Hacker News Reader

Comment by civilized | Hacker News Reader

My hobby: arguing the arrow of causation goes in the opposite direction as the study authors want to suggest. Allow me to demonstrate.

In this case, obviously, omega-3s are merely a sign of eating expensive fish, which is a sign of affluence, which is a sign of genetically driven higher mental acuity.

View on HN

> In this case, obviously, omega-3s are merely a sign of eating expensive fish, which is a sign of affluence, which is a sign of genetically driven higher mental acuity.

Except it's the cheaper low-brow canned fish like Sardines that contain more Omega-3s AFAIK.

Salmon is expensive and has more omega-3 than some other fish but they make the fish oil pills by grinding up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menhaden

which people can't stand to eat.

S.M.A.S.H. (sardines, mackerel, anchovies, salmon, herring) are rich in Omegas 3 and naturally have low levels of toxins and mercury.

I wanna say I'm gonna be able to remember that acronym at the next social event but its going to be more fun getting everyone to fill in the blanks.

I have an obviously better explanation:

In this case, the correlation has to do with being health-conscious which leads to better health and is linked to ingesting o3. And the reason we argue causation is the simple fact that the mechanism behind the correlation is not explained in a clear chemical way.

So health-conscious people consume more o3 because the health authorities tell them it's good, but what actually works is some other thing they do, probably just avoiding obesity and sedentary lifestyle?

Exactly, and other behavior like thinking twice before ingesting something probably offsetd whatever harm health authorities may (perhaps unwillingly) cause.

Affluence is a sign of "genetically driven higher mental acuity"?

Source?

It might be a sign of better nutrition during childhood. Things like iron from 6 months and up have a pretty big effect on brain function later in life.

And if this was studied and proven to be true then all you contrarians would again reverse the arrow of causation saying that "no no no, it is not the iron supplements it is X".

Yes, of course we can not ethically proof that any one supplement has some precise effect, but instead of burying your head in the sand you can follow some general trends.

> And if this was studied and proven to be true then all you contrarians would again reverse the arrow of causation saying that "no no no, it is not the iron supplements it is X".

The point here is that this study didn't prove anything - it's an observational study. The results are consistent with a range of possibilities, not just the ones the study authors were the most interested in promoting to the public. Academic guesses about causation are often wrong, and they're often biased towards what's interesting to academics and what raises the profile of their research. So it's important to highlight other possibilities, especially the "boring" ones that wouldn't get as much attention for the study authors.

There are high-quality studies that actually prove things. For example, we know the impact of lead on IQ because of direct interventions (children who have lead above a certain threshold undergo chelation therapy, so you can compare those right below to those right above).

It is derived from a rectalinnear extrication of facta sunt data.

Genetics is a major driver of intelligence, and more intelligent people tend to earn more money.

Here's a book that covers the basics of what we know about intelligence and its correlation with life outcomes: https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritc...

Arguably, eating fish is only a sign of affluence in areas where fish is not plentiful and cheap.

But I like your hobby!

I was just talking to my wife about it. Her opinion is that fish in the US is more expensive than chicken and more comparable to beef in that cheap fish is similar in price to cheap beef and expensive fish like expensive beef.

When comparing fish with the meat of terrestrial vertebrates it must always be taken into account that the water content of raw fish meat is much higher, so one pound of raw fish does not have the same nutritional value as one pound of raw chicken meat or beef meat.

If the fish is bought frozen, even more of the paid weight is water, so the water content would have to be accounted when comparing prices.

Fish may be much more expensive than it seems when just looking at the price tag, even 50% more expensive per protein content (raw poultry meat has about 25% protein content, while raw fish fillet has between 15% and 20% protein content).

I wonder if fish is that cheap even in area where fishing is a big industry. Compared to meat, growing and processing fish looks more finicky and expensive, and in particular fresh fish with vitamins and nutriments still intact looks to be pretty big logistics challenge driving prices up.

For instance in Japan fish isn't cheap by any measure compared to chicken or pork for instance.

I just visited Riga, Latvia, and fish seemed to be fairly affordable there.

I thought of the same thing. Eating fish often says you have a well balanced diet.

it hurts to read, but how about the ethical if you care… AND the poor-human way? flaxseeds and chia are cheap for what they provide! and dirt cheap if you have time & possibility to buy directly from a farmer

I read somewhere that those omega-3s from seeds are less effective than those in fish, as a conversion step is needed.

and please _c3ag, adopt any poor children at early age and let them eat books and consume any type of scientific podcast and feel how they build up!

> flaxseeds and chia are cheap for what they provide!

My understanding is that the Omega-3 from these is not particularly bio-avaiable compared to fish/krill oil.

yeah… so just eat more! less than 4 spoons should be enough.

and having only ALA and not EPA/DHA as source of omega-3 will slowly lead to your body be more efficient at transforming (ALA to EPA/DHA)

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/suppl_1/449S/45766...

and there is plenty of educative websites searching for “vegan” and omega-3 sources…

edit: ops my bad! thought i could reach one of the studies that conclude this by Googling but nope, i linked the wrong one :D here is your dose of research, https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1040/4597496

Abstract says they adjusted for potential confounders. Presumably wealth was one of them, as that seems like an obvious thing to control for in any health study.

Or maybe o3's lead to intelligence which leads to wealth, and controlling for wealth would underestimate the true effect of o3's.

I have no dog in this race :)

Canned tuna is 50 cents a can. Sardines are a dollar a can.

There is also the option for "fish oil" on a bottle. I have recently tried that - but it is... not that delicious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com