Hacker News Reader

The problem is that one individual is not an average population. Average population in USA is incapable of eating right.

There's a bunch of stuff that other than fish that would have the same if not better effect and it has no side-effects.

View on HN

That isn't even an argument, it's a bunch of non sequitars.

I think the argument the original poster is trying to make is: statistics say people that eat fish are more healthy, but this is because of certain components of fish (like Omega 3s) and not something only providable by fish. These other sources (like flax seeds for omega3s) aren't shown to have large amounts of toxins. However, because it takes a variety of alternative foods to get all the healthy components in fish - even though an individual will be better off doing that - it would be hard and complex to find enough individuals eating all the healthy things combined to statistically show it's healthier then fish.

What argument, who's arguing? I'm saying that making decisions for your own particular situation based on what would happen to population statistics is fairly tricky.

Especially because of the epidemiological nature of these studies, lack of interventional studies for this particular subject and a bunch of other completely logical reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com