Popular fish oil study deeply flawed, new research says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/popular-fish-oil-study-deeply-flawed-new-research-says-1.2637702?cmp=rss

by fraqed • 12 years ago

104 112 12 years ago

The deeply flawed study that linked less heart disease to fish oil relied on public health records and hearsay. That doesn't seem like such a deep flaw, at least not for fish oil, in light of thousands of other studies that may confirm the hearsay was right or right about something other than heart disease.

makomk• 12 years ago

It's a pretty deep flaw given that Inuits apparently didn't have the same level of access to doctors as the groups they were comparing them to and therefore heart disease amongst them simply wasn't being reported in public health records, despite no actual underlying difference in the rate of heart disease.

guelo• 12 years ago

They already did meta-studies a couple years ago that found no link between Omega-3s and heart diseases.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357266 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11514...

rosser• 12 years ago

Almost all the studies used in the first meta-analysis, and all the studies in the second, were investigating the secondary preventative effects of Ω-3 supplementation on CVD. That means the people being studied already had heart disease. Supplementation didn't demonstrate a definitive impact on all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular events (though in both cases, there appears to have been a slight reduction in cardiovascular deaths) in that population. That's hardly surprising, and proves nothing at all, except perhaps something we already knew: people with heart disease have heart attacks and die.

scott_s2• 12 years ago

"Proves" is a complicated word. What they did was provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that Omega-3 supplementation does not make a significant difference for people who already have heart disease.

While not ground-breaking, it's something. And if you gather enough meta-studies showing "Supplementation of x in y circumstance had no significant effect", then it starts to become reasonable to claim supplementing x in general is not worthwhile. (I'm not saying they have done that, but I'm pointing out that this is part of the corpus of data we need to test a supplement in general.)

zxcdw• 12 years ago

"The fish oil capsules I don't think will stand up to a critical review. They simply don't do anything for you," he said. "The people should know that it doesn't help to prevent heart disease."

This struck me. For example examine.com has[0] quite good coverage when it comes to supplements like fish oil, and not surprisingly their round-up shows multitude of benefits from fish oil.

Okay, perhaps the phrasing was altered to provoke and mislead the reader, but still.

0: http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/

spikels8• 12 years ago

You might want to look at the examine.com page more carefully. The only result that is both significant (i.e. large effect) and robust (i.e. agreement in lots of double blind studies) is a reduction of triglycerides. And that is an indirect impact on health outcomes at best. The rest of the studies were either for sub-groups (depressed people) or were insignificant, mixed direction and/or not robust.

bdcs• 12 years ago

The National Library of Medicine by the NIH makes it look pretty good. Them saying "possibly effective for..." is quite the endorsement: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/993.html

aaxe2• 12 years ago

Examine.com does not recommend fish oil as a MUST supplement.

a8da6b0c91d• 12 years ago

Fish oil has an effect but it is probably quite harmful.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml

N-3 fatty acids interfere with oxidative metabolism and promote cancer. In the short term N-3 oils can appear to help various problems like inflammation because they suppress the immune system. In the long term that's obviously bad.

aaxe2• 12 years ago

Ray Peat is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Cowicide4• 12 years ago

I've been downvoted into oblivion in this thread, so the forum system might hide this post from you. But, I was just going to chime in that I agree with you.

Also, I think more people need to look at what the prestigious Mayo clinic has to say about the positive benefits of fish oil as well:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-ac...

chris_mahan• 12 years ago

The more I know about science, the more I understand that there's so much we don't know that there's very little we can say we know for sure, if any.

jmnicolas• 12 years ago

This is not science, it's marketing masquerading as science.

spikels8• 12 years ago

More evidence that vitamins and supplements are bullshit. While people with specific conditions may benefit AFAIK there is no pill you can take that has actually been proven to improve the health outcomes on otherwise healthy people.

All this confusion is the natural result of the combination of profit seeking and the difficulty of medical research. Maybe someday they will find that magic pill just not yet.

NY Times had a bunch of good article on the subject at the end of last year such as this one:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2013/12/16/a-challenge-...

khyryk• 12 years ago

While people with specific conditions may benefit AFAIK there is no pill you can take that has actually been proven to improve the health outcomes on otherwise healthy people.

You're absolutely right. Taking supplements is about attempting to minimize the probability that one is deficient in something that's needed, which, if not addressed, can eventually affect one's health.

