Andrew Huberman· PhD
and then the days that they don't have fish I recommend it probably twice a week that they take fish oil
Loading…
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.
and then the days that they don't have fish I recommend it probably twice a week that they take fish oil
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.
But, eh, I've been doing it, and if you look at the literature, especially the randomized control trials, it is mostly good stuff, man. You could find negative literature on almost anything that you do. - Sure. - But on balance, I am still comfortable with supplementing with fish oil at this point in time, regardless of the mounting evidence that, "Oh, it might not do anything," or, "Oh, it might have this or that potentially adverse effect." I kind of think it's a no-brainer if you're not somebody who eats fatty fish regularly through the week.