47 replies to this topic

[kakker]

Thanks, guys. I don't take gamma E or tocotrienols, but I do take 50 mg CoQ10 (LEF). I have been taking 2 LEF Super Omega 3 per day (for a total of 2000 mg fish oil concentrate-- 700 mg EPA, 500 DHA). Maybe I will cut it back a little. I'd rather err on the side of caution too (as long as I notice no change in neuropathy symptoms).

[niner]

When you look into the literature on the pCa / fish oil relationship, it gets a lot murkier than this overhyped study would have you believe. I'm not stopping fish oil. I've long felt that high dose fish oil held a number of risks, mainly related to its very high degree of unsaturation. I took a gram of low-potency oil per day for a long time, but raised it to two grams last year when I found that I had high lp(a). I'm now getting the lp(a) under control with niacin and have had a heart scan with a perfect score. My family history of pCa is really awful, so considering all of this, I'm going to drop back to the 1g/day dose that I was on previously. I might also look into optimizing the fatty acid profile of the oil, since the three w-3 fatty acids have different magnitudes (not to mention sign) of risk. Such optimization may or may not be easy, or worth doing.

[nameless]

I've long felt that high dose fish oil held a number of risks, mainly related to its very high degree of unsaturation. I took a gram of low-potency oil per day for a long time, but raised it to two grams last year when I found that I had high lp(a).

One gram of fish oil, resulting in 300mg EPA/DHA?

If so, I wouldn't think even 2 daily would be that risky. Do you think the fact that it's not concentrated that it would matter at all?

Meaning, which would be better, 1 g of 30% oil. Or 500mg of 60% concentrate? I recall that there was a thread discussing something like this ages ago, but don't remember what conclusion people came to.

Edited by nameless, 13 July 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[kakker]

Thanks, niner. I have no family history of prostate cancer, so that's good. Do you also gamma E or tocotrienols? I no longer take much in the way of vitamin supps. I have cut my supplements back a lot in recent years. I have become more conservative. My background is in psychology. I usually have no trouble understanding the design and stats in these studies because I publish regularly myself, but I lack the background in nutrition and biochemistry to really make informed judgments about a lot of this stuff.

[niner]

According to this meta analysis, the "good" w-3 fatty acid is docosapentaenoic acid (DPA). DHA looks slightly good, and EPA looks slightly bad. Here are some sources of DPA: The winner is the oil of the Oogruk, a bearded seal. That's probably out... However, menhaden oil, which is what the vast majority of fish oil is, is number two, and beats salmon oil by a factor of 5 to 3. They contain equal amounts of EPA. I don't see an obvious way to do any better than I'm already doing, just taking a relatively low dose of conventional fish oil, which is very likely menhaden oil.

[nameless]

According to this meta analysis, the "good" w-3 fatty acid is docosapentaenoic acid (DPA). DHA looks slightly good, and EPA looks slightly bad. Here are some sources of DPA: The winner is the oil of the Oogruk, a bearded seal. That's probably out... However, menhaden oil, which is what the vast majority of fish oil is, is number two, and beats salmon oil by a factor of 5 to 3. They contain equal amounts of EPA. I don't see an obvious way to do any better than I'm already doing, just taking a relatively low dose of conventional fish oil, which is very likely menhaden oil.

Wasn't there some other study that stated DHA increased prostate cancer risk from like a year or two ago? I am not sure how accurate it was, however.

As for fish oils, I think a lot are sardines and anchovies. If you want specifically menhaden, swanson sells it. There was a thread from years ago about seal oil, I think Duke was taking it. I'd have a hard time eating up poor baby seals myself..

Edited by nameless, 13 July 2013 - 10:21 PM.

[kakker]

As for fish oils, I think a lot are sardines and anchovies. If you want specifically menhaden, swanson sells it. There was a thread from years ago about seal oil, I think Duke was taking it. I'd have a hard time eating up poor baby seals myself..

Thanks for mentioning the Swanson oil. I found it. You are right. It is a purely Menhaden Fish Oil (450 mg DHA, 85 mg DPA, and 45 mg EPA per 1 gram softgel). I am going to read the full 2013 meta-analysis today.

[niner]

Wasn't there some other study that stated DHA increased prostate cancer risk from like a year or two ago? I am not sure how accurate it was, however.

According to the meta analysis, there were four studies that found DHA increased prostate cancer risk, four that found DHA decreased risk, and two that found it had no effect. When you take these ten studies, and statistically scale them on the basis of the quality of the study, the net result is slightly favorable for DHA.

[kakker]

Wasn't there some other study that stated DHA increased prostate cancer risk from like a year or two ago? I am not sure how accurate it was, however.

According to the meta analysis, there were four studies that found DHA increased prostate cancer risk, four that found DHA decreased risk, and two that found it had no effect. When you take these ten studies, and statistically scale them on the basis of the quality of the study, the net result is slightly favorable for DHA.