In the same sense, it's impossible for one to prove to themselves that they are perfectly healthy.

spikels8• 12 years ago

I'd recommend simply avoiding a bad diet (mostly just eat a diversity of foods) then you will already be getting all the vitamins/nutrients/etc you need while avoiding getting too much of anything that is bad for you. No need for pills unless something is wrong.

In the future this may change. For example genetic tests may be able to identify hidden long-terms problems with clear biochemical mechanisms that can be corrected with a pill. Much harder to find something that will make most people healthier but it could happen. Just not yet.

dredmorbius6• 12 years ago

The problem with your comment IMO is that, while there's a fair bit of foundation to both questions of efficacy of vitamin supplements in general (it's a very incestuous industry with a history of collusion and abuse), and to megadosing in particular (most micronutrients are generally considered to be limiting only when lacking from a diet -- consuming more than limiting factors tends not to be associated with benefits and can be associated with harm, such as where overconsumption of one nutrient blocks uptake of another, or has toxic effects of its own).

But to claim that all supplements, and vitamins, are bullshit, without substantiation, is simply not justified. There are in fact clear cases where supplementation has proven beneficial where a deficiency exists (vitamins C, D, and B-complex vitamins in particular).

And it seems HN are calling you on that.

I do generally agree that eating a balanced and nutritious diet is your best insurance.

spikels8• 12 years ago

Yes - if you have a known vitaamin deficiency, you should (and your doctor would recommend) be taking vitamins to correct it. I hope this is not controversial.

However if you are healthy (i.e. have no known condition requiring treatment with vitamins), then there is no solid evidence that vitamins or supplements improve health outcome. If you disagree the burden of proof is on you: Point to multiple double blind studies by reputable researchers showing consistent and significant (practically not statistically) positive results. This may happen but AFAIK has not happened to date.

josephjrobison• 12 years ago

This turns my whole world upside down, next they're going to come out and say snake oil won't cure my rheumatism.[1]

[1]http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/peddling_snake_oil/

dredmorbius6• 12 years ago

The original snake oil -- from the Chinese water snake -- may in fact have been effective, in part due to its high Omega-3 oil content. The pejorative sense came from a mix of hucksterism and cargo-culting: concoctions from other sources (including other animal oils or petroleum-based oils) which lacked the specific constituents of the Chinese remedy:

Well, hucksters that sold patent or proprietary medicine caught wind of the miraculous muscle-soothing powers of snake oil. Naturally, they decided to sell their own versions of snake oil—but it was just much easier to forgo using actual snakes.

(From the Collectors Weekly reference below.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Water_Snake

http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/how-snake-oil-got-a...

dredmorbius6• 12 years ago

First, a headline relevancy rant: the headline here is both vague and misleading. "Researcher: 1970s Inuit heart disease fish oil study flawed" maintains the word count of CBC's article while conveying far more information. The headline as chosen is akin to a headline in a Poughkeepsie, NY, newspaper headline "3 killed in house fire" ... where the fire in question turns out to have been in Osaka, Japan. A human tragedy, yes. Likely highly relevant to most in Poughkeepsie? No. Would those with friends or relatives in Osaka be better served by the more accurate headline? Yes. As given the headline is linkbait -- it fails to provide sufficient context to determine whether or not the article is worth reading.

Fish oil has been tied to multiple benefits, not just heart disease. Claiming a blanket lack of efficacy for fish oil supplementation presumes that 1) there is no heart disease benefit (all we know is that there are methodological errors in the Inuit study) and that there are no other health reasons for supplementing with fish oil. From the Wikipedia article, identified (all specifically tied to studies).

• Cancer

• Cardiovascular

• Hypertension

• Mental health

• Alzheimer's disease

• Lupus

• Psoriasis

• Pregnancy

spikels8• 12 years ago

A study or even a few does not prove anything. There are just too many ways to get it wrong. You need multiple high quality studies that all agree before you can be sure. And even then a small chance will remain that it is a statistical mirage that will be disproven by a future high quality study. Sorry to let you down but that is the nature of medical research.

dredmorbius6• 12 years ago

My point isn't that the claims are all proven. I was pointing out that the Wikipedia claims are sourced to actual research papers, rather than some random blog (or worse: some random supplement sales site).

What this addresses is TFA's claim that fish oil has no benefits based on an analysis of one study concerning one claimed benefit. That claim is just as unsubstantiated as it claims the Inuit study benefits are.

frandroid• 12 years ago

It's vague and misleading, but it's good clickbait. :P

dredmorbius6• 12 years ago

Good clickbait is bad.

shill• 12 years ago

* Depression

dredmorbius6• 12 years ago

Presumably covered under mental health.

upofadown• 12 years ago

But there is a new study ... and the new study is the important part of the article. This new study found more or less the opposite result of the old study.

