Omega-3, no evidence of heart protective benefits.

JeromeBarry1

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/18/omega-3-no-protection-against-heart-attack-or-strokes-say-scientists


"The researchers embarked on their systematic review at the request of the World Health Organisation, which is updating its guidance on polyunsaturated fats. The belief that omega-3 supplements could protect against cardiovascular diseases came from a couple of positive results from trials in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Lee. “We’ve all believed it for quite a long while,” she said. “But none of the trials since have shown these results. We somehow haven’t adjusted to that data.”"

TheMrWobbly

Thanks for the post. It is about time we started looking at out of date beliefs in how our diet actually works. If you set out to prove something you more than likely will whether it is the truth or not and the traditional beliefs based around the 'proof' of the 80s and 90s need to be questioned.

AnnPT77

Research-wise, the jury's still out on potential for other benefits (such as possible neurologic benefits), as I understand it, and the article's saying that there was a small benefit from some Omega-3 rich foods (as contrasted with supplements).

I'm not stumping for Omega-3s, but just trying to bring a bit of the nuance directly into the thread.

I do think there's a bit of an emerging pattern, with substances that are beneficial in foods being found to be less beneficial in the form of common supplements that purport to be equivalent - vitamin A, for one example. But I'm an "eat foods, not supplements" bigot, so definitely biased .

Strongfitmama100412

Since our brains are mostly fat I take it for that. And give it to my kids for brain development along with dha.

Diatonic12

I'm not willing to throw those babies out with the bathwater. They help my skin and hair, my dog's too. I can see the difference in my dog's coat. I've heard all of the ballyhoo..that they're not worth two hoots. The demand for wild caught fish is greater than the supply. Most supplementation is probably woo and boo hiss but my dog's coat is in good shape. I'm keeping it IN.

janejellyroll

Mari22na wrote: »

I'm not willing to throw those babies out with the bathwater. They help my skin and hair, my dog's too. I can see the difference in my dog's coat. I've heard all of the ballyhoo..that they're not worth two hoots. The demand for wild caught fish is greater than the supply. Most supplementation is probably woo and boo hiss but my dog's coat is in good shape. I'm keeping it IN.

Was meant for a different post? The study was looking at cardiovascular benefits, not visual differences in human and canine skin and hair.

MikePfirrman

“Such supplements come with a significant cost,” he said, “so to anyone buying them in the hope that they reduce the risk of heart disease, I’d advise them to spend their money on vegetables instead.”

So, I can't eat lunchmeat, deep fried donuts, cheeseburgers, fries, soda and hot dogs all week long and pop an Omega 3 and be healthier? What a shock!!

They did say in that article that they believe they might be part of a healthier diet. I'll still take mine and continue working on lots of vegetables at the same time. I do think the vegetable part is more important.

mutantspicy

^Exactly I think these kinds of reports always fail to illustrate their own insignificance in name of grabbing headlines. We are talking about supplements, which in the grand scheme of things are insignificant. A Twinkie eating alcoholic isn't going to reduce his chance of heart attack by taking fish oil. My god everything you knew is wrong. That said quality fish oil is very expensive and there's a lot gullible people who think its going to cure all their problems. And again its just a supplement that's all. Fix your diet, supplement where its lacking. Shocking.

nvmomketo

I too think the key word is supplements. When looking at the possible health benefits of fatty fish, it may not be the omega-3 alone that might be healthful,nbut possibly a few things. Or, as the article said, it could be because the fish replaced some other food - it may just be better than some other options.

That being said, I still give my kids cod liver oil everyday. They are growing, developing and active so a bit of extra omega 3 won't hurt anything except my wallet. They won't eat fish, so I buy it. It's a bit of a gamble, I guess.

mutantspicy

nvmomketo wrote: »

I too think the key word is supplements. When looking at the possible health benefits of fatty fish, it may not be the omega-3 alone that might be healthful,nbut possibly a few things. Or, as the article said, it could be because the fish replaced some other food - it may just be better than some other options.

That being said, I still give my kids cod liver oil everyday. They are growing, developing and active so a bit of extra omega 3 won't hurt anything except my wallet. They won't eat fish, so I buy it. It's a bit of a gamble, I guess.

I think any time you are talking about growth and development such as in children that's where supplements can be more valuable. Such as bodybuilders who take supplements during the recovery/muscle rebuild process.

nvmomketo

Could be. But it's another one of those things that I don't think there is any scientific proof. Like most dietary/nutritional "facts", it usually comes down to "we think it's right".