I see what you are referring to (Table 2.1). This is for total prostate risk. However, all of the CIs in that table include a RR = 1 with the exception of DPA. No real worries from that table to me. What about the high-grade table though (i.e., Table 4)? Here, DHA has a RR point estimate of 1.462 with a CI that includes 1, but only by a slim margin. The (DHA+DPA+EPA) and (DHA+EPA) rows don't look so hot either.

[HeyItsMeLC]

LOL this is totally ridiculous!!! Relative safety of supplements is always a roller-coaster, one day they say its good for you and in a couple of years they say that it kills you. This is really the straw that broke the camel's back, I mean fish oil???

Perhaps all supplements are bad and Mega Companies are pushing them and trying to convince us that they are good for us. Maybe all we need is just a healthy, balanced diet.

Hmmmm, ok back to earth - maybe I went a little overboard with my conspiracy theory. So what would you guys recommend? As far as fish oil is concerned, I would still feel comfortable using 1-2 grams daily.

Edited by HeyItsMeLC, 15 July 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[Kevnzworld]

Here is Life Extensions take on the study. Naturally it's critical, but the points they make are important.
http://www.lef.org/f...-or-Fiction.htm

[HaloTeK]

How many times do we need to take about synergy here? No doubt if you are taking vitamin D, you need to think about vitamin K2, vitamin A and other things etc.

The Japanese eat a lot of fish, but at the same time get K2 in the form of natto and get a decent amount of sunlight. They also eat a lot of food with compounds that fight cancer.

I still think whole fish, small amounts of cod liver oils, and or small amounts of DHA oils are probably very safe and healthy.

[hamishm00]

An inverse association between preserved fish and prostate cancer: results
from a population-based case-control study in Canada.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/18444154

Consumption of fish products across the lifespan and prostate cancer risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/23613715

Pharmacodynamics of fish oil: protective effects against prostate cancer in
TRAMP mice fed with a high fat western diet.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/22471475

Prostate cancer risk and consumption of fish oils: a dietary
biomarker-based case-control study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/10584888

A 22-y prospective study of fish intake in relation to prostate cancer
incidence and mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/18996866

Fatty fish consumption and risk of prostate cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/11403817

Modulation of omega-3/omega-6 polyunsaturated ratios with dietary fish oils
in men with prostate cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/11489728

A prospective study of intake of fish and marine fatty acids and prostate
cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/12540506

Fish consumption and prostate cancer risk: a review and meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/20844069

Association of frequent consumption of fatty fish with prostate cancer risk
is modified by COX-2 polymorphism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/17066444

[ta5]

Here is another new animal study.



Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013 Jul 23. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2013.19.

Fish oil slows prostate cancer xenograft growth relative to other dietary fats and is associated with decreased mitochondrial and insulin pathway gene expression.

Lloyd JC, Masko EM, Wu C, Keenan MM, Pilla DM, Aronson WJ, Chi JT, Freedland SJ.
[1] Department of Surgery, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA [2] Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke Prostate Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

BACKGROUND:
Previous mouse studies suggest that decreasing dietary fat content can slow prostate cancer (PCa) growth. To our knowledge, no study has yet compared the effect of multiple different fats on PCa progression. We sought to systematically compare the effect of fish oil, olive oil, corn oil and animal fat on PCa progression.
METHODS:
A total of 96 male severe combined immunodeficient mice were injected with LAPC-4 human PCa cells. Two weeks following injection, mice were randomized to a Western diet based on fish oil, olive oil, corn oil or animal fat (35% kilocalories from fat). Animals were euthanized when tumor volumes reached 1000 mm3. Serum was collected at death and assayed for PSA, insulin, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-1-binding protein-3 and prostaglandin E-2 (PGE-2) levels. Tumors were also assayed for PGE-2 and cyclooxygenase-2 levels, and global gene expression was analyzed using Affymetrix microarrays.
RESULTS:
Mice weights and tumor volumes were equivalent across groups at randomization. Overall, fish oil consumption was associated with improved survival relative to other dietary groups (P=0.014). On gene expression analyses, the fish oil group had decreased signal in pathways related to mitochondrial physiology and insulin synthesis/secretion.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this xenograft model, we found that consuming a diet in which fish oil was the only fat source slowed tumor growth and improved survival compared with that in mice consuming diets composed of olive oil, corn oil or animal fat. Although prior studies showed that the amount of fat is important for PCa growth, this study suggests that the type of dietary fat consumed may also be important.
PMID: 23877027

[albedo]

This is of interest to me as one of my main concern is with PCa (higher genetic risk, BPH, went through TURP etc ...).

To the risk of being too rhetoric, I think again it is a matter of moderation. I will not stop a moderate supplementation but prefer to get my omega-3 from fresh fish. There is a risk with rancidity and oxidation and you need to increase other antioxidants intake. The study is probably over hyped and agree with Kenzword the rebuttal from LEF, while much expected, contains important points to be considered.

