HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - omega-3 bad??? RB comments?

R.B. · 02-18-2012, 05:30 PM

[COLOR="Indigo"]Hi Sarah

Thanks for posting that - negative reports as ever are worrying and the differentials in death rates they found were quite large. A recent observational study came to a different conclusion. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/0...revent-cancer/

I do not know if they tested Omega 3 blood lipids levels to make sure people had been taking the Omega 3, and digesting it as well. There is suggestion that they have adjusted for lots of factors, and you really need to see the data to see what was adjusted for. It would also be interesting to know what the breakdown of cancers were.

The flat results for Omega 3 supplementation in respect of cardiac disease run counter to much of the literature, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/21/2747.full

It is interesting that the Omega 3 plus vitamin B is not reported in the summary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331983 as having shown an increase in cancer risk, and if Omega 3 is a problem logically it would have some negative affect in this group too.

Pretty small amounts of vitamin B were used in the trial - pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B(6); 3 mg) and cyanocobalamin (vitamin B(12); 0.02 mg) compared to amounts commonly used in supplements and found in some common foods, http://www.healthaliciousness.com/ar...itamin-B12.php which foods and supplements are in turn a long way above RDA http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocente...ns/vitaminB12/ (which in itself begs a lot of questions as to what is ideal) ( I am not sure as to what RDA has been selected for the B12 in food list, the exact calculations for each food, . . . but we are looking at orders of magnitude difference).

The B vitamins alone were not reported as having any benefit either.

So why the difference between the Omega 3 and Omega 3 plus vitamin B group.

More questions that answers I am afraid, but my mind always goes back to a trial following breast lump excision that looked at Omega 3 levels in breast tissue compared to the risk of the excised lumps being invasive, and found that the risk of the lumps being invasive was 70% lower in the quartile with the highest Long chain Omega 3 in their breast tissue. Omega 3 in breast tissue is likely to be a pretty accurate reflection of Omega 3 intake.[COLOR]

02-18-2012, 05:30 PM	#2
R.B. Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,843	Re: omega-3 bad??? RB comments? [COLOR="Indigo"]Hi Sarah Thanks for posting that - negative reports as ever are worrying and the differentials in death rates they found were quite large. A recent observational study came to a different conclusion. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/0...revent-cancer/ I do not know if they tested Omega 3 blood lipids levels to make sure people had been taking the Omega 3, and digesting it as well. There is suggestion that they have adjusted for lots of factors, and you really need to see the data to see what was adjusted for. It would also be interesting to know what the breakdown of cancers were. The flat results for Omega 3 supplementation in respect of cardiac disease run counter to much of the literature, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/21/2747.full It is interesting that the Omega 3 plus vitamin B is not reported in the summary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331983 as having shown an increase in cancer risk, and if Omega 3 is a problem logically it would have some negative affect in this group too. Pretty small amounts of vitamin B were used in the trial - pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B(6); 3 mg) and cyanocobalamin (vitamin B(12); 0.02 mg) compared to amounts commonly used in supplements and found in some common foods, http://www.healthaliciousness.com/ar...itamin-B12.php which foods and supplements are in turn a long way above RDA http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocente...ns/vitaminB12/ (which in itself begs a lot of questions as to what is ideal) ( I am not sure as to what RDA has been selected for the B12 in food list, the exact calculations for each food, . . . but we are looking at orders of magnitude difference). The B vitamins alone were not reported as having any benefit either. So why the difference between the Omega 3 and Omega 3 plus vitamin B group. More questions that answers I am afraid, but my mind always goes back to a trial following breast lump excision that looked at Omega 3 levels in breast tissue compared to the risk of the excised lumps being invasive, and found that the risk of the lumps being invasive was 70% lower in the quartile with the highest Long chain Omega 3 in their breast tissue. Omega 3 in breast tissue is likely to be a pretty accurate reflection of Omega 3 intake.[COLOR] Last edited by R.B.; 02-18-2012 at 05:53 PM..