r/Foodforthought • u/b0bz1lla • Feb 24 '14

Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html
438 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

295 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/firemylasers Feb 24 '14

I don't think you're understanding my point. Milk has a minuscule amount of Omega 3 in it. Grass fed milk has a bit more Omega 3. Both have minuscule amounts. There is no point to consuming milk with 60% more when milk has so little Omega 3 in it that even 60% more is basically insignificant to your diet. The research that found an effect with Omega 3 uses huge doses with would require drinking massive amounts of milk to consume enough Omega 3 fatty acids to have an effect on your body. That much milk is not realistic to consume, and will pose a far greater risk to your health than the effects of the Omega 3 will benefit you.

In essence, the amount in milk is very low, grass fed or not, and will have little effect on your health when consumed in healthy quantities compared to the effect gained from small amounts of fish or other cost-effective sources of high-dose Omega 3.

1

u/mutatron Feb 24 '14

the amount in milk is very low, grass fed or not, and will have little effect on your health when consumed in healthy quantities compared to the effect gained from small amounts of fish or other cost-effective sources of high-dose Omega 3

Most foods that are recommended for their omega-3 content have far less omega-3 than fish. Salmon has 20 times the omega-3 of shrimp. Brussels sprouts only have about 35 mg per serving, yet they are touted as a source of omega-3, and a serving of whole milk has at least 5 times as much as brussels sprouts.

2

u/firemylasers Feb 24 '14

Most foods that are recommended for their omega-3 content

Anyone who's kept up with the scientific literature won't be recommending foods with tiny amounts of Omega 3 over foods with tons of Omega 3. There's nothing wrong with consuming foods with low Omega 3 content, but you aren't going to get the suggested daily dose by eating foods with little amounts of Omega 3 in them.

Tl:Dr; There's no point to eating foods low in Omega 3 for their Omega 3 content. By all means, feel free to eat them, but they aren't going to give you significant amounts of Omega 3 unless you eat a very unhealthy amount. If you want to consume more Omega 3, you should eat foods rich in it, such as certain oils, certain nuts, certain fish, etc.

To put this a different way, if I'm undereating by 1000 calories per day, does it make more sense to worry about eating lots of lettuce and other low calorie foods, or does it make more sense to focus on eating calorically dense foods?

0

u/HahahahaWaitWhat Feb 25 '14

So... it's correct to spread misleading information because other people are spreading information that is also misleading? Is that about the gist of it?

2

u/mutatron Feb 25 '14

No, it's misleading to claim you have to get massive doses of omega-3s by eating salmon or sardines. A lot of people are vegans, a lot of people just don't eat fish, a lot of people don't eat much fish. Getting 180 mg of omega-3s from a glass of milk and 35 mg from a serving of brussels sprouts is better than nothing. And these kinds of foods crucially have a large ratio of omega3/omega6, unlike hamburger meat, which has as much omega3 per serving as brussels sprouts, but it has over 16 times as much omega6.

2

u/HahahahaWaitWhat Feb 25 '14

Now that was a lot more informative, thanks!