Omega 3 Supplements?

[In My Spare Time]

My mother is insisting that I should be on an Omega 3 Fatty Acid supplement. I think she's most likely wrong (again) about my diet. I've been a vegetarian for the last 11 years (no meat/poultry/fish, dairy and eggs are in). I'm also generally very healthy, rarely sick and athletic. Every year or so there's some new thing Mom comes up with that I'm doing wrong dietarily, usually involving supplements.
Generally I feel that if you eat reasonably well supplements are pretty completely unnecessary, though there's been a lot of positive press for omega 3 lately and, as far as I know, it's only normally available in fish.

So, medical people, do I need to be finding some source for Omega 3 or can I safely ignore this one just like iron, beans and rice together only, and whatever else I haven't listened to?

[BenBurch]

Fish oil Omega-3 (buy the stuff where they have depleted the Mercury!) really is good for you.

[kellyb]

Eggs have Omega 3. The expensive ones have a lot of Omega 3. (if the USDA seal is really a verification of quality, a least.)
I think the amount in "normal" eggs are probably enough, though.

[BenBurch]

BUT, it appears that Flax Seed Oil also has Omega-3 fatty acids.

[Sinope]

I take omega3/fish oil supplements because I can't stand eggs and hate most fish. (I eat chilli salt squid at a certain restaurant but that's about it, fishwise;)!)

I think if you eat a balanced diet, supplements are unneccesary. (I just don't think my diet is so balanced!)

[jon]

Not a medical person, but eating omega 3 fats (and a high omega 3: omega 6 ratio) does seem to have some beneficial effects. For example, in the UK eating oily fish is one of the NICE recommendations for those who have had heart attacks. On the other hand, large populations (e.g. much of India's population) eat a fish-free diet, without any horrific consequences. Getting a reasonable amount of omega 3 fats isn't a bad idea, though...and at least eggs, walnuts etc. are tasty :)

'Normal' eggs are relatively high in omega 6 fats - the omega 3: omega 6 ratio is significant, so those wouldn't be a good source of omega 3 on their own. The 'good' omega 3 eggs contain some DHA iirc (I eat fish, so never really looked that closely at eggs) meaning these may be a good source of that? Flaxseeds (and rapeseed oil, and walnuts) contain omega 3, but in a form that's used by our bodies in a less efficient way than omega 3 from fish/animal sources. If you are considering supplements, I believe you can now get algae and/or plankton pills with EPA and DHA fats in them - so no need to use fish oil, if you're vegetarian for ethical reasons.

If I were vegetarian, without any health problems, I'd try to eat a reasonable amount of omega 3. I'm not sure if I'd bother with pills...

[In My Spare Time]

rapeseed oil=canola oil right?
Walnuts are very tasty, and I'd happily add Canola oil to my kitchen. I have very little patience for pills and since the vegetarianism is partly ethical I would avoid fish oil.
Thanks, everyone so far.

[BenBurch]

rapeseed oil=canola oil right?

Correct except based on Canadian hybrid rapeseed, hence the name.

[BenBurch]

BTW, fish oils are a byproduct. You won't cause any more fish to be caught by using it.

[In My Spare Time]

BTW, fish oils are a byproduct. You won't cause any more fish to be caught by using it.

I am aware that this is a good, rational argument. I hope you won't be offended that I reject it entirely. Everyone is entitled to a little harmless irrationality. This is why I refuse to eat shellfish but happily swat mosquitos.

[jon]

sounds sensible enough. If you eat eggs anyway, you might want to try the dha eggs, too...

One more thing - if using canola oil, you may want to check the relative benefits if used for frying as opposed to cold. Probably 'best' in salad dressings etc. - can't remember how much difference heating the stuff makes...

[BenBurch]

I am aware that this is a good, rational argument. I hope you won't be offended that I reject it entirely. Everyone is entitled to a little harmless irrationality. This is why I refuse to eat shellfish but happily swat mosquitos.

