Unreal. If we're not confused already about whether to take fish oil.
Studies come out one year and say one thing then several years later another.
It really makes me wonder how so many foods can be painted up in the news as great for you or bad for you such as the case with eggs and then a complete turn around. F___ these a__holes taking government grant money, etc... rarely producing anything that cures and playing back and forth on whether something is good for you.
Now salmon is bad for you more than once or twice a week? bah
I think the best policy is to just eat cold water oily fish, such as salmon, herring, mackerel and anchovies in moderation.
The benefits of Omega 3's So outweigh the alleged risks by such a long shot it doesn't matter.
Besides, the vast majority of men get prostate cancer anyway, some just don't die FROM it
and die from something else beforehand.
Take your friggin fish oils everyone.
I quit. I am going to eat twinkies and assume the fetal position. There are no studies which link twinkies to anything.
I shall live forever.
Almost half of the men studied had prostate cancer already.
"The study measured omega-3 blood levels in the participating men, and did not include information on the volunteers' eating habits, so researchers could not differentiate between the effects of fatty acids from fish from those of supplements. However, the overwhelming majority of the participants did not take fish oil supplements."
(See what I did there?)
Well, remember that the study was looking at blood levels and not simply fish oil intake. If anything, this is just another cautionary reminder that too much of a good thing ain't so good. Given that the difference between the highest and lowest quartiles was equivalent, so they say, to ~2 servings of salmon per week, the gray area between good and bad might end a little more abruptly than we think.
I'm curious as to what the relationship was across ALL quartiles, though.
Even if we dismissed the plethora of confounding variables that were not accounted for (read: too many to bother listing), is anyone surprised that the relationship between nutrition and health might be a little more nuanced than previously thought?
If anyone has a link to the study, or even just the name, toss it up plox. I'd very much enjoy a skim.
I have the study. Linked to my dropbox which should let you download it. Let me know if it does/doesn't work.
Apart from the Omega3 finding, this study found that increased Omega6 levels were associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer. And here I was thinking that O-6 were the bad kind. Will read the study properly and hopefully that will reveal something.
^ Awesome, man. Thanks.
The final sentence in the paper is interesting, as well:
"Both this study and a recent meta-analysis of clinical trials showing no effects of long-chain Ï?-3 PUFA supplementation on all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (48) suggest that general recommendations to increase long-chain Ï?-3 PUFA intake should consider its potential risks."
Dr. Mohr, who's been featured here at T-Nation in the past, breaks down this very iffy study:
Listen to audio:
...slams study linking fish oil to cancer
I take and like Udo’s Blend. I have been taking Omega-3 Flax seed oil. 1000mg twice a day.
In Udo’s book he states “Fish oils are currently very popular. Are they as good as their publicity claims”?
There are several problems with fish oils. First, the processing is destructive. If you squeeze a seed, oil drips out. If you squeeze a fish, you get a mess. Cleaning up that mess requires processing, and the processing damages oil molecules. Fish oils are five times more sensitive to light, oxygen, heat and destruction than are seed n-3?s. So you get damaged molecules in your fish oils.
The second problem is contamination. All fish oils contain persistent organic pollutants-PCB?s, dioxins and organochlorine pesticides. Some contain mercury. It?s impossible to remove it all.
This man knows EVERYTHING about fish oils and oils from seeds!!
You should read his book. It will change how you look at this subject.
A good response to the ‘study’ was posted on the Precision Nutrition pages:
I certainly don’t think it would hurt to take some OPCs from pine bark, grapes, etc (or C3G) when taking fish oil.
Perhaps upping one’s fish oil intake indeed does ‘up the demand’ on the body’s antioxidant systems, which fat soluble antioxidants (OPCs in grape seed are both fat and water soluble) could alleviate. This is just theorizing of course…
Never the less, this is pretty cool info - “Findings in the present study together with earlier findings suggest strong prostate cancer chemopreventive efficacy of Grape Seed Extract with scientific rationale and advocate for its potential clinical trial in human prostate cancer patients”, the researchers conclude.
They did use quite large doses, equating to several grams daily in humans, but (more research is needed to determine if) smaller doses long term could have the same effect.