• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Omega 3 Fish Oils Linked To Increased Prostate Cancer Risk

Java Cafe

Java Cafe

Senior member
I know how popular Fish Oils supplements are on this Forum. About a couple of years ago, I grew to become a big fan of Fish Oil supplements myself. Over the last eight months, I have consumed eight Kirkland (Costco) Fish Oil tablets (1000 mg) everyday. (However, it did *not* help in lowering my my LDL levels; but, that is another story.)

Anyhow, Fish Oil is a $1 billion (annual) industry, and there are/were plenty of (credible) celebrity endorsers for the product as well (including Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Dr. Nancy Snyderman).

Last night, I saw/heard Dr. Snyderman on NBC News reporting on a recent study by a very credible source linking an association between high levels of Omega-3 in the blood and higher risk of prostrate cancer among men. She remarked that she herself would now stop taking these supplements, and depend only on edible fish for her Omega 3. Here are some relevant links:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263179.php

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/evidence-prostate-cancer-omega-3-link-article-1.1395853

https://twitter.com/DrNancyNBCNEWS

I know that these kinds of studies come and go. And, knee jerk reactions aren't the wisest course of action. However, this report gave me pause. I stopped taking the pills since yesterday, and have planned to increase my weekly consumption of salmon (and other cold water fish). More so, because this study, in particular, is being labeled "disruptive," especially, for its source credibility.

So, what are your thoughts?

~ JC ~
 
This is why there are discussions and recommendations on omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid intake ratio. If you're consuming them at a skewed ratio, you're going to get downsides from both.

The stuff you posted are the newspaper articles explaining the journal article, but I'd like to see how much higher the levels were in the high group and, if included in the info, how much fish oil they took/fish they consumed.
 
I think this is the article. (I am not 100% certain.)

In their concluding paragraph, the author remark, ". . . this large prospective investigation of inflammation-associated phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk found no support that ω-3 fatty acids reduce or trans-fatty acids increase prostate cancer risk. Indeed, our findings are disconcerting as they suggest that ω-3 fatty acids, considered beneficial for coronary artery disease prevention, may increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, whereas trans-fatty acids, considered harmful, may reduce high-grade prostate cancer risk."

I am not sure if the researchers looked at ratio of ω-3 to ω-6; I don't think that they did. Also, it is true that they found an association and not causation. But that, in itself, is significantly alarming, IMO.
 
Java Cafe said:
I think this is the article. (I am not 100% certain.)

In their concluding paragraph, the author remark, ". . . this large prospective investigation of inflammation-associated phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk found no support that ω-3 fatty acids reduce or trans-fatty acids increase prostate cancer risk. Indeed, our findings are disconcerting as they suggest that ω-3 fatty acids, considered beneficial for coronary artery disease prevention, may increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, whereas trans-fatty acids, considered harmful, may reduce high-grade prostate cancer risk."

I am not sure if the researchers looked at ratio of ω-3 to ω-6; I don't think that they did. Also, it is true that they found an association and not causation. But that, in itself, is significantly alarming, IMO.
Click to expand...

Well, they compared the lower quartile (lowest 25%) with the upper quartile (highest 25%). I'd like to see the risk of cardiovascular disease compared between the upper and lower quartiles, considering that is the main cause of death in America and is much more likely to kill you than prostate cancer based on sheer statistics. Let's see if I can find a bit more actual research on omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.
 
Last edited:
If a supplement has not been conclusively proven to improve your health/prevent disease and also has been linked to possibly damaging your health, why even chance taking it? Omega 3 fish oil supplements are often recommended but the studies haven't been definitive on whether its beneficial or not for certain conditions. My previous attitude on such supplements was there's no harm in taking it as at worst it does nothing, but once a study like this shows a possible negative side effect, I'd drop it as it's not worth the risk.
 
So why is Dr. Nancy Snyderman giving up fish oil pills? Is prostate cancer an issue for her?

