dangers of vitamin supplements

[dlorde]

I take
Omega 3Vitamin C
Vitamin D-3
Vitamin E
Selenium
Lycopene
Beta Carotene
Resveratrol
Potassium Gluconate
Amino Acids
Apple Cider Vinegar

One wonders if the benefits of omega 3 supplementation outweigh the potential increase in cancer risk.

 

[icerat]

One wonders if the benefits of omega 3 supplementation outweigh the potential increase in cancer risk.

Dlorde, a question for you to ponder - did they investigate omega 3 supplementation in that study?

 

[dlorde]

Dlorde, a question for you to ponder - did they investigate omega 3 supplementation in that study?

Not explicitly - a few were on omega 3 supplements, most were eating oily fish, so the jury's out on the levels of supplementation that might pose a risk.

The paper's senior author said: "Overall, the beneficial effects of eating fish to prevent heart disease outweigh any harm related to prostate cancer risk", but he also said, "we've shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful".

These uncertainties are why I wonder if the benefits of omega 3 supplementation (say 1000 to 200mg per diem) outweigh the potential increase in cancer risk...

What do you reckon?

 

[icerat]

Not explicitly - a few were on omega 3 supplements, most were eating oily fish, so the jury's out on the levels of supplementation that might pose a risk.

Why isn't the jury out on the level of fish consumption that might pose a risk?

The paper's senior author said: "Overall, the beneficial effects of eating fish to prevent heart disease outweigh any harm related to prostate cancer risk", but he also said, "we've shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful".

How? The study was on Vitamin E and Selenium supplements. They didn't study fish oil supplements at all.

These uncertainties are why I wonder if the benefits of omega 3 supplementation (say 1000 to 200mg per diem) outweigh the potential increase in cancer risk...

What do you reckon?

I reckon if the exact same study had found a protective effect, supplement skeptics would rip the conclusion to shreds.

The fact the senior author made the comment you quote is quite concerning. One could just as easily (and probably falsely) conclude that prostate cancer sufferers should increase supplementation since they're apparently poor at utilising it.

Which isn't to say the study isn't contributing to our body of knowledge of an extremely complex field, but the conclusion the media (and, apparently, the lead author) are claiming is a considerable leap from the actual study.

Again, the study included no investigation of fish oil supplements. A cohort of prostate cancer suffers had higher blood serum levels of some omega-3 FA (not ALA btw). That's it. It's an interesting data point, but at this stage that's about all it is.

 

[icerat]

Incidentally, the same author had another paper that found the following -

Any use of grapeseed supplements was associated with a 41% (HR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) reduced risk of total prostate cancer.

But the advice was -

Grapeseed may be a potential chemopreventive agent; however, as current evidence is limited, it should not yet be promoted for prevention of prostate cancer.

So a direct study of a grape seed supplementation found it might be beneficial, but it shouldn't be recommended because more research is needed.

On the other hand a study that didn't even look at fish oil supplements is evidence that fish oil supplements shouldn't be used.

Is it any wonder nutrition research drives me nuts?

 

[dlorde]

Why isn't the jury out on the level of fish consumption that might pose a risk?

Maybe it should be...

How? The study was on Vitamin E and Selenium supplements. They didn't study fish oil supplements at all.

I believe the concern is that the omega 3 correlation was consistent with that found in the 2011 study.

I reckon if the exact same study had found a protective effect, supplement skeptics would rip the conclusion to shreds.

Probably.

 

[icerat]

I believe the concern is that the omega 3 correlation was consistent with that found in the 2011 study.

Which also didn't study fish oil supplements.

What the researchers (the same head researcher) have done in both studies is to re-analyse blood samples from studies that were not concerned with EFAs and look for correlations, which they found between high levels of blood serum DHA and some grades of prostate cancer.

The grape seed study I sighted, also with the same author, actually did look at omega-3 supplementation and found no increased (or decreased) risk. In an associated paper they found omega 3 supplementation linked to a decreased risk of breast cancer.

Again though, when their study found supplementation helped, their advice was not to supplement until there was further research.

Here's a hypothesis that is more consistent with the data -

The high DHA cohort may have had higher levels of fish consumption
Higher levels of fish consumption has been linked to higher levels of exposure to heavy metals such as cadmium
Cadmium exposure has been linked to cancer, including prostate cancer.

