18 replies to this topic

[ta5]

I get the sense that the author is a little negative on fish oil. The full article is available.

J Lipids. 2014;2014:495761. Epub 2014 Jan 16.
Why Fish Oil Fails: A Comprehensive 21st Century Lipids-Based Physiologic Analysis.
Peskin BS.
The medical community suffered three significant fish oil failures/setbacks in 2013. Claims that fish oil's EPA/DHA would stop the progression of heart disease were crushed when The Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group (Italy) released a conclusive negative finding regarding fish oil for those patients with high risk factors but no previous myocardial infarction. Fish oil failed in all measures of CVD prevention-both primary and secondary. Another major 2013 setback occurred when fish oil's DHA was shown to significantly increase prostate cancer in men, in particular, high-grade prostate cancer, in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) analysis by Brasky et al. Another monumental failure occurred in 2013 whereby fish oil's EPA/DHA failed to improve macular degeneration. In 2010, fish oil's EPA/DHA failed to help Alzheimer's victims, even those with low DHA levels. These are by no means isolated failures. The promise of fish oil and its so-called active ingredients EPA / DHA fails time and time again in clinical trials. This lipids-based physiologic review will explain precisely why there should have never been expectation for success. This review will focus on underpublicized lipid science with a focus on physiology.
PMID: 24551453

[HaloTeK]

All of this comes down to dosage -- what is the optimal amount of DHA we need? Ray peat proponents say to minimize all polyunsaturates, but then why would older people have DHA issues? I think we need just enough to replace damaged DHA in our eyes and brain, etc. That amount could even be less than 200mg a day.

[username]

Yay, let's just ignore all the positive findings. The author is extremely biased.

Fish oil has an A-rating from the Mayo Clinic for
Coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, rheumatoid arthritis and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention.

Pure EPA helps with depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD etc.

But who cares? Let's just cherry pick, e.g. the incredibly flawed prostate cancer study.

[LexLux]

Yay, let's just ignore all the positive findings. The author is extremely biased.

Fish oil has an A-rating from the Mayo Clinic for
Coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, rheumatoid arthritis and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention.

Pure EPA helps with depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD etc.

But who cares? Let's just cherry pick, e.g. the incredibly flawed prostate cancer study.

Heart disease not looking good, maybe Mayo clinic may need to update?:

• E. J. H. Lewis. Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Events. JAMA 2013 309(1):27 - 27.
• http://jama.jamanetw...ation01/01/2013
• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22968891

Without the heart benefits this leaves us in a difficult position when deciding if the benefits outweigh the risks. Why? Because the risks are there:

Contaminants:

• Hoh E, Lehotay SJ, Pangallo KC, Mastovska K, Ngo HL, Reddy CM, Vetter W. Simultaneous quantitation of multiple classes of organohalogen compounds in fish oils with direct sample introduction comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Apr 8;57(7):2653-60.
• Rawn DF, Breakell K, Verigin V, Nicolidakis H, Sit D, Feeley M. Persistent organic pollutants in fish oil supplements on the Canadian market: polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine insecticides. J Food Sci. 2009 Jan-Feb;74(1):T14-9.

Not great for inflammation here:

• G. K. Pot, I. A. Brouwer, A. Enneman, G. T. Rijkers, E. Kampman, and A. Geelen. No effect of fish oil supplementation on serum inflammatory markers and their interrelationships: A randomized controlled trial in healthy, middle-aged individuals. Eur J Clin Nutr, 63(11):1353-1359, 2009.

This is why I take vegan (from algae) EPA and DHA for my skin and nevous system in recommended doses only. Also works:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19733817
• Arterburn LM, Oken HA, Bailey Hall E, Hamersley J, Kuratko CN, Hoffman. Algal-oil capsules and cooked salmon: nutritionally equivalent sources of docosahexaenoic acid. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Jul;108(7):1204-9.

Also remeber that fish oil sales are over 1 billion in the US alone now, its a huge industry that promotes its alleged benefits aggressively. Fish consumption ingerneral is becoming risky due to the incredible pollution in the oceans that builds up in the food chain.

