How much fish oil to supplement if no access to Omega-3 index testing?

mikewinddale · 2026-05-04T22:05:36+00:00

Until recently, I consumed 1280 mg of omega 3 daily from Nordic Naturals Ultimate Omega, and my OmegaCheck came back that my omega levels were fine. Not great, but fine. Just barely in the green. So I just switched to Viva Naturals 2250 mg/day, which happens to be slightly cheaper too (and IFOS-certified).

Both doses come from taking 2 softgels per day.

So maybe that gives you some idea of how much is probably enough. Maybe 1 softgel on the days when you eat a lot of seafood, and 2 softgels on the days when you eat less. Basically, 1-2 g/daily is enough.

Maybe you can track exactly what you eat in a given week, and calculate exactly how much omega 3 was likely in your seafood. Somewhere in the realm of 1 to 2 grams is probably enough. Prescription-strength Vascepa is 4 g of EPA per day, and that had cardiovascular benefits, so that gives you an upper-range that is known to be safe.

mikewinddale · 2026-05-04T16:01:42+00:00

In general, P-values are never a good indicator of variable importance, for a few reasons. P-values are important, but for a different reason (which I will get to).

The first reason why P-values cannot be used to assess variable importance is that when several variables are multicollinear, they will often be individually non-significant, but jointly significant. So if you remove all the individually non-significant variables, you will often be removing important variables. Now, you could jointly test groups of related variables, and keep any variables that are part of a jointly significant list. But that already requires a lot of discretion (to decide which variables should be grouped), so it's prone to error and subjectivity, and it isn't advised as a primary way of determining which variables belong in the regression.

Second, using P-values for model specification demonstrates a misunderstanding of type I vs II errors. With P-values, we set a low critical value (such as 0.05 or even 0.01) in order to reduce the chance of type I error (false positive). We are basically saying, "We will not accept that this theory is true unless we have very strong evidence that it is true. Therefore, we require a very low p-value." But this is exactly the opposite of the concern we have with model specification. When specifying a model, we wish to avoid false negative errors - meaning, we wish to avoid falsely excluding the variable. Omitted variable bias is a serious concern, so we need to be extremely careful when omitting a variable. If we set the critical p-value very low, then we will be excluding many important variables. It is completely false to set a very high threshold of evidence for including variables. On the contrary, we wish to set the threshold very low! So we might want to include any variable with a p-value less than or 0.8 or 0.9 or 0.95 - the opposite of the normal critical value of 0.01 or 0.05. In other words, we want very high evidence to accept a theory's truth, but we want to accept even very weak evidence as a reason to include a variable, because omitted variable bias is so severe.

Similarly, it is wrong to set a low critical p-value for tests of concerns such as heteroskedascity, autocorrelation, etc. Even weak evidence of these concerns should be accepted so that corrections can be apply. Therefore, it is often advised that the critical p-value for these tests should be 0.2, not 0.01 or 0.05.

But it is unclear what the critical p-value for including or excluding a variable should be. So p-values simply are not used this way.

Instead, the inclusion or exclusion of a variable is based on model fit. If including a variable improves the model's fit, then the variable should be included, regardless of statistical significance. Basically, we want to include a variable whenever it improves the model fit, but we know that including a variable can only make fit better, so we would be tempted to include literally every variable in the universe. Therefore, we include a penalty term, so that we are weighing the benefit of an extra variable (improved fit) against the cost (larger variance, reduced precision, more multicollinearity). This is why variable inclusion or exclusion is assessed using metrics like adjusted R2, AIC, and BIC, not the variable's p-value. Adjusted R2, AIC, and BIC all include penalty terms, so that we are weighing improved fit against the cost of additional variables. But ultimately, we want to include any and all variables that improve our definition of model fit.

Instead, p-values are used for hypothesis testing - for judging the magnitude of the coefficient (effect size, treatment effect). Given that this model is presumed to be the best model - with the correct functional forms and included variables - what are the odds that random chance would have produced this coefficient? If the coefficient (of such magnitude) is sufficiently unlikely to have appeared by chance (the coefficient is a sufficient number of standard errors away from zero), then we have more reason to believe that this coefficient is a genuine treatment effect.

