Xtend-Life-Questionst
Issue 28th March 2006
Please click on the question of interest...
Safety of Product? I have been checking out the web re supplements while breastfeeding and came across a statement about your Total Balance on ons.org (oncology nursing society) that notes "safety of this product is a concern. The product contains animal material, possibly diseased animals that may harbor bovine spongiform encephaloopathy i.e mad cow disease."
Krill Oil… You've probably already received a query on this, but what do you think of Krill Oil as a replacement for Fish Oil?
Omega 3 Fish Oil Negative Study? Would you be able to give your comment on the conclusions of the recent UK research review, that casts doubt on the value of Omega 3 fish oils? I am sure you could put it into a clearer perspective.
Question: from Lynn: (Subject: Safety of Product?)q1
I have been checking out the web re supplements while breastfeeding and came across a statement about your Total Balance on ons.org (oncology nursing society) that notes "safety of this product is a concern. The product contains animal material, possibly diseased animals that may harbor bovine spongiform encephaloopathy i.e mad cow disease."
I hope I am reading this wrong or they are wrong because I want to start buying your products again.
Answer: from Warren
It’s OK Lynn because they have got it wrong. We have written to them asking them to correct their website.
Total Balance does not contain any animal products other than some glucosamine sulfate which is from marine sources. There are no bovine or porcine sourced ingredients in Total Balance at all.
It will be interesting to find out where they got their information from. However, I suspect that they may have got it from a database called “The Natural Products Database” because we found an error when they referred to our first generation Total Balance about 5 years ago.
At that time we used to include chondroitin sulfate in Total Balance. This particular data base assumed that it was from bovine source, but it was not. We deliberately sourced it from a marine source. We sent them certificates of analysis confirming this and they agreed to change their info.
I suspect that the info at www.ons.org may have been prepared some years ago and they may have used that database for their info before it was corrected.
So…rest easy there is no risk of BSE from any of our products.
Note to Readers: The document put out by the Oncology Nursing Society is related to natural substances that may be beneficial to cancer patients. Because we have a number of these substances in Total Balance it was referred to several times with a reference note saying that it contained other ingredients that were possible sources of BSE. If you would like to refer to it this is the URL: www.ons.org/publications/journals/ONF/Volume31/issue4/pdf/75.pdf
back to top
Question: from Bill: (Subject: Krill Oil…)q2
You've probably already received a query on this, but what do you think of Krill Oil as a replacement for Fish Oil?
Answer: from Warren
As a replacement for ordinary fish oil, it has its attractions for several reasons.
It does not have any contaminants because it is sourced from the krill which is very small and is unlikely to have any contaminants. Also, if it comes from Antarctica it will have come from pristine waters.
It is in a phospholipid form which is better absorbed by the body than the triglyceride form of most fish oils.
It has natural anti-oxidants present which help preserve the oil.
BUT…it is not a viable alternative to our Omega 3 for a number of reasons.
The level of DHA is low at only 9%.
It is no purer than our oil because of the purifying process we use. Also the fish that we use comes from the southern ocean off the coast of New Zealand in Sub-Antarctica, from similar pristine waters.
Although the phospholipid form appears to be better for bio-availability than ‘normal’ triglyceride fish oils it is not considered to be superior to the ester form that we use. They are believed to be on a par.
It still does not act as an effective anti-oxidant in the body. The anti-oxidants present are for the preservation of the oil.
It is a LOT more expensive than our Omega 3 DHA/Esters. The typical price is US$24.95 for 60 x 500mg soft gels versus our US$16.85 also for 60 x 1,000mg soft gels.
Each bottle of 60 krill oil capsules contains 30,000 mgs of krill oil and only 2,700mgs of DHA.
Our Omega 3 DHA/Esters contain 60,000mgs of concentrated molecularly distilled Fish oil esters, and 15,000mgs of DHA.
So, you would have to pay 300% more to get the same amount of oil ($49.90 versus $18.85) BUT…it is not concentrated! OR, if you wanted the same amount of DHA you would have to pay over 8 times as much…$137.22 versus $16.85!
So, whilst the sales pitch surrounding the krill oil is well done, it really doesn’t stack up against a quality molecularly distilled and concentrated fish oil ester.
back to top
Question: from Joe: (Subject: Omega 3 Fish Oil Negative Study?)q3
Would you be able to give your comment on the conclusions of the recent UK research review, that casts doubt on the value of Omega 3 fish oils? I am sure you could put it into a clearer perspective.
Incidentally, I have been taking your soft gels for about 5 weeks now, and have been surprised to find they make an enormous difference. I have tried other similar products in the past without noticing anything,
Answer: from Warren
Yes, this study caused quite a stir when it was published in the British Medical Journal just recently. Their article was about a meta-analysis that researchers at the University of Wales, College of Medicine, Cardiff carried out on 48 randomised clinical trials.
The researchers claimed that Omega 3 fish oil provided no benefit for either cardiovascular disease or cancer prevention.
That was an interesting conclusion, particularly when they admitted that in terms of total mortality, the analysis showed that omega 3 fats reduced the risk by 13 per cent. In plain language, users of Omega 3 fish oils reduced their risk of dying by 13 percent! BUT…the researchers deemed this to be ‘insignificant’.
Well…that requires some head scratching doesn’t it? Look at the number of trials of so called ‘wonder drugs’ that show an improvement of just a few percent in trials…and often conducted with a ‘stacked’ deck!
I honestly wouldn’t take too much notice of this report. Remember that it was not a specific study but rather a couple of researchers selecting a number of studies that they were not involved in and feeding the data into a computer and interpreting it based on specific parameters that they set. I don’t put a lot of faith in meta-analysis as the results can be skewed depending upon what outcome the researchers want.
Interestingly, the same week that this ‘study’ was published another study was also published about Omega 3 Fish oils.
This was also in the UK and printed in the British Journal of Cancer. They reported that a new study suggests that Omega 3 fish oil containing DHA and EPA may stop the spread of prostate cancer whereas Omega 6 will promote it.
Honestly Joe, the evidence supporting the benefits of Omega 3 fish oils is overwhelming when it comes to cardiovascular health. It takes a lot for the American Heart Association and the US FDA to come out in support of a product such as Omega 3 fish oils for cardiovascular health. I would suggest that they have done their research much more carefully than these ‘researchers’ in Wales who may have a ‘personal agenda’.
back to top
Important notice: All material provided is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not to be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken solely on the contents of this publication. Consult your physician or a qualified health professional on any matters regarding your health and wellbeing or on any opinions expressed within this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is believed to be accurate based on the best judgment of the editor but the reader is responsible for consulting with their own health professional on any matters raised within.