Another thought I had reading this thread and the comment from Nameless (on immune system suppression) is to look at ratios (e.g. AA/EPA, omega-3 percentage, omega-6/omega-3, AA/(EPA+DHA), ....) when you test for your FFA's. Dr Sears ("The Zone" and "Toxic Fats") who is also commercially promoting fish oil, asks to look at ratios: for AA/EPA, under 0.75 if you over consume, might get you in troubles with your immune system (see here). I do not how how much fish oil you need to consume to get to that point though. For the AA/EPA ratio he indicates: dangerously high 15, poor 10, good 3, ideal 1.5, too low < 0.75.

Dr. Holub is also cited often and mentions ratios (see here): ".. Strong inverse correlations between the summed total of omega-3 fatty acids in serum phospholipid and all four ratios (omega-6:omega-3 (n-6:n-3), AA:EPA, AA:DHA, and AA:(EPA+DHA)) were found with the most potent correlation being with the omega-6:omega-3 ratio (R2 = 0.96). The strongest inverse relation for the EPA+DHA levels in serum phospholipid was found with the omega-6: omega-3 ratio (R2 = 0.94) followed closely by the AA:(EPA+DHA) ratio at R2 = 0.88. It was estimated that 95% of the subjects would be in the 'lower risk' category for coronary heart disease (based on total omega-3 ≥ 7.2%) with omega-6:omega-3 ratios <4.5 and AA:(EPA+DHA) ratios <1.4. The corresponding ratio cut-offs for a 'lower risk' category for fatal ischemic heart disease (EPA+DHA ≥ 4.6%) were estimated at < 5.8 and < 2.1, respectively.."

EDIT. For what it matters, I have been running for quite a while with 500mg in average using the LEF formulation.

Edited by albedo, 25 July 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[albedo]

Re the impact on the immune system (age related) see also this:

"Dose-related effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on innate immune function in healthy humans: a comparison of young and older men1,2,3

... Older subjects incorporate EPA into plasma and MNC phospholipids more readily than do younger subjects. Other than prostaglandin E2 production, innate immune responses in young subjects are not affected by an EPA intake of < or =4.05 g/d. Older subjects are more sensitive to the immunologic effects of EPA, and the neutrophil respiratory burst is lower at higher EPA intakes..."

http://ajcn.nutritio...t/83/2/331.long

[BobSeitz]

I think, at least for me, the Life Extension Foundation review (link: http://www.lef.org/f...-or-Fiction.htm posted by Kevinzworld) makes clear what was happening in the Brasky paper .For openers, this was a prospective study of the effects of selenium and "vitamin E" on the likelihood of presenting with prostate cancer. I put "vitamin E" in quotes because the victims were being fed 400 IU a day of d-alpha-tocopherol in lieu of vitamin E. The world has known since the results of the Finnish smokers' study were published in 1994 (The Effect of Vitamin E and Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Lung ) that feeding subjects 400 IU a day increases the risk of lung cancer. Nature includes eight vitamers in the vitamin E complex. They wouldn't all be there if they weren't all needed. If I were related to one of the prostate cancer victims in this latest selenium/vitamin "E" study, I might be pondering suing the implementers of this Brasky, et al, study for knowingly putting my relative in harm's way.

Moving on to the results, as the Life Extension review points out, this study relied upon serum levels of the omage-3 fatty acids rather than red cell measurements. Serum levels of the omega-3 PUFAs are elevated only until the omega-3 oils can be delivered to the tissues where they'll be stored or used.. like blood sugar. The more-meaningful way to measure omega-3 levels is to assess their values in red blood cells. Beyond that, per the LEF rebuttal,
(1) a 5% difference in the serum levels of the three omega-3 oils they measured was associated with a 44% increase in overall prostate cancer and a 71% increase in advanced prostate cancer;
(2) the measured levels of the omega-3 oils were low to begin with... lower than they would have been if the prostate cancer patients had been eating much fatty fish or taking much in the way of omega-3 supplements, and
(3) this study also showed that smokers and junk food eaters have lower prostate cancer risks than non-smoking fish eaters.
With respect to other studies that have found increased prostate cancer risk with higher levels of "fish oil" intake, I think you have to be very careful about the details ("the devil is in the details") concerning the findings of fish oil studies (both "pro-fish oil" and "anti- fish oil") of the various omega-3 studies.
The Life Extension Foundation claims that they add sesame lignans to their "Super Omega-3" capsules because:
"Sesame lignans also function as a powerful antioxidant, and their addition to fish oil lowers undesirable lipid peroxidation rates. They also suppress the formation of free radicals from the DHA fraction of fish oil, which h s extremely high oxidative susceptibility." (Life Extension Annual Directory, 2013-2014, pg. 44). Are their claim valid or is that just advertising hype? As Dr. Seuss puts it, "Don't ask me! Go ask your Pop!"
The LIfe Extension discussion above underscores at least for me the idea that there may be dangers with ingested DHA.

[albedo]

Dr Myers (medical oncologist and PCa survivor) take on this:
https://askdrmyers.w...aggressive-pca/
(at the end of the video he said he was going for a sardine lunch celebrating the study ... ;-))