Does fish oil cause blood thinning?

Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil have the capacity to "thin the blood." In reality, omega-3s exert a mild platelet-blocking effect (platelet activation and "clumping" are part of clot formation), while also inhibiting arachidonic acid formation and thromboxane.

But can fish oil cause excessive bleeding?

This question comes up frequently in the office, particularly when my colleagues see the doses of fish oil we use for cardiovascular protection. "Why so much fish oil? That's too much blood thinning!"

The most recent addition to the conversation comes from a Philadelphia experience reported in the American Journal of Cardiology:

Comparison of bleeding complications with omega-3 fatty acids + aspirin + clopidogrel--versus--aspirin + clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular disease.(Watson et al; Am J Cardiol 2009 Oct 15;104(8):1052-4).

All 364 subjects in the study took aspirin and Plavix (a platelet-inhibiting drug), mostly for coronary disease. Mean dose aspirin = 161 mg/day; mean dose Plavix = 75 mg/day. 182 of the subjects were also taking fish oil, mean dose 3000 mg with unspecified omega-3 content.

During nearly 3 years of observation, there was no excess of bleeding events in the group taking fish oil. (In fact, the group not taking fish oil had more bleeding events, though the difference fell short of achieving statistical significance.) Thus, 3000 mg per day of fish oil appeared to exert no observable increase in risk for bleeding. This is consistent with several other studies, including that including Coumadin (warfarin), with no increased bleeding risk when fish oil is added.

Rather than causing blood thinning, I prefer to think that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil restore protection from abnormal clotting. Taking omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil simply restores a normal level of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood sufficient to strike a healthy balance between blood "thinning" and healthy blood clotting.

Comments (20) -

  • Marc

    10/26/2009 9:46:32 PM |

    Long time reader, first comment.
    Thank you for so freely sharing all the information.

    Marc

  • Daniel

    10/26/2009 11:02:46 PM |

    Thank you for this!  I have had this question for a long time given the number of things I take that "thin the blood."

  • Kevin

    10/26/2009 11:44:45 PM |

    As a veterinarian I've dispensed fish oil capsules for several years.  Some owners give so many that the dogs smell 'fishy' when seen for routine care.  The owner doesn't smell it since they're with the dog a lot.  The coats are gorgeous, something that doesn't often happen in Wyoming at 7000ft altitude.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/26/2009 11:47:45 PM |

    Hi, Kevin--

    My two Boston terriers jump for their fish oil capsules, two every day!

    I'm glad to hear from a veterinarian that the coat sheen is indeed from the fish oil.

  • Rich

    10/27/2009 1:27:09 AM |

    Due to an afib episode a couple of years ago, I was taking 20 mg of warfarin per day, plus around 5000 mg of EPA+DHA, and never had bleeding issues.  

    My INR was always a stable 2.0.

    As I've not had an afib reoccurrence, I've replaced the 20mg coumadin with 325mg aspirin daily, and still take around 5000 mg EPA+DHA.  No bleeding issues with that combo either.

  • Catherine

    10/27/2009 3:55:32 AM |

    Glad this topic came up.
    Over the last 5 years, I've had to periodically eliminate my fish oil intake as I would start to bruise badly. My internist said she has seen this occasionally with fish oil and called it "capillary fragility." I bruise easily anyway, but it would really get bad with fish oil. So there must be some quality in fish oil that influences this.

    Then about 6 months ago I started a strong supplement change to help with my low bone density--already taking magnesium and calcium but added:
    Boron, K2, silica,pomegrantate juice, and BIG increase in vitamin D.
    I also increased omegas to 3,000 a day which I was not able to tolerate before.

    It has been over 4 months since I have had ANY bruise---which is just unheard of for me. I usually have 3-4 different bruises on arms/legs. So something in these supplements  strengthened my capillaries I guess, and I can now take high fish oil doses!
    Anyone else had a bruising problem with fish oil?

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/27/2009 11:04:59 AM |

    Hi, Catherine--

    Fascinating observation!

    I'll bet it has something to do with the vitamin D, more than anything else. Vitamin D seems to strengthen structural tissues in bones, muscle, heart valves, and perhaps capillaries and other small blood vessels.

  • trix

    10/27/2009 11:59:37 AM |

    Several years ago I bruised easily for a while and attributed it to taking garlic supplements daily.  I started taking Vit C and the bruising stopped.  I don't think it had to do with fish oil (in my case); I don't think I was taking fish oil at the time.

  • Daniel

    10/27/2009 9:37:33 PM |

    I too achieve rapid blood thinning when taking 2400mg of EPA/DHA per day. That's only 4 pharmaceutical grade capsules. Even after my vitamin d levels were normalized I still got bruising.

