PDA

View Full Version : Is Fish Oil bad for you?



BOB55555
03-08-2012, 02:16 AM
I've read even guys like Alan Aragon and Will Brink take fish oil. I thought it was the perfect complement to a good diet.

Now I just read that the only long term study using fish oil found increases in heart disease and sudden death. Also, oxidative damage seems to be really bad as well.

Link - http://chriskresser.com/when-it-comes-to-fish-oil-more-is-not-better

This guy practically states that fish oil is poisoning me, within or outside my macros.

Is he right about the state of current research? Does anybody knows what current science as a whole says about this (especially for longer term effects)?

Thanks for any help!

mattypoole
03-08-2012, 02:55 AM
I've read even guys like Alan Aragon and Will Brink take fish oil. I thought it was the perfect complement to a good diet.

Now I just read that the only long term study using fish oil found increases in heart disease and sudden death. Also, oxidative damage seems to be really bad as well.

Link - http://chriskresser.com/when-it-comes-to-fish-oil-more-is-not-better

This guy practically states that fish oil is poisoning me, within or outside my macros.

Is he right about the state of current research? Does anybody knows what current science as a whole says about this (especially for longer term effects)?

Thanks for any help!

Would you base your health decisions on one study, when there are other studies concluding something to the contrary?

From what I've read, the consensus seems to be that there are benefits to omega 3 supplementation, but there are people in here more qualified to make that assertion than me.

Jansen_Ongko
03-08-2012, 03:09 AM
Would you base your health decisions on one study, when there are other studies concluding something to the contrary?

From what I've read, the consensus seems to be that there are benefits to omega 3 supplementation, but there are people in here more qualified to make that assertion than me.

Strong bump. one study doesn't prove anything OP.

definenormal32
03-08-2012, 03:10 AM
That's seems to go against everything I've ever learned about fish oil. That's like saying that omega 3 fatty acids are bad for you and we know that that just is not true.

LCFCFOX
03-08-2012, 04:04 AM
Considering the amount of studies and research that demonstrate the positives of fish oil and would probably disregard that.

ArchangelEST
03-08-2012, 04:15 AM
I've read even guys like Alan Aragon and Will Brink take fish oil. I thought it was the perfect complement to a good diet.

Now I just read that the only long term study using fish oil found increases in heart disease and sudden death. Also, oxidative damage seems to be really bad as well.

Link - http://chriskresser.com/when-it-comes-to-fish-oil-more-is-not-better

This guy practically states that fish oil is poisoning me, within or outside my macros.

Is he right about the state of current research? Does anybody knows what current science as a whole says about this (especially for longer term effects)?

Thanks for any help!

http://www.alanaragon.com/fish-oil.html



The Dark Side of Over-doing Fish Oil Supplementation

Yes, Luke, there is always a dark side. In the world of unchecked marketing hype, fish oil has definitely gotten the “more is better” stamp. The problem is, EPA and DHA have a well-documented ability to suppress the body’s immune response. Although not as consistent as the immune effects, data also exist on the ability of EPA and DHA to increase bleeding time and oxidation.

So as with all things, moderation is the key. Without a doubt Omega-3 supplementation has positive effects for nearly all populations. However just like you shouldn't eat 20 fruits a day in the hopes of having better health, you should't also down bottles and bottles of Fish Oil. ;)

snorkelman
03-08-2012, 04:47 AM
Bob, that link includes the quote, "A new study was recently published showing that 3g/d of fish oil in patients with metabolic syndrome increased LDL levels and insulin resistance."

I have taken the liberty of bolding the language that should jump out at you.

The author of that article links the full text of the recent study but says he didn't even read the full text because it was in Portuguese. I spent 20 seconds finding an online translator and was able to read the full text in English...I will try and link it here. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scielo.br%2Fscielo.php%3Fscript %3Dsci_arttext%26pid%3DS0004-27302010000500006%26lng%3Den%26nrm%3Diso%26tlng%3D en

Here are some excerpts:
Metabolic syndrome

Randomized clinical trial was performed in 40 patients with MS [Metabolic syndrome]... The control group (n = 20) received no intervention and was directed only to maintain their eating habits and the group of fish oil (n = 20) received 10 capsules of fish oil that should be ingested throughout the day , each capsule containing 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA, for a total of 3 g / day.

^^ That there tells us that these patients were not just taking 3 grams of fish oil, but rather 3 grams of combined EPA/DHA



None of the participants of this study was [engaging in] physical activity.

^^ hmmm, kind of goes hand in hand with metabolic syndrome, huh?


This study concluded that ingestion of capsules of fish oil was able to reduce the levels of triglycerides. The levels of total and LDL cholesterol showed an increase in patients taking fish oil. The glycemic profile and insulin resistance also had worsening demonstrated by the increase in serum glucose and HOMA-IR. The use of n-3 PUFA not increased oxidative stress and still was able to improve the TRAP. More studies are needed to assess adverse effects posed by these fatty acids and cost-effectiveness of its use in patients with MS.


When I read Chris Kresser's article, it appeared that he was basically saying that shorter term studies showed benefits, but now there was a new long term study showing high dosages of fish oil were bad. Well, when you read the linked Portuguese study, you see that, in addition to using patients with metabolic syndrome, it was not a long study, as seen in the below quote:


All evaluations were performed at baseline (T0) and after 45 (T45) and 90 (T90) days of intervention.

BOB55555
03-08-2012, 05:00 AM
Thanks for the answers!

I got worried because, according to that guy, there are zero long term studies on the subject, and the single medium term study says it's bad. That seemed sensible to me since, in the short term, even really bad stuff such as steroids or amphetamines may be viewed as non-threatening, I guess.

Alan's article has 22 references, but the ones he quoted were usually 12 weeks. Are any of them long term? Or, if not, is it relatively safe to extrapolate short term results in the nutrition field?


On a side note, I read somewhere that Omega 3 fats do not help in keeping hormone levels up. If that's the case (can anybody confirm/deny?), should I not count my fish oil as part of my minimum fat requirements?

BOB55555
03-08-2012, 05:09 AM
Snorkelman, thanks a lot. I wrote my last post before seeing your message.

The one that worried me the most though was the DART 2 trial he mentions - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12571649

If he's right, that is the single long term study we have on medium term fish oil effects. The sample is big (3114), but the study does not seem very "controlled" considering subjects failed to follow the advice of eating fruit, for instance. And the subjects had angina.

Yet, if this is the single medium term study, this scares me a little bit.

The numbers were pretty big also. Adjusted hazard ratio for sudden death had a 1.54 mean (54% more deaths I think), and they imply that people taking fish oil as a supplement got even worse results than that.

snorkelman
03-08-2012, 05:26 AM
Bob, Alan Aragon just did a complete write up about fish oil supplementation, including the DART 2 study in his monthly AARR. I suggest that you subscribe if this type of analysis is interesting for you, and to give you an idea, Alan dug into the DART 2's author's speculations as to the unexplained results of the DART 2 study. Of interest to Alan, and therefore discussed in depth, was the speculation of risk compensation by the study's participants.

x-ray vision
03-08-2012, 07:01 AM
Strong bump.
I do not think it means what you think it means.