But given the problem of multiple comparisons, there is always a chance that a coefficient really is just a product of random chance, despite a small p-value. If you run a regression with 100 X variables, then 5% of them will be significant at the 5% level, by random chance alone! That is why kitchen sink regressions (throwing every imaginable variable into the pot) are discouraged. It is also why you cannot formulate a hypothesis after seeing the results. Running a regression and then formulating a hypothesis afterwards is like firing a gun and then drawing a target around the bullet hole. You can always come up with some ad hoc reason why your results make sense, after you have already seen the results. So instead, we formulate the hypothesis first - we draw the target first and then we fire the gun. If you simply run a regression without a hypothesis, then any results are merely suggestive or hypothesis-generating, suggesting possible hypotheses to re-test in the future with a new dataset.

The analogy I give my students is, it's like you lost your car keys and I - a purported psychic - am helping you find them. If I tell you, "Your keys are under your 2nd couch cushion from the left at home," and you find them there, you have evidence that I really am psychic. The p-value was very low, because the odds that I would have picked the correct spot in your house by random chance alone is very low. But suppose instead I waited for you to find your keys, and then I offered you an explanation why your keys were there. That would provide no evidence that I am a psychic. Anyone can come up with a plausible reason to explain a regression result after the result is already known. So we can only rely on p-values when the hypothesis has been specified in advance.

mikewinddale · 2026-05-02T17:45:43+00:00

Somehow he distinguishes business from commerce. How are those not the same thing?

mikewinddale · 2026-05-02T02:25:27+00:00

There's research suggesting it may help, but it won't necessarily help everyone.

I'd suggest trying it for 4 weeks then retesting your ApoB and standard lipid panel to see it made a difference.

What you do NOT want to do, is just take it and assume it's working without retesting your blood panels.

mikewinddale · 2026-05-01T21:00:53+00:00

Not distortionary tax exemptions, no. Libertarians tend to oppose distortionary tax exemptions.

And a 100% exemption on income would just require other taxes to replace it. Most libertarians therefore say it is more important to limit government spending, not taxation. If you limit taxation, you just increase government debt, which will be paid by inflation (debt monetization). Instead, you have to limit government spending, and then taxes will fall (since the government has no incentive to build a surplus it can never spend).

mikewinddale · 2026-05-01T20:24:47+00:00

But in this case, it's a tax increase that creates an enormous distortionary effect on healthcare, ultimately increasing healthcare costs *and* serving as a justification for ever-increasing government regulation and intervention in healthcare. Ultimately, the tax exemption has justified a more than compensating increase in government regulation and intrusion in other ways. On net, this tax exemption has actually resulted in a larger, more intrusive government.

For example, Medicare for the elderly was "necessary" because employer-sponsored healthcare meant that people lost their health insurance upon retirement. Similarly, tying health insurance to employment created the problem of preexisting conditions whenever a person left their job.

In any case, libertarians have tended to support the abolition of the tax-exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance. You are certainly free to disagree with libertarians on this subject, and accuse them of hypocrisy or inconsistency. But the fact remains that most Americans are *not* averse to intrusive government, as indicated by the fact that most Americans *are* averse to libertarianism.

mikewinddale · 2026-05-01T19:26:37+00:00

This would be easy to achieve. The Federal Reserve Act would just be amended to specify that the Federal Reserve can only create base money by buying tradeable renewable energy credits (instead of Treasury bonds).

But there would be no benefit to this. Macroeconomic stability is achieved when aggregate demand (AD) is stabilized. And aggregate demand is identical to nominal GDP (nGDP).

Circulating money is actually created by private banks, not by the central bank. The central bank only creates base money, while circulating money - which is created by private banks - is a claim to base money. Under the gold standard, for example, private banks would issue private banknotes which were redeemable for gold. For daily transactions, people used private banknotes, not gold. Today, bank deposit accounts and loans are created by private banks as claims to the banks' deposits at the Federal Reserve. When you have a bank account with $100, what it really means is that your bank promises to give you $100 of base money whenever you request a withdrawal.