Never offended. I just point out options. :)

[bruto]

Tell her that if she's really really concerned about your omega 3's, the best source in the world is.....mother's milk.

[El Greco]

do I need to be finding some source for Omega 3

Yes. Especially EPA/DHA.

[autumn1971]

I recently (for the last year) have been on a diet intended to reduce my cholesterol, and so have been minimizing my meat consumption. My last lipid panel showed that my cholesterol is now excellent (low LDL, high HDL, cumulatively below whatever the heck level is normal), but my triglyceride level is pretty high. My doctor told me to take fish-oil pills just to reduce my tryglyseride levels.
In cases of specialized diets, there is always a chance of missing something because of a personal quirk (I don't like seafood, and the overall reduction in my meat intake [much less gay than it sounds] left me short of Omega 3's). I would venture that in many cases supplements aren't a bad idea, although a varied and balanced diet is certainly two steps in the right direction.

[Georg]

Hemp oil is good for you. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16637630/)

The hempseed is one of the most balanced sources of omega-3 and omega-6 Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs). Studies link many common ailments to an imbalance and deficiency of EFAs in the typical Western diet: too much omega-6 and not enough omega-3. Fish and fish oils are typically recommended because they provide the omega-3 derivatives of SDA, DHA, and EPA, but for some consumers the concern over the contamination of fish by mercury and other environmental toxins (which has led the FDA to warn pregnant women and nursing mothers to restrict their fish intake) hemp’s omega profile is a good alternative to fish. The seeds also provide other phytonutrients, including phytosterols and carotenes as well as Vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, and potassium.

Hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids (the "good" fats) and it is also rich in some essential amino acids, including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk.

[stevea]

Actually all omega-3 is ultimately from plant sources. Cold water fish consume & store a lot through their food chain (some cold water algae or something). Yes - current thinking is that modern diet has remarkably low omeha3:omega-6 ratio and that this should be corrected.

[Southwind17]

Tell her that if she's really really concerned about your omega 3's, the best source in the world is.....mother's milk.

Or even grandma's (bitty!) ;)

[NeilC]

if you refuse, irrationally as you say, to eat fish oil then flax oil is your best bet. It has plenty of Omega 3 in it. But it's not EPA. It has ALA which is converted at about 15% efficiency so you have to take a lot more.

[Loss Leader]

I take a fish oil supplement but you may not need to.

As near as I can tell, the important thing is not the total Omega 3 you get but the ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6. If you're a confirmed vegitarian, you may not be getting as much Omega 3 as a fish-eater, but you definitely are getting a lot less Omega 6 than a meat-eater.

Get a lipid panel at your next check-up. If your numbers are high, try taking an Omega 3 supplement. How healthy you feel now is no indication of how hyperlipidemia will affect your health in the future.

[Georg]

if you refuse, irrationally as you say, to eat fish oil then flax oil is your best bet. It has plenty of Omega 3 in it. But it's not EPA. It has ALA which is converted at about 15% efficiency so you have to take a lot more.

Why would it be better than the hemp oil mentioned above?

[Big Les]

Be aware that there is some woo attached to Omega 3, with regard to its supposedly intellect-expanding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/07/badscience.comment) properties.

See also www.badscience.net

[fls]

In My Spare Time,

As a medical person, I would recommend making better use of your time than worrying about Omega-3. The evidence that it will make any sort of difference to your life is weak.

Linda

[Southwind17]

Be aware that there is some woo attached to Omega 3, with regard to its supposedly intellect-expanding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/07/badscience.comment) properties.

See also www.badscience.net

This, to me, looks much more like criticism of the methodology adopted by the school in Durham that carried out the 'research' rather then the alleged benefits of Omega-3, so, personally, I'd stop well short of labelling it 'woo'.

[Southwind17]

In My Spare Time,

As a medical person, I would recommend making better use of your time than worrying about Omega-3. The evidence that it will make any sort of difference to your life is weak.

