The responses to this study largely ignore one key finding. In women, the fish oil did indeed seem to make a difference. Those taking the Omega-3 supplements had an 18 percent lower incidence of death and hospital admissions than those taking the placebo. Also, there were fewer admissions for heart failure in the fish oil group, although hospital admissions for other cardiac causes were equal across groups. Still, the experts caution that those positive results may well be due to chance.
Why would they hold back on celebrating the results showing that women may well benefit from fish oil supplements, or that the supplements seem to ward off sudden heart failure, and yet embrace the negative results for the group as a whole? Several large-scale earlier studies also found benefit to women and a preventative effect against heart failure. So why do the researchers in this case generalize the findings to say, as did Dr. Eric Topol of TheHeart.org, "Fish oil does nothing. We can't continue to argue that we didn't give the right dose or the right preparation. It is a nada effect"?
Nor do the experts seem to mind that the so-called placebo contained olive oil, which is known to have heart-healthy benefits. If the fish oil had been pitted against a water pill, the results would be more convincing. One might suspect that opponents of the natural supplements industry paid for the study, but in fact, the funding came, at least in part, from fish oil manufacturers.
As a side note, it's important to remember that the study took place in Italy, where most of the population follows the heart-healthy Mediterranean Diet. As mentioned above, the two previous studies that found no benefit to fish oil took place in Greece, where people also tend to follow a Mediterranean diet. Could it be that the study participants already get plenty of Omega-3 in their diet, rendering the supplements superfluous? In fact, the original design for the study had to be changed because the researchers had expected participants to die from their cardiac problems at a much faster rate than they did. Perhaps the Mediterranean diet, again, had an effect.
And keep in mind, as Jon Barron has pointed out again and again over the years, the benefits of Omega-3 supplementation are not inherent in the Omega-3 itself, but in correcting the imbalance of Omega-6 to Omega-3's in your diet. If you're not eating a diet high in Omega-6 fats, then supplementing with Omega-3's will have minimal benefit. With that in mind, the standard American diet is extremely high in Omega-6 fatty acids because of the high use of polyunsaturated vegetable oils in the diet. The Mediterranean diet is low in Omega-6's and high in Omega-3's and Omega-9's. In other words, people eating a typical Greek diet would not see much benefit from Omega-3 supplementation. On the other hand, people living pretty much everywhere else in the world most likely would.
In any event, the experts agree that taking Omega-3 supplements can't hurt. And there are studies indicating they help, like one out just last month finding that they may be helpful in promoting a healthy immune system. It seems that a "better safe than sorry" approach might be appropriate, particularly if you're a woman. And if you're eating a typical American diet as opposed to a Mediterranean or even a Paleo diet—both of which minimize the intake of Omega-6's--then Omega-3 supplementation still makes sense.
Meanwhile, if you want an extra boost in maintaining heart health, get a pet. The American Heart Association just issued a statement claiming that pet ownership decreases risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension. The question is, what will you do if your vet recommends that you put your dog on Omega-3's, and some vets now do?
Reference: Baseline of Health Foundation
No comments:
Post a Comment