You really have to be careful when you analyze the results of some of these studies. There is an ever increasing trend of attempts by government and whatever "health watchdog" group exists in your country (FDA in the US) to discredit, outlaw, show harm from, etc. many useful and effective supplements. If you dig deep enough into many of the studies you find that they were designed from the get-go to make a particular substance look ineffective or dangerous.
The study you mention was done on people who already had serious issues and a history of disease and lifestyle problems. The FDA and others bad mouth non scientific, non professional, non sanctioned use of supplements and yet they resort to the same tactics to ban safe and effective supplements like Ephedra and to continue to try to ban vitamins, antioxidants, Q-10, protein: the list goes on. However, it's ok to sell a known and proven organ destroyer and kidney killer like Ibuprofen over the counter under license from the FDA of course. ($$$$ in their pocket)
Why the hell would the people who are supposed to be the watch dogs of your health and well being do this??
The all mighty buck (as usual)!!! They get no license fees, no kickbacks, no royalties from any of the supplement sales because they don't have any part of it. That's a bunch of $$$$$ slipping through their fingers that they can't touch. It amounts to billions of dollars a year in the US. The only way to stop it is to ban the supplements by making them illegal and outlawing their use. The way to do that is to make them look ineffective and/or dangerous.
Also, if you look far enough into some of these "studies" you find that either the "researchers" who did the study or the organization they work for are funded by the very people who are trying to outlaw these supplements. Big surprise that the research would show the supplements to be ineffective or dangerous, huh??
I have a father-in-law who lived 30 years after they told him he would die from inoperative prostate cancer. He did not use one single standard treatment: no chemo, no radiation, no surgery. He (red-meat and potato guy) switched to a macro-biotic diet and went to a natropath who started him on supplemnts. Instead of living 6 months he lived 30 more years. I have dog who has seizures. I found an herbal formula that I order from South Carolina, imported from China, just for this. The vet wanted to put him on barbituates (the usual treatment) but I wanted to try the herbs. In 3 years he has had no more seizures. I ran out of the herbs (my fault), he didn't have them for about 3 days and he had another seizure. Back on the herbs, no more seizures.
Ok, enough, but the point is that there are many, many herbal supplements that are safe and effective. Buy quality goods from quality companies. Find good, honest, independant sources of information and pay attention! Do your own homework. There are lots of straight up, honest, knowledgable people on this site who can give you the straight skinny or send you to someone who can. If you want more accurate info on fish oil and how great it is read the first part of the thread on Flameout. There is a bunch of info there all backed up with references to studies.
You rust out before you wear out.
If you had put down your Kevin Trudeau book long enough to actually read the article, you might have noticed that the research in question was performed overseas. Kinda casts doubt on the whole FDA conspiracy thing.
Well, at least your name is appropriate.
I did get a little off topic. Not enough coffee I guess. Dr Colgan is my source of info, Trudeau always was a putz.
Read the second sentence in my first paragraph. The FDA is just one of the problems. The fact that this took place in England is no surprise. Think the ripple effect will find its' way over the pond? Keep watching the news media. Think this is just half assesd reporting/researching or something else? Indirect support for discrediting another effective supplement?
Check out the first sentence in the second paragrah of my post. This was not a study of the effects of fish oil on a subject population. It was a review of 89 previous studies. It singled out people with chronic heart disease to draw general conclusions about fish oil. Here's the first headline I saw on the topic:
" Doubts cast on oily fish benefits
Omega-3 fats are contained in oily fish and some seeds
There is no evidence of a clear benefit to health from fats which are commonly found in oily fish, researchers say."
Do you think most people will read beyond that headline? If they do read past the headline will they read between the lines and wonder about the info that is NOT in the article? Will they do their own research? Nope.
There is plenty of evidence of a clear benefit to health from fats which are commonly found in oily fish and not just for the heart. Curing CHRONIC heart disease may not be one of those. Curing chronic ANYTHING is a crapshoot at best. Once it's chronic much of the damage is done and is permanent. Why would adding more lipids to the diet of people who have chronic heart disease possibly from screwed up blood lipid profiles be expected to help or cure the condition?
Way too many unknowns to draw a conclusion like that and then throw it out to the media.