    I now take Vitamin K2 (MK-7 natto extract) twice a week and it's allowed me to bump my EPA/DHA up to 3600mg with no ill effects or bruising.

    It was either supplement or eat a lot of aged cheese, they both seemed to do the trick in my particular case.

  • Healthy Oil Guy

    10/27/2009 9:53:51 PM |

    Thank you for sharing this study with us.  It helps clarify whether there is a risk for blood thinning from taking fish oils.  This information may help individuals who are taking blood thinning medications and considering adding fish oils to their daily diet.

  • Dave

    10/28/2009 2:22:01 AM |

    Catherine,

    Without a doubt, your cessation of bruising was due to vitamin k2. I routinely take nattokinase, large doses of fish oil, curcumin, and other blood thinning agents, and if I don't take vitamin K2, I will begin bruising. (I also take high doses of Vitamin D). When I take K2, I have absolutely no bruising.

    Vitamin K2 has many clinical trials showing that it helps endothelium  integrity and elasticity.

    Also, grapeseed extract and pine bark extract (specifically oligomeric proanthcyanins) has the same beneficial effect.

  • Catherine

    10/28/2009 4:41:41 PM |

    Daniel,

    That's really interesting! There is a lot of research on K2's effect on strengthening weak bones. Bone fractures go down considerably when high doses of K2 are used (Japan is using K2 as osteoporosis treatment) BUT studies show it needs to be in conjunction with adequate calcium and Vitamin D---they work synergistically for bone strength.  So it makes sense that K2 and D could do the same with strengthening fragile capillaries. I am also taking the M7 natto form.

  • Catherine

    10/29/2009 12:01:36 AM |

    Dave,

    Thanks for sharing your experience with this, you've really confirmed it now for me.  I can't believe I have suffered with this for most of my life with no answers (tried high dose Vit C, grape seed, etc) and now within months on K2, there's no bruising and I can tolerate fish oil. Hope my bones are responding this well!
    This blog is so helpful....

  • Mina

    10/29/2009 12:21:31 PM |

    Thanks for posting this. The question recently came up in our office. I like your assertion that omega-3s restore the blood to normal and remove abnormal clotting. And to comment on a post above, our dog has a beautifully shiny coat and takes 2 pure EPA capsules each day!

  • Term papers

    1/26/2010 3:40:08 PM |

    I have enjoyed reading That During nearly 3 years of observation, there was no excess of bleeding events in the group taking fish oil. (In fact, the group not taking fish oil had more bleeding events, though the difference fell short of achieving statistical significance.

  • Viagra Online

    8/23/2010 6:41:39 PM |

    I've been drinking fish oil for many year and I don't have any chance in my body people use to said me that but I think it is just a rumor.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:19:55 PM |

    I'm also especially gratified that a woman now holds our record. I'm uncertain why, but the ladies have been shy and the men remain the dominant and vocal participants in our program. Speak up, ladies!

  • moseley2010

    12/7/2010 2:37:16 AM |

    I haven't heard of this problem
    fish oil supplements. But now we know what to tell them when this sort of concern comes up. Fish oil or Omega-3 is really beneficial to health. It's just important that it comes from clean waters.

  • Jack

    3/12/2013 7:03:38 PM |

    What is an appropriate dose of fish oil for someone taking coumadin?

  • dorange

    6/15/2014 3:53:03 PM |

    Dr. Davis, when  person is taking Tamoxifen...
    (1) is it safe to take vitamin k2 or K1?
    (2) will fish oil have a role in preventing blood clots?

Loading
"Heart scans" are not always heart scans

"Heart scans" are not always heart scans

Beware of the media reports now being issued that warn that "CT heart scans" pose a risk for cancer.

One report can be viewed at
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20070717/ct-heart-scan-radiation-cancer-risk.

This was triggered by a Columbia University study of risk for cancer based on the dose of radiation used in CT coronary angiograms. Theoretically, exposure to the radiation dose of CT coronary angiography can raise risk for cancer by 1 in 143 women if radiated in their 20s just from that single exposure.

If you've been following the Track Your Plaque discussion, as well as my diatribes in the Heart Scan Blog, you know that the media got it all wrong. The "heart scans" they are referring to are not the same as the heart scans that we discuss for the Track Your Plaque program.

A conventional heart scan (of the sort we refer to) exposes the recipient to 4 chest x-rays of radiation if an EBT device is used, around 8-10 chest x-rays of radiation if a 64-slice CT scanner is used. For the quality of information we obtain from these screening heart scans, we feel that it's an acceptable exposure.