Linda

I take Omega-3 capsules, but I can't claim to know or even believe that they are beneficial. I like to think that they could be, or I'd stop taking them tomorrow, obviously. What's the 'weak evidence' that you allude to Linda? I'd like to understand Omega-3 better before I 'invest' in my next replacement bottle!

[fls]

I take Omega-3 capsules, but I can't claim to know or even believe that they are beneficial. I like to think that they could be, or I'd stop taking them tomorrow, obviously. What's the 'weak evidence' that you allude to Linda? I'd like to understand Omega-3 better before I 'invest' in my next replacement bottle!

The evidence that they may be beneficial as a preventive measure is based on notoriously unreliable epidemiologic studies.* It has yet to be confirmed (i.e. the studies that have been done haven't shown a consistent significant difference) that supplements make a difference in meaningful outcomes in secondary prevention for specific disease states which means the idea of primary prevention is not supported by good evidence but by a string of 'ifs'.

Linda

*Epidemiologic studies are very good at dividing people into groups that have different outcomes. They are not so good at allowing you to determine what characteristics are relevant to those different outcomes.

[BenBurch]

Well, we know from veterinary experiments that Omega-3 to Omega-6 ratios have a measurable health effect in the animal models.

We also know that taking such supplements (if you avoid the products where the Mercury has not been depleted) is absolutely harmless to you.

Given those two factors it would be unwise not to take the supplements until it is actually PROVEN valueless in humans.

[fls]

Well, we know from veterinary experiments that Omega-3 to Omega-6 ratios have a measurable health effect in the animal models.

We also know that taking such supplements (if you avoid the products where the Mercury has not been depleted) is absolutely harmless to you.

Given those two factors it would be unwise not to take the supplements until it is actually PROVEN valueless in humans.

We don't actually know that it is harmless. But the evidence that it is harmless is almost as good as the evidence that it is helpful. And I'll certainly continue to promote the general idea that it's useful to eat a balanced diet which includes 2 servings of fish per week (or in the case of the vegetarian, other foods that contain omega-3 fatty acids).

I don't care if people have the money and inclination to take supplements (although I have an unproven impression that it only contributes to the pill-popping, quick-fix mentality), but it seems silly to say it is unwise to do so when they haven't been proven safe or effective for the proposed use. My main message is, if you don't want to be bothered worrying about them, you don't need to.

Linda

[NeilC]

Why would it be better than the hemp oil mentioned above?

AFAIK flax has more ALA which I believe is the one that is converted into EPA, which is the thing you take fish oil for. I think flax contains more than any other veg oil. Hence flax is recommended as a replacement for fish oil.

[BenBurch]

Given that fish is not harmful (or if it is you should be able to see that Catholics fare less well than Baptists) you'd have to show me a mechanism by which extracted oils of fishes differs from the oils contained within the fish. Personally I don't think there is even any value in studying whether it is safe unless such a mechanism is shown. It would also have to be a mechanism that does not effect the animal models, where the data for improved clinical scores in double-blind controlled studies is sound.

And the health effects in the animal models appear to be significant.

So, yes, if I have the chance to take an inexpensive and harmless food product that seems to be substantially good for all the mammals it has been studied in, and the only negative is the construction of the confirmatory human studies, then I stand by "unwise."

And I wouldn't say that about virtually any other supplement, but I've seen a number of the veterinary papers and read the abstracts of a number of others, and the evidence is compelling at this time.

[fls]

Given that fish is not harmful (or if it is you should be able to see that Catholics fare less well than Baptists) you'd have to show me a mechanism by which extracted oils of fishes differs from the oils contained within the fish. Personally I don't think there is even any value in studying whether it is safe unless such a mechanism is shown. It would also have to be a mechanism that does not effect the animal models, where the data for improved clinical scores in double-blind controlled studies is sound.

