Don't believe the negative press on fish oil

25. June 2006 William Davis (0)


A British Medical Journal study released in March, 2006 has prompted a media flurry of reports on the worthlessness of fish oil. (Hooper L, Thompson RL, Harrison RA et al. Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a systematic review. BMJ March,2006)

Don't believe it for a second.

First of all, the study was a re-analysis of the existing published scientific literature. It was not a new study. It included a wild conglomeration of different clinical observations, as the studies examining fish oil over the years have been extraordinarily heterogeneous--in populations examined, omega-3 supplement (e.g., fish vs. capsule), period of observation, endpoints measured.

The results were skewed by inclusion of a moderate-sized British study by Burr et al in men with angina. In this study, no benefit was demonstrated and, in fact, a negative effect--more heart attack and death--was observed with fish oil. This was not news, since the study was published in 2003. It's results have been a mystery to everyone, since its unexpected negative result for fish oil was so starkly different from virtually every other study that preceded it (suggesting a study flaw or statistical fluke).

Nonetheless, the Burr study served to throw off the overall analysis. It diluted the dramatic and persuasive outcome of the GISSI-Prevenzione Study of 11,000 people in which a 28% reduction in heart attack and 45% reduction in cardiovascular death was observed. Note that the substantial numbers of the GISSI make the study's outcome nearly unassailable.

Another important fact: fish oil is among the most powerful tools available to correct elevated triglycerides. Drops of 50% are common. Recall that triglycerides are a necessary ingredient to create the nasty LDL, as well as VLDL, Intermediate-density lipoprotein, and an undesirable shift from large to ineffective small HDL. Reducing triglycerides is therefore crucial for your plaque control program.

This re-analysis serves to prove nothing. Such analyses can only pose questions for further study in a real study like GISSI: a randomized (random participant assignment), controlled (treatment vs. placebo or other treatment) study.

The weight of evidence remains heavily in favor of fish oil, not only as helpful, but fabulously beneficial, particularly for anyone aiming to reduce coronary plaque.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
The nutrition counterculture

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • JT

    6/25/2007 2:18:00 AM |

    Nice post.  The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman said it well I thought when he titled his last book, The World is Flat.  With easier access to information - in particular due to the internet - knowledge is no longer held by just a few.  New ideas to solving problems can be distributed like never before - and I am thankful for that as it has allowed me to discover your book and ideas.      

    While this post isn't so much about nutrition maverick figures, thought to mention one figure that was left out, Dr. Barry Sears and his many best selling books titled The Zone.    
    Dr Davis, since you are an author too, thought you might enjoy this somewhat fortunate and humorous story on how Dr. Sears became an author.  

    My family and I knew Dr. Sears several years before he became a best seller author.  Originally Barry and his brother Doug were small businessmen selling health food products.  In particular Barry was known for helping begin the borage and primrose oil business.  Later I remember the two Sears brothers sold nutrition bars that were low in sugar and high in chromium for weight loss.  He would send my parents big boxes of the bars and they just loved them.    

    Barry though never was much of a businessman.  His heart seemed to be into science and research and not running a company.  

    One day the poor business practices caught up with the Sears.  They were not paying their bills and so companies stopped selling them product.  With out options left Barry wrote the book he always wanted to write, The Zone.  He did not believe his book would sell though - and if it did only a few thousand would be sold locally.  When he found a group to promote the book he asked that his 1-800 # be added to the book so that if a reader had questions he/she could call him personally.      

    Well, the rest is history.  The Zone went on to become a New York Times best seller.  And as Doug Sears told us  - when the book came out they were flat broke, were not able to pay the phone bill  - and the 1-800 phone line would not stop ringing from customers who had read the book. It took awhile before royalties came in.  For awhile the two thought they would have to declare bankruptcy even though they had the best selling book in America and were on the brink of becoming international nutrition celebrities.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/25/2007 12:35:00 PM |

    Wow! Great personal insights.

    I agree. Barry Sears has made a significant contribution to the national conversation on healthy eating. Even though a few years old now, many of the things he said still hold true and remain relevant.

Add comment

Loading