omega-3 bad??? RB comments?

[sarah]

Read this in the IHT/NY Times, wonder what you thought:

February 13, 2012
Regimens: No Cancer Benefits Seen in Supplements

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

A new study testing B vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids for cancer prevention has found no beneficial effect and — at least for women — some possibility of harm.
In this placebo-controlled five-year study, published Monday in The Archives of Internal Medicine, French researchers divided 2,501 survivors of cardiovascular illness ages 45 to 80 into four groups. The first took daily supplements of vitamin B9, vitamin B6 and vitamin B12; the second took two kinds of omega-3 fatty acids; the third took vitamin B6, vitamin B12 and omega-3; and the last took a placebo.
There were 174 cases of primary cancers among the participants, all confirmed by pathology. After controlling for dozens of other factors, the researchers found that neither the B vitamins nor the omega-3 fatty acids had any effect among the men. But there was an increased rate of cancer incidence and mortality among women who took the omega-3 supplements.
Valentina A. Andreeva, a postdoctoral researcher in epidemiology at the University of Paris who led the study, said that only 29 cancers were found in women, not a large enough number to draw broad conclusions. Still, she said, “we’re dealing with active substances that may not have beneficial effects and may have adverse effects, especially over the long term.”

[R.B.]

[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]

[sarah]

Thanks RB, agreed not thorough enough. in the IHT it was a short blurb. well I would consider Fox news a source of sensational news so not sure it should taken to heart unless another study confirms it. I'm continuing to take it since I now have a blocked artery due to radiation so need it for the heart.
What do you think of the NIH study that suggests the same in the conclusion but seems pretty small unless I read it incorrectly.
Also could they have been taking an omega 3 and 6???
I mean everything has a risk to certain people but then benefits others. What we need to know is, does it benefit more people? or hurt more people?
Keep us posted, as I know you will, if you find anything else out. A member of our cancer group works on papers for the French equivilant of ASCO, so I'll ask her about it since it's the French who did the study. If I find out any more, I'll post also.
Too often what's good for you one day becomes deadly the next and then it's the reverse, hard to keep up!
thanks
sarah

[R.B.]

Thanks Sarah

All information useful

There is no question Omega 3 is essential to health. It is pretty clear fish is good for us. Inuit who had in relative terms very high blood Omega 3 levels historically had virtually no cancer.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...ong-inuit.html

Historically the Japanese, and other groups, ate quite a lot of fish and had very low cancer levels.

So its not the Omega 3s per se that are the problem.

It would be interesting none the less to know what form the Omega 3 was in.

I still wonder why they saw the effect in the Omega 3 group but not Omega 3 with pretty minimal levels of vitamin B.

[sarah]

Thanks RB,
Yes always interesting to read about the intuit who eat a lot of "fat" and certainly fish which leads one to think the devil is really dairy and sugar.
Also I didn't notice in the report is it mentioned whether the women were ER+ or not.
I think it would be good to have a clear idea of the pluses and minuses of different supplements.
Sarah

[Ellie F]

Thanks to both of you for the info.
I always think that vits and minerals are better when derived directly from the relevant food source. I believe our understanding of how things work together in our bodies is very limited but guess that supplements don't always do the same job.
I take vit D3 during the winter as there is very little sun in England but I suspect this is not as effective as 20 minutes sun on a good day!!
Ellie