Thus eating fish may be the issue, not omega-3 supplements.

 

[tuxcat]

If you take colloidal silver you turn into an overgrown Smurf.

 

[dlorde]

Here's a hypothesis that is more consistent with the data -

The high DHA cohort may have had higher levels of fish consumption
Higher levels of fish consumption has been linked to higher levels of exposure to heavy metals such as cadmium
Cadmium exposure has been linked to cancer, including prostate cancer.

Thus eating fish may be the issue, not omega-3 supplements.

Thanks for that; interesting and plausible. It might be informative to separate the oily fish eater data from the omega 3 supplement consumers (assuming they supplemented in lieu of oily fish) to see if there was significant difference in cancer incidence. New study required.

I'm also curious about the quality of the popular supplements out there (e.g. do you get better quality for a higher price, etc.)...

 

[icerat]

Thanks for that; interesting and plausible. It might be informative to separate the oily fish eater data from the omega 3 supplement consumers (assuming they supplemented in lieu of oily fish) to see if there was significant difference in cancer incidence. New study required.

I'm also curious about the quality of the popular supplements out there (e.g. do you get better quality for a higher price, etc.)...

There's known issues with contaminants and labelling, differences in the ratios of EFAs and also differences in structure, ie ethyl ester vs "natural" triglyceride. The latter tends to be more expensive as it involved further processing steps post-cleansing. The research is a bit over the place on the differences, but triglyceride form is probably better. Whether it's worth the price difference is another question.

 

[Kaylee]

Thanks for that; interesting and plausible. It might be informative to separate the oily fish eater data from the omega 3 supplement consumers (assuming they supplemented in lieu of oily fish) to see if there was significant difference in cancer incidence. New study required.

I'm also curious about the quality of the popular supplements out there (e.g. do you get better quality for a higher price, etc.)...

There's known issues with contaminants and labelling, differences in the ratios of EFAs and also differences in structure, ie ethyl ester vs "natural" triglyceride. The latter tends to be more expensive as it involved further processing steps post-cleansing. The research is a bit over the place on the differences, but triglyceride form is probably better. Whether it's worth the price difference is another question.

Thanks for the links icerat. The styrofoam cup test in the 2nd link looked particularly interesting and easy enough to do. Next time I happen to have a styrofoam cup I'll try it.

The 2nd link also had this statement:

The term “pharmaceutical quality” is typically associated with fish oils that are highly refined; however, the use of this term is not regulated and can be freely used by any branded fish oil product.

The brand that I have claims that it is "molecularly distilled" and I'm wondering if that term is also not regulated and can be freely used by any manufacturer also. Anyone happen to know? Or any suggestions on how to find out? So far a quick google check revealed nothing.

 

[dlorde]

Thanks for the links icerat.

I'll second that.

The styrofoam cup test in the 2nd link looked particularly interesting and easy enough to do. Next time I happen to have a styrofoam cup I'll try it.

You could also do it with styrofoam packing material, just trim to approximate cup thickness.

 

[Kaylee]

I'll second that.


You could also do it with styrofoam packing material, just trim to approximate cup thickness.

Good idea! So I'll use whatever I happen to come across first. The article said to use 20 ml of the oil for the test. I estimate that is about 4 teaspoons which is probably at least the contents of a dozen gel capsules if not more. (They are very large capsules.) I'm not happy about "wasting" so many pills to satisfy my curiosity, but I probably will anyway.

 

[icerat]

Just be aware that the article promoting TG as better than EE is from a company that sells TG omega-3.

To offer balance, here's an article from a company that sells EE omega-3 telling you why EE is better than TG.

Both are nicely cited, scientific and seem independent

To confuse it even more, the krill oil guys will tell you phospolipid form is the way to go!

ETA: The 3 most recent independent studies I can find all seem to support TG form over EE form.

Dyerberg J, Madsen P, Møller JM, et al. Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2010 Sep;83(3):137-41.

Neubronner J, Schuchardt JP, Kressel G, et al. Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in response to long-term n-3 fatty acid supplementation from triacylglycerides versus ethyl esters. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov 10.

