Taking omega-3 fish oil supplements may increase the risk of prostate cancer???

[soccerdad5]

Taking omega-3 fish oil supplements may increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer by 70%

Fish-oil supplements credited with a range of health benefits could trigger prostate cancer.

Experts found that omega-3 fatty acids may raise the risk of the most lethal form of the disease by more than 70 per cent.

Researchers warned against omega-3 pills, and recommended eating just one or two meals of oily fish per week.

Fish-oil supplements are said to protect against heart attacks and strokes, stave off arthritis, boost brain power and prevent behaviour disorders in children.

However, scientists found that those with the highest levels of omega-3 in their blood were 71 per cent more likely to develop fast-growing, hard-to-treat prostate tumours.

They were also more likely to contract the slower, less deadly form of the disease, with the overall prostate cancer risk raised by 43 per cent.

The team from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle warned: ‘There is really no evidence that taking dietary supplements is beneficial to health, and there is increasing evidence that taking high doses is harmful.’

Dr Alan Kristal said the levels of omega-3 linked to the increased cancer risk would be reached by taking just one supplement a day, or three or four meals of fish such as salmon and mackerel each week.

Of mealtimes, he said: ‘There are good things in fish, so the message is moderation. It is probably not bad for you, and it tastes good.’
Taking omega-3 was also associated with a 44 per cent greater chance of developing low-grade prostate cancer

Taking omega-3 was also associated with a 44 per cent greater chance of developing low-grade prostate cancer

However, he stressed that when compared to fatty acids received by eating oily fish, the amount consumed via pills was ‘huge’.

It is unclear how fish oil could trigger tumours, but omega-3 may restrict the immune system, or damage our DNA. It is also unclear if it helps tumours to grow and spread.

The finding came amid a wider research project of more than 2,000 men, examining whether supplements of vitamin E and the mineral selenium can help prevent prostate cancer – the most common cancer in British men, killing more than 10,000. Selenium provided no benefit, and vitamin E increased the odds of contracting the disease.

Dr Kristal said: ‘As we do more and more of these studies – and I have been involved in them most of my career – we find high doses of supplements have no effect or increase the risk of the disease you are trying to prevent.

‘There is not really a single example of where taking a supplement lowers chronic disease risk.’




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz2YjPLHrhR

[soccerdad5]

This is on the front page of every news website around the world today. Personally, I think this is "hogwash." I would love to know who was sponsoring this "study." It is probably "big pharma" because they know the many benefits of fish oil and it can be taken OTC. Love to hear people's thoughts.

[Richie71]

I heard the same report. Not sure you can read too much in to one single study. I think I'll stay as I am (one Omega 3 pill in the morning and one 3/6/9 pill each day) until there are some more study results.

[DrHypertrophy]

I've said this before, but why does everything seem to cause cancer?

[michail71]

I've said this before, but why does everything seem to cause cancer?

Actually, many things good for us are also good for cancer. It's just the nature of what cancer is. It doesn't necessarily mean they cause the cancer to begin with.

[drudixon]

Le Sigh. Another half-baked study with ridiculous conclusions. Having been in an Omega 3 / DHA study (effects on the retina) - I can vouch that the results were inconclusive. Monitored within this time were all levels of hormones and liver status (liver tested due to concurrent vitamin a palmitate supplementation). While RP / Ushers patients in a prior study showed a decrease in degeneration due to Vitamin A Palmitate, control and active groups of the DHA study showed mixed results. Notably, in the 5 year study, no one developed prostate cancer.

The study was performed by the Berman Gund lab as mass eye and ear infirmary.

[SleeperService]

It might do. Virtually everything that has a beneficial effect has side effects. The big question is if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[Phattso]

I wonder how much information in this report is influenced by politics.

[AAOBob]

Daily fail.

Anyone have a actual link to the study? It seems like one of those vague, poorly controlled, no idea what they are really looking at style studies.

[soccerdad5]

Please, someone post it. This one is all over the news today and now Fish Oil is going to be the new smoking because of some stupid study that was probably funded by Big Pharma

Daily fail.

Anyone have a actual link to the study? It seems like one of those vague, poorly controlled, no idea what they are really looking at style studies.

[AAOBob]

Please, someone post it. This one is all over the news today and now Fish Oil is going to be the new smoking because of some stupid study that was probably funded by Big Pharma

The same news media that said blondes would be extinct in 50 years (was a hoax story from Germany everyone picked up on). Sometimes its hard to tell if we should laugh or rage at the stupid out there.

[Phattso]

Please, someone post it. This one is all over the news today and now Fish Oil is going to be the new smoking because of some stupid study that was probably funded by Big Pharma

Big Pharma, Green Peace and the Obama Administration.

[costahobo]

Correlation does not equal causation.

What about entire cultures who routine eat fish daily? Do they have an increased risk of prostate cancer? Let's consider one of the Blue Zones located right here in Costa Rica - the Nicoya Peninsula. A Blue Zone is an area that has a high concentration of centenarians (people that live 100+ years). What is the typical diet in Nicoya? Plants and seafood.

The study is complete bulls.hit.

[Zingaritano]

This doesn't sound like a very scientific study. No authors were mentioned, and it does not state if the data controlled for other related factors.

[Phattso]

Well, just saw it here, too: http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Health-...7/11/id/514491

However, I still believe it was/is somewhat influenced by a big group that is against harvesting fish for its oil.

[socket]

I was just going to post the link for the article in the Dailymail.

