Omega 3 Supplements?

[Big Les]

This, to me, looks much more like criticism of the methodology adopted by the school in Durham that carried out the 'research' rather then the alleged benefits of Omega-3, so, personally, I'd stop well short of labelling it 'woo'.

I said there was "some woo attached", as in the claim, in order to sell supplements, that Omega 3 could boost IQ. The only evidence for this claim is the trial in question, and that trial has been shown to be worthless. There must also be a placebo effect involved - people popping pills to feel better, with little tangible physical benefit. Those two aspects amount to "some" woo for me, even if the basic idea of taking supplements and of Omega 3 having theoretical benefits aren't woo in themselves.

If you want to pay for and take the supplements, go ahead. Like drinking tea or having a glass of wine a day, they may, or may not be of some benefit. But like fls says, as things stand there's little reason to worry about, much less pay out for, this kind of supplement. Most of us get more than enough of most nutrients and vitamins from our daily diet, and personally, I'd rather improve my diet than fork out for pills or whatever.

 

[IMST]

Based on what I'm seeing in the thread, I think I'm leaning toward buying some walnuts and a bottle of Canola oil and not worrying about it. Money isn't overly plentiful in the IMST household and given the desire to buy a house someday, I'm not gonna shell out a bunch of cash for unproven supplements.

 

[BenBurch]

Based on what I'm seeing in the thread, I think I'm leaning toward buying some walnuts and a bottle of Canola oil and not worrying about it. Money isn't overly plentiful in the IMST household and given the desire to buy a house someday, I'm not gonna shell out a bunch of cash for unproven supplements.

Doesn't matter how you get it into you.

 

[BenBurch]

Is one day of fish supposted to change anything? Also it is meatless, before the industrial age the extent that you could transport fish was rather limited.

80% of Western humanity lived within 50 miles of a major waterway...

Fish then were transported in leather or wooden live tanks and kept in the kitchen that way. This was actually the freshest meat protein you could get then.

And dried fish have always been a commodity of trade.

 

[Pyrts]

A recent meta-analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The end of the abstract says "The results suggest that omega-3 PUFAs are an attractive adjunctive treatment for joint pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and dysmenorrhea." So if you have one of those problems, "it might not hurt." If you don't have it, don't take them and then say you did.

 

[BenBurch]

Meta-analysis is an unstable compound and if not carefully maintained self-catalyzes into woo with a large flame-war release.

 

[stevea]

Based on what I'm seeing in the thread, I think I'm leaning toward buying some walnuts and a bottle of Canola oil and not worrying about it. Money isn't overly plentiful in the IMST household and given the desire to buy a house someday, I'm not gonna shell out a bunch of cash for unproven supplements.

That seems a reasonable course to decrease the O6 to O3 ratio.. As someone (sorry) mentioned it the ratio of these two is believed to be the important factor.
Note that canola is around 2.0 O6/O3 ratio, flax oil is around 0.3 (very high in O3) and walnuts around 5. Flax oil would be much more effective in achieving a lower total-diet O6/O3 ratio.

This discussion keeps returning to fish and that's a mistake. Not all fish are rich in O3; it depends on their diet. If they are up the food chain from arctic krill for example or O3 rich plant matter then they'll be higher in O3. Salmon is a good source for example, but swordfish and roughy and many freshwater fish have little O3. "Fish" isn't the solution unless you specify which fish. Then there is the issue of farm-raised. Farm raised fish (most salmon) are fed pelletized "fish chow" and are NOT as rich in O3. Farm raised salmon for example are about 30% higher in total fats, but only slightly higher in total O3 (per unit weight) according to a USDA study. Not bad, but not ideal.

Many grazing animals (cattle, sheep) used to have a decent O3 level collected from grasses, but most today (in the US) are grain-fed and have far lower O3 levels. I believe that most Australian & NZ sheep are still grazed. Grazed cow milk high in O3, grain-fed - not so much.


Personally I think flax seed & flax oil is the best food supplement source in terms of ratios and price to quantity. Note that when the oil is separated from the natural phenolic antioxidants in seeds it will oxidize readily. Can't be used for cooking. Tastes good enough (sort of nutty) to add to salad dressing.

Note that there is an FDA approved O3 prescription
http://www.omacorrx.com/
which is approved as safe and effective for lowering serum triacyl-glycerides.

 

[stevea]

Meta-analysis is an unstable compound and if not carefully maintained self-catalyzes into woo with a large flame-war release.