I'm going to continue my Omega 3 fish oils unless I hear about something that affects me. I'm also going to continue to eat salmon which I really like.
 
iluvdeal said:
If a supplement has not been conclusively proven to improve your health/prevent disease and also has been linked to possibly damaging your health, why even chance taking it? Omega 3 fish oil supplements are often recommended but the studies haven't been definitive on whether its beneficial or not for certain conditions. My previous attitude on such supplements was there's no harm in taking it as at worst it does nothing, but once a study like this shows a possible negative side effect, I'd drop it as it's not worth the risk.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're reading your studies or how many of them you're reading, but as far as supplements go, fish oil has by far the most high quality research support for reducing inflammation and risk of associated pathology (cardiovascular disease, stroke, excess C-reactive protein). These pathologies are some of the biggest killers in America accounting for well over 25% of deaths (I don't have the actual stats with me right now, but I think cardiovascular disease is more like 35%). Considering prostate cancer is a much less prevalent, the benefits of consuming fish oil is still fairly high. The cost-benefit analysis essentially states that you're more likely to die from heart disease so address that. That is, unless, you have a serious family history, have had prostate issues yourself, etc.
 
nanette1985 said:
So why is Dr. Nancy Snyderman giving up fish oil pills? Is prostate cancer an issue for her?

I'm going to continue my Omega 3 fish oils unless I hear about something that affects me. I'm also going to continue to eat salmon which I really like.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Essentially, I may drop my consumption a slight bit, but I will continue to do much more research regarding the issue... like how much do you have to consume before your risk increases.
 
This is scary... I'm on triple strength ones myself, because of a skin condition. It's actually helping the skin condition. (Eczema) I guess once the condition is completely gone I'll have to stop taking them or take them less often. I also heard they increase heat disease rate... which baffles me because I thought they were suppose to reduce the risk.
 
the issue with stating that cardiovascular problems kill more than prostate cancer, is the fact that people who take supplements and stuff often are in shape already and care about themselves, so they're already at normal risk. So the marginal gain from using them is low.
 
SociallyChallenged said:
I'm not sure where you're reading your studies or how many of them you're reading, but as far as supplements go, fish oil has by far the most high quality research support for reducing inflammation and risk of associated pathology (cardiovascular disease, stroke, excess C-reactive protein).
Click to expand...

NIH:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/omega3/introduction.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/993.html

It's listed as "possibly" effective for most of the conditions you mentioned. If something is possibly effective and possibly dangerous, I don't see it being worth the risks.
 
Six months from now there will be ANOTHER study that contradicts these and say, "actually Omega 3 fish oils are good for you." Thats how it always is.

Remember when eggs were suppose to be bad, now they are good again. But now some studies suggest eggs.......yada yada yada. Make up your mind, its breakfast time and I gotta eat!
 
My mate sent me a few links to this.

I take about 10 fish oils per day and eat salmon about 2-3x a week.

Koing
 
To each his/her own, I suppose. And, that is how it will always work. . . .

I will choose to err on the side of "natural" food, as unprocessed as possible. Yes, studies will come out, revealing complexities and complications. But, ignoring the the most recent study (the state-of-the-art, if you will) is fraught with major risks. (Each time a contradictory finding about something is revealed, there are layers of additional "truth" that are also uncovered. It is never a matter of going back and forth between two identical positions.)

As far as Dr. Synderman is concerned, she opined that she is now beginning to believe that supplements contribute significantly more toward "expensive urine" than toward health benefits. Of course, that is also an individual's opinion, I know. But, in the face of marketing juggernauts that have grown sophisticated tentacles capable of reaching into millions of pocketbooks (I know this from being a marketing professor myself), I'd choose to exercise a different kind of caution.

This, however, will cause me to grill salmon several more times a week than I did before. ;-)

Take care, you all.
 
I eat high cacao % chocolate for cardiovascular health. It's been shown pretty conclusively to raise good cholesterol & lower blood pressure, while I've found that it also helps adjust my palette to avoid more sugary/sweet foods.

Fish oil, like most supplements, is bullshit.
 
Hmm, I take one of those every 4 days. Thats how my rotation of supplements works out. if I jerk off at least once, sometimes twice, per day, does this counter the prostate cancer increase?
 
Also, I'd like to point out that your post title is very, very misleading. The study looked at serum levels (blood levels) of omega-3 fatty acids in individuals. They did not look at omega-3 supplementation whatsoever. While, theoretically, omega-3 supplementation will increased serum omega-3s, your extra step in the title is really not forthright.
 