This new study shows that the anti-infammitory properties of fish oil may be underminded by these pollutants:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23089109

Edited by LexLux, 26 February 2014 - 04:12 PM.

[Kevnzworld]

The author, Brian Peskin, has made a career out of promoting ALA ( omega 6 )and it's health benefits. He ties it's ingestion or lack of it to the Warburg effect and cancer. He believes that we can convert the omega 3's we need from omega 6's.
Personally I supplement GLA. I believe that the weight of the evidence support the consumption/ supplementation of some purified, fresher less oxidized EPA/DHA in combination with CoQ10 to mitigate peroxidation.

[LexLux]

The author, Brian Peskin, has made a career out of promoting ALA ( omega 6 )and it's health benefits. He ties it's ingestion or lack of it to the Warburg effect and cancer. He believes that we can convert the omega 3's we need from omega 6's.
Personally I supplement GLA. I believe that the weight of the evidence support the consumption/ supplementation of some purified, fresher less oxidized EPA/DHA in combination with CoQ10 to mitigate peroxidation.

This study showed that commercial molecular distillation treatment used for removal of organic/inorganic toxic contaminants is only effective for the lighter organic contaminants in fish oil and revealed that the relatively more volatile and lighter organic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and other smaller organohalogen compounds, were still present in 2/3 "PCB-free" cod liver oils, albeit at much lower levels than in an untreated commercial sample. Moreover, the less volatile organic compounds, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers and brominated HNPs, were detected at similar levels in all three cod liver oils.

Look, we know that fish is contaminated with dioxins, PCBs and mercury so why take the risk anyways when we can avoid the build-up of these substances higher in the food chain by going for algae based omega 3s? Thats ultimately where all fish get their stores from anyways.

They work quite well too:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24261532

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23598439

Not worried about PCBs and mercury?They are neurotoxic, leading to brain shrinkage:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21545807

and can lead to diabetes

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21364465

Edited by LexLux, 26 February 2014 - 05:56 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

WOW... Just noticed this paper myself. Don't know why, but the theme music from the original Batman TV show started playing in my head along with the "POW", "BIFF", "WHAP" thought bubbles that used to pop up during the fight scenes.

A few quotes for us to ponder:

Fish oil failed in all measures of CVD prevention—both primary and secondary

fish oil's DHA was shown to significantly increase prostate cancer in men, in particular, high-grade prostate cancer

fish oil's EPA/DHA failed to help Alzheimer's victims, even those with low DHA levels.

Marine oil's EPA/DHA spontaneously oxidizes at room temperature and more rapidly at normal body temperature—no level of antioxidants can stop this

Fish oil blunts the insulin response and raises resting blood glucose levels

Fish oil rapidly decreases arterial compliance—increasing “hardening of the arteries.”

fish oil accelerates metastases in animals.

Marine oil consumption impairs mitochondrial functionality, making it an anti-antiaging substance.

A saturated fat membrane containing just 5% DHA (fish oil) is 16 times more susceptible to peroxidative damage

At normal human physiologic temperatures, fish oil spontaneously becomes rancid

The shifting of the body's antioxidants required to combat this physiologic insult causes a shortage elsewhere. This fact should cause the medical community great concern. Keeping tissue fluid in frigid waters is not a physiologic concern of humans.

Supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids in particular, EPA/DHA, as opposed to saturated fatty acids, results in a statistically significant increase in lipid peroxidation in the plasma and liver

Fish oil ingestion raises levels of extremely harmful malondialdehyde (MDA)

TBARS (substances which react to the organic compound thiobarbituric acid and which are a result of lipid peroxidation) were >21% higher after fish-oil supplementation than after sunflower-oil

Regardless of antioxidant level added to the fish oil supplement, rancidity/peroxidation upon ingestion (in vivo) becomes a very significant and problematic issue

a 14% decrease in life expectancy occurred in those animals fed fish oil

even a ten-fold (10Xs) increase in alpha-tocopherol, a potent antioxidant, was not fully able to prevent the peroxidative damage from fish oil

Increased cancer is expected with increased consumption of marine oils

marine oil's DHA was more inflammatory than trans fats

Once removed, it takes 18 weeks to fully rid patients of the negative effects of fish oil

Diabetes is America's number 1 epidemic and both oily fish and fish oil supplements exacerbate the condition

In 2010, Cancer Research published a historic article linking fish oil and increased colon cancer risk

Fish oil cannot work, based on human physiology and biochemistry. Humans do not live in frigid waters where an “anti-freeze” is required, that is, EPA/DHA. These so-called active components spontaneously oxidize (radical induced oxidation) at room temperature and are even more problematic at physiologic body temperatures, causing numerous deleterious aldehyde secondary/end products regardless of antioxidant levels.

