So, decades ago, someone looked at the urine of populations and found that the population with higher than average concentrations of salt in their system had higher heart disease. voila: salt is bad.
And then decades of anti-salt hysteria followed by today’s mea culpa.
Now, there’s a study purporting to show that Omega-3 supplements CAUSE CANCER OMG!!!!!
Of course, the study goes more like this:
The study showed that men who consume a lot of EPA, DPA and DHA — three anti-inflammatory, metabolically-related fatty acids that come from fatty fish and fish-oil supplements — have a 43 percent increased chance of developing prostate cancer. Men with diets high in fatty acids were also shown to have a 71 percent increased risk of developing high-grade prostate cancer, and a 44 percent higher chance of having low-grade prostate cancer.
uh huh, that’s not what the study showed.
The study did not measure supplement use, it measured O-3’s in the blood. Who knows how it got there?
Thankfully, I am not the only person out there to notice this trick:
Is there any population in the world that may have the ranges that I recommend? The answer is the Japanese population. Their levels of EPA are about 3% of total fatty acids, and they have an AA/EPA ratio of about 1.62. This is where common sense hopefully comes into play. If the conclusion of the article was correct, then the Japanese should be decimated with prostate cancer. So what are the facts? The Japanese have one of lowest rates of prostate cancer incidence in the world.
I mean, shouldn’t stuff like this be embarrassing?
Maybe the increased O-3 levels were a response to the cancer? Maybe the cancer patients were stuffing their faces with omega-3 in hopes of a positive reaction?
I have to thank Dr. Sears in the above cited article for confirming that this study failed the smell test.
What does a study that actually investigates consumption rather than blood levels find? Moar Omega 3’s means less breast cancer.
Each 0.1-gram increase in omega-3 per day was linked with a 5 percent lower risk of having breast cancer. For comparison, a serving of an oily fish such as salmon contains about 4 grams of omega-3 fatty acids. Oily fish are those that have high concentrations of omega-3.
Oh but get this:
The researchers said perhaps fish intake in Western populations is too low to detect a protective effect against breast cancer.
That is, these studies were successful on Chinese women, not American women because our stupid low-fat lifestyle means that Western women don’t eat enough of the stuff to move the needle either way.
The lesson from both stories is that we need to eat more wild salmon and other sources of Omega-3 fat.
So, what about the study linking Omega3’s to cancer? It’s complete manure. They never measured intake only what’s in the system.
Secondly, they didn’t follow some people and watch them glug down Omega-3 oil and develop cancer, they started with cancer patients and compared them to Joe Schmoes. Just garbage.