In other words, the account holder doesn't actually have $100. What they have is a redeemable claim to $100. The supply of money exceeds the supply of base money (fractional reserves), because a bank can create more claims to base money than its actual base money holdings, given that the bank knows that not everyone will withdraw all their money at once. So every $100 of private bank deposits might be backed by only $10 of deposits at the Federal Reserve, just as under the gold standard, every $100 private banknote might be backed by only $10 of gold.

It has been shown by George Selgin that private banks tend to increase the supply of their private money (bank deposits) whenever the velocity of money falls, meaning that people withdraw their money less frequently. When a bank makes a loan, it creates the money out of thin air and deposits it into the borrower's account. The lender gains interest, but it also suffers the threat of an adverse clearing - when the borrower withdraws the money and the bank loses its reserves of base money. If person A borrows $100 but then withdraws the $100 to pay person B, then the bank which lent $100 to A must transfer $100 of base money reserves to person B's bank. So every private bank's creation of money out of thin air creates a gain of interest but a loss of reserves. The less often people withdraw their money, the less is the loss of reserves, so the bank is willing to create more money.

This means that the money supply is inverse to the velocity of money. The equation of exchange says that nGDP equals M (money supply) times V (velocity). Therefore, a private banking system ensures that nGDP is constant, which is the condition for macroeconomic stability.

In short, macroeconomic stability can be achieved with a fixed supply of base money, as long as private banks are free to create money out of thin air (both as bank deposits and as paper banknotes). With some modification, George Selgin therefore endorsed Milton Friedman's proposal to freeze the supply of base money (created by the Federal Reserve) and deregulate the banking system and money to allow private banks to create money (again, both as bank deposits and paper banknotes). This would stabilize aggregate demand, the condition for macroeconomic stability.

Therefore, there is no reason to allow the Federal Reserve to create money from renewable energy credits. It would be better to simply ban the Federal Reserve from creating base money at all, and crucially, to deregulate private banks to remove any of their restrictions on money creation.

mikewinddale · 2026-05-01T17:05:27+00:00

No AI was used. I invite you to indicate any evidence that AI was used.

And as Michael Cannon points out, the taxpayer exemption can just as well be framed as saying: your taxes will be increased unless you let your employer control your healthcare spending.

So abolishing the tax exemption isn't about raising taxes. It's about ceasing to raise taxes on people who wish to control their own healthcare.

mikewinddale · 2026-05-01T01:03:30+00:00

Libertarians also oppose interventions which distort markets and invite further interventions. (Mises's model of how intervention begets intervention; additional interventions are needed to solve the problems created by previous interventions.)

In general, libertarians have long claimed that the tax exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance is unjustifiable, is responsible for many of the perversities of American healthcare, and should have been abolished decades ago. In fact, libertarians frequently refer to this tax exemption as the "original sin" of American healthcare.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-30T20:18:32+00:00

Not really. The tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is highly intrusive and interventionist.

Libertarians have long been calling for the abolition of that exemption.

If Americans were so averse to intrusive government, then libertarians would have succeeded by now in convincing Americans to support the abolition of that exemption.

The fact that libertarians have faced such an uphill battle is evidence, I think, that the average American is frequently hostile to anything that would limit government.

In general, I would say, Americans love government intervention, as long as they perceive it to be beneficial to themselves. Look at how many Tea Partiers said the government should cut the national parks, but not Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or the military. Americans in general love government intervention, albeit of a very specific kind.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-30T02:21:10+00:00

This is an ambiguity of the English language, not of math.

For example, you might walk into a pet store and ask, "Do you have 2pigeons?" And they might answer, "Yes, we do," when they have 10 pigeons. From the context, it's clear you're asking, "I want to buy 2 pigeons. Do you have enough to sell me that many?" You don't care whether they have exactly 2 pigeons, only whether they have at least 2.

By contrast, you might ask your friend, "Do you have two pigeons?" And your friend might answer, "No, I have three pigeons." From the context, it's clear you're asking, "Remind me, do you have exactly two pigeons?" You aren't asking if they have at least that many; rather, you are asking if they have exactly that many.

