Posted on 05/08/2013 8:51:52 PM PDT by neverdem
Another large study has failed to find any benefits for fish oil supplements. The Italian Risk and Prevention Study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, enrolled 12,513 people who had not had a myocardial infarction but had evidence of atherosclerosis or had multiple cardiovascular risk factors. The patients were randomized to either a fish oil supplement (1 gram daily of n-3 fatty acids) or placebo.
After 5 years of followup, the primary endpoint– the time to death from cardiovascular causes or admission to the hospital for cardiovascular causes– had occurred in 11.7% of the fish oil group versus 11.9% of the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.97, CI 0.88-1.08, p=0.58). There were no significant differences in any of the prespecified secondary endpoints.
With one exception there were no significant differences in outcome in the prespecfied subgroups. Women who received fish oil supplements had a significant reduction in the primary endpoint (HR 0.82, CI 0.67-0.99, p=0.04). The study investigators also reported that although there was no difference in the rate of hospital admissions for cardiovascular admissions, there was a significant reduction in hospital admissions for heart failure in the fish oil group (1.5% versus 2.3%, p=0.002).
Due to a lower than expected rate of events, after the first year the investigators modified the primary endpoint, which originally had been the cumulative rate of death, MI, and nonfatal stroke.
The investigators wrote that “the consistently null effect across the various end points and subgroups does not suggests alternative interpretations.” The observed benefits in women and in reducing hospital admissions for heart failure “must be considered conservatively,” they wrote.
The trial investigators discussed two previous Italian trials, the GISSI-Prevenzione trial, in MI patients, and the GISSI-HF trial, in heart failure patients, which found benefits for fish oil supplements in their respective...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
They make good breath mints.
I had a gut feeling about that.
Who to believe? OTOH, I can save some $$$ ...
Fish caps - quite an ‘industry’. My folks are totally hooked on the concept.
So not much point in lowering triglycerides? They drop like a rock when I take fish oil.
On second thought, I’m really not taking it to prevent “heart failure” anyway and there could be a thousand benefits not measured in the study, even nothing to do with the cardiovascular system. So the bottle of fish oil pills isn’t getting tossed yet.
>> had occurred in 11.7% of the fish oil group versus 11.9%
A suspiciously close outcome. Imagine the entire group on either the placebo or the fish oil exclusively with that outcome.
It's as if all these fish were conspiring against me. I wish fish never existed.
More and more research is showing that cholesterol is only responsible for for a fraction of Cardiac events, blood acids resulting in arterial inflammation is a major cause of Heart attacks as well. Vescepa reduced these bad blood acids in their Phase I, II, III trials thus inflammation.
So, is it that 1: we don’t need Omega 3’s? Or that 2: we’re getting plenty of Omega 3’s? Or is it simply that 3: the typical fish oil tablets are pretty lousy sources of Omega 3’s?
I know it’s not 1 or 2. Which leaves us with 3.
The few studies that actually showed deleterious effects from saturated fats didn’t distinguish between natural saturated fats and artificial (aka trans) fats. Which difference turned out to be critical. The studies that show deleterious effects from red meat don’t distinguish between actual meat like beef and pork and processed meat-like substances like hotdogs and bologna.
So, when I read studies like these I wonder, do they distinguish between the different sources of fish oil? Might it be that these new fish oil capsules are pretty much worthless, and grandma’s old staple of cod liver oil is very much good for you?
It’d not surprise me at all.
Fish oil just as a “heart” failure preventer...NOT hardly....it has so many other benefits. Plus, I’d like to know the participants OTHER habits...
Are you a lackey for big pharma? This study was designed for the purpose of showing no effect: the dosage was too small and the population was selected for athersclerotic issues. Wise up and quit posting “crap” that is intended to further confuse people who are looking for ways to improve their health opportunities.
IDIOT STUDY!!
It is the ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s that is important. Where does it say that their diet was controlled for omega 6s? Which would be impossible to do if they were freely eating. Also the total amount of PUFAS (all industrial seed / vegetable oils) counts too. They should only consist of what would occur in natural foods like pastured beef, eggs.
This doesn’t make a great deal of sense. My grandparents were having a great deal of time getting cholesterol under control until the doctor tried fish oil, and it made a world of difference.
Of course, it isn’t just “fish oil” - it is the Omega 3s - watch the concentration of what you buy. The milligrams of “fish oil” does not equal more Omega 3s - look for how much Omega 3 is in them.
Fish oil is also not the only source of Omega 3s, however.
Well... that is what the oil is for.
So basically, the study concludes nothing...other than just popping a pill alone is not a cure all. If you keep eating ice cream by the carton each day and sit around watching soap operas, your health will not improve by just adding a fish oil pill.
It has never been claimed (by any reputable source) that Omega 3s treat Hypercholesterolemia. They do reduce triglycerides effectively.
>> They make good breath mints.
rofl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.