The "heart scan" this study and subsequent reports refer to is not truly a screening heart scan, but a CT coronary angiogram, or CTA. CTAs are performed on the same CT or EBT devices, but involve far more radiation. CTA exposes the recipient to about 100 chest x-rays of radiation on a 64-slice device (more or less, depending on the way it is performed.) Just a couple of years ago, some centers were performing CTA on 16-slice devices, a practice I and the Track Your Plaque program vocally opposed, since up to 400 chest-rays of radiation were required! I even called a number of centers advising them that they were putting the public in jeopardy. CTAs also require injection of x-ray dye, just like any conventional angiogram.

CTA on 64-slice CT scanners require the same radiation exposure as a conventional heart catheterization, an issue glossed over in most conversations. In other words, the test that many of my colleageus so casually recommend poses a similar risk.

The message: the test I advocate for screening for coronary heart disease is a CT or EBT heart scan, not a CT coronary angiogram. CTA is a useful test and will get better and better as the engineers discover ways to reduce radiation exposure. But, in 2007, CTA is a diagnostic device, not a screening device. If you require an abdominal CT scan because your doctor suspects pancreatic cancer, or a CT scan of the brain because you might have a life-threatening aneurysm causing double-vision or seizures, it would be silly to not undergo the scan because of long-term and theoretical cancer risk.

But undergoing a CT coronary angiogram for screening purposes is ridiculous with present technology. I've said it before and I will say it--shout it--again:

CT coronary angiograms are not screening procedures; they are diagnostic procedures that should be taken seriously and do indeed pose measurable risk for cancer, a risk that is presently unacceptable for a screening test.

You wouldn't undergo a mammogram to screen for breast cancer if it exposed you to 100 chest x-rays of radiation, would you? Screening tests should be safe, reliable, accurate, and inexpensive. CT coronary angiography is none of these things. Genuine heart scans--the kind the Track Your Plaque program talks about and relies on--is all of those things.

Comments (6) -

  • Anonymous

    7/19/2007 12:16:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis, would you please specify the millisievert values you are assuming for chest x-ray, EBCT Ca score, MSCT Ca score, and CT angiogram? I just got a 64-slice Ca score and they told me I received an effective dose of 2 mSv. Would a CT angiography typically result in 20 mSv?

  • Dr. Davis

    7/19/2007 12:59:00 AM |

    Hi,

    Please see my Blog post, CT scans and radiation exposure at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/ct-scans-and-radiation-exposure.html

    You may notice some differences. There's enormous variation in exposure, depending on how it's measured, how the scan is performed, type and manufacturer of scanner. However, you can get a good idea of ballpark figures from the table in the blog post.

  • Dr. Davis

    7/19/2007 1:02:00 AM |

    Let me try that URL again:

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
    search/label/CT%20scans%20and%
    20radiation%20exposure

    Or, go to the left sidebar of Blog contents and see "CT scans and radiation"

  • JT

    7/22/2007 1:55:00 AM |

    I watch Fox news.  And with that statement I'm sure some are rolling their eyes.  Never before in the history of America has declaring what news channel one watches apparently pigeonholed one on their political views.  

    Like many I get my news from different locations: internet blogs, TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc, but in the morning I often watch Fox and Friends.  I do so for two reasons I suppose, the first being that I enjoy the joking around / humor on the set.  The second reason why I watch Fox is because it goes out of its way to present two sides of a debate.  It seems revolutionary what Fox has done to TV news - present two sides of a story.  Some people become terribly wound up over this.  On a personal note, I have an "ultra liberal" uncle, by his own definition, that in all honesty is so upset over Fox news and me watching it that he no longer communicates with me.  Uncle Gordon probably has never watched Fox News.  He only knows what he has heard.  And knowing him if he did watch he would only see the conservatives and not notice the liberal view point.  I hope one of these days he calms down and we can find ourselves on friendly terms again.  Change is hard for some to come to terms with.          

    When reading this blog, it disturbed me.  I wish that all news reporters tried harder to present two sides to a story. These high radiation reports would be easy to demonstrate as being only half true.  But instead, because of poorly researched, unprofessional reporting, there undoubtedly will be Americans that will decide to not have a life saving CT heart scan for fear of radiation poisoning.  And that is sad.

  • Dr. Davis

    7/22/2007 3:09:00 AM |

    Hi, JT--

    I couldn't agree more.

    If there's one theme that presents itself over and over lately, it is the struggle to discern the truth in the sea of information we're all presented with every day. I can only hope that we all zig-zag towards a real truth over time.

  • Darwin

    7/24/2007 6:34:00 PM |

    Re the CTCA - new study out concerning radiation exposure for young women.

Loading