I agree. I wouldn't study safety any differently than how it is usually recorded through clinical trials. My niggling concern is that in the US it is more difficult to discover and remove unsafe 'food supplements' from the market than it is for conventional drugs.

And the health effects in the animal models appear to be significant.

So, yes, if I have the chance to take an inexpensive and harmless food product that seems to be substantially good for all the mammals it has been studied in, and the only negative is the construction of the confirmatory human studies, then I stand by "unwise."

But that seems to be merely a difference in philosophy, rather than a position supported by evidence. When studies in humans fail to demonstrate differences in meaningful outcomes, couldn't it also be considered unwise to waste resources that could be spent elsewhere?

It seems to be a matter of personal preference. I don't think it's unreasonable or unwise for some people to find the taking of fish-oil supplements a good use of their resources. I also don't think it's unreasonable or unwise for other people to want a better (as a subjective assessment) use for their resources.

And I wouldn't say that about virtually any other supplement, but I've seen a number of the veterinary papers and read the abstracts of a number of others, and the evidence is compelling at this time.

Okay.

Linda

[Georg]

AFAIK flax has more ALA which I believe is the one that is converted into EPA, which is the thing you take fish oil for. I think flax contains more than any other veg oil. Hence flax is recommended as a replacement for fish oil.

Thanks, and you are right. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-linolenic_acid)

[ponderingturtle]

Given that fish is not harmful

This is a hard statement to rest an argument on. Sure fish is not highly harmful and does not seem to be very harmful. But extracting parts of a common food and then taking that can certainly be harmful. You can get much higher effective doses of the substances than you could get through eating them.

I think it is highly unlikely, but the relative merits of say butter vs margarine and such changing all the time I question such absolute statements.

[El Greco]

One word: Pubmed

[NeilC]

This is a hard statement to rest an argument on. Sure fish is not highly harmful and does not seem to be very harmful. But extracting parts of a common food and then taking that can certainly be harmful. You can get much higher effective doses of the substances than you could get through eating them.

I think it is highly unlikely, but the relative merits of say butter vs margarine and such changing all the time I question such absolute statements.

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

[ponderingturtle]

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

That is what consumer labs says. It has to do with the refining process.

[jon]

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Oily fish is potentially harmful - e.g. eating lots of seafood does very much appear to raise mercury levels in the body. However, whether this is is actually harmful - especially to adults who aren't, and won't be becoming, pregnant - is another issue. While I wouldn't deliberately raise my mercury levels, I'm quite relaxed about eating a few portions of fish a week (especially as, if I weren't eating the fish, I'd normally have something with more saturated fat etc instead...)

re. fish vs. fish oil supplements, the standard dietary advice is still generally to eat oily fish in moderation rather than take pills: fish is usually a healthy meal choice, which can replace less healthy alternatives (hence giving a double benefit). It also seems a better use of resources - e.g. I can buy a tin of sardines for the same price, or slightly less, than I'd pay for the equivalent amounts of omega 3 in pills. And the fish count as food that way, too :)

re. flax vs other oils with omega 3 - if people like eating flax, great. Tastes nasty to me, though, and lots seem to dislike it - so may also be worth looking at alternatives :D

[BenBurch]

Oily fish IS harmful. It contains so much mercury and other chemicals the FDA recommend limiting it to a fairly small amount every week.

Supposedly many of the oils are free of the pollutants.

That is not the fish per se but the fish raised in our horribly polluted oceans. It has been shown that Mercury concentrations in fish respond quickly to and track levels of industrial pollutants.

So, I stand my my contention. Before the Industrial Age there were many populations where Catholics and non-Catholics existed side-by side and ate exactly the same diet except that Catholics had "meatless days" on which only fish could be eaten. I am aware of no retrospective study, and I have looked, that shows that Catholics did less well because of this. If you can find one, I would be grateful for it!