Cowicide4• 12 years ago

Are the newer studies factoring in perhaps that their diets may have changed since the older studies? Do they eat less fish, etc. nowadays and eat more junk food? Consume more alcohol? Other drugs? More sedentary? If that's the case, the new study is deeply flawed.

spikels8• 12 years ago

Those are just a tiny fraction of the reasons why medical research is so difficult. Others include statistical issues, genetic variation, high costs, long timeframes, ethical constraints, publishing bias, bias of researchers, various kinds of fraud.

Cowicide4• 12 years ago

Ok, but how does that diminish my point?

timr• 12 years ago

This is on top of mounting concerns that fish oil supplementation may actually increase a man's risk of aggressive prostate cancer:

https://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/releases/2013/07/omega-three-f...

It's looking more and more like the prudent choice for men is to avoid fish oil supplements.

niels_olson• 12 years ago

The prudent course of action is to avoid anyone trying to sell you additional calories. Fish oil being a prime example.

jblow• 12 years ago

No surprise. Most "scientific" studies in the realm of medicine are bullshit. Even many of the ones trying hard not to be bullshit still end up in that bin. For a clear understanding of why, read this:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...

md2244• 12 years ago

Do you think this attitude explains some of the epistemological issues behind the anti-vaccine movement? I'm pro-vaccination, but I find it weird when people mock others for not believing vaccines are safe and then go on to criticize GMOs and the validity of nutritional studies. (Not saying you're doing this at all, this is just a tangent.)

Of course, vaccine studies are probably way more rigorous and easier to control than figuring out the complexities of nutrition, but it is a little unsettling how easily doubt can metastasize. There's really no solution here other than trying to spread scientific literacy and helping people understand the rigorous testing of modern medicine, while also encouraging them to think twice about the sensationalized studies they read.

chc• 12 years ago

As far as I can tell, the epistemological origin of the antivax movement is the human drive to find a reason for things that happen. There was never a scientific basis. They latched onto one study that suggested a link between vaccines and autism, but it's not like they had some sophisticated meta-analysis that led them to believe that study was more reliable than others. It just provided a narrative that gave them the answer they were seeking, while the alternative did not.

There could hypothetically have been a basis like the one you're talking about, but it seems evident from the movement itself that this didn't happen in our version of reality.

xmonkee• 12 years ago

Dayum, that's one of the best articles I've read in a really long time. I think we are still decades away from really understanding experimenter effect, and till then, I take all medical studies with a fucten of salt.

Example: I used to be really into reading large meta-analysis dietary supplement efficacy, but lately I've stopped taking all supps. They changed consensus on plenty of them in front my very eyes, and I kinda lost faith in the field.

bcebulla2• 12 years ago

There is a 20,000 person 2x2 randomized controlled trial underway right now looking at how useful fish oil is in preventing disease: http://www.vitalstudy.org Results will be out around 2017-2020.

An observational study from the 1970s and a critique of an observational study from the 1970s will carry little merit compared to a 20k RCT.

Knowing that we'll have better data in 5 years, the comment by the researcher is nauseating: "They simply don't do anything for you. The people should know that it doesn't help to prevent heart disease." Since we haven't quite reached an apex in research in fish oil, the comment is short-sighted and is overstating what we know about fish oil to date.

mikestew2• 12 years ago

Just because we might have better data sometime down the road does not make the researcher's comment false. Assuming that the original study was flawed as claimed, then we're left to conclude that fish oil is in fact snake oil until we have evidence to the contrary.

bcebulla2• 12 years ago

The researcher's comment IS false based on the information we have available to date. We do not know if fish oil is worthless or not. The researcher implicitly states that he knows fish oil is worthless based on the evidence to date, when the evidence to date is much more mixed.

The NEJM article in this thread is much better evidence -- a 13k RCT that found no statistically significant benefit in 1g/day of omega 3s. On the other hand, there was a large 11k trial in the 90s that did find benefit 1g/day of omega 3s: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10465168

The VITAL study underway will be interesting. It's the largest trial to date on fish oil and is looking at a healthy normal population, as opposed to those with CVD or high-risk of CVD.

Cowicide4• 12 years ago

Agreed, plus those that say that fish oil is completely useless should take a hard look at what the prestigious Mayo Clinic has to say about it:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-ac...

