Talk:Krill oil

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos
Rather than get into a revert war, I've tagged the krill oil capsule fair use photo I added to en-wiki back in 2008 for deletion after it was removed for a second time from the article just recently. Another editor had added a copyrighted photo of another brand of krill oil capsules and both photos were removed by a third editor. It's certainly not worth a war. The problem with illustrating articles of this type is that clear gelatin capsules of fish oil all look alike, so that generic capsule photos don't really serve as well as a branded and labeled bottle. The only alternative I can think of is to create a photo of a generic label affixed to a generic bottle of generic fish oil capsules. That seems inapt, somehow. So I commend this issue to the brilliant minds of the universe of en-wiki editors for a better way. Cheers, all! Geoff Who, me?  15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

NKO
NKO is a registered trademark. It seems like that the section comparing krill oil vs fish oil is devoted to advancing position of NKO brand krill oil being superior to fish oil and sources were gathered to support it. Input? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

KREAL krill oil is mentioned in the in the clinical findings section now. This is getting a bit close to advertising a brand, no? Prak Mann (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fish oil versus Krill oil
This section needs to be substantially edited. Or possibly deleted.

There are four citations in this section, but only two actual references (each is duplicated). Both references are completely misrepresented by the Wikipedia article.

"In a randomized, double-blind, parallel clinical trial 76 overweight and obese men and women received either krill oil, fish oil, or olive oil for one month.[9] The daily amount of EPA was similar in the krill oil and fish oil group, but the DHA quantity was approximately half as much in the krill oil group compared to the fish oil group. Nevertheless, after 4 weeks of supplementation the researchers found that the plasma EPA concentrations were higher in the krill oil group compared to the fish oil group, and the average DHA concentrations were similar to the fish oil group. Krill oil supplementation resulted in increased plasma EPA levels and revealed equal increases in DHA, but at half the dose in comparison to fish oil."

The difference in EPA levels is described as being "higher" in the krill oil group (it's 47 micromol/L higher in the krill oil group compared with the fish oil group, or 35% higher). Meanwhile, the DHA increases are described as "equal" (DHA is actually 60 micromol/L higher in the fish oil group than the krill oil group, or 66% higher). That reference to "half the dose"? Well... the paper referenced (but not linked to) says this: "double-blind capsules containing 2 g/d of krill oil, menhaden oil, or control" so it looks to me as if the dose of krill oil was the same as the dose of fish oil.

Perhaps the "half a dose" statement refers to something other than the amount of oil used - for example, a particular active ingredient in the oil. Anyway, when a lesser increase is described as "higher" and a greater increase is described as being "equal", it's pretty clear in which direction the bias is consistently going. A more accurate summary of the research would be "equal amounts of fish oil and krill oil appear to have similar effects". In fact, the most obvious difference between the fish oil and krill oil groups is that the fish oil group had reduced blood pressure as compared with the krill oil group. "In another study,[10] 113 subjects with normal or slightly increased total blood cholesterol and/or triglyceride levels were randomized into three groups and given krill oil, fish oil, or a placebo for 7 weeks. The results from the krill oil group suggested a 45% higher total EPA and DHA plasma level than in the fish oil group after seven weeks of administration."

(you probably refer to reference (10) and not (9)): True, but keep on reading:"Subjects were instructed to consume four 500 mg capsules per day, preferably 2 capsules with each of 2 meals, for 4 weeks. Four capsules of the krill oil supplement provided 216 mg/d EPA and 90 mg/d DHA, and the menhaden oil supplement provided 212 mg/d EPA and 178 mg/d DHA." the ratio of EPA in krill vs fish is ~1, while the DHA is 0.5(90/178), so indeed the DHA levels in fish was double than krill. the auther in this paper concluded (see section conclusion, page 614) that :"At the end of the treatment period,the mean plasma EPA concentration was somewhat higher in the krill oil group compared with the menhaden oil group(377 vs 293 μmol/L), whereas the mean plasma DHA concentrations were comparable (476 vs 478 μmol/L). These results suggest that the EPA and DHA from krill oil are absorbed at least as well as that from menhaden oil." for me, it look like that if you get the same levels using lower dosage, that one ingredient was absorbed better than the other. I agree that this sentence should be rephrase. JoKa2014

This paper described a study where participants were given "either six capsules of krill oil (N = 36; 3.0 g/day, EPA + DHA = 543 mg) or three capsules of fish oil (N = 40; 1.8 g/day, EPA + DHA = 864 mg) daily for 7 weeks." So this time the dose of krill oil was higher than the dose of fish oil. Were EPA and DHA plasma levels 45% higher than in the fish oil group? No, not at all. You can see the table here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024511/table/Tab4/ and EPA and DHA levels are increased in both the fish oil and krill oil groups.

