Jump to content

Talk:Fish oil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 60.242.98.209 (talk) at 13:00, 21 July 2011 (→‎Correlation does not imply causation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

statement Old talk page found here: /Archive 1

Fish oil or omega-3 benefits

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)[reply]

Bad references and a totally unsupported lead section

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)[reply]

Linking to a "Blog"

I see a link to Fishoilblog.com [http:// www.fishoilblog.com] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First Sentence

Doesn't the first sentence seem a bit redundant? I mean, the sentence "Fish oil is oil derived from fish," seems a bit cluttered.

68.114.250.75 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) A guy[reply]

production methods and composition

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)[reply]

Fish's body includes liver

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. 60.242.98.209 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]