Skip to comments.Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation Not Associated With Lower Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease...
Posted on 09/17/2012 10:37:49 PM PDT by neverdem
Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation Not Associated With Lower Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events
In a study that included nearly 70,000 patients, supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiac death, sudden death, heart attack, or stroke, according to an analysis of previous studies published in the Sept. 12 issue of JAMA.
"Treatment with marine-derived omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the prevention of major cardiovascular adverse outcomes has been supported by a number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and refuted by others. Although their mechanism of action is not clear, their postulated effect on cardiovascular outcomes may be due to their ability to lower triglyceride levels, prevent serious arrhythmias, or even decrease platelet aggregation and lower blood pressure. Current guidelines issued by major societies recommend their use, either as supplements or through dietary counseling, for patients after myocardial infarction [MI; heart attack], whereas the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved their administration only as triglyceride-lowering agents in patients with overt hypertriglyceridemia, and some (but not all) European national regulatory agencies have approved the omega-3 administration for cardiovascular risk modification. The controversy stemming from the varying labeling indications causes confusion in everyday clinical practice about whether to use these agents for cardiovascular protection," according to background information in the article.
Evangelos C. Rizos, M.D., Ph.D., of the University Hospital of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece, and colleagues performed a large-scale synthesis of the available randomized evidence by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between omega-3 PUFAs and major cardiovascular outcomes.
Of the 3,635 citations retrieved, 20 studies with 68,680 randomized patients were included, reporting 7,044 deaths, 3,993 cardiac deaths, 1,150 sudden deaths, 1,837 heart attacks, and 1,490 strokes. Analysis indicated no statistically significant association with all-cause mortality, cardiac...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Only real wild Salmon will do, but that will soon be banned /S
I guess the science wasn’t settled.
This kind of summary of various studies illustrates what is wrong with nutritional medicine in the hands of convention doctors and researchers. Our whole medical orientation is toward curing diseases, preferably with drugs. The idea of preventing disease through the use of vital nutrients, diet, exercise, and stress reduction is alien to the PharmoMedicoIndustrial Complex, and worst of all it costs a whole lot less.
All these so called nutrition studies try varying one nutrient like you would with a drug. What is need is studies using combinations of nutrients and diet that should reasonably target prevention of certain conditions. Dr. Atkins has written a number of books on this approach. Currently I am reading “Dr. Atkins’ Health Revolution: How Complementary Medicine Can Extend Your Life.” What he means by Complementary Medicine means preventive type nutriional medicine in combination with conventional medical treatment where that is warranted. Omega 3 and Omega 6 have been useful in combination with other health enhancing nutrients in successfully treating a number of conditions. Also the bottles say to take one 1 gram capsule once or twice a day. Atkins often used 8 or 9 grams a day. Comparing various studies, you no doubt have people taking different doses in different studies.
Personally, I became interested in nutritional health intervention when I was in my early 30’s. Now 40 years later I am in excellent health, look 15 or 20 years younger, never had the severe health problems that plagued my mother. They were starting, but that is when I discovered nutritional medicine. Only you can do what is really needed to maintain optimum health. The doctors are only interested when you start getting sick.
Right, it’s like the chocolate industry doing a study on how good chocolate is for you.
I think omega-3 is supposed to be good for anti inflammation.
As one with heart disease its really genetics that's the problem. If you eat well and exercise and have bad genes your
screwed. If you eat junk and don't exercise and have good genes you should be ok.
It’s a freaking meta study. He looked over a whole bunch of other studies and extrapolated. Some of them were bloody questionnaires.
Well, what was the QUALITY of the fish oil supplement these people were taking.? There is a world of difference between actual clean waters pure fish oils like Nordic naturals brand, very pure but pricy, and chinese made pills found at your local Walgreen’s that might not have anything valuable in them. There was no standard.
Nobodys getting my Carsons oil away from me. Awsome stuff. Studies be damn
Right, nutrients are good for a variety of things, not just cardiac, etc. Heal one part of the body and you will heal many.
I am not giving up my Nature Made. I don’t care if it is the placebo effect or what. Since I have been taking my multis and a fish oil tab daily, my work output has increased, I exercise better and I feel better.
And I am a guy who smokes daily, drinks (once or twice a month) and works out at a gym two to four times a week (schedule permitting).
Nature Made may not be top of the line, but it’s good solid stuff.
Have you noticed that since progressives dominated academia, almost everything experts told us about food has been wrong?
Krill oil for the win.
Re: your tag line
I’d switch them tho....LOL
Now, watch Limbaugh jump on this and tell the world, "We don't need stinkin' vitamins" and the drones here on FR will dump theirs down the drain...
...performed a large-scale synthesis of the available randomized evidence by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis...
What that means is that patients were randomly picked to be in one group or the other; i.e., control groups were built in. The meta-analysis part means that the researchers used some pretty heavy-duty statistics to compile and analyze the data; these statistics can find significant differences of less than a percent between different categories. (That doesn't mean the differences mean anything; just that they have been uncovered.) (The word "significant" refers to the reliability of the statistical findings, not to the subject of the research.)
My reading of this article suggests to me that the various original studies were undertaken to determine the effect of Omega-3 on triglyceride levels, not on cardiovascular disease. The assumption is that because cardiovascular disease and triglyceride levels are associated with each other, that the triglyceride levels drive cardiovascular disease progression. Such assumptions are not valid, but many physicians (who are rarely trained as researchers) who enter into research don't grasp the idea that correlation =/= causation. This meta-study actually used the data from those studies to look at cardiovascular outcomes, which is not what those studies were designed to look at (although the data was apparently recorded anyway).
I guess no one had looked at cardio outcomes before, because they had *all* made the mistaken correlation=causation assumption.
Anyway, sorry for being so long, but analysis of scientific topics can rarely be summed up in a couple of concise sentences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.