This statement bothers me.

Western science is predicated in the process of breaking observations into smaller and smaller domains (observation) and then integrating these tiny domains into larger generalizations (meta-analysis). Yes, the integration is (rightly) more controversial than than data reportage, but .... well that's the way 'sausages' are made. It should not result in woo or flame-war so long as we retain reasonable skepticism and check our personal biases at the door (both difficult to achieve)

Now if you care to observe this process gone wrong, examine the Global Warming issue. The data is only modestly controversial (there is some rational skepticism about the accuracy of various ancient temperature & atmosphere estimates). But the meta-analysis [the anthropomorphic catastrophic global warming hypothesis, results in radical flame-wars and a good bit of woo. One problem is that virtually everyone has a vested interest in one outcome or the other, so it's quite difficult to remain emotionally detached. Reasonable skepticism is vilified by proponents.

I don't mean to hijack or divert this thread. Just a comment that meta-analysis is absolutely fundamental part of "science"; one we cannot ignore.

 

[BenBurch]

I strongly disagree.

Although it is *barely* possible to do a meta-analysis that bears up to scrutiny, I think you will find that most meta-analysis compares Apples to Pears. History is full of meta-analysis attempts that were proven very wrong by later, more specific research.

I think that the ones that stand up to real scrutiny are so rare that I refuse to place any faith in them.

 

[stevea]

I strongly disagree.

Although it is *barely* possible to do a meta-analysis that bears up to scrutiny, I think you will find that most meta-analysis compares Apples to Pears. History is full of meta-analysis attempts that were proven very wrong by later, more specific research.

I think that the ones that stand up to real scrutiny are so rare that I refuse to place any faith in them.

The term "meta-analysis" seems to have a special meaning wrt medical and sociological studies, and there are some special problems in comparing "apples to pears" as you say. When complex organisms are involved all sorts of "other variables" that are difficult to control come into play, making experimental design difficult and cross experiment comparison hazardous.

I still think you are exaggerating the issue. Is history really full of failed meta-analyses or is it just that like most analysis papers the hypothesis turns out to be not quite right in hindsight ? (that is did the meta-analysis actually draw the wrong conclusion from useful data, or instead were the sub-analyses flawed ?). Can you site a few exampes ?

 

[Zelenius]

The term "meta-analysis" seems to have a special meaning wrt medical and sociological studies, and there are some special problems in comparing "apples to pears" as you say. When complex organisms are involved all sorts of "other variables" that are difficult to control come into play, making experimental design difficult and cross experiment comparison hazardous.

I still think you are exaggerating the issue. Is history really full of failed meta-analyses or is it just that like most analysis papers the hypothesis turns out to be not quite right in hindsight ? (that is did the meta-analysis actually draw the wrong conclusion from useful data, or instead were the sub-analyses flawed ?). Can you site a few exampes ?

Rather than start a new thread, I thought I would post this here: Fish Oil Supplements May Not Prevent Heart Trouble

One thing I wonder is if a person gets no omega 3 fatty acids in their diet at all(no DHA, no EPA, no ALA), what happens? Does it result in a deficiency that can compromise health? I often hear that fish oil(which has DHA and EPA but no ALA) may be good for the brain, but the study posted above has nothing to say about fish oil and the brain since it was only about heart attacks and heart events.

 

[jt512]

One thing I wonder is if a person gets no omega 3 fatty acids in their diet at all(no DHA, no EPA, no ALA), what happens?

Your skin falls apart. Seriously. ALA is the only absolutely essential fatty acid. It's needed for skin integrity.

Additionally, DHA is conditionally essential during pregnancy for proper fetal neurological development.

 

[Kaylee]

Interesting thread resurrection. I read the book, "The Depression Cure: The 6-Step Program to Beat Depression without Drugs,” by Stephen Ilardi about 4 months ago and started following some of his recommended steps. The steps are summarized in this article and include taking Omega 3s.

Yes. Especially EPA/DHA.

In the book the author specifically recommends taking 1000 mg of EPA and 500 mg of DHA per day.

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

That is what consumer labs says. It has to do with the refining process.

Ilardi recommends looking for the phrase "molecularly distilled" on the label.

Not mentioned in the above summary, IIRC, Ilardi also recommends taking a vitamin D-3 supplement for anyone who doesn't get a lot of sunlight. I no longer have the book handy or my notes, but I'm guessing he recommended 2,000 IU per day because that is what I'm currently taking.

