Omega 3 prostate cancer risk ?!?!

As many afib I am taking among others supplements also Omega 3. I want to point out a study I was not aware about until today.
Can anyone comment about?

I quote this here:

FISH OILS AND PROSTATE CANCER
Several investigators have studied the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing prostate cancer. Many studies have shown a reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer when related to increased consumption of omega-3 fatty acids (Chavarro et al., 2007), whereas a more recent controversial case-cohort study by Brasky and colleagues (2013) found just the opposite: High levels of omega-3 increased the risk of developing prostate cancer by 44%. However, several concerns were raised on the overall design and methodology of this study. Reviewing the study may present more questions than answers. Should advanced practitioners advise "all men" not to take fish oil or recommend against taking omega-3 fatty acids only in "men at high risk" (positive family history)? Advanced practitioners should be prepared to discuss the potential positive and negative benefits when recommending fish oil.

Quote
CatalinRo
High levels of omega-3 increased the risk of developing prostate cancer by 44%. However, several concerns were raised on the overall design and methodology of this study.

I haven't read the study but I'm already skeptical of their results so I bet there are concerns with the design and methodology. A huge increase like 44% should have been hard for others to miss.

I will tell what I understood
The study was not focused on Omega 3 but on vitamin E and Selenium intakes for prostate cancer prevention
After studying a large number of patients for many years they failed to find any benefits of the 2 supplements
That mean target group had the same number of cancer illness as placebo group
Then one come to idea to measure fatty acids levels in blood for healthy vs prostate cancer subjects
They found in top 25%, regarding fatty acid level, more people with prostate cancer then in bottom 25%
From there they come with this 43% and also 71% for more aggressive form of cancer

But they did not know how Omega 3 was taken. food or supplements, if Omega 3 supplement was taken by the people after they found out they had cancer
As I said study was not targeted on Omega 3

CatalinRo....

As the conclusion indicates, ... " there was no causal link between prostate cancer and fish oil/Omega 3 "… but the recommendation to avoid was made anyway. It makes me wonder how or why this study even got published in the first place.[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


I can remotely see that if a non-purified fish oil were used that still contained residues of mercury, as an example, it might serve to help promote cancer; or if the fish oils were highly oxidized, that also could contribute to an toxic environment in the patient’s body, but I’d think that would have to be significant amounts and for prolonged period of time. However, mercury stays in the body unless one does heroics to remove it.

Reliable brands of Omega 3 fish oil are molecularly distilled which removes anything toxic without damaging the oil quality ... such as Nordic Naturals, Carlson's, Natural Factors as examples. Cheaper brands may not be as carefully distilled.

Jackie

Hi Jackie,

Very helpful answer, as usual, from your side.

I quote another post to respective article that will ease concerns:

The Brasky article stated that the mean percentage of total omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DPA + DHA) was 4.66% (range, 4.56%–4.75%) in cancer patients.1

“These omega-3 levels,” according to Dr. Harris, “were far lower than would be expected from individuals taking omega-3 supplements.”

The Brasky paper showed significantly lower omega-3 (EPA + DPA + DHA) levels in men without prostate cancer at 4.48% (range, 4.41–4.55; P = 0.002).1 The clinical significance of that difference (from 4.48% to 4.66%) was questioned by Richard Deckelbaum, MD, Director of the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University in New York City. He explained in an interview:

I specialize in fatty acid levels, and I was surprised at how small the omega-3 fatty acid differences are, especially for EPA, DPA, and DHA. In our lab, we would not consider these small differences to be biologically significant. Because of the large number of subjects in the SELECT trial, it turned out to be statistically significant, though.

He speculated that perhaps prostate cancer itself could cause these “very small” changes in fatty acid levels. He said, “It’s not quite clear as to where the chicken is and where the egg is.”

Our doc, Stephen Gundry, wants our omega 3 index >10 (actually between 10 and12). He also specifies we get at least 1 g/day of DHA. He has an excellent track record of keeping people well for a wide range of illnesses from autoimmune, cancer, cardiac, dementia & etc.

When you read these kind of observational studies, especially in which the target element, nutrient or disease process etc. etc. is not the focal point of the study design (i.e. 'Omega 3' as an incidental finding when the study design was looking for 'selenium/Vitamin E levels'. And using the term
Omega 3, if indeed the authors did use that term, is a broad non-specific catch-all term to begin with. So just keep clearly in mind the dramatic difference often times between a 'causal' and an 'associated' relationship between the apparent issues in question (i.e. the presumed Omega 3 relationship to prostate cancer).

Many such assumptions get implied in such studies, and even more frequently in such sensation published summaries of such studies, as both Carey and Jackie noted above without there being any reliable 'causal connection' whatsoever. Sadly, all too often such 'headline grabbing' borderline 'fake news' too often heralded by an alarming sounding though misleading assumption, get presented and printed as if conclusive and at least sell lots of likes, hits and/or magazine sales, even when not at all contributing to honest clarity and insight on the topic.

Just use a healthy dose of 'reader beware' attitude when discovering such articles! And add an extra heaping tablespoon of salt to your skepticism when such a large percent of change in outcome are suggested within a well-vetted general topic like Omega 3/Fish Oil consumption etc... as Carey also noted above.

Shannon