Theodores• 12 years ago

As a vegetarian I am pleased to hear that those fish oil supplements are not all that they are cracked up to be.

As a child I was made to feel that as a vegetarian, if I did not take these fish oil supplements, then I would probably die. No TV advert or doctor told me that, just ambient peer pressure from good, well-meaning friends and their mothers that indulged in these fish oil things. The fear of god is one thing, scientific evidence from the back of the packet is something else. Looking back it is a miracle that I did not give in to the peer pressure.

I am part of the self-selected control group of vegetarians. We exist so any normal people (i.e. in the meat-eating cult) can see if you really need fish, meat or some scientifically proven meat/fish dietary supplement thing. As it happens the vegetarian control group, even if some of them do wear leather shoes, tends to outlive those that are tied to their beliefs about things like eating their fish oils, getting tonnes of protein from beef, eating things because those vitamins can only be found in pigs not celery and so on.

Hence I can quietly keep my feelings of "told you so" to myself on this one, rather than go round my friend's mum's house and tell her how wrong she was to try and force feed me that fish oil stuff.

eshvk8• 12 years ago

I respect your choice to be vegetarian. I am sure there are times where your friends/family members harassed you for your beliefs; I sympathize. However, there are others who are not necessarily vegetarians and you come across as a over compensating dick.

Just saying.

mikestew2• 12 years ago

Hence I can quietly keep my feelings of "told you so" to myself on this one

Yes, quietly post to an international forum of thousands of users how you're keeping those feelings to yourself.

As a vegetarian myself, I would suggest that you'll hold an audience longer by dialing the "smug" knob down a notch. People like their meat, and someone waiting since childhood to say "I told you so" isn't likely to change their mind.

On the other hand, calm and reasonable explanations aren't likely to change their minds, either. Because, damn, bacon sure tastes good.

onedev• 12 years ago

I ate meat today and it tasted good. I was happy. I just wanted to let you know.

epo2• 12 years ago

In my experience, there are two types of vegeterian: those that just get on with it and the smug evangelising types who feel it necessary to preach at the flimsiest opportunity (e.g. what have leather shoes got to do with diet?). A balanced diet is necessary and in most Western societies this is easier to achieve for omnivores. Your friend's mum thought she was doing the best for you and all you can do in return is be self-righteous. Grow up, you'll probably stop being a hipster vegeterian when you do.

Evgeny• 12 years ago

As it happens the vegetarian control group, even if some of them do wear leather shoes, tends to outlive those

I am sorry, but no such thing happens. There's a lot written on the subject why you can not directly compare "vegetarians" to "everyone else". For example, vegetarians not only do not eat meat, but also smoke and drink less, and exercise more than the general population and are in general more health conscious. So there are many confounding factors involved.

However, if you study people who are vegetarians not for health reasons, but, for example, religion - you suddenly find no health benefits, but rather quite a few increased risks.

Here's one of the articles on the topics, and plenty of scientific links inside for the curious.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/01/06/vegetarians-and-heart-disea...

Key quotes for those who like TL;DRs:

The good news for the vegetarians is that their Lp-PLA2—a marker specifically for vascular inflammation—was lower than in the control group. But that’s where the good news ends. The researchers seemed pretty surprised to report that the vegetarians had higher levels of CRP (borderline significant at p=0.05) than the omnivores, along with higher homocysteine and triglycerides.

The surprising results? The vegetarians had significantly thicker arterial walls (p<0.0001), reduced flow-mediated dilation (a predictor of cardiovascular events) (p<0.0001), higher blood pressure (p<0.05), and higher triglycerides (p<0.05) than the omnivores. (According to the paper, the raised blood pressure might be related to some popular high-sodium vegetarian foods such as processed protein food substitutes, fake oyster sauce, and tomato paste.)

In the researchers’ multivariate statistical models, vegetarianism had the strongest association with both artery thickness and diminished flow-mediated dilation out of all the variables documented—including age, gender, and triglyceride levels.

As might be expected, the vegetarians also had lower B12 levels and higher homocysteine than the control group—but even after adjusting for these, vegetarianism remained strongly linked with less-healthy hearts. The researchers concluded with this:

In summary, contrary to common belief, vegetarians, at least in the Chinese, might have accelerated atherosclerosis and abnormal arterial endothelial function, compared with omnivore control subjects. The increased risk could only be partially explained by their higher blood pressure, triglyceride, homocysteine, and lower vitamin B12 concentrations.

tpeng2• 12 years ago

Popular and consensus opinions in nutrition (including those ostensibly backed by science) are overturned all the time. Just look at historical views on saturated fat, GI, cholesterol, etc. etc. That's why the seemingly anti-intellectual advice of "eat a variety of foods in moderation" is actually quite good advice.