FWIW, I do feel better but of course I obviously could not double-blind myself.

 

[Zelenius]

Your skin falls apart. Seriously. ALA is the only absolutely essential fatty acid. It's needed for skin integrity.

Additionally, DHA is conditionally essential during pregnancy for proper fetal neurological development.

I see. I suppose that may be why my dry skin improved after I incorporated more flaxseeds and flax oil into my diet many years ago. Anecdotal, I know, but many people report the same thing.

Is DHA required at all for the adult brain? Or EPA?

Kaylee beat me to it, but I've read about DHA/fish oil being helpful for treating or preventing depression, anxiety, and ADHD in adults. Based on my readings of the science, the evidence seems to be mostly preliminary, but sound.

Usually the focus is on DHA when it comes to brain health, yet this study found that:

EPA but not DHA appears to be responsible for the efficacy of omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in depression: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Here's a study that found no effect:

No effect of n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (EPA and DHA) supplementation on depressed mood and cognitive function: a randomised controlled trial

.

The body can usually make EPA from ALA if there is enough ALA, but it can't make DHA from ALA, to my understanding.

Anecdotally, I am less moody when I take flax and fish oil. All this omega 3 science is kind of confusing, with ALA being a precursor to EPA, and how we are often not sure if EPA or DHA is responsible for fish oil's benefits.

I hear that maybe by 2020, GMO canola oil with the fatty acid profile of fish oil may be available on the market. Scientists are still working on it, and I really hope the anti-GMO hysteria doesn't derail what may be the ultimate plant oil alternative to fish oil.


Multinational ingredient giants BASF and Cargill have teamed on a project that will see them spend €100m on an ambitious project to bring genetically modified canola oil rich in omega-3 forms EPA and DHA to market by 2020.

 

[jt512]

I see. I suppose that may be why my dry skin improved after I incorporated more flaxseeds and flax oil into my diet many years ago. Anecdotal, I know, but many people report the same thing.

Yeah. Anecdotal. Uncontrolled.

Is DHA required at all for the adult brain? Or EPA?

I don't know.

Kaylee beat me to it, but I've read about DHA/fish oil being helpful for treating or preventing depression, anxiety, and ADHD in adults. Based on my readings of the science, the evidence seems to be mostly preliminary, but sound.

Preliminary evidence isn't sound. That's why it's preliminary.

The body can usually make EPA from ALA if there is enough ALA, but it can't make DHA from ALA, to my understanding.

The body can make EPA from ALA, but the conversion is inefficient and inhibited by intake of omega-6 fatty acids. Conversion of EPA to DHA is also limited.

Anecdotally, I am less moody when I take flax and fish oil. All this omega 3 science is kind of confusing, with ALA being a precursor to EPA, and how we are often not sure if EPA or DHA is responsible for fish oil's benefits.

I suspect placebo effect is responsible for your subjective impressions.

 

[icerat]

Tell her that if she's really really concerned about your omega 3's, the best source in the world is.....

mother's milk.

Depends on the mother's diet

if you refuse, irrationally as you say, to eat fish oil then flax oil is your best bet. It has plenty of Omega 3 in it. But it's not EPA. It has ALA which is converted at about 15% efficiency so you have to take a lot more.

You'll also miss DHA, which is a form of omega-3 crucial for the brain

We don't actually know that it is harmless. But the evidence that it is harmless is almost as good as the evidence that it is helpful. And I'll certainly continue to promote the general idea that it's useful to eat a balanced diet which includes 2 servings of fish per week (or in the case of the vegetarian, other foods that contain omega-3 fatty acids).

Why do you believe encapsulated fish oil is potentially harmful, but un-encapsulated it's healthy?

As it happens I read a study a few years back weighing up the benefits of eating fish for the EFAs and the risk because the fish can be full of toxic heavy metals. They pretty much decided they balanced each other out, so the reality may be the exact opposite to your belief (since most encapsulated omega-3 is cleaned first)

Regarding omega-3 research, there's unfortunately an awful lot of poor research out there. If you read any research findings and they haven't bothered controlling for omega-6 intake (the vast majority if it), it was probably a waste of time and money.

The same for a lot of people - it's likely that omega-3 supplementation *is* beneficial (particularly since most of us don't eat as much fish as we might), but if you're not controlling omega-6 intake as well, then you may be wasting your money.

Omega-3 and Omega-6 compete for metabolites in the body, and the typical western diet is overloaded with omega-6, meaning your body can't actually utilise omega-3 all that well. You need to look at controlling your omega-6 intake as well as your omega-3 intake.