the six capsules of krill = total of 3 grams per day. the 3 capsules per day of fish =1.8

The changes are measured in μmol/L rather than percentage points, and the only positive difference of 45 (μmol/L) in krill oil's favour was for EPA plasma levels - and was between krill oil and the control group who took no supplements at all, not between the krill and fish oil groups. The positive difference for the fish oil group compared with the control group? 45. The same as the krill oil group. The only reasonable conclusion from this paper is that 3g of krill oil is roughly equivalent to 1.8g of fish oil in terms of increasing plasma n-3 fatty acids.

Indeed true, but look at the levels of the tested omega-3, the authors conclude that: "No statistically significant differences in changes in any of the serum lipids or the markers of oxidative stress and inflammation between the study groups were observed. Krill oil and fish oil thus represent comparable dietary sources of n-3 PUFAs, even if the EPA + DHA dose in the krill oil was 62.8% of that in the fish oil."JoKa2014

Neither of the two papers that make up the four citations in this section say anything close to what the article currently states.

Indeed these studies has their limitation. but look at reference 12: This study compared krill and fish oil and the levels of EPA and DHA were similar.this study tested the bioavailability in plasma as well in RBC in a cross over design (meaning that same participant consumed all 3 intervention in a randomized order. this design eliminates noises that come from differences in subjects metabolism).Study results indicate that krill oil, is more effective than fish oil in reducing n-6:n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid ratios, and improving the level of EPA and DHA accumulated in the red blood cells (omega-3 index). it is probably due to structural differences of krill oil vs. fish oil.JoKa2014 This section is so poor, I think it needs to be either deleted altogether or rewritten from scratch in order to reflect reality. (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC) see my comments.

All studies were published in peer review journals - indicating high academic level.JoKa2014

I just removed the stuff on krill oil vs fish oil. Not that my edit summary was accusing 'you' of promospam, but the blog is not a reliable source for the 'quote', and doesn't give any attribution for where the statement was allegedly made. It's not a usable source for the statement, and material should generally not be sourced to websites that are trying to sell products related to the article topic. Revent talk 08:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree after taking another look; definitely not worth keeping. I'm sure there are proper RSes addressing similar facts. 9kat (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I used quotes from the original manuscripts. so no interpretation of the studies results was conducted. i will be happy to further discuss with you on the scientific data if you have any problem. please contact me. all the best.JoKa2014 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)JoKa2014
 * I'd be glad to go over some of the material and try to figure out what we can reinsert. However, your comments above (where you replied to Prak Mann) are completely unreadable, because it makes that editor's text indistinguishable from yours. Could you please reformat (indent) it so it's readable?
 * Additionally, if you are affiliated with the krill oil industry, I'd ask that you please disclose that fact per the conflict of interest policy. I realize you may just be a general proponent of krill oil, which is fine as well.
 * My recommendation is that you start off reinserting material that isn't controversial, e.g. general background information on krill oil. Please read the WP:MEDRS policy on how medical sources should be treated as well. It feels like many of the studies are cherry-picked, and you are inappropriately using primary sources. 9kat (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that in my 'trolling' through the past six months of this article, I did not readd any of this information, deliberately, because it was apparent that it was contested. Obviously, given the history, and I don't just mean the recent part, any material indicating that krill oil is more efficacious than fish oil needs to be carefully discussed before addition by any editor, especially with regards to the reliability of the sources used. This is pretty blatantly in the discuss phase of WP:BRD, since various people have been edit warring about this type of material for years now, and this article has been repeatedly abused for promospam. As the same time, I would ask that people be careful with any reverts, so as to not remove valid material, and specifically to ensure that copyright violations are not readded, as has happened in the past. I would suggest that any proposed additions be written first to this talk page, and then moved to the article after discussion, and am going to discuss with an admin having an editnotice added to that effect.

I did readd the list of 'benefits', on the basis that the references were Medline-indexed journals, and that the abstracts did indicate the described effects, but I removed the prose and merely wikilinked the relevant articles. Any text added to this also needs to be looked at very carefully to ensure that is accurate, and not promotional. Personally, I'd prefer that it just remain a well-sourced list.

