Supplements
Skincare
Superfoods
Bundles
Although it is not showing anything new, it does help reaffirm the assertions that we made when we developed Xtendlife Omega-3 / DHA Plus and Omega 3 / QH Premium CoQ10 fish oil products. Both of these contain not only astaxanthin but also lycopene which complements the astaxanthin nicely. I suspect that if the study had included lycopene into the mix it would have been even better.
This study which you can see by clicking here demonstrates the beneficial properties of reducing oxidative stress and boosting lymph node health by simply taking omega 3 fish oil and astaxanthin (a powerful natural antioxidant).
This isn't a groundbreaking study as many scientists already know that both omega 3 fish oil and astaxanthin are good for supporting cardiovascular health and skin health, reducing inflammation, boosting mental health, and helping prevent neurodegenerative diseases.
There are more published studies and other strong clinical data showing the many benefits of astaxanthin and fish oil on our site. If you have a few minutes, I encourage you to read through them as they really do make for interesting reading. You can read them now by clicking here.
As far as I know we (Xtendlife) are the only manufacturer so far to combine astaxanthin and lycopene with Omega 3 fish oil. Krill oil does contain astaxanthin but it is very small and they generally top them up with astaxanthin ironically from the same source that we use. However, the amounts of astaxanthin present are no more than we have. One drawback with krill oil however is that you get very low levels of the Omega 3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA.
Omega 3 / QH Premium CoQ10
For fish oil users who also want to SLOW skin aging and receive maximum antioxidant support.
Shop now
The Bolen report brings the controversy on Wiki articles being subject to "interference". This is particularly true of biographies. Often these are swung each way depending on whether it is autobiographical (hence glossing over personal weaknesses), or, in some cases maliciously amended by enemies. He does bring this into some focus but I find his writing a little hyperbolic.
As Abracadabra may know (or may not?), rats are bred for experimental purposes just because so many of their reactions to "drugs" does replicate what would happen in humans. Human experimentation is hugely expensive and many nutritional products are so common and have been used effectively for many (some for 100s), of years that they are considered safe (Geneerally regarded As Safe … GRAS). All trials are also strongly influenced by their design as well as (regrettably often), experimental bias. Group A wishes to interpret results one way, Group B would come to completely different conclusions – but from the same data set.
Some years ago oily fish was promoted as supplying between 2.5 and 3.5 grams of the Omega 3 fatty acids, per meal … say 150 grams of fish. Okay – halve this (small serving, say 80g) and the ingestion rate is about 1.5g to 2g – more or less the same amount as from 2 caps. Some people eat this much fish every day without apparent harm.
So let us keep things in perspective. Rats ARE considered to be suitable for research and for extrapolation to humans; the recommended dose of Xtend Omega three is probably less than you’d get from a meal of salmon; Wikipedia – is an immensely useful tool, for subjects that are neutral but suspect for issues that are highly controversial (do more research yourselves) or biographical.
Now Dean – I do agree with Abracadabra – using braodly iinclusive terms as "many scientists" without attribution to them is meally-mouthed and lessens otherwise valuable information. I feel it would be best to avoid such phrases.
All right-thinking people would agree. ;-)
Murray October 17 2011