|Image 1: Even if you kill him, he will take revenge and increase your blood glucose and triglyceride levels. And if you don't die from the negative side effects of the oil from his liver the neurotoxins from his fins will take care of the rest (cf. Science Daily)|
Sharks vs. blackseed - round 1: Fight!
A recently published study from the Faculty of Medical Sciences at the University of Science and Technology in the Republic of Yemen does yet provide further evidence that even this may not be the answer to everything. After all, the (formerly ;-) healthy 18 subjects (age: 23-31 years) in Doa’a A. Ibraheem study did not react particularly favorable to 2 weeks on 500mg of omega-3 fatty acids from an American shark liver oil product (Vitex Pharmaceuticals).
|Figure 1: Changes in glucose and lipid metabolism in 18 healthy volunteers in response to 2-weeks on either 500mg of omega-3 rich shark liver oil or 1,200mg of omega-6 rich nigella sativa oil (data calculated based on Ibrahiim. 2011)|
The "bad" Nigella Sativa Oil of which the "poor" subject ingested even 1,200mg per day for another 2 weeks (in fact this trial was done 4 weeks before the SLO trial with an appropriate wash-out period in-between), with its 13% saturated fat, 25.5% MUFA and 58.5% of the dreaded omega-6s (it has only 1% omega 3) did not only induce a significant drop in fasting blood glucose, it also left the lipid parameters untouched.
And what about fish oil?
Now, despite the fact that shark liver oil is not identical to either fish, or cod liver oil, and that some if not all the health benefits of nigella sativa could be induced by other (micro-)nutrients than , I would hope that results like this will make more people question the "revised" perspective on "healthy fats", according to which all omega-6 acids are like vampires, that must be parried with garlic... ah, pardon omega-3 ;-)