Talk:Fish oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and 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-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Dietary Supplements (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Fish oil is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old talk page: /Archive 1

Fish oil or omega-3 benefits[edit]

Please see the Talk:Omega-3_fatty_acid page. I am considering moving all the health studies from Omega-3_fatty_acid to this page. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad references and a totally unsupported lead section[edit]

The first reference, which is used to support "It is recommended for a healthy diet" is "Advances in Dietary Enrichment with N-3 Fatty Acids" (doi:10.1080/10408390701424303). The statement should say who recommends it to avoid weasel words — in this case, just a single research paper (which might be a review of other papers - I'm not sure). This is also a research study into animals, so might not be representative of human health; the abstract says "evidence for the effectiveness of the enrichment of food products with n-3 fatty acids ... in the diets of chickens, turkeys, ostriches, cows, pigs, and goats has been reviewed."

There are other problems too, such as claiming that "Some experts believe that taking fish oil (in any form) can help regulate cholesterol" when the reference is one specific doctor. This is wrong, but the "expert" should have been named from the start to avoid weasel words again.

Basically it needs a read-through by someone knowledgeable to make sure everything's supported by appropriate references. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking to a "Blog"[edit]

I see a link to [http://] has been removed due to not fitting within the external link policy. I'm assuming this is because links to blogs are discouraged. However, in this case, the word "blog" is misleading since this isn't some person's blog about life, or whatever. This is a news and research site that's updated on a regular basis. Every post links to clinical studies, and I've used this site to find research for the fish oil and omega-3 entries. However, the breadth of the information is far too much to be contained in Wikipedia, so I think for the sake of helping people to thoroughly and exhaustively understand the benefits of fish oil, an external link is in order. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No thanks; it's clearly a commercial product site and as such doesn't come close to meeting guidelines. If you or other accounts continue to attempt to link it, it will be blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First Sentence[edit]

Doesn't the first sentence seem a bit redundant? I mean, the sentence "Fish oil is oil derived from fish," seems a bit cluttered. (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) A guy

Not really; baby oil isn't derived from babies, and motor oil isn't derived from motors. An adjective preceding "oil" can refer to the predominant use, rather than the source. -- (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

production methods and composition[edit]

Could we have a brief mention of production methods, eg coproduction with fishmeal The Production Process , and Detailed description of wet pressing, with images & diagrams, Danish production from sandeels,

and some typical compositions in terms of % of different fatty acids, toxins etc. Rod57 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fish's body includes liver[edit]

"The preferred source of omega-3 should be from the fish's body, not the liver."

Since the liver is part of the body, this sentence doesn't make sense. Bayle Shanks (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes it preferred source? If it is the danger one is concerned about, the nutrients found in fish oil are derived from algal sources and can be obtained without the use of fish.

MBC2011 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation[edit]

The statement from the lead that reads "Countries with the highest intake of fish in their diets are correlated with the lowest rates of depression among citizens" is potentially misleading. There should be link somewhere on this page to (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

CALAMARINE is supposed to have more DHA than Fish Oil[edit]

What is CALAMARINE and where does it come from? Please someone write a Wikipedia article on this subject. (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias against use for depression[edit]

Hello. I have made the point twice that "1981" is the earliest date for which we have a reference for investigation of fish oil's use as an antidepressant. Just because an editor thinks all the studies are done doesn't mean they are. I added the Cochrane review which specifically asks for more randomised controlled trials. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I am the offending editor you so distantly and obliquely allude to. I added the Yale review, which is subsequent to the Cochrane review added by you, and suggests that any evidence about fish oil relieving depression is wanting. I removed your additions twice in the interest of removing extraneous material, things for which there may be little value in the reader knowing. The weight of current research is clearly in a direction which indicates fish oil is not particularly useful for people with depressive issues. To draw attention to and reinforce what is very likely faulty historical research seems counterproductive to me, and certainly not helpful for people who may have depression. If the research changes, and move in a direction that suggests that fish oil is indeed helpful to people with depressive issues then I would agree the researcher who started this whole thing off should be highlighted. But that is not currently the case.
You accuse me of "bias", indeed you headline it. I don't see the bias in my position. I would be delighted if the research showed fish oil had the effects your pioneer claims. You might examine whether you have a bias yourself, wanting to believe in this effect even if it is not there. I also reversed your entries because they failed to reference this supposed pioneering research, but just mentioned someone commenting on it. Anyway, the matter is too minor to edit war over. I have sourced the matter more fully and we can leave it as you want. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It's not as I want. Did you read the Cochrane review from 2008? Covering everything three years before Yale, which strikes me as unusual enough to wonder about. But there have been US v. UK differences in science before. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Isolated cases of mania?[edit]

This source: [1] is currently used to source the following statement: "There are isolated case reports of development of mania in persons with bipolar disorder who took fish oil."