[niner]

The Brasky paper was a load, and BS Peskin sounds like a guy with an agenda. This is not to say that I disagree with him totally. I don't think it's a good idea to go nuts with fish oil, and cringe when I hear people say they are using 10-20 grams/day. This is a single author paper, which might be fine but is a bit of a red flag. So what's this guy's institution? "The International PEO Society", at a PO Box in Houston. I wonder how many members are in this "international society"? One? Sorry, but he has a bit of a maniacal tone.

Still... He may have some points. I'm just not sure which ones are solid and which ones are shaky.

[Dorian Grey]

Good points niner, but the paper is well referenced, and with others like Ray Peat PhD & Chris Masterjohn PhD chiming in on the great fish oil experiment, I feel a serious re-evaluation of fish oil may be in order. All supplements have a risk/reward ratio, and it looks like the ratio for fish oil is turning.

What if even half of what is said in this paper is true? I believe fish oil is the number one supplement in America today... It would be a fine mess if it turned out this supplement was detrimental to the millions who are taking it, and would throw the whole supplement industry into chaos if millions have been harmed.

Diabetes and fatty liver disease are reaching epidemic levels, and if it comes to pass that fish oil is the worst thing "everyone" should be taking... Oh My!
http://www.westonapr...us-yet-perilous
http://raypeat.com/a...s/fishoil.shtml

Edited by synesthesia, 19 March 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Castiel]

Hmmm.
Smaller fish lower in the food chain should have less contaminants, and there's always krill and algae that can be used.

It can't be too bad or some of those centenarian fishermen wouldn't be fully functioning independently.

I also assume the USP seal stands

USP verified
Contains the ingredients listed on the label, in the declared potency and amounts .
Does not contain harmful levels of specified contaminants (Some supplements have been shown to contain harmful levels of certain heavy metals (e.g., lead and mercury), microbes, pesticides, or other contaminants. At specific levels these contaminants can pose serious risks to one's health.)
Will break down and release into the body within a specified amount of time
Has been made according to FDA current Good Manufacturing Practices using sanitary and well-controlled procedures

Edited by Castiel, 19 March 2014 - 06:17 AM.

[Dolph]

Good points niner, but the paper is well referenced, and with others like Ray Peat PhD & Chris Masterjohn PhD chiming in on the great fish oil experiment, I feel a serious re-evaluation of fish oil may be in order.

lol

You really think that THOSE two cherrypicking, more than often blatantly LYING crackpots make an argument more valid?
Oh yeah... I would rather say that as long as Masterjohn argues against fish oil there must be something very useful and healthy about it!

[Kevnzworld]

Again, Brian Peskin has both an agenda and a bias. ( I read his book " The Hidden Cause of Cancer " )The studies he quotes from are designed to buttress his argument.
That being said, I limit my fish oil to 2000 mg. I also take GLA
I only take it from a reputable MFR.. I don't take oil that's expiration date is sooner than one year.
I refrigerate after opening, and I take mixed tocopherol E and ubiquinol, both have been shown to mitigate lipid per oxidation..
Here are a few studies that came to a different conclusion.
n−3 Fatty acids from fish or fish-oil supplements, but not α-linolenic acid, benefit cardiovascular disease outcomes in primary- and secondary-prevention studies: a systematic review1,2,3
" Evidence suggests that increased consumption of n−3 FAs from fish or fish-oil supplements, but not of α-linolenic acid, reduces the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac and sudden death, and possibly stroke."
EPA and DHA in blood cell membranes from acute coronary syndrome patients and controls
" The combined groups had a mean age of 61 ± 12 years, 66% were male, and 92% were Caucasian. The EPA + DHA content was 20% lower in cases than controls (3.4 ± 1.6 vs. 4.25 ± 2.0%, p < 0.001). The multivariable-adjusted odds for case status was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85, p < 0.001) for a 1 unit increase in EPA + DHA content. Compared with the lowest EPA + DHA group, the odds ratio for an ACS event was 0.58 (95% CI 0.42–0.80), in the intermediate EPA + DHA group and was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14–0.67; p for trend <0.0001) in the highest EPA + DHA group.
Conclusions
Odds for ACS case status increased incrementally as the EPA + DHA content decreased suggesting that low EPA + DHA may be associated with increased risk for ACS."
http://www.sciencedi...021915007004765
Fish oil suppresses cell growth and metastatic potential by regulating PTEN and NF-&kappa;B signaling in colorectal cancer.
" Hence, fish oil activates apoptosis, diminishes DNA damage and inhibits inflammatory signalling in a dose and time dependent manner so as to inhibit progression of colon cancer."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....l, inflammation