And as you say, in most fish oil products, Mercury has been depleted. (I would not trust any coming from China, though - its more likely to be waste motor oil than fish oil given their record.)

[ponderingturtle]

That is not the fish per se but the fish raised in our horribly polluted oceans. It has been shown that Mercury concentrations in fish respond quickly to and track levels of industrial pollutants.

So, I stand my my contention. Before the Industrial Age there were many populations where Catholics and non-Catholics existed side-by side and ate exactly the same diet except that Catholics had "meatless days" on which only fish could be eaten. I am aware of no retrospective study, and I have looked, that shows that Catholics did less well because of this. If you can find one, I would be grateful for it!

And as you say, in most fish oil products, Mercury has been depleted. (I would not trust any coming from China, though - its more likely to be waste motor oil than fish oil given their record.)

Is one day of fish supposted to change anything? Also it is meatless, before the industrial age the extent that you could transport fish was rather limited.

[PetersCreek]

I realize this is purely anecdotal but...

I supplement my dog's already high-quality diet with oil from wild-caught Alaskan salmon. It has made an appreciable difference in his conditioning.

So, if you'd like a soft, shiny coat with less dander... :D

[Big Les]

This, to me, looks much more like criticism of the methodology adopted by the school in Durham that carried out the 'research' rather then the alleged benefits of Omega-3, so, personally, I'd stop well short of labelling it 'woo'.

I said there was "some woo attached", as in the claim, in order to sell supplements, that Omega 3 could boost IQ. The only evidence for this claim is the trial in question, and that trial has been shown to be worthless. There must also be a placebo effect involved - people popping pills to feel better, with little tangible physical benefit. Those two aspects amount to "some" woo for me, even if the basic idea of taking supplements and of Omega 3 having theoretical benefits aren't woo in themselves.

If you want to pay for and take the supplements, go ahead. Like drinking tea or having a glass of wine a day, they may, or may not be of some benefit. But like fls says, as things stand there's little reason to worry about, much less pay out for, this kind of supplement. Most of us get more than enough of most nutrients and vitamins from our daily diet, and personally, I'd rather improve my diet than fork out for pills or whatever.

[In My Spare Time]

Based on what I'm seeing in the thread, I think I'm leaning toward buying some walnuts and a bottle of Canola oil and not worrying about it. Money isn't overly plentiful in the IMST household and given the desire to buy a house someday, I'm not gonna shell out a bunch of cash for unproven supplements.

[BenBurch]

Based on what I'm seeing in the thread, I think I'm leaning toward buying some walnuts and a bottle of Canola oil and not worrying about it. Money isn't overly plentiful in the IMST household and given the desire to buy a house someday, I'm not gonna shell out a bunch of cash for unproven supplements.

Doesn't matter how you get it into you. :)

[BenBurch]

Is one day of fish supposted to change anything? Also it is meatless, before the industrial age the extent that you could transport fish was rather limited.

80% of Western humanity lived within 50 miles of a major waterway...

Fish then were transported in leather or wooden live tanks and kept in the kitchen that way. This was actually the freshest meat protein you could get then.

And dried fish have always been a commodity of trade.

[Pyrts]

A recent meta-analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17335973&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The end of the abstract says "The results suggest that omega-3 PUFAs are an attractive adjunctive treatment for joint pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and dysmenorrhea." So if you have one of those problems, "it might not hurt." If you don't have it, don't take them and then say you did.

[BenBurch]

Meta-analysis is an unstable compound and if not carefully maintained self-catalyzes into woo with a large flame-war release.

[stevea]

Based on what I'm seeing in the thread, I think I'm leaning toward buying some walnuts and a bottle of Canola oil and not worrying about it. Money isn't overly plentiful in the IMST household and given the desire to buy a house someday, I'm not gonna shell out a bunch of cash for unproven supplements.