WP:MEDRS says: "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." The cited source is not even an article, it is simply a comment on another article.

Also, statement itself seems to communicate something insignificant and its inclusion seems to be potentially misleading. Bipolar disorder is characterized in many cases by intermittent episodes of mania; it seems normal to expect a substantial portion of bipolar patients (taking fish oil or not) to experience mania. At a glance, people might just look at the table of contents and see the association between fish oil and mania, when there is not currently enough evidence to justify any such association.

On these grounds, I am removing this statement and the source. Cazort (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[edit]

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs) appears to be embarked on a campaign to remove all references to on this and other articles. I addressed the matter on his talk page. However, his practice seems to be to delete comments, rather than respond to them. Since the notability of is currently under discussion, it is not appropriate to delete this material before that discussion has concluded. Accordingly, I have reinstated the material, and ask Cantaloupe2 to express any concerns here, rather than continuing to edit war. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits were made in snippets and reasons are clearly explained in edit comments. Notability of the source for its appropriateness in having its own article and referencing to them as what constitutes WP:RS and free of WP:NPOVWP:COI are two separate things. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
So you have reverted yet again. You know very well it is not appropriate to proceed on this matter until the status of as a reliable source is more settled. It is very unpleasant editing in the vicinity of the aggression you are expressing Cantaloupe2, and you might examine whether going out of your way to aggravate other editors is really such a good idea. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
To repeat myself again, the Afd isn't about the site's appropriateness as authoritative source of information. It is whether or not it merits existence on on Wikipedia. Anything you're not clear on? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, even just reading that recent edit history is a little stressful. Considering Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:BRD, I think the next step here is to discuss evidence for and against as an appropriate source for material in this article. First, I've noticed that it's used in a lot of other Wikipedia articles, mostly added by editors who have reasonable reputations with broad editing patterns (not just editors who focus on material). Second, in the sources I've been looking at related to the article, I haven't found complaints about the accuracy of its results. Here are notes I posted on about other supplement tests:

References 7, 8, and 9 indicate that's coconut water study is moderately notable - mentioned in a NYT blog post and cited in a suit. Searching for materials related to the suit, this WSJ article discusses's study. Reference 11 indicates that's caffeine drink study is moderately notable, mentioned in a CNN article. Looking this up, the study was also mentioned in a ConsumerReports article, a Forbes article, and a Today article. And reference 17 shows coverage of its red yeast rice study in a medical journal. Looking that up, it was also covered in a CNN article.

In the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Epipelagic noted that a lot of books mention as a useful website, and a lot of scholarly articles reference it. Overall, it seems reasonable to use it as a reference for articles about supplements, especially if used in combination with other independent sources. I think it's distracting to mention it by name repeatedly though, and it's probably not solid enough to support entire sections without additional sources.

