ledmitter_nli
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,433
Fatty acids in fish oil linked to prostate cancer, says study
- Thread starter ledmitter_nli
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
+
Often 'studies' are generated by huge pharmaceutical companies trying to discredit natural health benefits, because it threatens them financially.
In other words,,,, Wrong Answer on studies like this.
Eat smart, noprocessed foods and you'll be fine,, fish oil not only helps the cardiovascular system, it helps the brain.
{Not to preach but ,, cut out High Fructose Corn Syrup entirely & don't eat Hydrogenated oils}
thanks~
Often 'studies' are generated by huge pharmaceutical companies trying to discredit natural health benefits, because it threatens them financially.
In other words,,,, Wrong Answer on studies like this.
Eat smart, noprocessed foods and you'll be fine,, fish oil not only helps the cardiovascular system, it helps the brain.
{Not to preach but ,, cut out High Fructose Corn Syrup entirely & don't eat Hydrogenated oils}
thanks~
Last edited:
Solid Lifters
Enlightened
Everything causes cancer. So, everything in moderation.
My thoughts 100%.
Is this thread going to be closed? please think before you post, it's not off to a very auspicious start. - Norm
Steve K
Flashlight Enthusiast
The article in the Dispatch has a good cautionary note:
"There are several things to keep in mind about the research.
This study wasn't a randomized, double-blind study designed specifically to test for any relationship between fish oil and prostate cancer. That's the gold standard. Instead, the researchers went back and looked at blood analysis in a group of men who were part of a major study looking at the effects of selenium and vitamin E in prostate cancer.
The study did not address the relationship between the fatty acids and outcomes for those men who had cancer.
It also did not include an analysis of what the men ate and what supplements they took. It only looked at the levels of fatty acids in their blood samples.
The study does not draw any link between plant-based omega-3 fatty acids and prostate cancer, only those typically found in fatty fish such as salmon and tuna and in supplements."
edit: I would say that you should take the results of the study with a grain of salt, but that'll just raise your blood pressure.
"There are several things to keep in mind about the research.
This study wasn't a randomized, double-blind study designed specifically to test for any relationship between fish oil and prostate cancer. That's the gold standard. Instead, the researchers went back and looked at blood analysis in a group of men who were part of a major study looking at the effects of selenium and vitamin E in prostate cancer.
The study did not address the relationship between the fatty acids and outcomes for those men who had cancer.
It also did not include an analysis of what the men ate and what supplements they took. It only looked at the levels of fatty acids in their blood samples.
The study does not draw any link between plant-based omega-3 fatty acids and prostate cancer, only those typically found in fatty fish such as salmon and tuna and in supplements."
edit: I would say that you should take the results of the study with a grain of salt, but that'll just raise your blood pressure.
Last edited:
edit: I would say that you should take the results of the study with a grain of salt, but that'll just raise your blood pressure.
Not so fast Steve! This just in:http://kfor.com/2013/07/09/cdc-admits-long-standing-error-there-is-no-benefit-in-reducing-salt/
btw, I'm not a salt guy,, I don't put it on anything. Perhaps it's time for a little.
I agree, all things in moderation, including moderation.
~ Chance
Steve K
Flashlight Enthusiast
from the article Chauncey referenced...
"The report stated the risks of heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure and death from heart disease increased significantly for those consuming more than 7,000 milligrams of sodium a day and for those consuming fewer than 3,000 milligrams of sodium a day.
Basically, the report says that consuming anything between 1-1/2 and 3 tsp of salt per day is just fine, and there were adverse effects from eating more than that or less than that."
That sounds fairly reasonable.... the trick is knowing how much you are actually eating. I've been surprised by reading the dietary info on stuff like bread, which contained a lot more salt than I expected. Canned foods, especially canned soup, is really loaded with salt. Sometimes I get the urge to buy some, read the label, and then put it back on the shelf. Oh... I almost forgot about a small frozen pizza that I liked... the salt content was much higher than I was expecting <sigh> Another good reason to mainly eat simple, unprocessed food.
"The report stated the risks of heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure and death from heart disease increased significantly for those consuming more than 7,000 milligrams of sodium a day and for those consuming fewer than 3,000 milligrams of sodium a day.
Basically, the report says that consuming anything between 1-1/2 and 3 tsp of salt per day is just fine, and there were adverse effects from eating more than that or less than that."