[Dorian Grey]

I feel we all have agenda's and bias in our views to some extent, and who doesn't like picking cherries?

One thing I believe is... Open minds gather more information than closed ones, and "awareness" of the possibility we may be wrong about a given issue regardless of our level of confidence is the hallmark of intelligence.

Medicine is evidence based, and I like to look at all the evidence and re-adjust my views as warranted by new evidence as it becomes available. If the risk/reward ratio for fish oil turns out to be a substantially negative one, this may turn out to be the first major medical/supplement blunder of the 21st Century.

Due diligence is required when a supplement as popular as fish oil is called into question, and I fear those who get this one wrong may suffer greatly for their mistake. Diabetes and fatty liver disease are two conditions I'd rather not have to deal with, and I am not willing to risk this by taking fish oil.

Humans are not cold blooded organisms and it's just possible we may not need fats nature has tailored to cold blooded organisms clogging our hot, oxygenated and iron rich livers. The liver is Grand Central Station for all dietary fats, and also the primary storage site for iron. Iron is the primary catalyst for lipid peroxidation. Iron and PUFAs do not mix! Ignore these simple facts at your peril.

Edited by synesthesia, 20 March 2014 - 04:43 AM.

[Kevnzworld]

I agree with synesthesia for the most part. I alter my supplement regimen monthly based n new evidence or arguments on longecity or other forums/ blogs that challenge my preconceived ideas.
I've limited my omega 3 intake, adding more 6 ( GLA )and 7 while employing the methods I previously described to mitigate peroxidation
Regarding Omega 3 and NAFLD
" Omega-3 fatty acids have been suggested as a treatment for NAFLD.20 They have several potential mechanisms of action, the most important being to alter hepatic gene exp<b></b>ression, thereby switching intracellular metabolism from lipogenesis and storage to fatty acid oxidation and catabolism. There is also evidence that they improve insulin sensitivity, are anti-inflammatory and reduce TNF levels thus offering several potential therapeutic mechanisms."
http://onlinelibrary...09.04230.x/full
http://www.sciencedi...261561410001020
" Results
The LC-&omega;3s display pleiotropic properties that are of benefit in cardiovascular disease. Deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids results in hepatic steatosis, whereas fish oil displays powerful hypotriglyceridemic properties. Intake and/or metabolism of omega-3 fatty acids are commonly impaired in NAFLD patients. A number of pre-clinical and clinical studies have demonstrated an ameliorative effect of supplemental fish oil, seal oil and purified LC-&omega;3s in reducing hepatic lipid content in NAFLD. There is less evidence that hepatic inflammation and fibrosis are safely reduced by LC-&omega;3s."

