30 replies to this topic

[BioFreak]

I've been using fish oil regularly for years, maybe 6+ At the end my dosage was 1320mg EPA and 880mg DHA per day. In that time my brain function went down continuously. A few weeks ago, I ran out of my supply, and stopped taking it together with MSM.

 

After a few days, my brain function has improved a lot. While I do not know if it's the o3 or the MSM, it made me suspect o3 so I started researching.

 

 

There was not much to find in mainstream ( I did not check studies on pubmed) until I found this:

http://www.brianpesk...cies-Report.pdf

 

In short what this guy is saying is, by citing studies:

• EPA and DHA are found in a very low ratio to o6 fatty acids in the human body, and screwing with that ratio will change the ratio of those fatty acids in human tissue too, leading to adverse effects
• it reduces immune function, and may even increase the chance of cancer (at least in mice)
• it does not reduce inflammation in humans
• it does increase oxidation stress
• It does not improve LDL
• It does not stop or reverse arteriosclerosis, but increase it
• it fails to have any positive influence on mental decline / dementia in humans
• Increasing the ratio of o3 to o6 will change distribution in the body too and cause adverse effects
• .... (I may not have listed all points because I was just scrolling through many parts of this pdf.

 

Ratio of o6 to o3 PEO in human tissue:

Brain, nervous system: 100 : 1

Skin: 1000 : 1

Organs and other tissue: 4 : 1

Fat tissue: 22 : 1

Muscles 6,5 : 1

 

Why should we even begin to supplement with o3's if we don't have a high ratio of them in our bodies? Unless the ratio is extremely skewed in our nutrition. And I am beginning to doubt that what we thought we knew about a extreme ratio is actually extreme. Looking at the human o3:o6 distribution, that is.

 

Now I would like to open discussion on the subject. Who want's to look at the studies he is referring to?

 

Is medical science again failing to notice evidence, or are his studies / arguments wrong?

 

 

Edited by BioFreak, 13 June 2014 - 10:12 AM.

[Mr.No]

I agree with you. It seems that omega-3 are toxic and carcinogenic.

[Michael]

Consider the source (Brian Peskin).

[BioFreak]

Yea the quackwatch entry on him does not look that good. Still, I wonder whether his arguments are valid or not. I haven't got the time to go through the studies he cited yet...

 

Ah well I might start now...

 

O3 fatty acids: no effect on cardiovascular disease.

 

http://jama.jamanetw...ticleid=1357266

Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

 

Conclusion: Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association.

 

http://archinte.jama...ticleid=1151420

Efficacy of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplements (Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Docosahexaenoic Acid) in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

 

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23656645

n-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.

 

double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. 12000 participants.

 

CONCLUSIONS: In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n-3 fatty acids did not reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

 

Metaanalysis by two independent teams negative, and a double-blind placebo-controlled study with 12k participants also negative... Pretty much a definitive o3 does jack for CVD.

[BioFreak]

O3 Fatty acids increase prostate cancer risk

 

http://jnci.oxfordjo...djt174.abstract

Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial

 

Conclusions: This study confirms previous reports of increased prostate cancer risk among men with high blood concentrations of LCω-3PUFA. The consistency of these findings suggests that these fatty acids are involved in prostate tumorigenesis. Recommendations to increase LCω-3PUFA intake should consider its potential risks.

 

There seem to be two studies that came to the same conclusion, one by the same team, and one from europe:

http://www.fhcrc.org...ate-cancer.html

(too lazy to search for them, maybe someone wants to jump in)

[Duchykins]

Just a personal anecdote, but I think I got worse with fish oil too, several different brands and different EPA/DHA ratios. I kept thinking it was something else or just bad fish oil. Cod liver oil was slightly better. I once tried krill oil and it was horrendous, I threw it out after 3-4 days, may have been the astaxanthin. I ran out of fish oil almost a month ago and was just too lazy to get more, then just for lolz sake, and the fiber, I picked up a flax and hemp blend I saw at the store. Noticeable change for me in just a few days, and I was just thinking it was bullshit the whole time. I think it's the omega 9 and the longer omega 6 chain that made the difference. I eat a little more cod and salmon now so no big deal forgoing the fish oil.

