11 replies to this topic

[anchovy]

Pardon my ignorance on this topic, I've only recently started delving into supplements so I'm still new with a lot of this stuff. I'd like to start taking a daily Omega-3 supplement to help with energy, focus and depression among other things but I'm unsure of which formulation would be best. I talked to my doctor and he told me he could prescribe Lovaza for me if I wanted, which he said was more pure than OTC fish oils. On the other hand, my dad (who is a big health nut) said that what really matters is that it has a high EPA content. And from yet another perspective, I've read that too much EPA is actually a bad thing and it should be limited in quantity instead...although this was just a random internet article so I'm not sure how much truth there is to it. I'm not sure which of these perspectives is most accurate so I was hoping someone here could possibly shed some light on that.
Also, regarding prescription vs OTC, I've found that the OTC fish oils have a significantly higher EPA to DHA ratio than the prescription Lovaza, but again, I'm not sure if that's actually a good thing or not.

As of now, I've narrowed it down to three contenders
(The EPA/DHA measurements are per single pill, not per serving)

1. Country Life Omega 3 Mood
EPA: 500mg
DHA: 75mg

2. OmegaBrite
EPA: 350mg
DHA: 50mg

3. Lovaza
EPA: 465mg
DHA: 375mg

Assuming (hypothetically) that these were all the same price, which would you most recommend?

[jughead]

My: advice. Screw Lovaza, its expensive and its efficacy is doubtful.
The fish oil I've taken in the past that I was satisfied with are liquid carlson's fish oil and nordic naturals. The purity, potency, and freshness are all tops. You will have to buy more often or stockpile and they are more expensive than caps, but less than lovaza certainly and you get what you pay for.
A certain ratio of EPA/DHA is probably more important than a shitload of either one, the natural ratio is probably fine.

[greensweater]

My: advice. Screw Lovaza, its expensive and its efficacy is doubtful.

Doubtful how? Its fish oil, albiet expensive.

[Logan]

You need to find something with more DHA than the Country Life and Omega Brite products you listed.

[tintinet]

J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Oct;28(5):525-42.
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.

Martins JG.

Academy of Nutritional Medicine, 80 Commercial End, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridge CB25 0NE, UK. julian.martins@aonm.org
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic and case-control data suggest that increased dietary intake of omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega3 LC-PUFAs) may be of benefit in depression. However, the results of randomized controlled trials are mixed and controversy exists as to whether either eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or both are responsible for the reported benefits.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to provide an updated meta-analysis of all double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials examining the effect of omega3 LC-PUFA supplementation in which depressive symptoms were a reported outcome. The study also aimed to specifically test the differential effectiveness of EPA versus DHA through meta-regression and subgroup analyses.

DESIGN: Studies were selected using the PubMed database on the basis of the following criteria: (1) randomized design; (2) placebo controlled; (3) use of an omega3 LC-PUFA preparation containing DHA, EPA, or both where the relative amounts of each fatty acid could be quantified; and (4) reporting sufficient statistics on scores of a recognizable measure of depressive symptoms.

RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one studies were identified, of which 28 met the above inclusion criteria and were therefore included in the subsequent meta-analysis. Using a random effects model, overall standardized mean depression scores were reduced in response to omega3 LC-PUFA supplementation as compared with placebo (standardized mean difference = -0.291, 95% CI = -0.463 to -0.120, z = -3.327, p = 0.001). However, significant heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias were present. Meta-regression studies showed a significant effect of higher levels of baseline depression and lower supplement DHAEPA ratio on therapeutic efficacy. Subgroup analyses showed significant effects for: (1) diagnostic category (bipolar disorder and major depression showing significant improvement with omega3 LC-PUFA supplementation versus mild-to-moderate depression, chronic fatigue and non-clinical populations not showing significant improvement); (2) therapeutic as opposed to preventive intervention; (3) adjunctive treatment as opposed to monotherapy; and (4) supplement type. Symptoms of depression were not significantly reduced in 3 studies using pure DHA (standardized mean difference 0.001, 95% CI -0.330 to 0.332, z = 0.004, p = 0.997) or in 4 studies using supplements containing greater than 50% DHA (standardized mean difference = 0.141, 95% CI = -0.195 to 0.477, z = 0.821, p = 0.417). In contrast, symptoms of depression were significantly reduced in 13 studies using supplements containing greater than 50% EPA (standardized mean difference = -0.446, 95% CI = -0.753 to -0.138, z = -2.843, p = 0.005) and in 8 studies using pure ethyl-EPA (standardized mean difference = -0.396, 95% CI = -0.650 to -0.141, z = -3.051, p = 0.002). However, further meta-regression studies showed significant inverse associations between efficacy and study methodological quality, study sample size, and duration, thus limiting the confidence of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis provides evidence that EPA may be more efficacious than DHA in treating depression. However, owing to the identified limitations of the included studies, larger, well-designed, randomized controlled trials of sufficient duration are needed to confirm these findings.

