Fish oil or Flaxseed oil for healthy joints?

I started taking fish oil, from Costco, several years ago for the Omega-3's. During that time none of my annual check ups showed any positive changes in relation to what I was taking the fish oil for. After reading a BBC thing on the benifits of taking fish oil, I switched to eating more fish, eating less red meat, and I stopped taking the fish oils. When my annual test results came in there was a large positive change.

I have stuck with the diet of eating more fish and chicken, eating red meat only twice a month, and meatless lunches.

With joint issues, I remain hydrated and keep my electrolytes up. I regularly drink either Vita or Zico Coco water. I take a quart with me to drink during workouts and I drink coco water after a run. Many times before a run I will take a SaltStick capsule with water.

For me the coco water (hydration and electrolytes) and the saltstick have went a long way towards joint comfort.

The BBC report, from some medical study, on taking fish oils, came to conclude that the way to get the benifits of fish oils was to eat more fish.

I agree with the vast majority of what rwtb123 said in his post. The jury argues with the ratios of 3 to 6 but the basic point is there.

To expand very slightly... when the fat in beef is analyzed there is a remarkable difference between the grain and grass fed. @rwt123 mentions the difference but I though you may want to know how they know. Grain fed also leads to a naturally sicker animal and when you have large herds they also make each other "more sicker". Therefore now they have to use the various additives to combat this. It's what comes with the supply to meet the demand and most of us go along for the ride.

So... if you feel that your ratios and volume of Omega 3's and such are not proper then either modify your diet or supplement with a GOOD QUALITY fish oil and other sources. Not all will get you where you need to go, check your local listings.

So really what did I add here? Nothing. Others in this thread had it covered already.

Well,I was going from memory here,so I decided to check up on the most current info.It seems I was still right here, as the benefits seem to start at a 4/1 ratio while it is suggested our hunter/gatherer ancestors evolved on a 1/1 diet which also seems more effective for fighting chronic inflammation related diseases which incidentally more and more modern diseases are being linked to now(including arthritis).The Inuit are said to have had a 1/4 ratio(whale blubber will do that)but what I suggest is research where your ancestors were from and what kinds of traditional diet and ratios they ,specifically, evolved on and go from there.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408140


Here is where I ,technically, got some details wrong as in actuality fish oil contains epa(the anti-inflammatory omega 3) and dha the bio-active omega 3s while flax and other non-animal sources contains ala which must be converted into epa and then dha.However,the omega 6, la which is converted into dgla(the mildly anti-inflammatory omega 6) and aa(the inflammatory omega 6)competes with ala for enzymes in the conversion process(actually omega 3 and 6 compete for enzymes in every step of their conversion chains in forming hormone-like byproducts known as eicosanoids)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosanoid

So omega 3 opposes omega 6 in both the functions of the eicosanoids they produce as well as the competition for enzymes in every step of the process.So ,clearly, both plant and animal sources of omega 3 have their role as even though flax has to be converted to epa and dha ,and may at times be inefficient in doing so,it is still opposing and limiting omega 6 conversion in the chain creating aa.

This discussion has got me refocusing on fatty acid balance ,so I have upped the amount of ground flax seed I am using,am again taking a fish oil capsule daily with a meal, and plan to refocus on organic,pastured dairy and meat and wild cold-water fish instead of just when they are on sale.Also,it should be noted that omega 6 is not inherently bad just more so when refined and/or heated such as in junk food,fast food,pastries and refined or hydrogenated oils.So, I will continue to use whole nuts,seeds,grains etc. that supply omega 6 along with a large amount of other nutrients that in sum are being shown to not being directly related to the increased incidence of inflammation related diseases.

So ,in sum, I don't think the answer is taking mega doses of fish oil supplements to bring omega 3 levels up to omega 6 levels that include a lot of the refined 6s.In fact, I think that approach has been shown to possibly increase the risk of prostrate cancer.Rather I would cut 6s down to only whole, unrefined sources add 3s in whole, unrefined form and make up any deficit with a moderate amount of supplementation.As with most things in nature too much of almost anything can become bad or toxic but most things thrive in balance. 

I am just going by what the science is saying.If you(or others) think the number might be different then what and why?Taking into account different cultures in different regions likely evolved on different individual ratios and diets based on climate/what food they had available.

He's a Paleo guy. I like his most popular book because of how he approaches arriving at information. He isn't what you normally read. If you have Amazon's Kindle App I could loan you my digital copy and it wouldn't cost you anything. I think you would really enjoy it. I don't necessarily agree with some of the things he states but at least he is trys to make sure he is as informed as he can be on the things he is presenting.

If you are thinking of a place to follow nutrition I would suggest starting with his book, chewing on the information, then exploring more. When he stated something I would then stop reading and go do a bit of research to see if it was generally agreed upon, agreed upon by many, or if the topic was contested hotly by "whomever".

What I thought most interesting was the reasoning behind the approach. I always like to hear actual reasoning that is at least thought out and not based off a very limited sample size. The results may still be wrong but it's right/wrong/other based on more data.

He did reference his mentor who I assume (Loren Cordain) quite a bit though I don't recognize the Price name.

I do allow how I feel to guide how much of what I eat but I also try and not allow myself to fool myself. If I felt that I needed a whole large bag of peanut M&M's (which are awesome) then we both know that is me fooling myself. I know you aren't saying to go to that extreme of course. What I try to do is continue to learn and then adjust within what I currently believe to be true. If I need more recovery, energy for an upcoming event or whatever it is I could, and have in the past, convince myself that it's ok to do something and in reality I'm cheating and could have gotten there a cleaner way. It's how MY head works. Maybe just my head but I will allow myself to convince myself of many things that are really not the best for me.

Going with your own feedback though I do keep a quasi-journal and whenever I make an adjustment in nutrition I track it and how I feel for a while until I get in tune with it and my body. I try to ride the line of recovery to speed up getting to a leaner body. If I get the recovery wrong I dampen results or on the other side I lengthen the process by over recovering. Dialing it in is the key for most people I would imagine.

And of course sometimes I'll eat that damn pizza because I want it. With no shame.

In the end how I feel, what the mirror tells me, and a bit of the scale for auxiliary information lets me know what's up.