NYT Blog re: Fish Oil Supplements

Cortelli

I take half a "serving / dose" of a popular fish oil supplement daily. Interesting item in NYT. Particularly the factoid that many of the studies focused on folks already with cardiovascular risk factors, compared to those without. I will be interested to see the results of the 5-year study on general populations referred to in the blog post.

Any reactions from folks who have looked at a fair bit of primary studies on fish oil supplements?

Excerpt:

Fish oil is now the third most widely used dietary supplement in the United States, after vitamins and minerals, according to a recent report from the National Institutes of Health. At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly, most believing that the omega-3 fatty acids in the supplements will protect their cardiovascular health.

But there is one big problem: The vast majority of clinical trials involving fish oil have found no evidence that it lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke.

[. . . snip . . .]

But some experts say the case for fish oil remains open. Dr. JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the large clinical trials of fish oil focused only on people who already had heart disease or were at very high risk. Fish oil has also been promoted for the prevention of a variety of other conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer’s and depression.

Dr. Manson is leading a five-year clinical trial, called the Vital study, of 26,000 people who are more representative of the general population. Set to be completed next year, it will determine whether fish oil and vitamin D, separately or combined, have any effect on the long-term prevention of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and other diseases in people who do not have many strong risk factors.

And the link: Fish Oil Supplements Not Supported by Research

Thoughts?

EDIT: fixed link

neanderthin

Cortelli wrote: »

I take half a "serving / dose" of a popular fish oil supplement daily. Interesting item in NYT. Particularly the factoid that many of the studies focused on folks already with cardiovascular risk factors, compared to those without. I will be interested to see the results of the 5-year study on general populations referred to in the blog post.

Any reactions from folks who have looked at a fair bit of primary studies on fish oil supplements?

Excerpt:

Fish oil is now the third most widely used dietary supplement in the United States, after vitamins and minerals, according to a recent report from the National Institutes of Health. At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly, most believing that the omega-3 fatty acids in the supplements will protect their cardiovascular health.

But there is one big problem: The vast majority of clinical trials involving fish oil have found no evidence that it lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke.

[. . . snip . . .]

But some experts say the case for fish oil remains open. Dr. JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the large clinical trials of fish oil focused only on people who already had heart disease or were at very high risk. Fish oil has also been promoted for the prevention of a variety of other conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer’s and depression.

Dr. Manson is leading a five-year clinical trial, called the Vital study, of 26,000 people who are more representative of the general population. Set to be completed next year, it will determine whether fish oil and vitamin D, separately or combined, have any effect on the long-term prevention of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and other diseases in people who do not have many strong risk factors.

And the link: Fish Oil Supplements Not Supported by Research

Thoughts?

EDIT: fixed link

This I believe will be forever debated with existing parameters because any long term study is never, ever going to show a specific efficacy.....basically crap in, crap out. EPA and DHA have been studies to death and have benefits, that's not debated, what is debated is how do you decide in a population if it makes any difference when the controls don't really exist and it's just data retrieval, open to interpretation (epidemiology) IMO

HeySwoleSister

While I agree that there is more of a benefit to incorporating fatty fish in your diet than to taking a supplement (as with most things, you get a broader profile of nutrients from food rather than breaking it down to isolated micros), there seem to be a lot of variables and assumptions in the article.

I take fish oils for non-cardiovascular health priorities. Not sure that this study will convince me of anything one way or the other. ~shrugs~