That sounds fairly reasonable.... the trick is knowing how much you are actually eating. I've been surprised by reading the dietary info on stuff like bread, which contained a lot more salt than I expected. Canned foods, especially canned soup, is really loaded with salt. Sometimes I get the urge to buy some, read the label, and then put it back on the shelf. Oh... I almost forgot about a small frozen pizza that I liked... the salt content was much higher than I was expecting <sigh> Another good reason to mainly eat simple, unprocessed food.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
In large enough quantities even water can be deadly. I've heard from many sources that you can eat just about anything if you do so in moderation. Of course, it's better to eat unprocessed foods. I personally don't eat fish other than canned tuna and shrimp. I just don't care for it.
We have an unfortunate trend nowadays where if we discover an excess of some ingredient is harmful, we seek to remove it from our diet completely. Salt is an excellent case in point. I've read quite a few stories of people passing out in hot weather after being on a low-sodium diet. I don't worry about salt at all. I only add salt to a few things. I also sweat quite a bit while riding. A low-sodium diet would probably be detrimental given my lifestyle.
Agreed on the high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Those things don't belong in foods at all. Finally we're getting a few types of soda made without HFCS. I'm also seeing other products touting "no HFCS". It's about time.
We have an unfortunate trend nowadays where if we discover an excess of some ingredient is harmful, we seek to remove it from our diet completely. Salt is an excellent case in point. I've read quite a few stories of people passing out in hot weather after being on a low-sodium diet. I don't worry about salt at all. I only add salt to a few things. I also sweat quite a bit while riding. A low-sodium diet would probably be detrimental given my lifestyle.
Agreed on the high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Those things don't belong in foods at all. Finally we're getting a few types of soda made without HFCS. I'm also seeing other products touting "no HFCS". It's about time.
"...I agree, all things in moderation, including moderation.
~ Chance"
I'm having a bad day, but this comment made me smile. Thanks!
Your welcome flashfan. I hope your day improves soon. As far as moderation goes,, sometimes you just gotta have another beer....you know, to wash down that double cheese burger.
~ Chance
This is a pretty terrible 'study'. The first thing they teach you in any research methods course is the phrase "correlation does not equal causation". There are innumerable other variables that could be playing into the mens' prostate cancer risk that are not being taken into account here; the only facts are that the men with the illness had higher levels of these fatty acids in their blood. For example, a simple question: how do we know that the men didn't start taking all kinds of supplements or eating more fish AFTER they were diagnosed with cancer or told they were high risk in an effort to improve health? We don't. We don't know anything else about these men as far as diet, excercise, family history, previous bouts with cancer... nothing. I don't know if there is or isn't any relationship between fish oils and prostate cancer or not, so I can't comment on that, but from a pure science standpoint it is pretty sad that this is what passes for a valid study and the fact that reporters immediately run with headlines about "fish oil being linked to cancer" when no such conclusions can be actually be made is absurd. No wonder people are confused and afraid of everything. Come up with some real data, not tenuous theories based on retrospective correlations.
ledmitter_nli
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,433
^^^
"Yet a new study on fish oil has discovered that men diagnosed with prostate cancer had "significantly" higher levels of these fish oils and omega-3 fatty acids than other men in the study that did not have the cancer."
"Yet a new study on fish oil has discovered that men diagnosed with prostate cancer had "significantly" higher levels of these fish oils and omega-3 fatty acids than other men in the study that did not have the cancer."
First off, the word "significant" is only helpful if you have the rest of the statistical data including p-values and all of that. On it's own, "significant" means nothing.
Second, there is still no evidence in the study that the fish oils CAUSED the cancer. It could be that all the men with cancer did in fact eat a lot of fish capsules, but also lived next to nuclear power plants and ate a lot of lead paint chips as kids. We have no idea!! Without controlling the study and the subjects for all other (reasonable) variables, the study is almost useless. Making assertions based off of data from other studies after the fact and without proper controls is not good science.
Second, there is still no evidence in the study that the fish oils CAUSED the cancer. It could be that all the men with cancer did in fact eat a lot of fish capsules, but also lived next to nuclear power plants and ate a lot of lead paint chips as kids. We have no idea!! Without controlling the study and the subjects for all other (reasonable) variables, the study is almost useless. Making assertions based off of data from other studies after the fact and without proper controls is not good science.
+
There are many variables regarding fish oil,,, persons weight, dosage, metabolism, exercise, medications ect.. ect..
If you're an adult & have a single fish oil pill after (non seafood) dinner, your not overdosing.
Many people think 'if it's good for me,, lots will be even better'
again ~ wrong answer
... and if you put too much fertilizer on plants, they're toast too!
There are many variables regarding fish oil,,, persons weight, dosage, metabolism, exercise, medications ect.. ect..
If you're an adult & have a single fish oil pill after (non seafood) dinner, your not overdosing.
Many people think 'if it's good for me,, lots will be even better'
again ~ wrong answer
... and if you put too much fertilizer on plants, they're toast too!
