Dr. McDougall's Online Discussion Board

Fish Oil Claims Not Supported by Research

Wow:

At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly

compared with a placebo, fish oil showed no benefit

“I think that the era of fish oil as medication could be considered over now,” said the study’s lead author

This link worked better for me.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/20 ... -research/

Unfortunately, the conclusions are usually wrong:

Like many cardiologists, Dr. Stein encourages his patients to avoid fish oil supplements and focus instead on eating fatty fish at least twice a week, in line with federal guidelines on safe fish intake, because fish contains a variety of healthful nutrients other than just EPA and DHA.

Not to mention all the idiotic comments. It seems that people can't ever accept that placebo applies to them.

The mainstream and 2015 diet guidelines are promoting seafood over fish oil.

I would be interested in related data not mentioned:
1. Whether those taking properly stored pharmaceutical grade oil (as opposed to the typical toxic/spoiled health food store product) had a lower death rate from initial attack defib.?
2. Was the death rate any lower for those who's EFA ratio was lowest? There is some evidence that SAD eaters who take fish oil may not fare as well as those who consume a healthier diet/ratio to start with.
3. Were the results dose specific? Most studies are based on only 1000mg. Did those taking 3-4K mg. daily fare any better?
Anyone read the actual study text?

The only study I saw about fish oils that seemed well done was a couple of years ago. They showed that Trigs were reduced by 25%, BUT no markers of inflammation were affected. So, we have another study that showed we can move numbers around, but that doesn't seem to make any difference in real health and survival.