Regarding Omega 3 consumption and lipid peroxidation
"The omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA decrease plasma F2-isoprostanes: Results from two placebo-controlled interventions"
"Abstract
Omega-3 (&omega;3) fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), protect against cardiovascular disease. Despite these benefits, concern remains that &omega;3 fatty acids may increase lipid peroxidation. It has previously been shown that urinary F2-isoprostanes (F2-IsoPs) were reduced following &omega;3 fatty acid supplementation in humans. It is now determined whether EPA or DHA supplementation affects plasma F2-IsoPs. In two 6-week placebo-controlled interventions, Study A: overweight, dyslipidaemic men; and Study B: treated-hypertensive Type 2 diabetic, patients were randomized to 4 g daily EPA, DHA. Post-intervention plasma F2-IsoPs were significantly reduced by EPA (24% in Study A, 19% in Study B) and by DHA (14% in Study A, 23% in Study B) relative to the olive oil group. The fall in plasma F2-IsoPs was not altered in analyses that corrected for changes in plasma arachidonic acid, which was reduced with EPA and DHA supplementation. Neither F3- nor F4-IsoPs were observed in plasma in both studies. These results show that in humans, EPA and DHA reduce in vivo oxidant stress as measured in human plasma and urine."
http://informahealth...762.2010.492830

Edited by Kevnzworld, 20 March 2014 - 03:34 PM.

[ta5]

The article that started this thread has been retracted.

 

The article titled “Why Fish Oil Fails: A Comprehensive 21st Century Lipids-Based Physiologic Analysis” [1], published in Journal of Lipids has been retracted as a result of an undeclared competing interest on the part of the manuscript's author.

 

 

[aribadabar]

 

The article that started this thread has been retracted.

 

The article titled “Why Fish Oil Fails: A Comprehensive 21st Century Lipids-Based Physiologic Analysis” [1], published in Journal of Lipids has been retracted as a result of an undeclared competing interest on the part of the manuscript's author.

 

 

Surprise surprise - the agenda and bias were glaringly obvious.

[osris]

Here's more info about the retraction:

 

https://skeptics.sta...-oil-fail/23763

 

See also

 

“Know how to recognize pseudoscience: Reader reveals how fish oil paper came to be retracted"

 

https://retractionwa...oil-retraction/

Edited by osris, 09 July 2021 - 12:50 PM.

[osris]

Heart disease not looking good, maybe Mayo clinic may need to update?:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22968891

 

Critics may question the choice of studies included in the meta-analysis, the duration of supplementation, or the characteristics of the study populations. Differences in the design of included trials can influence the results.

 

Omega-3 supplementation studies can vary in the dose and duration of treatment. Some might argue that the meta-analysis did not sufficiently account for potential differences in the effectiveness of omega-3 supplements at various doses and durations.

 

 The impact of omega-3 supplementation can vary among individuals. Subgroup analysis might reveal that certain populations, such as those with specific risk factors, do benefit from supplementation, even if the overall analysis did not show a significant association.

 

There could be concerns about potential publication bias, where studies showing no significant effects are less likely to be published or included in meta-analyses, potentially skewing the results.

 

Omega-3 supplementation is often considered in the context of an individual's overall diet. Some argue that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids might be more evident when considered as part of a balanced and healthy diet.

 

 Critics might point out specific methodological limitations in the meta-analysis that could have influenced the results, such as the choice of statistical models or endpoints.

Contaminants:

• Hoh E, Lehotay SJ, Pangallo KC, Mastovska K, Ngo HL, Reddy CM, Vetter W. Simultaneous quantitation of multiple classes of organohalogen compounds in fish oils with direct sample introduction comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Apr 8;57(7):2653-60.
• Rawn DF, Breakell K, Verigin V, Nicolidakis H, Sit D, Feeley M. Persistent organic pollutants in fish oil supplements on the Canadian market: polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine insecticides. J Food Sci. 2009 Jan-Feb;74(1):T14-9.

 

 

Fish oil supplements typically do not contain PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) if they are produced and regulated properly. The primary source of PCB contamination in fish and fish oil supplements is from the environmental pollution of water bodies.

[Mind]

This is something I have noticed recently - the largest meta-analyses tend to not find statistically relevant results for almost any health intervention or find things contrary to popular opinion

 

Red meat is not bad - according to recent meta analysis

 

Genetic testing/screening is not very useful - according to recent large analysis.

 

I know the people who do these meta-analyses try hard to "normalize" the data, but I think something gets lost in large data sets. In regards to the fish oil, it is probably a good nutrient for your body, but the effect size of any benefit is probably tiny, when compared to diet, fasting, exercise, sleep, meditation, and other concrete biohacks.