My title is identical to one of the news headlines from the Medical News Today. Also, I realize that this piece of news is about just one study, showing a correlation (not causation), and it is very disappointing to many of us (including me, an avid fan of Omega 3 till now).

But, the summary of the study, according to terminally qualified medical professionals and reporters, is exactly just that. (Now, if all of them are misleading all of us . . . I plead guilty to falling for that. But, personally, I don't think I am.)
 
Java Cafe said:
My title is identical to one of the news headlines from the Medical News Today. Also, I realize that this piece of news is about just one study, showing a correlation (not causation), and it is very disappointing to many of us (including me, an avid fan of Omega 3 till now).

But, the summary of the study, according to terminally qualified medical professionals and reporters, is exactly just that. (Now, if all of them are misleading all of us . . . I plead guilty to falling for that. But, personally, I don't think I am.)
Click to expand...

This was not a title written up by qualified medical professionals... it was only written by the reporters and you know how the media can misconstrue information, particularly when it comes to research. I am a qualified medical professional and researcher and any PhD grad student, post doc, or professor of nutrition would also have a huge issue with the way this whole thing has been worded. Fish oil has no link to this as of yet, only blood omega-3 fatty acid levels. Everything has been taken an extra, unjustified step.
 
In the world of academic research, polemics are indeed the life blood of the growth of knowledge. SC, I have much respect for your opinions and advice. However, if "any PhD grad student . . . of nutrition" were to express his or her opinion about a peer-reviewed, editorially-sieved publication of the work of a research team from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in the American Journal of Epidemiology (a journal with an overall impact factor in the top 10), I would take his/her advice for what it was worth.

I am not a professional in the field of Nutrition. However, I do have a doctorate, and regularly supervise doctoral dissertations for nascent researchers in my own field. And, have done so for the last twenty four years. These include dissertations in cross-disciplinary areas as well. So, I am not exactly a neophyte when it comes to understanding the culture and the nuances of academic research in the US or elsewhere.

So, while I do place much value on your perspectives and opinions, I hope you will forgive me for not being able to completely discount this particular study (or its interpretations by a multitude of sources that appear to have significant credibility in my eyes).

With that . . I hope I will be able to retire from this debate. 🙂 I look forward to being able to engage in other, interesting stimulating conversations in the future and, more importantly for me, continue learning.

And, oh yes, I do not need reporters, even if they happen to be from the *Medical News Today*. All I need is the authors' own concluding remarks:

. . . this large prospective investigation of inflammation-associated phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk found no support that ω-3 fatty acids reduce or trans-fatty acids increase prostate cancer risk. Indeed, our findings are disconcerting as they suggest that ω-3 fatty acids, considered beneficial for coronary artery disease prevention, may increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, whereas trans-fatty acids, considered harmful, may reduce high-grade prostate cancer risk."
 
Last edited:
I didn't read everything closely, but there was a misunderstanding so I want to reword what SC wrote:
The news articles may mention fish oil supplements, but the medical research did not specifically test for supplement use. It only tested for Omega 3 levels in blood.
 
NAC said:
I didn't read everything closely, but there was a misunderstanding so I want to reword what SC wrote:
The news articles may mention fish oil supplements, but the medical research did not specifically test for supplement use. It only tested for Omega 3 levels in blood.
Click to expand...

The same study also revealed a correlation between smoking and a significantly lower risk of cancer. They also found the highest blood levels of trans fat was correlated with a 50% reduction in the risk of prostate cancer. Seems legit.
 
NAC said:
I didn't read everything closely, but there was a misunderstanding so I want to reword what SC wrote:
The news articles may mention fish oil supplements, but the medical research did not specifically test for supplement use. It only tested for Omega 3 levels in blood.
Click to expand...

This. I may not have been very clear because Java Cafe and I are seemingly speaking on two different points. I do not contest that this study has some validity to it that needs to be further assessed. Serum omega-3 levels may increase correlation with prostate cancer, but that was not induced through fish oil. For all we know, the individuals who had high serum omega-3 fatty acids could have been very heavy fish eaters and heavy metal toxicity from that is actually associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. That's what I'm saying - it's not necessarily fish oil that caused it. The source could lay elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top