Martin D, Nieto-Fuentes J, Señoráns F, et al. Intestinal digestion of fish oils and ω-3 concentrates under in vitro conditions. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology.
2011 11 (12), 1315–1322.

 

[Kaylee]

Just be aware that the article promoting TG as better than EE is from a company that sells TG omega-3.

To offer balance, here's an article from a company that sells EE omega-3 telling you why EE is better than TG.

Both are nicely cited, scientific and seem independent

To confuse it even more, the krill oil guys will tell you phospolipid form is the way to go!

Funny how that works.

ETA: The 3 most recent independent studies I can find all seem to support TG form over EE form.

Dyerberg J, Madsen P, Møller JM, et al. Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2010 Sep;83(3):137-41.

Neubronner J, Schuchardt JP, Kressel G, et al. Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in response to long-term n-3 fatty acid supplementation from triacylglycerides versus ethyl esters. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov 10.

Martin D, Nieto-Fuentes J, Señoráns F, et al. Intestinal digestion of fish oils and ω-3 concentrates under in vitro conditions. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology.
2011 11 (12), 1315–1322.

I did some more googling about the term "molecularly distilled" and came across this article:

http://chriskresser.com/the-definitive-fish-oil-buyers-guide

Seems to be worth a read and it included this info:

When it comes to fish oils, there are three forms currently available on the market:
* Natural triglyercide oil. This is what you get when you “squeeze” the whole fish and extract the natural oil from it. It is the closest to eating fish oil in its natural form, and is highly bioavailable. The drawback of this form is that, because it’s not concentrated, it usually has low levels of EPA and DHA. And because it isn’t purified, it can have high levels of contaminants such as heavy metals, PCBs, and dioxins.

* Ethyl ester oil. Occurs when natural triglyceride oil is concentrated and molecularly distilled to remove impurities. The ester form is still in a semi-natural state because it is the result of a process that naturally occurs in the body. The advantage to this form is that it can double or triple the levels of EPA and DHA.

* Synthetic triglyceride oil. This form occurs when natural triglycerides are converted to ethyl esters for concentration (as above), but then re-converted into synthetic triglycerides. The original position of the triglyceride’s carbon bonds change and the molecule’s overall structure is altered, which impacts the bioavailability of the oil.

Studies on absorption of the various types of fish oil suggest that, unsurprisingly, the natural triglyceride form is absorbed better than the ethyl ester form, which in turn is absorbed better than the synthetic triglyceride form.

My omega 3 pills are a store brand and claims to be molecularly distilled. That being the case, according to the nutritionist linked above it is probably ethyl ester oils.

I think I would prefer to have the less biologically available version if it meant that the impurities were removed. That tradeoff seems worthwhile to me. And while its less biologically available, the molecularly distilled ones appear to usually be available in higher doses per capsule, also according to the above article.

 

[tuxcat]

Wouldn't it be healthier and easier just to eat a balanced diet?

 

[icerat]

Seems to be worth a read and it included this info:

He is incorrect here. "synthetic" TG form is what the studies are on, and it's absorbed better than EE form, not worse.

My omega 3 pills are a store brand and claims to be molecularly distilled. That being the case, according to the nutritionist linked above it is probably ethyl ester oils.

Molecular distillation is the cleaning process. It turns it in to EE. Re-esterified triglyceride or TaG is (usually) molecularly distilled to EE then turned back to triglyceride form.

I think I would prefer to have the less biologically available version if it meant that the impurities were removed.

yup

That tradeoff seems worthwhile to me. And while its less biologically available, the molecularly distilled ones appear to usually be available in higher doses per capsule, also according to the above article.

Yes, and the synthetic TG form is the best option. I researched this a few years ago and decided the science wasn't clear enough to justify the extra cost of the purified, cleaned, TG form. After the last couple of days I've changed my mind and decided it now is.

Wouldn't it be healthier and easier just to eat a balanced diet?

People don't even find that "easy" for the "simpler" nutrients like vitamin C - what makes you think it's easy for EFAs?

In any case some of the most recent advice is not to eat too much fish due to contaminants.

 

[catsmate]

If you take colloidal silver you turn into an overgrown Smurf.

More grey than blue.

Wouldn't it be healthier and easier just to eat a balanced diet?

Yes. And probably cheaper too.