PMID: 20439549 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[tintinet]

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 11;54(7):585-94.
Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cardiovascular diseases.

Lavie CJ, Milani RV, Mehra MR, Ventura HO.

Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA 70121-2483, USA. clavie@ochsner.org

Comment in:

* J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jan 26;55(4):410-1; author reply 411-2.

Abstract

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (omega-3 PUFA) therapy continues to show great promise in primary and, particularly in secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases. The most compelling evidence for CV benefits of omega-3 PUFA comes from 4 controlled trials of nearly 40,000 participants randomized to receive eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) with or without docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in studies of patients in primary prevention, after myocardial infarction, and most recently, with heart failure (HF). We discuss the evidence from retrospective epidemiologic studies and from large randomized controlled trials showing the benefits of omega-3 PUFA, specifically EPA and DHA, in primary and secondary CV prevention and provide insight into potential mechanisms of these observed benefits. The target EPA + DHA consumption should be at least 500 mg/day for individuals without underlying overt CV disease and at least 800 to 1,000 mg/day for individuals with known coronary heart disease and HF. Further studies are needed to determine optimal dosing and the relative ratio of DHA and EPA omega-3 PUFA that provides maximal cardioprotection in those at risk of CV disease as well in the treatment of atherosclerotic, arrhythmic, and primary myocardial disorders.

PMID: 19660687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[pycnogenol]

This is the one I take : Life Extension, Super Omega-3, EPA/DHA with Sesame Lignans & Olive Fruit Extract

http://www.iherb.com...gels/23722?at=0

[nameless]

If taking for depression, you would probably benefit most from a high EPA product, like your Dad mentioned.

Tintinet listed one such depression study, but check pubmed for more.

Lovaza is overpriced, not necessarily better than OTC fish oil and actually has a low EPA ratio (it's DHA content is too high), if taking it for depression.

The other two products you listed have a nice EPA ratio, or you could consider a fish oil from Minami (expensive, but considered good), Nordic Naturals or Carlson's. You'd want somewhere around 500mg-1 gram of EPA, with very low DHA content -- try it for a month or two, and see how you feel.

[rwac]

In my personal experience, DHA makes me feel much better than EPA. I typically use a high DHA fish oil.
Play around with the ratio to see if you can find one that you like.

[Thorsten3]

EPA is better for mood for me - it's a good mood stabalizer, even as a standalone supplement.
Although DHA is also pretty vital too.

From the reading I have done I agree with most on here that it should be mostly about equality. We evolved on both and they both have their benefits that's for sure. It was always my understanding that EPA is to do with nerve signalling transmission and DHA is all about the construction of these nerve endings.
I know DHA is vital for the health of our serotonin system. But I definitly notice more from EPA in terms of its effects. I personally also take the Carlson's fish oil. I take 900mg of pure EPA first thing in the morning and then take roughly 7g of Carlson's fish oi in the evening. This way I get the benefits of EPA first thing in the morning and my moderate consumption of standard fish oil in the evening should also have its benefits too.

Edited by Thorsten, 19 August 2010 - 05:19 PM.

[nito]

I thought max dha was better to increase cognition.

[e Volution]

Most fish and seafood gives you an EPA:DHA ratio of around 1:2. For this reason I am currently experimenting with a high DHA fish oil (Jarrow Formulas, Max DHA Liquid) to try best emulate a natural fish rich diet.

Edited by e Volution, 20 August 2010 - 01:36 AM.