If you don't like what I did, or want me to pay attention, please ping me or yell at me on IRC... I have over 1000 articles on my watchlist, so it's pretty useless. Thanks. Revent talk 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is far shorter than it once was, and today even shorter. What I have left in are differences in composition.David notMD (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations
I reverted a large amount of text per WP:COPYVIO. There were copyvios from, , and. Lots of unreferenced material added as well.

It's concerning that so much info would be sourced from manufacturer white papers as well, rather than appropriate sources. I have to wonder if there is a conflict of interest with the krill oil industry on some of these additions, particularly since that industry recently undertook a very large marketing campaign. (And a clear COI edit was reverted: .)

Some other edits were blanked due to having to revert so much material, but I'll try to clean those up if possible. 9kat (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. This content is also way too detailed and technical for a typical reader, and has a tone of advocacy. I reverted 's last edit for this reason and because it contained very close paraphrasing of sources, for example several passages that were copyright violations from lipidworld.com.- MrX 12:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because of the nature of the claims made, Joka's edits are probably in violation of WP:MEDRS too. Together with an apparent COI and the disruptive editing of this page by butchering Prak Mann's comments above, I am finding it difficult to assume good faith. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, in my trip through the history of this article, I tried to be extremely careful about copyright violations...as far as I could tell, the text I readded was a rewrite of previously included copyvio text, and didn't return any 'non-mirror' hits when I googled various phrases. Most of the other edits in the past were to the copyrighted material itself, and so nulled out. As the same time, I did find out that most of the material that was left before I started was also a copyvio. (sigh)

I would ask that you be careful about accusing people of having a COI....yes, there has been a huge amount of marketing hype recently, but there have also been a huge number of people influenced by that marketing hype. My discussions with JoKa2014 on IRC (where we see paid and COI editors on a constant basis, and have gotten very good at spotting them) indicate more to me someone who is very enthusiastic about Krill oil, and totally confused by Wikipedia. I'm not saying I'm necessarily correct, but it is preferable to give people the benefit of the doubt.

In my experience, btw, in this day and age the COI editors on 'industry marketing' things like this (as opposed to startup companies, bands, and bios) seem to be more professional and 'prepared' or dealing with Wikipedia, unfortunately. They also usually lie a lot. Revent talk


 * I have never used IRC in anger, and have no idea how to review Joka's contribution there. I didn't actually make an accusation either, I was very careful in that regard. I shall continue to AGF. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - MrX 20:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahah. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oversighter note: I've had to put on my oversighter hat and clean up some content from this talk page and another related talk page. Please keep in mind that users' IP addresses are not public information, and content that has been oversighted should be considered no longer available for public discussion. COI concerns that involve private information should be directed to the arbitration committee by email, not brought up onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Benefits section
I have deleted a duplicated reference, there shouldn't be a problem with that, however ...

I believe the whole section is based on primary sources, which are certainly non WP:MEDRS, and I believe that to suggest readers base their understanding on the fact that we, in wikipedia's voice, suggest reading them, is not a good idea. I'm not confident enough to actually remove the section altogether, but I would welcome any comment from other editors. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have no complaints. I brought them back because I couldn't see that they had explicitly been objected to, in the middle of everything else, and that was after specifically checking each one to see that it was a Medline-indexed journal, and that the abstract actually did indicate a 'beneficial' result, and trying to be as specific about them as possible. You are perfectly correct that they are primary sources, and my restoration of them was based on trying to 'do' as little as possible, not as an endorsement of them. I just didn't think I could 'justify' removing them by the criteria I was using, which was to leave as much as possible up to consensus. Don't take my edit as opposition. Revent talk 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Some time after that note someone (not me) deleted the entire Benefits section. It 2015 and 2014 there were three reviews published on relative bioavailability and benefits, the gist of which was more research needed.David notMD (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ulven SM, Holven KB. Comparison of bioavailability of krill oil versus fish oil and health effect. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2015 Aug 28;11:511-24. PMID:26357480.

Kwantes JM, Grundmann O. A brief review of krill oil history, research, and the commercial market. J Diet Suppl. 2015 Mar;12(1):23-35. PMID:24689485.

Ghasemifard S, Turchini GM, Sinclair AJ. Omega-3 long chain fatty acid "bioavailability": a review of evidence and methodological considerations. Prog Lipid Res. 2014 Oct;56:92-108. PMID:25218856.

GRAS No Comment Clarification
Cited GRAS notifications are no comment, state FDA has not tested products itself. Previous writing had potential to be interpreted as latter. 2602:306:B8B9:59A0:E1F0:1C34:26A1:FCB4 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)John