My family is vegetarian (Though I personally occasionally eat meat, usually local, wild, the occasional commercial dinosaur) but we make one exception - we take fish oil capsules. Plant sources are ok for ALA->EPA (good for cardiovascular health) but poorly converted further to DHA, which the brain needs. There are fully vegetarian alternatives available, but they are costly.

 

[casebro]

Flax seed oil = Linseed oil, available at Home Depot by the gallon. It polymerizes readily, so is used as a varnish. You know how the grease on your stove becomes gummy? That's the reaction. PUFA/Veggie oils taste like varnish to me. Especially as they age. Ever heard the phrase "epoxidized vegetable oil" ? No thanks.

It's not the mercury, oil fish can cause myopathy- muscle aches like when you have the flu. Up thread, somebody mentioned merc levels may rise, but nobody has ever actually gotten actual mercury poisoning from commercial fish.

And it looks like I'll have to add epa/omega-any-damn-thing to those supplements that have no basis as ichanging actual human health outcomes. Along with mercury, lead, hexavalent chromium, antioxidents, vitamin C, ......

 

[Zelenius]

I suspect placebo effect is responsible for your subjective impressions.

I suspect that too, quite strongly.

 

[Kaylee]

Depends on the mother's diet



You'll also miss DHA, which is a form of omega-3 crucial for the brain



Why do you believe encapsulated fish oil is potentially harmful, but un-encapsulated it's healthy?

As it happens I read a study a few years back weighing up the benefits of eating fish for the EFAs and the risk because the fish can be full of toxic heavy metals. They pretty much decided they balanced each other out, so the reality may be the exact opposite to your belief (since most encapsulated omega-3 is cleaned first)

Another issue, in the States anyway, is that much of the fish available in the stores are farm-raised vs. wild and they don't have the same health benefits because of what they are feed and also because they have high levels of PCBs. Additionally, years back I read that many stores and restaurants pass off farm-raised salmon as wild. It is not always intentional, sometimes the wholesalers are the one who are doing the mislabeling.

The fish marketed as wild-caught can also be quite pricey vs the price of the pills. I figured out that I pay about 35 cents a day to take 2 molecularly distilled omega 3 pills with 500 EPA and 250 DHA each. I still occasionally eat fish because I like the taste, but I don't eat it for health reasons because I can't be guaranteed what the the nutritional profile is. Unfortunately, if I can afford it, I assume that it's probably farm-raised fish filled with PCBs regardless of how it was labeled in the store.

Perhaps these issues also exist in Europe.

Regarding omega-3 research, there's unfortunately an awful lot of poor research out there. If you read any research findings and they haven't bothered controlling for omega-6 intake (the vast majority if it), it was probably a waste of time and money.

The same for a lot of people - it's likely that omega-3 supplementation *is* beneficial (particularly since most of us don't eat as much fish as we might), but if you're not controlling omega-6 intake as well, then you may be wasting your money.

Omega-3 and Omega-6 compete for metabolites in the body, and the typical western diet is overloaded with omega-6, meaning your body can't actually utilise omega-3 all that well. You need to look at controlling your omega-6 intake as well as your omega-3 intake.

Or in other words the ratio can be more important than the amounts consumed. I suspect that is also true in other areas of nutrition including calcium. For example, people who eat more meat and drink more soda probably need more calcium than people who consume less meat and soda.

That makes calculating what you need more complicated and, it appears to me, that most of the resources available to the average person like to keep it simple. The authors of these resources make general statements, probably with the assumption that for most people the advice will be helpful.

Currently, I don't have a clue as to what my omega 6/omega 3 ratio is. As you and others mentioned upthread, a lot depends upon what the original sources of our meats, eggs and diary were eating. I just take my omega 3 pills and avoid processed snack foods made with a lot of oils (eg cookies, cakes, chips, and even store bought hummas which tends to be loaded with soybean oil) and sugar (for reasons that are a whole 'nother topic already covered ad nauseum in other threads). I know doing that is improving my omega 3/omega 6 ratio compared to what it would be otherwise -- but I don't even have a ballpark idea of what my ratio is. Next time I'm bedridden with a bad case of the flu perhaps I'll take a stab at guesstimating it.

[ETA: Another reason it's hard to calculate is because I, like many other people, don't prepare all of the food that I eat. ]

I'd be curious to know if anyone reading this thread has taken the time to try to guesstimate their ratios.