In article
,
montygraham wrote:

Another instance where they should have had two other groups of rats,
both of which would be fed coconut oil rather than fish oil, one would
get the POPs and one would not. My guess is that they are not
familiar with the relevant literature, because it suggests that
coconut oil and POPs might not present any major problem, unlike fish
oil and POPs. If so, it would have been yet another good
demonstration of the apparent dangers of fish oil.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nsulin-resista
nce-organic-pollutants-fat-diet
"Researchers fed rats a high-fat diet of either crude or refined fish
oil from farmed Atlantic salmon over 28 days.

The crude fish oil contained average levels of POPs that people are
exposed to through fish consumption,

while the refined oil contained none.

Both had equal fat levels."
---

You can buy "organic" fish oil that will be free of "persistent organic
pollutants".

Why introduce "might not" and maybe, into a discussion of the results
where it has no bearing? The point is:

rats exposed to the crude fish oil (POPs) developed belly fat and could
not regulate fat properly. They had higher levels of cholesterol and
several fatty acids in their livers.

Those (rats) exposed to the refined fish oil (no POPs) experienced none
of those symptoms.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/