Author Topic: Tuna and Mercury???  (Read 4845 times)

Ryder

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Pimp juice in check...
Tuna and Mercury???
« on: November 24, 2005, 07:19:14 PM »
Can there be too much of a good thing???? I am a 19 year old male I usually eat about 4-5 cans a day is this dangerous or is it mostley for pregnant females like most articals claim???
Be a Playmaker!

Jr. Yates

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2005, 10:11:12 PM »
I am the exact same. 19 same amount of tuna a day and people tell me its bad cuz of the mercury so i donno
bodybuildersreality.com

250Ben250

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 504
  • skinman approved.
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2005, 10:23:20 PM »
Albacore tuna is worse than regular tuna with water. I wouldn't worry about it unless you're eating 3+ big cans of albacore a day

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2005, 11:50:01 PM »
Can there be too much of a good thing???? I am a 19 year old male I usually eat about 4-5 cans a day is this dangerous or is it mostley for pregnant females like most articals claim???


wow!  Yes this is very bad.  Stop immediatetly.  No joke.  go to Sam's or a Cost co, and buy 48 eggs for 5 bucks.  It's cheaper, and safer.  Seriously, you are ingesting way too much Mercury.

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2005, 12:00:25 AM »
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/tuna.asp


Don't get freaked out.  The best thing you can do now, is cut that shit out, and take a detox' from GNC.  Get some of that shit out of your system.  If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Ryder

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Pimp juice in check...
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2005, 10:16:10 AM »
Only thing is i have been doing this for months and havent felt any of the effects infact i feel better and way more cut up than i was when i wasn't eating regular amounts of fish... i have read many articals they all say if you buy quality  you should be alright... the mecury is taken in by the fish from the water thats how we ingest it so buy quality tuna and you should be fine right??? any thoughts...
Be a Playmaker!

Tubbs

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2754
  • Getbigger!
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2005, 11:33:29 AM »
Too much of something always turns to be bad for you. I slowed down my consumption of tuna because of the mercury. I used to eat 300 g of tuna daily; now it's more like 300 g every three days. Take salmon or trout to replace it.

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2005, 12:59:24 PM »
Too much of something always turns to be bad for you. I slowed down my consumption of tuna because of the mercury. I used to eat 300 g of tuna daily; now it's more like 300 g every three days. Take salmon or trout to replace it.


Salmon is worse than tuna.  Seriously.   (unless it's wild salmon, and this is always very expensive and usually never available at a normal grocery store).  If you're heel bent on fish, try a Whole Foods or Central Market for your safe fish needs. 

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2005, 01:05:17 PM »
"These first-ever tests of farmed salmon from U.S. grocery stores show that farmed salmon are likely the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. food supply. On average farmed salmon have 16 times the dioxin-like PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4 times the dioxin-like PCBs found in other seafood. The levels found in these tests track previous studies of farmed salmon contamination by scientists from Canada, Ireland, and the U.K. In total, these studies support the conclusion that American consumers nationwide are exposed to elevated PCB levels by eating farmed salmon."


weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2005, 01:06:39 PM »
Tubbs, I appreciate that you are gung-ho about nutrition, but please don't give advice if you don't know it.   You could really screw someone over.   

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2005, 01:08:20 PM »
PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyls. These are a group of man-made chemicals that were  used as lubricants and coolants in a variety of industrial and electrical products and applications, such as capacitors, transformers, turbines, etc. The manufacture of PCBs in the United States was discontinued in 1977. PCBs are very persistent, and even though their manufacture was discontinued more than 20 years ago, trace levels of PCBs remain throughout our environment. PCBs are a group of 209 individual chemicals, known as chlorinated hydrocarbons, that were marketed under various trade names.  The most common name for PCBs found in the environment is Aroclor. Everyone is exposed to some PCBs, and they are found everywhere. They have even been found in penguins in Antarctica. There are several possible sources of exposure to PCBs including drinking water with PCBs, breathing air with PCBs and occupational health exposures. The most common source of exposure is from eating foods that may contain some level of PCBs. Such foods include fish, eggs, red meat, poultry, milk and cheese.