BTW 'molecular distillation' is another term for vacuum distillation when done using a very high vacuum, <10mtorr.

 

[jdc324]

Wouldn't it be healthier and easier just to eat a balanced diet?

Probably. It might even be more economical.

If I bought fish oil pills online, buying in bulk to get the cheapest deal I can, I'm looking at getting something in the region of 50-100mg of omega 3 fatty acids per penny (this assumes I've got £30 to spare in order to buy fish oil pills in bulk in the first place - not everyone does). If I bought a can of sardines or mackerel, it'd be more like 30mg of omega 3 per penny. However...

If I buy fish oil pills for the omega 3 instead of getting my omega 3 fatty acids from food, I still need to buy food. Maybe I'm buying ham or beef or whatever instead of fish to get my protein. I'm not buying the fish oil pills instead of food, I'm buying them as well as food. With the fish, I get decent amounts of calcium, iron, protein (20 grams) and plenty of vitamin B12 (not to mention small amounts of vitamin A, potassium, vitamin B6 and magnesium). I don't get those with the fish oil pills. Instead of spending 59p on a tin of sardines, I need to spend 61p on a pack of cooked ham. And still buy the pills on top of that. Waste of money, if you ask me. What a scam! What kind of idiot would buy pills when the key ingredient can be found at high levels in perfectly good food already?

Going back to the 'healthier and easier' part - if I'm buying pills for my omega 3 fats instead of getting them from fish then for those meals where I might have chosen fish I am in fact eating meat. In my pack of ham, I'm getting 300mg of omega 6 fatty acids. If instead of doing this every day, I have sardines a couple of times a week then as well as getting omega 3 from my sardines, I'm getting less omega 6 from eating meat. There might be other benefits to sardines too - maybe they're lower in saturated fat than most meats, maybe they contain higher levels of other nutrients that aren't typically listed on nutrient profiles (phospholipids, perhaps?).

It seems to me that trying to design an optimum diet would be rather difficult (so many factors to take into account, and you'd have to weight them all by importance) and that eating a balanced, varied diet would be a good way to hedge your bets. It also seems to me that if I avoid eating fish and buy pills I might actually be paying good money to be less healthy than I would be if I ate a balanced, varied diet including a portion or two of oily fish a week. Again - what a scam!

Still, I've bought the damn pills now. I might as well take them.

 

[Kaylee]

He is incorrect here. "synthetic" TG form is what the studies are on, and it's absorbed better than EE form, not worse.



Molecular distillation is the cleaning process. It turns it in to EE. Re-esterified triglyceride or TaG is (usually) molecularly distilled to EE then turned back to triglyceride form.



yup



Yes, and the synthetic TG form is the best option. I researched this a few years ago and decided the science wasn't clear enough to justify the extra cost of the purified, cleaned, TG form. After the last couple of days I've changed my mind and decided it now is.


<snip>.

Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes I read too quickly or gasp, don't always read all of the links , and I missed that.

BTW, while doing some more googling I saw this interesting abstract at pubmed:

The absorption of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) from fish oil triacylglycerols and fish oil ethyl esters consumed in a high-fat meal (44 g total fat) by male volunteers was measured and compared to values previously reported for consumption in a low-fat meal (8 g total fat). Absorption of EPA, but not of DHA, from fish oil triacylglycerols was significantly improved from 69% to 90% by co-ingestion with the high-fat meal. Absorption of both EPA and DHA from fish oil ethyl esters was increased three-fold, to about 60%, by co-ingestion with the high-fat meal, indicating that absorption of fatty acid ethyl esters is highly dependent on the amount of co-ingested fat.

It's an old study from 1988 and does not appear to include info on the Re-esterified triglyceride or TaG, but I think it is still interesting to get an idea of how much fat is helpful to eat along with the other forms of omega 3 supplements.

(I know that we have already covered that topic but I don't recall if any of the links got that specific about how many grams of fat helped to what degree.)

I took another look at my Omega 3 pills and see that they are manufactured by NOW, and are not an in-house store brand like I thought. I may shoot the manufacturer an e-mail and ask them which form of Omega 3s they process.

BTW 'molecular distillation' is another term for vacuum distillation when done using a very high vacuum, <10mtorr.

Interesting to know, thanks.