As I have been talking with JJG about health stuff and supplements and so on, this is again an important discussion to have.

@philipma1957 in general I think your choices make total sense and good to see you are not one of these people who wrongfully ban fats because they think it is the way to become thinner or healthier. Fats are particularly important for bodies and minds to function on a hormonal level. It should be good fats though!

But when you guys are talking about Tuna and mercury, I think the trade-off should never be to buy cheap meat instead because that is full of all kinds of medication. Or Salmon can be a problem too, when it comes from factory farming. There are some very scary reports and documentaries. These things look like aliens because they catch parasites and are pumped with the wildest medication, too. If it is wild Salmon, it is probably the best someone can consume in all regards.

And very high quality meat - almost regardless what kind - is probably not very affordable for a lot of people.

There are always trade-offs in nutrition and I think people should be aware of the consequences of overweight, for instance. There are fat people who say that don't dring zero sugar beverages because of Aspartame. But that is nonsene when you study any of the relevant research as overweight is by far one of the most dangerous conditions someone can be in. Then better have zero sugar beverages with Aspartame and tons of Tuna and you are very likely far better off than being overweight.

So I think being careful with problems like mercury is great and proves someone knows what's (sadly) going on in the sea. But at the same time it is important that the understanding in nutrition is holistic.

To give you an interesting example: the IARC categorizes all kinds of chemicals or nutrition or even activities in regards to causing cancer (see here). Aspartame was categorized 2B at an intake of about 42 cans daily for an 80kg human being. This means this dosage is "possibly carcinogenic to humans".

But guess what: working night shifts was classified 2A, meaning it is "probably carcinogenic to humans".  

I found this very interesting back then and started to study a lot of things around nutrition, including some papers on mercury in fish and so on. I just think it is very important for people to be able to put things into perspective. When they read the word "Aspartame", they go nuts as if this would lead to death in like no time. But as far as research can tell at this point in time, working night shifts is more dangerous. Ever heard somone cry out about night shifts the same way they cry out about Aspartame? Sure, some hate their night shift, but not because they know the studies that it causes cancer.

I think a general approach could be to make sure that you get more things right than you get wrong and optimize the ratio over time with education and conscious nutrition.

Hope it was ok to put this out here as it is not perfectly on topic, but felt like adding to your interesting discussion.