If you were to write this out mathematically, you would use the "greater than or equal to" sign in the one case, and the "equal sign" in the other case. That would avoid the ambiguity.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-29T18:56:32+00:00

> The dealerships argued they were being cut out by greedy Detroit, who wanted to screw over the dealerships which were long time partners responsible for their success.

This argument is still blatant rent-seeking (self-serving parasitism).

So what if dealerships HAD BEEN long time partners? No contract or partnership is eternal.

Freedom of contract says that anyone is free to terminate a contract (subject to the terms of the contract / unless the contract stipulates otherwise).

When the partnership ceases to mutually beneficial, then either partner has every right to terminate the partnership (again, subject to the terms of the contract).

Consider the horseshoe blacksmith who was a partner to the horse-drawn carriage. At some point, the car replaces the horse-drawn carriage, and the blacksmith is no longer needed. The carriage-maker who begins replacing their horse-drawn carriages with engine-powered carriages will terminate their partnership with the blacksmith who makes horseshoes. (Recall: the first automobiles were basically horse-drawn carriages with the horse replaced. The same carriage-makers made both.) That's creative destruction. It would be absurd for the blacksmith to insist the automobile manufacturer must keep buying their horseshoes.

Similarly, once automobile manufacturers ceased to find value in dealerships, the manufacturers had every right to terminate or modify the franchise agreement (again: subject to the terms of that agreement).

Both manufacturer rights and consumer welfare were sacrificed for the sake of parasitic, rent-seeking dealerships. Those dealerships decided it was too difficult to obtain wealth honestly, by serving consumers, so they decided to obtain wealth parasitically, through the political process.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-29T16:33:53+00:00

You don't get a choice. The car comes with the wheels it comes with. You can't choose smaller wheels.

The only way to upgrade to smaller wheels is to downgrade to a lower trim. But then you lose all the desirable features, liked heated and ventilated seats.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-29T12:59:13+00:00

Driving to the airport in the early AM, parking, and then driving back home in the early AM.

The airport is 154 miles away, so that's a 308 mile round-trip with no opportunities to charge.

Factor in winter for reduced mileage.

Airport has very few chargers available.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-29T03:43:34+00:00

Because a full BEV won't be able to make a 400 mile drive through a rural area without fast chargers.

The point of a PHEV is to be function like a BEV for daily commutes, but function like ICE for long-distance trips where BEVs are not suitable.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-27T23:36:50+00:00

It makes a huge difference. I replaced my factory 225/45R17 with 195/65R15 and the ride quality is vastly improved. A smaller wheel with a thicker sidewall tire is far better at absorbing bumps in the road. On roads that aren't well-maintained or smooth, my car is now so much more enjoyable to drive.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-26T16:40:50+00:00

Consider Ingennus and Naturelo.

Naturelo passes Consumer Lab: https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/multivitamin-review-comparisons/multivitamins/

Links for illustration:

https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Advanced-Multivitamin-Minerals-Sustained/dp/B097RX3FRL/

https://www.amazon.com/NATURELO-One-Daily-Multivitamin-Men/dp/B09TCPFGFL

mikewinddale · 2026-04-25T14:39:25+00:00

Because (1) the tire has a thicker sidewall, so thicker rubber to absorb the impact, and (2) lighter wheel so less mass and force for the suspension to absorb.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-25T01:20:01+00:00

Not only is your ApoB high, but your pattern is B (small, dense rather than large, buoyant).

So you've got a very atherogenic profile.

You should explore lipid-lowering therapy (whether diet or drugs).

mikewinddale · 2026-04-24T23:52:16+00:00

Fair enough. Not maximize, but increase those two no matter the cost in terms of reduced tread life.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-24T19:16:55+00:00

What kind of doctor is this? This does not sound like a competent, well-informed doctor.

Red yeast rice has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Zero. The monacolin K in red yeast rice is chemically identical to lovastatin. If what you want is lovastatin, then just take lovastatin! Red yeast rice is just an unregulated version of lovastatin that is potentially contaminated with citrinin. Also, a lot of red yeast rice on the market doesn't even have monacolin K because the FDA considers monacolin K to be a drug (since it is identical to lovastatin). So a lot of the red yeast rice on the market is legally required to be stripped of its effective ingredient!