I am curious who is backing this study. Also, as mentioned above, do men who consume large amounts of fish throughout their lives have a higher level of prostate cancer?

I'll keep taking it until there are more studies.

[MichaelCJ]

[Zingaritano]

Well, just saw it here, too: http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Health-...7/11/id/514491

Thanks. It is as I thought.

This doesn't sound like a very scientific study. No authors were mentioned, and it does not state if the data controlled for other related factors.

Quote from Newsmaxhealth article:

"The study would have to account for other risk factors for prostate cancer before it could be considered definitive, he said. These include family history, age and race, among others, D'Amico explained."

[AAOBob]

I wouldn't be too concerned with the funding of the study, lots of "non-biased" sources make bad claims as well. When you start attacking funding its no longer science its political and another way of saying you don't care about data that doesn't fit your world view. Attack the study itself (which in this case seems pretty bad).

[eriadoc]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Bingo. I read an actual study once that concluded that casein had a stronger correlation to prostate cancer than smoking does to lung cancer. Given the Omega-3 dairy products out there, I wonder if there's some crossover that they didn't consider. Nonetheless, it would seem that dietary Omega-3 would have shown itself to be causative in prostate cancer before now in one of the many societies that have a diet very high in fish.

[Marius_Ursus]

Here's a good analysis of the report.

http://examine.com/blog/fish-oil-and-your-prostate/

[TDetroit]

Actually, many things good for us are also good for cancer. It's just the nature of what cancer is. It doesn't necessarily mean they cause the cancer to begin with.

in statistics we learn - correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In other words, people with higher levels of Omega-3 may have higher likelihood of prostate cancer, but the Omega-3 is not for sure the cause. It could be a lot of things: the method of obtaining the Omega-3 ie pills vs fish vs nuts. Look at each: pills are made with petroleum plastic covers. Fish are often fished from water near high population areas where pollution is dumped into the water. Nuts are harvested from trees sprayed with pesticides and the trees grow on land treated with herbicides. A side note: fish recipes are often made with sugary recipes for flavor. Guess how you make cancer grow... you feed it sugar.

[AAOBob]

Stating "fish oil causes cancer" due to this study would be a mistake, as it is a case-cohort study (conducted at one time point only), and a temporal relationship is not made. While unlikely, with the data available, it could also be possible to state "prostate cancer causes a higher n3 concentration in the blood."

The temporal aspect is important, since fish oil supplementation can drastically change serum levels of omega-3s in the blood. It is quite common for people diagnosed with prostate cancer to supplement with fish oil, as it is commonly touted to be cancer-protective (which would mean that prostate cancer precedes fish oil supplementation). A previous study using persons from SELECT using a design that could assess this temporal relationship found no relation (either protective or harmful) with prostate cancer incidence.

Furthermore, this study did not measure mortality. When looking at mortality, fish oil seems to be associated with reduced mortality. In simpler words, it was found to not help prevent prostate cancer, but reduced your chances of dying from it.

Also of interest is the large ranges observed (as in, the 71% value had an actual range of somewhere between 0% and 192% with a 5% margin of error), which either suggests other factors are at play influencing the results or large differences in how one’s body responds to omega-3 ingestion.

Well nothing to see here. Horrible study. Now if they took 1000 men, 50% were using Omega-3 tablets, the other 50% were not, and they found an increase in prostate cancer in the users, then they might be onto something. This is drivel.

[Flounderbout]

If only you had pointed out that the source was the Daily Mail at the beginning rather than the end of the original post, it would have saved me from reading the rest of it...

[gazzajagman]

If only you had pointed out that the source was the Daily Mail at the beginning rather than the end of the original post, it would have saved me from reading the rest of it...

To quote a famous "Yes Minister" Episode to help our state side friends:

"Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits."

[tornmuscle123]

Le Sigh. Another half-baked study with ridiculous conclusions. Having been in an Omega 3 / DHA study (effects on the retina) - I can vouch that the results were inconclusive. Monitored within this time were all levels of hormones and liver status (liver tested due to concurrent vitamin a palmitate supplementation). While RP / Ushers patients in a prior study showed a decrease in degeneration due to Vitamin A Palmitate, control and active groups of the DHA study showed mixed results. Notably, in the 5 year study, no one developed prostate cancer.

The study was performed by the Berman Gund lab as mass eye and ear infirmary.

Facts FTW.

[Karl_Hungus]

I always love how a bunch of people slam a study that goes against their habits without even reading the study....lmao. The study may be complete BS....I don't know because I haven't read it. Just love the reflexive uninformed reactions. Funny ... If I posted a study about the benefits of squats, I suspect that not a single person would critique it. They certainly wouldn't have the same responses as observed here. We certainly wouldn't get the usual "correlation does not equal causation" comments.

Don't get me wrong ... I am not commenting on the quality of the study itself -- but rather, on the reflexive reaction by people to tear down a study (without even having read it) when it conflicts with your own nutritional choices..and, the lack of such critical approaches when an article verifies those choices.

[TheIronMaster]

Been taking fish oil for years on end. Just got my PSA test back. It was in normal range.

[Brackneyc]

I have a big rock in my backyard which keeps tigers away. Big rock = no tigers = big rocks keep tigers away.

[kh971]

So taking supplements of Omega-3 increase your chance of prostrate cancer?????

Let's look at the populations of Eskimo's and other locales of people who consume fish almost daily. What is their level of prostrate cancer?