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2005, 01:09:23 PM »
Also, Trout is a sticky situation.  It depends on where the Trout is from.  Pennsylvania is the safest.

Jr. Yates

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2005, 01:54:51 PM »
so 4 cans a day is too much? damn Im gonna have to find something new
bodybuildersreality.com

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2005, 03:01:49 PM »
so 4 cans a day is too much? damn Im gonna have to find something new


Hah, yes, very much so.

 Pasturized egg whites are great. 

Tubbs

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2754
  • Getbigger!
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2005, 12:25:49 AM »
Tubbs, I appreciate that you are gung-ho about nutrition, but please don't give advice if you don't know it.   You could really screw someone over.   
You misunderstood what I've said weedoutheweak. I never advised him to eat salmon 3 or 4 times a week! I advised him, if he can afford it, to vary his sources of protein, that is not eating the same source 3 or 4 times daily. Except for shakes and bars, I never eat twice daily the same source. One day it can be turkey, cottage cheese, shakes, tuna and the next chicken, bars, eggs, and salmon (which is by the way one of the best sources of EFAS) and so on... Eating salmon once a week won't kill or intoxicate anybody. ::)

Ryder

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Pimp juice in check...
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2005, 01:19:03 PM »
Yo just found out some knew info... i actually spoke with some doctors and how the whole thing started was to keep pregnant women from eating excessive amounts of albacore because they had found traces of mercury in it... Tuna is not Albacore and your not a pregnant female the whole thing is more of an old wives tell than anything else... so eat the fiish and get stacked...
Be a Playmaker!

weedoutheweak

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1646
  • Kickin' it
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2005, 02:25:45 PM »
Yo just found out some knew info... i actually spoke with some doctors and how the whole thing started was to keep pregnant women from eating excessive amounts of albacore because they had found traces of mercury in it... Tuna is not Albacore and your not a pregnant female the whole thing is more of an old wives tell than anything else... so eat the fiish and get stacked...


whatever you say champ

Ryder

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Pimp juice in check...
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2005, 03:34:05 PM »
i really do appreciate all the imput though thanks pimps...
Be a Playmaker!

Luv2Hurt

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6036
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2005, 04:56:49 PM »
From what I can tell a can a day is about max you should eat.

rocket

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10727
  • Not a champion
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2005, 07:21:30 PM »
Oh god I'm way over.

I probably eat up to 600g of tuna in a day (more regular to have 450 though).

I've had someone pestering me regarding mercury for quite some time.

SnTBaM

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • Getbig!
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2005, 11:08:37 PM »
Just want to note something...Albacore IS tuna. Its a different type. Theres also bluefinned tuna ect..

As far as the intake...Hell if I know I'm a skinny ass newbie and I just started eating tuna. 1 can a day. :X

But I also eat trout, and some other stuff that me and my dad catch.

You guys should see my freezer, NOTHING but fish that we've caught.

BTW: Um..store bought tuna different then caught? (Wondering.)

And since you guys are talking about states I live in California, South Central.

guest 918

  • Guest
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2005, 01:47:20 AM »
Fish, mercury, and heart disease
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. Several studies have shown that regular fish consumption protects against cardiovascular disease. Other studies have shown that consuming mercury-contaminated fish increases the risk of coronary heart disease. The beneficial effect of fish consumption is believed to be due to the presence of the omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the tissue of fish and shellfish. Two recent studies have attempted to answer the question "Are the beneficial effects of fish oils (EPA and DHA) outweighed by the negative effects of mercury"?

The first study, carried out by a team of researchers from eight European countries, Israel and the United States, involved 684 men who had suffered a first non-fatal heart attack and 724 matched controls. All participants had their mercury level measured in toenail clippings and their level of DHA measured in a fat tissue sample taken from the buttock. Participants with a mercury level of 0.66 mcg/gram were found to have twice (odds ratio of 2.16) the risk of having a first heart attack when compared with participants having a mercury level of 0.11 mcg/gram. This risk assessment was arrived at after adjusting for age, DHA level in adipose tissue, body-mass index, waist:hip ratio, smoking status, alcohol intake, HDL cholesterol level, diabetes, history of hypertension, family history of heart attack, blood levels of vitamin E and beta-carotene, and toenail level of selenium.