I also googled this specific topic and found news and magazine articles citing in their reports on fish oil supplements: a mention in the NYT, coverage in USA Today, coverage in Men's Health, a mention in Prevention, coverage in Women's Health, and a mention in Reader's Digest. If it's good enough for all of them, it's probably good enough for this article. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the way it is written and inserted by Absander as it stands now shows its a pretty obvious advertisement use and his editing pattern establishes it. Deletion is justified per WP:NOPAY which states advertisement use is prohibited. However, if there is a doubt if his usage has been promotional or not, you can RfC it. It is also important to note that "pass fail" criteria invented by some private body is arbitrary scale that is based on their opinion as opposed to standards accepted by established regulatory agencies or world respected trade organization, so to allow inclusion of their pass/fail is advocating for some system they invented. What they do maybe notable, which can likely establish that company to have its wikipedia entry, but there is a doubt as its validity in use as a reference. For example, TheOnion is notable enough, but its almost always unacceptable as a serious reference. Get it? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Absander's additions weren't suitable to keep in the article without edits, but they're fine as starting points for building stronger material. My research shows that it's valid to use's test results as a source; I'm not sure which pass/fail judgments you're discussing, but they don't sound as useful or relevant as the test results. Looking at these contested edits for example, they use the test results, not the pass/fail judgments - would you have a problem with me putting that material back?
I understand that the notability of is separate from its validity as a source; my comment was entirely about its validity. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The only issue here is whether is a reliable source for independent lab reports. If it is, then they have produced some highly relevant test findings on fish oil products which need to be incorporated in the article. Whether or not Absander previously added results in a questionable and promoting way is irrelevant. Cantaloupe2 is throwing up flurries of dust, obscuring the issue and creating unnecessary drama. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I try to assume good faith as much as I possibly can. In any case, I believe that the materials I've found so far indicate that it's a reliable source for this - do you agree? Looking at some publicly-available journal articles found via searching Google Scholar for "" (since at the moment I don't have access to medical journals that require subscriptions), I found more evidence: this article by includes some details about their methods, this article cites as a source for a limited claim, this article also cites, this book lists, NSF International, and US Pharmacopoeia as "Organizations Providing Independent Certification for Dietary Supplements", etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
nonetheless, entire section that only is referenced and uses their self published press releases is POV FORK and entirely inappropriate. <-- unsigned comment by Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs) 10:45, 11 December 2012>
I agree that we shouldn't rely on it as the sole source for a section, but I don't quite understand adding warning tags about it being a self-published source. Since it's a source that other reliable sources trust, as we've seen in the links I've presented here, then it seems OK to use it as a source. I believe that citing results reported by a third party (such as a newspaper or magazine) instead of citing results self-reported by is actually more likely to increase errors than decrease errors in some cases, since journalists reporting on results are basically summarizing them and contextualizing them, not doing independent laboratory testing of the results. It's best if we can cite publishing their results in a peer-reviewed medical journal (as they do sometimes), but using relevant self-reported results seems OK to me. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No one here has claimed the way Absander initially wrote those sections is appropriate, so why do you keep going on about it Cantaloupe2? This is another example of you continuing to throw up dust. Had you read the very first post I placed on your talk page, before you deleted it, you would have found it said do not seem to have taken on board my assessment that is a notable source. The editor who initially added that material wrote it badly, and it needs rewriting. But the substance is relevant for the article on fish oil.

Please focus on the relevant issue. The material you keep deleting from the fish oil article should not have been deleted, it should have been rewritten. I too, Dreamyshade, am trying to assume good faith as much as possible. I agree with you that is widely used as a reliable source for independent lab reports, both in academic circles and in mainstream publications such as the New York Times (138 mentions, not 1 as you said above) and a wide spectrum of established book publishers. Even QuackWatch recommends ConsumerLab (scroll down to "Links to Recommended Vendors" at the bottom), and that is as skeptical an organisation as you are likely to find anywhere. I have found nothing suggesting that their reports are not accurate, and I see no reason why relevant reports from them should not be cited in fish oil. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"138 mentions, not 1 as you said above" WP:GOOGLEHITSCantaloupe2 (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLEHITS addresses Google results, not NYT search results. NYT search results are significantly likelier to indicate usefulness than normal Google results, since most NYT articles can be used as reliable sources, and most normal Google results can't. That specific search reveals: non-trivial coverage related to multivitamins, "Where, then, can you look for reliable, unbiased information? One place to start is, an independent research organization that tests supplements.", "In the meantime, tests by and others are a useful effort to fill the information gap, said senior researchers at the United States Pharmacopeia and the institutes.", non-trivial coverage of, an article on's testing of garlic tablets, an article about one of's books, an article on's testing of health bars, an article on their testing of arthritis remedies, an article on their testing of valerian supplements, an article on their testing of cholesterol-related supplements, and another article with non-trivial coverage. I'm not sure why it estimates 100+ results, since I can only see less than 20 unique articles in those results, but these links still show that the NYT has considered a bunch of results to be reliable and significant. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of causes for concern[edit]

There is a need for reliable secondary sources that validate that mercury, dioxins pcbs, spoilage, epa and dha and fomulations are relevant causes of concerns surrounding fish oil supplements. Currently, it is a list of things one test result publisher chose to order tests for and publish. It can even order tests on the coloration consistency of the gelcap and report findings about it. The question here is whether these claims are of notable relevant concerns to fish oil. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mental health and depression are separate[edit]

Seems like they ought to be incorporated in some way — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)