Now this could be for several reasons. Maybe eating/drinking X is a marker for a lifestyle that is healthy, or for coming from a background that includes beneficial genes of some sort. Maybe Y is not the only thing in X which matters, it's just the most obviously related thing, and you really need the whole package. Maybe the amount of Y you get from eating/drinking X is good, but in concentrated form at high levels there are drawbacks of some sort.
But, however you look at it, putting Y into a pill (that can often be patented and sold as medicine) is not the same as eating/drinking X, and despite the financial incentives for claiming it is, we need to recognize that.
Vitamin C is a good one for that, I seem to remember reading that at best taking large doses just means your piss contains a lot of it, and at worst, if you mega-dose for long periods, it raises your chance of getting some cancers.
It reminds me of the adverts on the London Underground. Every time I travel through London to see my parents there will be adverts medicalising lack of sleep and exhaustion, flogging supplements and "remedies" for what is basically being tired, or "chronic tiredness syndrome" as one advert described it. I'm so glad I didn't choose that life.
Moreover, it's been many years since this was published. If prostate cancer-promoting effects were so plainly an obvious effect of marine omega-3 supplementation, you'd expect to have seen it abundantly replicated by now.
Based on this[0], it's roughly an increase from about 0.02% chance to about 0.034% chance (given no other information to base your risk on)
The main risk seems to be going from "so slow growing you die of old age first" to "fast enough growing it becomes a problem", unless I am horribly mistaken.
I don't know how representative the samples were of the entire population - one theory was that our young motorcycle samples had significantly higher testosterone on average and were more likely to develop those tumors.
>This was a large, well designed study that supports previous research linking high blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids with prostate cancer risk. However, it cannot show that fish oil supplements cause prostate cancer and it is possible that other confounders affected men’s risk (although the researchers tried to take these into account).
Their conclusion contradicts their own headline.
Headline says there is some correlation between the two but they are careful to explain later that this does not necessarily imply causation and that further research is required.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fish-oil-friend-or-foe-2...
"Evidence linking fish oil and cancer has been all over the map. Some research suggests diets high in fatty fish or fish oil supplements might reduce the risk of certain cancers, including prostate cancer. Other research shows just the opposite, a link between eating a lot of oily fish or taking potent fish oil supplements and a 43% increased risk for prostate cancer overall, and a 71% increased risk for aggressive prostate cancer."
Go figure! I guess, inconclusive at best.
Also, I've read in the past that it's important to balance omega-3's with omega-6. I wonder if any of this research takes that balance in to account.
Also for the derived DHA/EPA, there are pollutant-free alternatives based on algae oil.
[0]: https://examine.com/nutrition/can-i-eat-flax-seeds-instead-o...
Alpha-lipoic acid is an antioxidant that helps the body turn glucose into energy, and is also a popular supplement.
The article also states that there is little evidence for any benefits from similar supplements.
I think that if the risks associated with pollutants in fish oil capsules were significant enough to affect the results, they would have been mentioned in the study.
"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
Alternative for what?
You don't need an alternative for a food supplement with unproven benefits and potential risks. The alternative is to not take it.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/why-not-flaxseed...
You should feel bad for promoting Michal Greger's bullshit.
https://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_doc_exposed_as_schlock/
https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-aga...
> Flaxseed oil will give your diet a nice little omega-3 boost in the form of alpha-linolenic acid. You might try adding some to your salad dressing. But it's a backup, not a substitute, for the omega-3s in fish and fish oil because of the conversion factor.
The real issue is: are you deficient in Omega-3 oils? Here's how much ALA you need (which is what Flaxseed has) https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-Consumer/...
Important point
2nd point to consider: is this for all types of cancer? More, less aggressive? Benign enlargement of prostate? In the article (comparison of the lowest Om3 quartile with the highest Om3 quartile):
> 44% increased risk of low grade prostate cancer (HR (hazard ratio) = 1.44, 95% CI (confidence interval) = 1.08 to 1.93) > 71% increased risk of high grade prostate cancer (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.94) > 43% increased risk of total prostate cancer (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.88)
3rd point: could this be associated with something else (for example: heavy metals in fish)
As most guidance by the NHS, this is very well explained and de-sensationalized
> However, it cannot show that fish oil supplements cause prostate cancer and it is possible that other confounders affected men’s risk (although the researchers tried to take these into account)
FTA: "It is worth bearing in mind that this study did not assess participants’ diet and use of supplements. Researchers measured blood levels of fatty acids and analysed the association with prostate cancer risk. However, it is likely that the very high levels of fatty acids found in some participants’ blood came from supplements."
They have plenty of omega-3s and are very low on the food chain.
There should be a name for that nutritional fallacy.
* macros
* what's out (well, this is easy actually)
* what's in
"Those more interested in their health (motivated to take supplements or eat a high omega-3 diet) more likely to be diagnosed by their doctor with common health issues"
That sounds to me that in fact they were looking at cancer-free people as well.
"Recent epidemiological and preclinical studies have indicated that γ- and δ-tocopherols may be more effective because they are more efficient traps for reactive oxygen and nitrogen species." [2]
1. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/92/24/2018/2633585 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337152/