The research team also found that participants with a high (0.44% of total fatty acids) fat tissue content of DHA had a 41% lower risk of having a first heart attack than did those with a low (0.10% of total fatty acids) fat tissue level of DHA. This risk assessment was arrived after adjusting for all other known risk factors including toenail mercury level.

The researchers point out that the main sources of mercury are occupational exposure (dentists), exposure to silver-mercury amalgam in dental fillings, and fish consumption. They conclude that the health benefit of fish consumption is significantly diminished if the fish is high in mercury. They also confirm the cardioprotective effect of fish oils (DHA).

The second study was part of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study begun in 1986 as a cooperative venture between the Harvard School of Public Health, the Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. The study involved 33,737 male health professionals who had toenail clippings analyzed for mercury in 1987. After 5 years of follow-up 470 participants had been diagnosed with coronary heart disease. The researchers observed that dentists, who are habitually exposed to mercury, had toenail mercury levels (0.91 mcg/gram) that were twice as high as the levels found in non-dentists (0.45 mcg/gram). They also found a direct relationship between fish consumption and mercury level with participants consuming an average of 357 grams (3/4 lb) of fish per week having a level of 0.75 mcg/gram while those who consuming 145 grams (1/3 lb) per week had a level of 0.29 mcg/gram. After adjusting for age, smoking and other risk factors for heart disease the researchers conclude that there is no clear association between total mercury exposure and the risk of coronary heart disease, but that a weak relation cannot be ruled out.
Guallar, E, et al. Mercury, fish oils, and the risk of myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 347, November 28, 2002, pp. 1747-54
Yoshizawa, K, et al. Mercury and the risk of coronary heart disease in men. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 347, November 28, 2002, pp. 1755-60
Bolger, PM and Schwetz, BA. Mercury and health. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 347, November 28, 2002, pp. 1735-36

Editor's comment: The two studies clearly do not agree as to whether high mercury levels are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. I am inclined to believe that they are. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence of significant associations between high mercury levels and Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, congestive heart failure, kidney damage, hearing loss, and high blood pressure. So definitely, mercury, from whatever source, is a very bad actor and should be avoided. The joint European/Israeli/US study clearly confirms that DHA (fish oil) is protective against a first heart attack, so regular consumption of low-mercury-level fish is still a healthy option. An alternative approach to obtaining DHA (and EPA) on a regular basis is to supplement with 1 gram/day of a high quality, molecular distilled, non-rancid fish oil containing a minimum of 220 mg EPA and 220 mg DHA. Reliable sources of such fish oils can be found at www.coromega.com
and at
www.consumerlab.com/results/omega3.asp
To be on the safe side it is best to eat fish and shellfish with an average mercury content of less than 0.10 ppm. Unfortunately, there are not too many species left that fulfill this requirement. King crab, scallops, catfish, salmon (fresh, frozen and canned), oysters, shrimp, clams, saltwater perch, flounder, and sole are all good choices. Salmon is my favourite because of its combination of a low mercury content with a high level of beneficial EPA and DHA. The following fish species should be avoided: tilefish, swordfish, king mackerel, shark, grouper, tuna, American lobster, halibut, pollock, sablefish, and Dungeness and blue crab. Limited sampling of the following also indicated high mercury levels: red snapper, marlin, orange roughy, saltwater bass. Atlantic cod, haddock, mahi mahi, and ocean perch have mercury levels around 0.18 ppm, so should be eaten in moderation. For more on mercury content of fish see www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

 

HavoX

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
  • Shamed by thunderdome
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2005, 06:10:17 AM »
little ass tuna are used for the chopped can shit... they don't have time to accumulate the mercury that the big filet ones have... still, no more than 10 cans a week

WOOO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18158
  • Fuck the mods
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2006, 05:28:40 AM »

MidniteRambo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
  • 1687 confirmed kills and counting
Re: Tuna and Mercury???
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2006, 01:48:16 PM »
I do 2 cans of tuna per day.  The next week I switch to canned chicken breast (which is more expensive, but the switch gives me peace of mind).