Edited by Duchykins, 14 June 2014 - 09:13 PM.

[Babychris]

It always felt VERY toxic on my system

[Logic]

DHA-Accelerated Aging Hypothesis
http://www.longecity...ing-hypothesis/

[forever freedom]

Now this. It's just stunning how little we actually know about which substances are decidedly beneficial and which are not.

Edited by forever freedom, 15 June 2014 - 10:11 PM.

[Duchykins]

Strongly agree with that, freedom.

[Aurel]

So things like:

 

"- 50% of the weight of a neurons plasma membrane is composed of DHA

- DHA modulates the carrier-mediated transport of choline, glycine, and taurine etc.

- DHA deficiency is associated with cognitive decline"

 

 

 

and all the other good stuff (http://en.wikipedia....ahexaenoic_acid) is wrong?

[pamojja]

http://jama.jamanetw...ticleid=1357266

Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

 

Conclusion: Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association.

 

..the mean omega-3 dose was 1.51 g per day

 

...Disclosures: .. Dr Elisaf reported having given talks, attended conferences, and participated in trials sponsored by industry not associated with those that manufacture or market omega-3 supplements.

 

http://archinte.jama...ticleid=1151420

Efficacy of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplements (Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Docosahexaenoic Acid) in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

 

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.

 

... the daily dose of EPA or DHA ranged from 0.4 to 4.8 g/d (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.2] g/d), and the follow-up period ranged from 1.0 to 4.7 years (mean [SD], 2.0 [1.2] years).

 

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23656645

n-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.

 

double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. 12000 participants.

 

CONCLUSIONS: In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n-3 fatty acids did not reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

 

Metaanalysis by two independent teams negative, and a double-blind placebo-controlled study with 12k participants also negative... Pretty much a definitive o3 does jack for CVD.

 

... Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil).

 

Disclosure: None

 

 

These are n-3 doses usually recommended for prevention, for CAD patients the dose would at least be double of these 3 meta-analysis's mean. As they say: designed to fail.

[Michael]

So things like:
 

"- 50% of the weight of a neurons plasma membrane is composed of DHA[/size]

- DHA modulates the carrier-mediated transport of choline, glycine, and taurine etc.
- DHA deficiency is associated with cognitive decline"

and all the other good stuff (http://en.wikipedia....ahexaenoic_acid) is wrong?

 
No: it just means that (respectively) (a) there's a big difference between observing a structure-function relationship and imputing a health benefit, and (b) there's a big difference between avoiding deficiency and engaging in the absurd megadosing that is widely endorsed amongst health-conscious people under the distorting influence of the supplement industry.
 

 

http://jama.jamanetw...ticleid=1357266
Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
 
Conclusion: Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association.

 
..the mean omega-3 dose was 1.51 g per day
 

http://archinte.jama...ticleid=1151420
Efficacy of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplements (Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Docosahexaenoic Acid) in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease
A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials
 
Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.

 
... the daily dose of EPA or DHA ranged from 0.4 to 4.8 g/d (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.2] g/d), and the follow-up period ranged from 1.0 to 4.7 years (mean [SD], 2.0 [1.2] years).
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23656645
n-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.
 
Metaanalysis by two independent teams negative, and a double-blind placebo-controlled study with 12k participants also negative... Pretty much a definitive o3 does jack for CVD.

 
... Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil).
 
Disclosure: None
 
These are n-3 doses usually recommended for prevention, for CAD patients the dose would at least be double of these 3 meta-analysis's mean. As they say: designed to fail.

 

I think you must mean "usually recommended for prevention" by the supplement industry. There's never been any good evidence for basically healthy people who have not yet had a cardiovascular event to consume more than 300-400 mg EPA and DHA combined.

Edited by Michael, 16 June 2014 - 03:08 PM.

[Aurel]

Could you sum your finding up Michael? You would suggest a daily dosage of 300-400mg?

[Gerrans]

So long as one gets it from food, I do not see how it could be bad for you. I question the point of supplementing it, though. I think we need very little of it, and that the body has provision to make what little it needs from plant oils. I cannot see why we would need large amounts of an essential substance that we cannot make in the body from scratch.

