Paul Saladino· MD
omega-3s are just so prone to oxidation, stripping them out of fish is probably a bad idea.
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
omega-3s are just so prone to oxidation, stripping them out of fish is probably a bad idea.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so right they are some in some positions even more because they have more uh double bonds than omega-6
meaning that they're more susceptible to oxidation not only when they're on the Shelf but also when they're in our tissues so that's one difference
The omega-3s are that and worse because they have more double bonds and they're more they lead to more permeability and more susceptibility to oxidation than the omega sixes.
One, omega-3s are typically less stable, more unsaturated with more double bonds, meaning that they're more susceptible to oxidation, not only when they're on the shelf, but also when they're in our tissues.
even if you look at some of these Omega six fats and I think one of the one of the big mechanisms that's been proposed is well they're going to increase inflammation because those uh those double bonds can be