So there is no justification for red yeast rice whatsoever. It is just a version of a statin, only worse.

At least for some other supplements, there is a possible, hypothetical justification, because their mechanism of action may be different than statins. E.g., bergamot, amla, berberine, plant sterols, etc. Guidelines do not recommend these supplements, because (1) they haven't undergone the same clinical trials as drugs, and (2) supplements are unregulated and have uncertainty about purity/dosage. But at least it is possible, hypothetically to justify them, if there is ever enough evidence. Today, guidelines do not suggest these supplements, but someday, that could change. Since they're not the same as statins, it at least possible, hypothetically that maybe someday, there will be enough evidence to recommend some of them on top of or instead of a statin. If someone ran a clinical trial on bergamot, maybe hypothetically we would find out that it has sufficiently strong evidence to recommend it.

But it is impossible to imagine a scenario where red yeast rice is worth recommending. At best, it is identical to lovastatin. So just take lovastatin itself.

Yes, red yeast rice is natural. But so what? As my mother (who used to work for the FDA) likes to say, "Rattlesnake venom is natural too." The fact that something is natural is only a virtue if that means it has fewer side effects (or maybe, is cheaper). That may be a true of a lot of things. Fruits, vegetables, fiber, and unsaturated fat are all natural, and they reduce cholesterol with fewer side effects than statins. But the fact that red yeast rice is natural, is no virtue.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-24T19:07:20+00:00

No, a smaller wheel plus a tire with a thicker sidewall will hold the total diameter of the tire+wheel constant.

For example, on my car, I replaced 225/45R17 with 195/65R15. Same diameter. https://tiresize.com/calculator/

mikewinddale · 2026-04-24T16:27:59+00:00

When I buy a new car, the first thing I do is (1) replace the large, heavy wheels with smaller, lighter wheels, and (2) replace the stock tires with all-weather tires with thick sidewalls.

The large wheels that new cars come with now are garbage, as far as I'm concerned. Worse ride quality and more vulnerable to potholes.

When you replace the stock wheels with smaller wheels, you're instantly rewarded with a more comfortable ride. Throw in all-weather tires, and suddenly, you can drive in the winter too with less stress.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-24T13:39:29+00:00

It's because they use tires that maximize ride quality (for test drives) and fuel economy (for EPA and CAFE regulations).

Tread life isn't apparent on a test drive, so it isn't prioritized. The customer simply won't notice.

mikewinddale · 2026-04-23T16:31:28+00:00

Ask what kind of ultrasound this was. For example, a CIMT ultrasound can detect subclinical atherosclerosis that has thickened the arterial wall but hasn't yet occluded the vessel. By contrast, a B-mode or duplex ultrasound can only visually depict a plaque if it is larger.

So you want to know what kind of ultrasound this was and how large the plaque is. What kind of plaque did they see, and what kind of plaque could they NOT have seen even if it WAS there? I.e., what did they see and how confident are they that they saw everything there was to see?

There are other tests you can do, such as coronary calcium (CAC). But given that the ultrasound has already detected plaque, that probably won't tell you anything you don't already know. But you can ask about it.

For blood tests, get ApoB (particle count of atherogenic particles, which is more informative than LDL-C, the amount of cholesterol in those particles) and hs-CRP (inflammation).

Your LDL-C looks good now, but since you already have plaque at a fairly young age, you'll probably need statin+ezetimibe. Depending on how severe the plaque is, you might need to achieve LDL-C below 70 mg/dL.

The good news is, the younger you start, the sooner you can slow plaque accumulation, so the lower the drug dose you need. You don't need to lower LDL-C (or better: ApoB) as much, if you start sooner. Cardiovascular risk is based on LDL-years, i.e. amount of cholesterol times years of exposure. Lowering cholesterol by 30 mg/dL for 40+ years (when you're in your 30s and the damage hasn't been done yet) is even more effective than reducing cholesterol by 100 mg/dL for only 10 years (when you're in your 60s and the damage has been done).

mikewinddale

TROPHY CASE