 

Whether supplements are bad for you in excess or not is impossible to say, except by personal experience. Studies are drastically contradictory. I do think it was yet another masterstroke by the food industry to market fish waste as a miracle health ingredient.

Edited by Gerrans, 16 June 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[pamojja]

 

... Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil).
 
Disclosure: None
 
These are n-3 doses usually recommended for prevention, for CAD patients the dose would at least be double of these 3 meta-analysis's mean. As they say: designed to fail.

 

I think you must mean "usually recommended for prevention" by the supplement industry. There's never been any good evidence for basically healthy people who have not yet had a cardiovascular event to consume more than 300-400 mg EPA and DHA combined.

 

No, I actually heard it first by some exceptional cardiologists, like Dr. William Davis. Who, for example, found out in his clinical practice that after 2-3 years of 6 g/d EPA/DHA intake Lp(a) drops to zero in about 60% of his patients with high numbers. He recommends about 3 g/d for CAD patients without high Lp(a). None of the above studies are about basically healthy people!

And the lack of high dose studies couldn't prevent CAD patients to gather faith in the clinical experience of those cardiologist with promising consistent experiences, and test it for themself.

[Logic]

Thx for your input Michael.  Its always good to have input from those educated and working in the field of Longevity.
 
To summarise: As with everything: The Devil's in the dosage!
Do you have a preferred ratio for the '300-400 mg EPA and DHA combined' you recommend?

[Michael]

Could you sum your finding up Michael? You would suggest a daily dosage of 300-400mg?

 

If you're not on CR, yes -- and less, if you consume a lot of ALA.

 

So long as one gets it from food, I do not see how it could be bad for you.

 

Lots of things in food are bad for you .

 

 

 

... Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil).
 
Disclosure: None
 
These are n-3 doses usually recommended for prevention, for CAD patients the dose would at least be double of these 3 meta-analysis's mean. As they say: designed to fail.

 

I think you must mean "usually recommended for prevention" by the supplement industry. There's never been any good evidence for basically healthy people who have not yet had a cardiovascular event to consume more than 300-400 mg EPA and DHA combined.

 

No, I actually heard it first by some exceptional cardiologists, like Dr. William Davis. Who, for example, found out in his clinical practice that after 2-3 years of 6 g/d EPA/DHA intake Lp(a) drops to zero in about 60% of his patients with high numbers. He recommends about 3 g/d for CAD patients without high Lp(a). None of the above studies are about basically healthy people!

And the lack of high dose studies couldn't prevent CAD patients to gather faith in the clinical experience of those cardiologist with promising consistent experiences, and test it for themself.

 

Ah -- you mean the guy who sells these fish oil supplements . I'm not sure what criteria you're using to characterize him as an 'exceptional cardiologist,' beyond his self-reported clinical anecdotes; certainly, I'd be reluctant to take any nutritional advice from the author of Wheat Belly, and IAC if that's his advice it's not based on evidence.

 

My cursory look at the published science suggests no consistent results from fish oil supplementation on Lp(a), and of those, the most positive-sounding report is a case series (not a clinical trial) and in a severe genetic lipid metabolic disorder, not "basically healthy people" (or even the normal person with high cholesterol for the usual dietary and sedentary lifestyle reasons).

 

Even if high-dose fish oil causes a big drop in Lp(a) amongst people who have high values despite these inconsistent findings, (a) that isn't a good basis for endorsing it for the rest of the population, and (b) moving a number on a chart isn't itself evidence of a long-term health benefit. Can you or he point to any RCTs in high-Lp(a) subjects showing lower rates of MI, stroke, or CVD mortality after megadose fish oil supplementation?

[pamojja]

Well, though living in a central European country I feel like living in the province. Cardiologists here have little to offer than aspirin and statin, and in my case was told whatever else lifestyle-wise I would do, I still would have to reckon with a 30% chance of dying within 5 years. My objection against both these pharmacological agents prescribed for life - with a number needed to tread of around 50 to lower the higher mortality in 1 patient only - was always med with accusations of being a therapy-refuser at best, or recommended psychiatric treatment for the personality disorder I would exhibit by my refusal, at worst. Never mind that both agents wouldn't improve anything about my debilitating claudication with a short pain-free walking distance of only 3-400 meters from my PAD.