Lost_BiomedE• 12 years ago

I think a lot of the heart disease confusion stemmed from preventing it is very different than what should be done once you have it. I still see a lot of confusion on this in literature. The layman seems to be unaware of it altogether. That makes even legitimate research look very contradictory.

eshvk8• 12 years ago

That's why the seemingly anti-intellectual advice of "eat a variety of foods in moderation" is actually quite good advice.

That is because it is vague, imprecise and can be defined whichever way you want.

For example, how much protein should a person intake? 56 gms per day as per the CDC. Other variant figures in the body building community include like 0.68 gms per kg to 2.5 gms per kg. So which figure does one use to establish the definition of moderation? Genetic and cultural differences also come into play. I have lived in cultures (Africa/Asia) where protein is expensive, eaten less. If I went with that sociological perspective of moderation, I could very easily eat less than the 56 gms of the CDC requirement. If I went with the American concept of protein, which sub population do I go with? Do I go with the traditional American eat a Burger + Mashed Potatoes erry day deal or go all Keto and eat Bacon every day?

Personally, I believe that one should gradually evolve towards a lifestyle that is suited to one's own needs.

montecarl• 12 years ago

Personally, I believe that one should gradually evolve towards a lifestyle that is suited to one's own needs.

Learning to live your own life really is a lot of work. Everyone's body is different and has its own set of quirks. I wonder when in the future medicine will be tailored to each individual. I would not be surprised if a diet/lifestyle that is healthy for one person is terrible for another. This is obviously the case for some people with well known disorders, but it might be true across the entire population.

For example, if I follow a diet where most of my calories come from carbohydrates, I tend to get very hungry in between meals. And even worse, if I miss a meal I feel very faint. However, if I get most of my calories from fat and protein, I do not get hungry between meals and if I miss a meal I don't feel like I'm going to die.

tpeng2• 12 years ago

It's true that the concept of moderation doesn't prescribe specific targets. It only excludes extreme targets.

The two rules that you really can bank on are that calorie intake is directly linked to weight loss/gain, and you need a certain amount of protein and fat to maintain or build muscle. That being said, protein needed for survival is minimal. Other dietary parameters will affect long-term health, but laypersons are so inundated with misinformation that it's better to eat a variety of foods in moderation than to adopt extreme diets or novel nutritional theories.

Why are those "one weird trick" ads so profitable?

I have a hypothesis that people focus on magic pills (like fish oil) and conspiracy theories (like sugar toxicity) because it is a welcome distraction from an ugly truth: that in order to achieve their ideal body composition, they just need to be extremely disciplined and hardworking in their dietary and exercise habits, and for the sake of long-term health, they should lay off the junk food. There's no "trick". People already generally know what they have to do, but they pretend to themselves that they don't, because if they know what they have to do and fail to do it, that's indicative of personal weakness. It's cognitive dissonance.

sev2• 12 years ago

Coming soon:

"Popular debunking study of popular fish oil study deeply flawed, new research says."

dfc2• 12 years ago

I do not think this comment was very beneficial to the community here at HN. It seems this same sentiment can be found in other comments on this story. Furthermore, regardless of the novelty of the idea expressed, these slapstick humor, childish one liners do not invite debate or lead to lively discussions. What was the point of your comment?

sev2• 12 years ago

Though I agree it was slapstick humor, in my eyes it was the fastest way to convey the simple idea that science research findings often alternate from saying something is good for you, to something is bad for you. You really are never sure of anything.

carbocation• 12 years ago

There is a more recent popular fish oil study - a randomized, placebo-controlled trial - showing that fish oil has no effect on CV mortality or morbidity. It's in the New England Journal, no less. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1205409

digitalengineer2• 12 years ago

Fish oil or Snake oil? "One tiny brain-imaging study of fatty acids has been used to endorse fish oil as education's magic pill" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/bad-sci...

Makes me think about people, science and the church. There is large decline in the church and it's as though a "faith" in everything "science" has replaced it.

Dylan16807• 12 years ago

Chinese water snakes are full of omega-3s.

bambax• 12 years ago

Your comment is being unjustly downvoted.

