 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2004Fish oils no longer beneficial after cooking?
I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat negates the goodness in many dietary oils. Is that the case with fish oil? Thank you JK examples of the info on the web you have in mind would help answer the question. >I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts >of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >JK > I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts > of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat > negates the goodness in many dietary oils. Is that the case with fish > oil? While Eskimos might eat fish raw everybody else have been cooking fish for some 30,000 years. That fact alone should answer your question. Sometimes commonsense is not too common. :( Smoked fish, nor mackerell, is NOT really that great a sourse of cold water fatty fish oil. But, it has nothing to do with cooking. -- john gohde http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health Are you telling us that Omega 3, 6 & 9 fatty acids will stand up to heat and/or not evaporate? > > I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts > > of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > john gohde > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health > Are you telling us that Omega 3, 6 & 9 fatty acids will stand up to heat > and/or not evaporate? Another @#$%^&* without an ounce of commonsense. Show me one epidemiological research study on the health benefits of eating fish raw and I can show you 10 epidemiological studies on the health benefits of populations who eat a lot of cooked fish. Just answer the question ya' f.cking moron. > > Are you telling us that Omega 3, 6 & 9 fatty acids will stand up to > heat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > eating fish raw and I can show you 10 epidemiological studies on the > health benefits of populations who eat a lot of cooked fish. > Just answer the question ya' f.cking moron. . Just read what I wrote ya' f.cking moron! I did...no answer, political incorrectness and attacks. What else could possibly come from the moron of the decade? Bye for the fortieth time you twit headed fucktailed piece of sh.t. <PLONK> > > Just answer the question ya' f.cking moron. > . > Just read what I wrote ya' f.cking moron! >> I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts >> of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Smoked fish, nor mackerell, is NOT really that great a sourse of cold > water fatty fish oil. But, it has nothing to do with cooking. Actually mackerel is one of the best food sources of EPA and DHA, even after cooking. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s039b.html  SignatureJuhana >I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts >of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat >negates the goodness in many dietary oils. Is that the case with fish >oil? JK, I apologize for "The Man and "The Guru" little insult battle. While eating Mackerell is good for the fish oil/Omega 3s, I'd stay away from smoked varieties. Get it baked or broiled. You also be wise to include tofu and other forms of soybeans, canola, walnut and flaxseed, for their oils. These contain alpha-linolenic acid (LNA), which can become omega-3 fatty acid in the body. Patrick You don't need to apologize for me thanx. I apologize for the little outbreak. Although fun, it wasn't really necessary. He just caught me on a bad life before I realized who the troll was again. > >I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts > >of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Patrick > He just caught me on a > bad life before I realized who the troll was again. I shall repeat my perfectly correct and valid prior comments for the benefits of the mentally challenged posters. While Eskimos might eat fish raw everybody else have been cooking fish for some 30,000 years. That fact alone should answer your question. Sometimes commonsense is not too common. :( Smoked fish, nor mackerell, is NOT really that great a source of cold water fatty fish oil. But, it has nothing to do with cooking. Smoking as a form of perserving meat, other than refrigeration, is of course linked to stomach cancer. Mackerell in my opinion due to their size is not the ideal cold water fatty fish to be eating. Kindly take both your profanity and your stupidity back to the gutter where you obviously live. Show me one epidemiological research study on the health benefits of eating fish raw and I can show you 10 epidemiological studies on the health benefits of populations who eat a lot of cooked fish. -- john gohde > I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts > of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JK Cooking does little to change the polyunsaturated fatty acid content of fish. In some cases, the cooked form has a higher concentration (per 100 grams) than the raw, due to loss of water during cooking itself. Here are two tables derived from a decade-old version of the USDA database. The fatty acids are laid out in an unusual manner, with EPA (20:5) and DHA (22:6) on different pages. The original links are now dead, so I found them in an archives site. There is no listing for smoked mackeral, but there are some smoked fish in the list. You might use those as a comparison guide. http://web.archive.org/web/20031230201321/www.cs.princeton.edu/~ah/food/data/fis hshellfish.lipids2 http://web.archive.org/web/20031230201600/www.cs.princeton.edu/~ah/food/data/fis hshellfish.lipids3 There is a simple reason why cooking fish is different from the temperature induced decomposition of dietary oils used for frying. The moisture content of fish makes the maximum temperature of the flesh the boiling temperature of water. Only if all the water is driven out of the flesh can the temperature increase past that point. Lar > There is a simple reason why cooking fish is different from the temperature induced > decomposition of dietary oils used for frying. The moisture content of fish makes > the maximum temperature of the flesh the boiling temperature of water. Only if all > the water is driven out of the flesh can the temperature increase past that point. are there tables anywhere showing how much decomposition occurs at various temperatures for canola? >> There is a simple reason why cooking fish is different from the temperature >> induced [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are there tables anywhere showing how much decomposition occurs at > various temperatures for canola? Not that I am aware. I've read that overheated oils can become trans fats. I would think it is a question of the temperatures used. > I've been eating smoked mackerell, thinking that the copious amounts > of fish oil therein would do me good. But now I'm reading that heat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JK > I've read that overheated oils can become trans fats. I would think it is a > question of the temperatures used. Yes, the oils can change conformation. More problematic are the oxidative breakdown products....peroxides, aldehydes and ketones. Lar |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.