 

In such a dire situation with our medical establishment it doesn't takes that much to make a exceptional physician. All what is needed for a physician is getting such conditions them self, meet the limitations and thereby starting to think out of the pharmacological box, and experimenting on them self, from hinds in literature or wherever available. And as he goes along learns by doing and applying what he learns in his clinical practice. Now all what was needed to make this physician exceptional for me in my province was making himself available and sharing his experience freely at the original TrackYourPlaque forum which, since he got involved into writing bestselling books to spread the word, really suffered.

 

Yeah, for all the serious medical reasons we gather at TrackYourPlaque we are so sick we should since long be death by now, ..with all the kind of genetic deficits we carry to have ended up with CVD. But here we're still thriving.

 

Whether the lowering of Lp(a) with fish oil will reduce mortality isn't certain, as you point out. But where do you see it endorsed to the rest of the population? Again you misunderstand me, I not talking about 'basically healthy people', but diseased like me. Where the n-1 experience of wheat elimination from one's diet could turn out good enough to happily do without the evidence of RCTs.

[Dolph]

Yes, I also would suggest psychiatric treatment... 

 

Really, it's impossible to even discuss with a person who is either intellectually unable or simply unwilling to look at the facts and the clinical evidence! If you decide not to take a statin and/or aspirin that's up to you as it's up to you to face the consequences of that "decision". But please don't come here and babble how you supposedly know better what the evidence is! It's literally sickening. And emberassing.

[timar]

*sigh*

 

Am I the only one sick and tired of the constant déjà vu experience in this forum?

 

I wouldn't mind if the déjà vu would concern some substantial subject matter, but it is always the BS fabricated by unqualified braggarts like Brian Peskin or Ray Peat that gets reiterated again and again. Is it really so hard to see that fish oil* is neither a panacea nor a toxin and that neither the snake fish-oil salesman nor the professional scaremongers are reliable sources of information?

 

Moreover, statins are very powerful drugs and possible benefits of fish oil, particularly in secondary prevention, are easily masked by them. This is probably why trials with fish oil or alpha-linolenic acid looked much more promising in the pre-statin era (i.e. the Lyon diet heart study). Hence the recent dissapointing meta-analysis of CAD prevention trials. That doesn't refute the vast and diverse body of evidence for the health promoting effect of an sufficient (not excessive) intake of (long chain) omega 3 fatty acids and the fact that except for those regularly eating fatty fish and carefully watching their omega-6/3 ratio from plant oils, most poeple could probably benefit from a fish oil supplement*.

 

* taken in a sane dose, which is anywhere between 200 and 2000 mg EPA + DHA, according to individual needs. The lower end for healthy people who regularly eat fish, the upper end for people with CAD risk factors and struggling with high triglycerides or suffering from borderline disorder.

Edited by timar, 18 June 2014 - 09:36 AM.

[Dolph]

*sigh*

 

Am I the only one sick and tired of the constant déjà vu experience in this forum?

 

I wouldn't mind if the déjà vu would concern some substantial subject matter, but it is always the BS fabricated by unqualified braggarts like Brian Peskin or Ray Peat that gets reiterated again and again. Is it really so hard to see that fish oil* is neither a panacea nor a toxin and that neither the snake fish-oil salesman nor the professional scaremongers are reliable sources of information?

 

Moreover, statins are very powerful drugs and possible benefits of fish oil, particularly in secondary prevention, are easily masked by them. This is probably why trials with fish oil or alpha-linolenic acid looked much more promising in the pre-statin era (i.e. the Lyon diet heart study). Hence the recent dissapointing meta-analysis of CAD prevention trials. That doesn't refute the vast and diverse body of evidence for the health promoting effect of an sufficient (not excessive) intake of (long chain) omega 3 fatty acids and the fact that except for those regularly eating fatty fish and carefully watching their omega-6/3 ratio from plant oils, most poeple could probably benefit from a fish oil supplement*.

