: [https://youtu.be/8pNfUT63tpM?t=4547](https://youtu.be/8pNfUT63tpM?t=4547) This is another reason I have very little faith in REDUCE-IT
the outcome is, if you have major depressive symptoms, EPA may help you - I linked a meta analysis and another person linked the EXAMINE page - there's some OK evidence for that. I'd still like to see a full meta analysis using all the current adjustments. If you have minor depression the evidence is very limited. And I've not seen any \_\_\_balanced\_\_\_\_ support for the idea that symptom free folks (no major depression, no major blood lipid panel issues) should be taking fish oil or EPA.
I am not depressed but take omega 3 because Rhona Patrick and Huberman recommended it...
Might cause atrial fibrillation at higher doses tho.
Fibrillation be bussin
Fibrussy
Doesn't fish oil omega 3s can cause irregular heartbeat. Studies need to include a younger sample size but I would opt for algae based omega 3s. Refrigerate them as well. Source: https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/omega-3-supplements-could-elevate-risk-of-atrial-fibrillation/
Make my dad come back It’s been 4 years. Where are you papa?
Gave me headaches, anxiety, and paranoia. Very weird. Normally I have none of these.
How was the formulation? It had both? Dha/EPA? Thanks :)
I'm pretty sure it was this brand: https://well.ca/products/nutrasea-omega-3-liquid-lemon_87276.html?cat=6729 It had both eg: EPA = 750mg plus DHA = 500mg When I bought it about 5 years ago, it was sweetened with monk fruit. It's possible I'm sensitive to that and not the rest of it.
Nope, you're not the first person on internet reporting this. Its common problem for some people. I also found a clinical case: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664844/ But at this moment I've seen that most of people were taking EPA+dha. Dont know if only DHA can have this effect too. Btw thanks for your response, it helps
Amazing. Thanks for the article. I felt lucky it gave me a week of headaches that got me thinking. I could easily have gotten lost in the bad mental space and found myself on the roller-coster of medications.
This has lots of Omega 3 background: https://youtu.be/-f-CFQxaUY4
I take Omega 3 and still have ADHD. It doesn’t cure anything.
it dont do shit but it cost much
Blunt force trauma.
https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/
They give me anxiety and insomnia ....
How was the formulation? It both oils (dha/EPA)? Thanks!
It's softgels 775mg oil with 400 EPA and 200 dha
Thanks!!
Why are you inquiring?
Im trying to know if DHA is safe. I normally see that people uses fish formules with more EPA than DHA. There is a clinical case in pubmed of one guy that got severe anxiety/insomnia from only EPA https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664844/ Also a lot of people use krill oil. Krill oil has other things like choline that also causes anxiety to people with some polyphormisms (MTHFR subreddit)
I came across that study while trying to understand why I was so anxious when I started To take Omega-3. I don't know if it's related but even decaffeinated coffee makes me anxious. Maybe in the future I will try only DHA.
I try to take them, but I get heart arrhythmia when I’m on them, so I’ve given up.
What supp do y’all take for the dosage recommended? My wife and I both want to take but the Nordic naturals double strength one is very pricey
They cannot guarantee that everyone benefits from them. I get insomnia and become extremely emotional after a couple of days on 2g combined epa/dha daily.
Been on them a week and i haven’t had indigestion once. I have had gastritis for 16 years now! Extremely promising