That seems a reasonable course to decrease the O6 to O3 ratio.. As someone (sorry) mentioned it the ratio of these two is believed to be the important factor.
Note that canola is around 2.0 O6/O3 ratio, flax oil is around 0.3 (very high in O3) and walnuts around 5. Flax oil would be much more effective in achieving a lower total-diet O6/O3 ratio.

This discussion keeps returning to fish and that's a mistake. Not all fish are rich in O3; it depends on their diet. If they are up the food chain from arctic krill for example or O3 rich plant matter then they'll be higher in O3. Salmon is a good source for example, but swordfish and roughy and many freshwater fish have little O3. "Fish" isn't the solution unless you specify which fish. Then there is the issue of farm-raised. Farm raised fish (most salmon) are fed pelletized "fish chow" and are NOT as rich in O3. Farm raised salmon for example are about 30% higher in total fats, but only slightly higher in total O3 (per unit weight) according to a USDA study. Not bad, but not ideal.

Many grazing animals (cattle, sheep) used to have a decent O3 level collected from grasses, but most today (in the US) are grain-fed and have far lower O3 levels. I believe that most Australian & NZ sheep are still grazed. Grazed cow milk high in O3, grain-fed - not so much.


Personally I think flax seed & flax oil is the best food supplement source in terms of ratios and price to quantity. Note that when the oil is separated from the natural phenolic antioxidants in seeds it will oxidize readily. Can't be used for cooking. Tastes good enough (sort of nutty) to add to salad dressing.

Note that there is an FDA approved O3 prescription
http://www.omacorrx.com/
which is approved as safe and effective for lowering serum triacyl-glycerides.

[stevea]

Meta-analysis is an unstable compound and if not carefully maintained self-catalyzes into woo with a large flame-war release.


This statement bothers me.

Western science is predicated in the process of breaking observations into smaller and smaller domains (observation) and then integrating these tiny domains into larger generalizations (meta-analysis). Yes, the integration is (rightly) more controversial than than data reportage, but .... well that's the way 'sausages' are made. It should not result in woo or flame-war so long as we retain reasonable skepticism and check our personal biases at the door (both difficult to achieve)

Now if you care to observe this process gone wrong, examine the Global Warming issue. The data is only modestly controversial (there is some rational skepticism about the accuracy of various ancient temperature & atmosphere estimates). But the meta-analysis [the anthropomorphic catastrophic global warming hypothesis, results in radical flame-wars and a good bit of woo. One problem is that virtually everyone has a vested interest in one outcome or the other, so it's quite difficult to remain emotionally detached. Reasonable skepticism is vilified by proponents.

I don't mean to hijack or divert this thread. Just a comment that meta-analysis is absolutely fundamental part of "science"; one we cannot ignore.

[BenBurch]

I strongly disagree.

Although it is *barely* possible to do a meta-analysis that bears up to scrutiny, I think you will find that most meta-analysis compares Apples to Pears. History is full of meta-analysis attempts that were proven very wrong by later, more specific research.

I think that the ones that stand up to real scrutiny are so rare that I refuse to place any faith in them.

[stevea]

I strongly disagree.

Although it is *barely* possible to do a meta-analysis that bears up to scrutiny, I think you will find that most meta-analysis compares Apples to Pears. History is full of meta-analysis attempts that were proven very wrong by later, more specific research.

I think that the ones that stand up to real scrutiny are so rare that I refuse to place any faith in them.

The term "meta-analysis" seems to have a special meaning wrt medical and sociological studies, and there are some special problems in comparing "apples to pears" as you say. When complex organisms are involved all sorts of "other variables" that are difficult to control come into play, making experimental design difficult and cross experiment comparison hazardous.

I still think you are exaggerating the issue. Is history really full of failed meta-analyses or is it just that like most analysis papers the hypothesis turns out to be not quite right in hindsight ? (that is did the meta-analysis actually draw the wrong conclusion from useful data, or instead were the sub-analyses flawed ?). Can you site a few exampes ?