 

* taken in a sane dose, which is anywhere between 200 and 2000 mg EPA + DHA, according to individual needs. The lower end for healthy people who regularly eat fish, the upper end for people with CAD risk factors and struggling with high triglycerides or suffering from borderline disorder.

 

Amen, couldn't agree more. 

 

Sorry for full quote, but as this post should be a sticky in a sane world, it can't hurt to quote it...

Edited by Dolph, 18 June 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[APBT]

I'll toss this into the fray THE IMPORTANCE OF OMEGA-3 By Rhonda Perciavalle  Patrick, Ph.D.       

 

Edited by APBT, 19 June 2014 - 03:34 AM.

[ironfistx]

FIsh oil made me sleepy and made my joints hurt.  When I stopped taking it I felt better.  I made a thread about it:

 

http://www.longecity...ake-you-sleepy/

[pamojja]

There's never been any good evidence for basically healthy people who have not yet had a cardiovascular event to consume more than 300-400 mg EPA and DHA combined.

 

* taken in a sane dose, which is anywhere between 200 and 2000 mg EPA + DHA, according to individual needs. The lower end for healthy people who regularly eat fish, the upper end for people with CAD risk factors and struggling with high triglycerides or suffering from borderline disorder.

 
In perspective to other recommendations gathered at LPI:
 

International Recommendations
 
The European Commission recommends an omega-6 fatty acid intake of 4-8% of energy and an omega-3 fatty acid intake of 2 g/day of ALA and 200 mg/day of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) (236). The World Health Organization recommends an omega-6 fatty acid intake of 5-8% of energy and an omega-3 fatty acid intake of 1-2% of energy (147). However, the Japan Society for Lipid Nutrition has recommended that LA intake be reduced to 3-4% of energy in Japanese people whose omega-3 fatty acid intakes average 2.6 g/day, including about 1 g/day of EPA + DHA (237).
 
American Heart Association Recommendations
 
The American Heart Association recommends that people without documented CHD eat a variety of fish (preferably oily) at least twice weekly, in addition to consuming oils and foods rich in ALA (143). Pregnant women and children should avoid fish that typically have higher levels of methylmercury (see Contaminants in Fish). People with documented CHD are advised to consume approximately 1 g/day of EPA + DHA preferably from oily fish, or to consider EPA + DHA supplements in consultation with a physician. Patients who need to lower serum triglycerides may take 2-4 g/day of EPA + DHA supplements under a physician’s care (143).

 

 

Yes, I also would suggest psychiatric treatment... 
 
Really, it's impossible to even discuss with a person who is either intellectually unable or simply unwilling to look at the facts and the clinical evidence! If you decide not to take a statin and/or aspirin that's up to you as it's up to you to face the consequences of that "decision". But please don't come here and babble how you supposedly know better what the evidence is! It's literally sickening. And emberassing.

 

 

Oh boy,  and your response - nothing than a personal attack - is less embarrassing?!

 

 BusWeek-NNT-Table.gif   85.81KB   2 downloads

 

 

Or this: More Heat for Aspirin in New Primary-Prevention Meta-Analysis: "Creativity" Needed to Determine Who Will Benefit
 

 

Particularly interesting, says Berger, is the analysis by Das et al comparing number needed to treat to prevent one CV event (1667) with number needed to harm--causing an extracranial bleed--3333.

 

I  have to evaluate the benefits compared to the risks in my particular situation, because it's only me who will have to take whatever consequences my choice will bring - live or die with it. And therefore would never bully anyone to make that choice whichever way. Only one reason for you to do and become offensive without any facts but pretense. ..just like my cardiologists.

 

In my case I've improved my lab markers in many respects further with lifestyle-changes and supplementation than could be expected from statins alone, and even 1 baby aspirin already causes bloody stool.

 

[Nemo888]

Fish oil made me feel sick as well. There was probably a point in our evolutionary history where we almost went extinct and started to become aquatic mammals. Our need for iodine, downward pointing nostrils, streamlined hair, blood and eye salinity and some people are still born with webbed feet and toes.

Anyway, point being if we need iodine we should probably eat some fish and seafood weekly.

