MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nutrition : Does Omega-3 shorten lifespan?
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 4 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknametaka00381  (Original Message)Sent: 4/8/2008 4:01 PM
An interesting study posted on the other group where most of the pro-omega-3 crowd is wondering how it is possible that mice on Omega-3 rich oil diet live shorter than on an Omega-6 rich oil diet. Too bad that these kinds of studies don't include a saturated fat or Omega-9 control diet:

J Nutr. 2000 Feb;130(2):221-7.

Serum lipid concentrations and mean life span are modulated by dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids in the senescence-accelerated mouse.

Umezawa M, Takeda T, Kogishi K, Higuchi K, Matushita T, Wang J, Chiba T, Hosokawa M.

Department of Nutrition, Koshien University, Hyogo, Japan.

The senescence-accelerated mouse (SAMP8) is an animal model used in studies of aging. This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of dietary PUFA on
longevity (Experiment 1) and serum lipid concentrations (Experiment 2) in SAMP8 mice. Male mice were fed either an (n-3) PUFA-rich (9 g/100 g perilla oil) or an
(n-6) PUFA-rich (9 g/100 g safflower oil) diet beginning at 6 wk of age. Experiment 1: The groups did not differ in body weight gain, but those fed perilla oil had significantly lower scores of senescence relative to those fed safflower oil (P<0.05). The mean life span of mice fed perilla oil was 357+/-21 d and of those fed safflower oil, 426+/-24 d (P<0.05). Pathological studies
revealed that the incidence of tumors was significantly lower in the perilla oil group than in the safflower oil group (P<0.05). Approximately half the mice fed perilla oil had died after 10 mo, and the direct causes closely
connected with death could not be specified. Experiment 2: The serum total cholesterol, HDL
cholesterol, triglyceride and phospholipid concentrations were significantly lower in the perilla oil group than in the safflower oil group (P<0.01). A marked
decrease of serum HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-II (ApoA-II)concentrations in advanced age were observed in the mice fed perilla oil (P<0.01). Ten-month-old mice fed perilla oil had a significantly greater ratio of
apolipoprotein A-I(ApoA-I) to ApoA-II than those fed safflower oil. Separation of HDL subfractions revealed that the smaller HDL species were much more abundant than the larger HDL species in both dietary oil groups. These findings suggest that dietary (n-3) and
(n-6) PUFA differ in their effects on serum lipid metabolism which may modulate the mean life span of SAMP8 mice fed each dietary oil.
PMID: 10720173


First  Previous  2-4 of 4  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 4 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameGalkonisSent: 4/14/2008 3:36 AM
Hans,
I was wondering if you could interpret the results of Experiment 2. Ive just recently been learning about biochem and have no idea what the second experiment is telling me.

-Drew

Reply
 Message 3 of 4 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrectSent: 4/15/2008 1:41 AM
Well, it's all about "markers," which are contextual, so it really doesn't mean much to you or me specifically. I suggest you read the essays on this site, along with the posts in the forums that interest you, and then ask questions you may have at that point. It's very easy to "drive yourself crazy" if you fixate on one study or a small number of them. Instead, they key is to keep an open mind and gradually "fill in the blanks" in your understanding. If you "get stuck," you can ask me questions at that point. You will learn a lot more by struggling to conceptualize things, rather than have someone explain some minor point that may be irrelevant or impossible to determine the significance of, given the limited amount of evidence in some areas.

In general, I'll say that many studies today focus on the LDL-lowering effects of this or that substance. This is only relevant in the heart disease context if your cells are loaded with arachidonic acid and your diet/lifestyle is oxidizing. If not, as is the case with myself, you want your LDL to be "high" according to typical standards in the USA. If it is "off the charts" high, that would be an indication that something is wrong, but today marginally "high" means healthy, not unhealthy, especially as you get older (again, if you avoid oxidizing issues).

Reply
 Message 4 of 4 in Discussion 
From: ShapshftrSent: 4/21/2008 1:59 AM
Drew,
 
I'll try to give you the answer I think you're looking for. In Experiment 2, the total cholesterol, HDL, triglycerides, and phospholipids were all low. While total cholesterol and triglycerides need to be kept within a normal range, the HDL cholesterol should be kept on the high side, and LDL cholesterol should be low. HDL is considered "good" cholesterol, and LDL is considered "bad" cholesterol. Here is an explanation of cholesterol:
 
 
So what this experiment is showing is that the omega 3 group had low HDL, as well as low apolipoprotein A-11. The HDL and apolipoprotein A-11 cholesterol fractions are thought to confer protection from atherosclerosis and heart disease. Therefore it is desirable to keep them on the high side, and LDL and apolipoprotein A-11 fractions at low levels, as they are believed to be responsible for the build up of plaque. For an explanation of the lipoproteins, see this page:
 
 
Therefore this study would seem to prove that omega 3 fatty acids are delererious to ones coronary health, which is in opposition to all the proponents of omega 3 supplementation. Combine that with the greatly shortened life span, 69 days shorter than the 426 days for the omega 6 group in experiment 1.
 
My comments:
 
While it says that the "direct" cause of death was undetermined, omega 3 fatty acids are highly unstable and oxidize within the body, causing high amounts of free radicals, which hasten cell death, and therefore could be the cause of early death in that group. Also it is a known fact that eskimo tribes who consume high fish diets, die from a higher percentage of strokes than any other group of people, which is likely due to the blood thinning effects of omega 3 fatty acids. 
 
 

First  Previous  2-4 of 4  Next  Last 
Return to Nutrition