wwwmo wrote:
無聊
usb2.0的腸胃吸收率
吃了usb3.0的裝置
也不會變成usb3.0的吸收率
什麼EE型 TC型 緩釋型
根本就是廠商名目抬高價
買那些多餘 沒用 浪費錢
又不是什麼仙丹來的
吃下去器官回春
吸收率還會增加
1.
沒人說魚油是仙丹,也沒人說會回春
2.
本文有強調,日常正確與適當飲食勝過一切,
部分補劑則為輔助用
3.
什麼2.0還3.0的,是PTT看太多嗎?
同樣一根香蕉,不同人吃的吸收率都不同,
因為每個人消化系統效率是有差異的,
哪有你所謂的單一規格可以一併概論(USB2.0?)
4.
EE劑型與TG劑型(不是TC)
是製劑方式,你說沒有差別請問有沒有依據?
以鈣來說,今天碳酸鈣&檸檬酸鈣,給同一人用就是有吸收率差異你知道嗎?
那可以說它們沒意義嗎?
今天萬一你低血糖昏迷,你希望醫生是盡快在你靜脈注射葡萄糖還是
塞一根士立架巧克力在你嘴裡自己慢慢嚼?
照這樣說,CPU製程你也可以去推翻它,反正一般人的IQ不過就是90~110,
再怎麼好的CPU,人腦也不會跟著Update,買這麼貴又這麼新製程根本沒意義,
那你可以對Intel與AMD揭竿起義,順便對同物質不同大小的效用論抗議(比如奈米)。
5.
當初我發文的目的,就是不希望消費者被廠商高劑量的標語(文字遊戲)給混淆,
因為除了個體吸收率,製劑方式的因果關係通常廠商不會強調
6.
本人不是廠商(一般藥廠請不起我)
看您的發文紀錄多是抱怨為多,只能祝您生活一切順心愉快。
還有再與在的用法其實是不一樣的。
不過關於吸收率的爭議，以下有一篇文章和大家分享
來源：http://www.sciencebasedhealth.com/Webpage.aspx?WebpageId=119
（它有附上多篇參考文獻，但我不是醫學背景，所以沒有細看參考文獻）
大致意思翻譯如下（若有錯誤，請回文糾正）：
「不同的測試方法，會影響吸收率的結果」
「大劑量、且偵測短時間的吸收率，EE form的吸收效率是比較低的」
「長期服用的之下，TG 和 EE form的吸收率是相似的」
「服用一個月內，EE form的吸收效率較低，但當服用三個月後，EE 和TG form的生物利用度就沒有差別了」
「原因是，TG form藉由直接降解然後吸收，而EE form則需水解反應參與才能完成」
原文摘錄如下，建議大家點進網頁自己讀過
Is the TG form better absorbed than the EE form?
Results from comparative studies in general suggest that absorption of EPA and DHA from TG or from EE - and the biological outcomes over time – are similar when fish oil is routinely supplemented and a steady state has been achieved.
Results from human studies comparing absorption of omega-3 fatty acids from TG vs. EE have been somewhat conflicting: Several studies show no difference in absorption (5-8), while others suggest that absorption of ethyl esters may be lower (9-11). Differences in test materials, subjects, analyses and duration make comparisons difficult. In general, however, studies that found lower absorption rates for ethyl esters tended to be of short duration (8-12 hours) and provided omega-3 as a single large dose. In studies where omega-3 supplementation spanned several weeks or more, there were generally no significant differences in absorption.
One shorter-term study (12), reported that the bioavailability was higher for the TG form vs. the EE form. However, it should be noted that these conclusions were based on a relatively short-term (2 week) study at a fixed dose of approximately 3.5 g of EPA + DHA daily. In contrast, a longer term study published in 2016, found no significant difference in bioavailability with TG versus EE forms over a 3 month period (13). An important point to consider when looking at short term bioavailability is that the effectiveness of EE omega-3 on objective health parameters such as lowering elevated blood triglycerides begins about 1 month after starting supplementation, with maximum effectiveness observed at about 2-3 months (14). Thus, any short-term differences in absorption, metabolism, and overall bioavailability do not have a significant clinical impact, and most people taking fish oil supplements do so over the long term rather than for only a short period of time.
Why would there be a difference between short and longer term study findings regarding EE? The process of EE hydrolysis appears to be slower than the action of pancreatic lipase on TGs, which would explain the delayed rise in plasma or tissue levels seen in some human studies (15).
Omega-3s in the TG form are acted upon by pancreatic lipase enzyme in the gut, while the EE form is hydrolyzed (the fatty acid separated from its ethyl carrier) only when taken up by endothelial cells of the intestinal lining.
https://www.dayhealth.com.tw/blog/epa-dha-effect
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X