It's not true that there's such a thing as "faith" in true science, since science is the opposite of faith.

But I would agree that there's faith in "science" with quotes, ie science-sounding pseudo-facts.

Food supplements can't be good; we should just eat real food that we cook ourselves; everything else is going to do us harm.

pmboyd• 12 years ago

The America Heart Association's recommendation is based on multiple randomized control studies (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/21/2747.full#sec-4), none of which are the study in question.

mehwoot2• 12 years ago

Well, most of those studies deal specifically with people recovering from a heart attack, not the general population. Those are two very different groups.

The largest study there (MARGARIN) showed pretty much no benifit for ordinary people with no history of MI. There are many mixed results in that summary as well...

Several randomized trials of fish oil were conducted over the past 10 years to test the hypothesis that omega-3 fatty acids could prevent restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Although a meta-analysis of seven early trials concluded that supplementation was beneficial,49 more recent trials (with large study populations given 5 to 7 g/d of omega-3 fatty acids) have not supported this conclusion.50,51 Most investigators have concluded that further trials are not warranted.

The first study to explore the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on angiographic progression rates provided 59 patients either 6 g/d of omega-3 fatty acids or olive oil for 2 years.46 No benefit was observed.

In contrast to the growing body of evidence supporting a protective effect of omega-3 fatty acids in secondary prevention, a recent study reported no effect of 3.5 g/d of DHA+EPA versus corn oil on cardiac events in post-MI patients (n=300) after 1.5 years of intervention.

Far from conclusive.

iopq2• 12 years ago

Fish oil contains EPA and DHA which are necessary for healthy brain function. The heart benefits may be bullshit.

mehwoot2• 12 years ago

That doesn't mean that a normal person would necessarily see any benefit from having more than they are already.

iopq2• 12 years ago

The normal person doesn't not eat fatty fish every week.

destroyewski• 12 years ago

I think they change the ratio of LDL / HDL , i.e. they increase the HDL level which is good since, there is less cholesterol in periphery arteries to clog them. i also remember them having an effect on triglycerides (overall decrease), so i still don't think that omega 3 effects on cvd is BS since those are some of the key factors of the genesis of arteriosclerosis, so it might not help the Heart itself directly , but i am pretty sure there are huge vascular advantages and that's mostly anyway what's messing up the heart in the ende.

nazgulnarsil2• 12 years ago

Eating fish is much more robustly tied to health outcomes. This is all the result of people absolutely refusing to follow health advice more complex than popping a pill.

jebblue• 12 years ago

Red wine, extra virgin olive oil and nuts are supremely good for you. Do not believe the disparaging stories showing up on HN today.

knodi• 12 years ago

I take 1800mg of DHA a day and on those days my joins don't hurt. I do martial arts and that takes a toll on my knees but when i take fish oil they feel better.

Placebo? Maybe, but it works for me.

seanmcdirmid• 12 years ago

Placebos work in general as long as the problems are psychological. The whole field Chinese Medicine depends on that.

DanBC• 12 years ago

Be cautious with the phrase "psychological problems". Placebo seems to work well for pain, and peoe will get very angry if you describe the pain they feel as a psychological problem.

spacehome• 12 years ago

Not really. The placebo effect is real and strong and works even on some maladies that aren't psychosomatic.

Semaphor• 12 years ago

Placebos work in general as long as the problems are psychological.

There was a study [0] about the placebo effect in heart failure patients: "In a 1999 Swedish Study, doctors implanted an active pacemaker into 40 heart failure patients. Another 40 patients underwent the same surgery, believing they were receiving active pacemakers. But their pacemakers were never turned on: they were, in essence, placebo pacemakers." - [1]

Now as a disclaimer, I did not complete read or understand this study nor do I know if there are counter studies, but it's my favorite bit of information about the placebo effect.

[0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10190407

[1] http://blog.placeboeffect.com/reverse-heart-disease/ (laymen conclusion)

epo2• 12 years ago

But wishful thinking is a powerful influence, it triggers all sorts of internal processes which may indeed be more powerful and beneficial than medicine. Similarly, religion is nothing more than placebo, but that has influenced (and perhaps benefited) mankind since forever.

guruz• 12 years ago

Seth Roberts would agree.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/

Look for his postings on Omega3, Flaxseed oil etc.

cincinnatus• 12 years ago

I discovered by accident that it reduced my wrist pain. I wasn't looking for that benefit so I'd say not placebo effect.

Popular fish oil study deeply flawed, new research says

Related Stories