Notable comment in the post:<p>Bill Harris Sioux Falls, SD 56 minutes ago
As a long-time researcher in omega-3s, I've watched the fish oil rollercoaster since the mid 1980s. This most recent posting by O'Connor continues the trend. The best meta-analysis (grand summary of many studies) published to date was from Rizos et al. in JAMA 2012;308:1024-1033). They concluded that fish oil capsules offer “no benefit” for heart patients. Unfortunately, Rizos used a highly controversial statistical maneuver. In their actual data (Fig 2) there was a highly statistically significant reduction in cardiac death associated with fish oil use (p<0.01 for the stat-saavy). So fish oils DID reduce risk for cardiac death. Why the "no effect" conclusion? Rizos et al. decided to set the statistical bar higher than I’ve ever seen it in meta-analyses. They defined a significant p-value as <0.006, instead of the universally accepted p<0.05. This trick changed a positive finding into a negative one and generated a media storm of "fish oils don't work." More recent meta-analyses (Chowdhury et al. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:398-406) reported that higher dietary intakes AND higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids were both significantly linked to reduced risk for heart disease. The problems with the recent fish oil studies are legion, and include using a low dose for a short period of time in older, already-ill patients who are also being treated with up to 5 heart medicines. In this setting it’s nearly impossible to show a benefit. With 0 risk, I still recommend fish oil.
Short term, ranged, and non-clinical studies always remind me of the story of the "Shoe-fitting fluoroscopes" (1)<p>AKA - x-ray machines placed in shoe stores so you could stick your foot in, dial up the radiation, and see your wiggling toes in the shoe.<p>Invented in the 1920s. Debates raged for decades. Outlawed finally in most states in the 1970s.<p>So for 50 years people thought taking your kid to the shoe store and blasting their feet with radiation was a good idea.<p>Largely because they had limited data and ability to measure the outcome, as the data became available it became crystal clear that these had the potential to be dramatically harmful.<p>Even with this lesson in mind I took fish oil for years, despite a lack of clear data.<p>The study a couple of years ago that linked fish-oil (natural and supplemental) to a 41% increase in prostate cancer / 71% increase in aggressive prostate cancer, reminded me of the flouroscope story. (2)<p>This Harvard health article, a couple of years old, puts it best:<p>"How food, and its component molecules, affect the body is largely a mystery. That makes the use of supplements for anything other than treating a deficiency questionable." (3)<p>(1) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope</a><p>(2) <a href="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/09/jnci.djt174.abstract" rel="nofollow">http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/09/jnci...</a><p>(3) <a href="http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fish-oil-friend-or-foe-201307126467" rel="nofollow">http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fish-oil-friend-or-foe-20...</a>
An independent overview of the research: <a href="http://examine.com/supplements/Fish%20Oil" rel="nofollow">http://examine.com/supplements/Fish%20Oil</a>
What I'm really curious about is the research for fish oil and dry eyes. After I had lasik, I was told to take fish oil 4 times a day for a long time. My dry eyes seem to have gotten better, but I don't know whether that is due to the fish oil or from just a general recovery.
I take it because it might benefit my myelin sheath. That association is probably bunk, too.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin</a>
The title is a little misleading. Claims about fish oil and its potential decrease of cardiovascular events in high-risk populations is not supported by research. The article does not address other potentially beneficial effects, such as decreased inflammation.
interesting, not entirely surprising given how we love to jump to conclusions over these things, and the history of fish oil as a 'common knowledge' 'good thing'.<p>slightly disappointed that the headline was not fish oil is actually snake oil? or something suitably witty... :)