[pamojja]

.. like Dr. William Davis. Who, for example, found out in his clinical practice that after 2-3 years of 6 g/d EPA/DHA intake Lp(a) drops to zero in about 60% of his patients with high numbers. He recommends about 3 g/d for CAD patients without high Lp(a). None of the above studies are about basically healthy people!..

 

My cursory look at the published science suggests no consistent results from fish oil supplementation on Lp(a), and of those, the most positive-sounding report is a case series (not a clinical trial) and in a severe genetic lipid metabolic disorder, not "basically healthy people" (or even the normal person with high cholesterol for the usual dietary and sedentary lifestyle reasons).

 

Even if high-dose fish oil causes a big drop in Lp(a) amongst people who have high values despite these inconsistent findings, (a) that isn't a good basis for endorsing it for the rest of the population, and (b) moving a number on a chart isn't itself evidence of a long-term health benefit. Can you or he point to any RCTs in high-Lp(a) subjects showing lower rates of MI, stroke, or CVD mortality after megadose fish oil supplementation?

 

By the way, it's the 'The Lugalawa Study' from where he got the hint about which dose might be effective before starting to experiment with:

 

 

Abstract

Abstract—Plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are largely genetically determined by sequences linked to the gene encoding apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)], the distinct protein component of Lp(a). Apo(a) is highly polymorphic in length due to variation in the numbers of a sequence encoding the apo(a) kringle 4 domain, and plasma levels of Lp(a) are inversely correlated with apo(a) size. In 2 racially homogeneous Bantu populations from Tanzania differing in their dietary habits, we found that median plasma levels of Lp(a) were 48% lower in those living on a fish diet than in those living on a vegetarian diet. Considering the relationship between apo(a) size and Lp(a) plasma concentration, we have extensively evaluated apo(a) isoform distribution in the 2 populations to determine the impact of apo(a) size in the determination of Lp(a) values. The majority of individuals (82% of the fishermen and 80% of the vegetarians) had 2 expressed apo(a) alleles. Additionally, the fishermen had a high frequency of large apo(a) isoforms, whereas a higher frequency of small isoforms was found in the vegetarians. When subjects from the 2 groups were matched for apo(a) phenotype, the median Lp(a) value was 40% lower in Bantus on the fish diet than in those on the vegetarian diet. A significant inverse relationship was also found between plasma n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and Lp(a) levels (r=−0.24, P=0.01). The results of this study are consistent with the concept that a diet rich in n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and not genetic differences, is responsible for the lower plasma levels of Lp(a) in the fish-eating Bantus and strongly suggest that a sustained fish-based diet is able to lower plasma levels of Lp(a).

[gt35r]

You will often find studies that argue one way or another for something. It is important to understand the body of evidence. Just like within a study you can have data points that are outliers, within sets of studies you will have outliers.

 

Right now it seems fish oil, at a reasonable dose, is likely to reduce chances of certain disease.

 

 

 

Just don't expect any miracles from fish oil; just know that it is likely to help reduce chances of CVA, Heart disease, and maybe some types of cancers. 

[Strelok]

I haven't noticed anything negative from fish oil or isolated DHA.  I started taking it because my knees were starting to bug me a little on hikes.  After a few weeks of fish oil, my knee discomfort went away. I continue to take fishoil and DHA as part of the Happy stack...

[Bubbles]

I'm just going to try to try something with at least one of you. So it has come to our knowledge to judge, that omega 3 supplements, aside from the task of choosing the right brand, is doing a lot of good stuff from which nearly 30% are suspicious of doing the opposite (BAD news that means). 

 

So if you are a normal Billy Bob dude who simply scrolls on this thread down and down and down and getting more confused, wouldn't it be the best to take them on a rare basis? Like for 1-2 months a year, then compensate the rest by trying food sources like the fish itself or at least the chia, flax seeds (hope I got them right).. ? Well? Or maybe 2 times a year, could that still be a big risk for a supposed prostate cancer? In other words, to not abuse it as much.. I'm lost too.

 

One should verify his omega 3-6-9 ratio in his body with a real test, on a constant periodically basis.