Fish Oil & Prostate Cancer Risk

Taking omega-3 fish oil supplements may increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer by 70%

Supplement was also increased low-grade prostate cancer risk by 44%
One theory is that pills may dampen down the immune system
Omega-3 fish oils are one of the most popular supplements in the UK

By Fiona Macrae

PUBLISHED: 15:00 EST, 10 July 2013 | UPDATED: 19:50 EST, 10 July 2013

Fish-oil supplements credited with a range of health benefits could trigger prostate cancer.

Experts found that omega-3 fatty acids may raise the risk of the most lethal form of the disease by more than 70 per cent.

Researchers warned against omega-3 pills, and recommended eating just one or two meals of oily fish per week.

Fish-oil supplements are said to protect against heart attacks and strokes, stave off arthritis, boost brain power and prevent behaviour disorders in children.

Taking omega-3 fatty acids, derived from fish oils, can increase a man's risk of high-grade prostate cancer by 71 per cent
Fish oils are a huge industry in the UK

However, scientists found that those with the highest levels of omega-3 in their blood were 71 per cent more likely to develop fast-growing, hard-to-treat prostate tumours.

They were also more likely to contract the slower, less deadly form of the disease, with the overall prostate cancer risk raised by 43 per cent.

The team from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle warned: ‘There is really no evidence that taking dietary supplements is beneficial to health, and there is increasing evidence that taking high doses is harmful.’

Dr Alan Kristal said the levels of omega-3 linked to the increased cancer risk would be reached by taking just one supplement a day, or three or four meals of fish such as salmon and mackerel each week.

Of mealtimes, he said: ‘There are good things in fish, so the message is moderation. It is probably not bad for you, and it tastes good.’

Taking omega-3 was also associated with a 44 per cent greater chance of developing low-grade prostate cancer

However, he stressed that when compared to fatty acids received by eating oily fish, the amount consumed via pills was ‘huge’.

It is unclear how fish oil could trigger tumours, but omega-3 may restrict the immune system, or damage our DNA. It is also unclear if it helps tumours to grow and spread.

The finding came amid a wider research project of more than 2,000 men, examining whether supplements of vitamin E and the mineral selenium can help prevent prostate cancer – the most common cancer in British men, killing more than 10,000. Selenium provided no benefit, and vitamin E increased the odds of contracting the disease.

Dr Kristal said: ‘As we do more and more of these studies – and I have been involved in them most of my career – we find high doses of supplements have no effect or increase the risk of the disease you are trying to prevent.

‘There is not really a single example of where taking a supplement lowers chronic disease risk.’

Professor Malcolm Mason, of Cancer Research UK, said: ‘The results of this study are surprising, and we clearly need more research to understand what is behind them.’

Although he stressed the researchers could not be certain whether the study’s participants ate oily fish or took omega-3 supplements, he said the results ‘show how complex the effects of food supplements might be’.

Dr Iain Frame of Prostate Cancer UK agreed that ‘larger and more complex studies will need to take place before we understand how the risks of a diet high in omega-3 balance against [its] benefits’.

Several recent studies have called omega-3’s benefits to the heart into question, too. One, which examined 20 studies involving almost 70,000 people, found that those who took omega-3 were no less likely to die of a heart attack or stroke than others

Read more:<[www.dailymail.co.uk];

Here's the first of what will undoubtedly be many rebuttals:

This one by Michael Murray, ND of Natural Factors in my mail this morning. (sorry that the data chart didn't transfer in the same format) - I can send you a copy by email)

Jackie

Special Update

July 11th - 12th, 2013


How a SELECTed Bad Study Became Big News


Introduction
On July 10, 2013, major media headlines and news stories claimed "Too Much Fish Oil Might Boost Prostate Cancer Risk."

Wow, that sure seems fishy given all of the positive health benefits linked to fish oil intake. In examining the study, there are numerous issues that clearly indicate that perhaps the conclusion is wrong, but really a study's conclusion is only as good as the study itself.

Data Used was from the SELECT Study
The pedigree of the study source is impressive. It was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and was conducted by researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, WA.1 Yet, the data they used is from the much maligned Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). That is the real problem. The study used subjects from the much maligned Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

The SELECT study was a very large clinical study that attempted to determine whether vitamin E and could prevent prostate cancer. Previous studies had shown 50 IU of vitamin E was protective against prostate cancer, but the SELECT study chose to use 400 IU of synthetic vitamin E (dl-alpha-tocopherol) at a dosage of 400 IU. Results showed that the subjects taking vitamin E alone had a 17% higher risk of prostate cancer compared to the control group.

In the new analysis, researchers measured the levels of fats in the blood (plasma phospholipids) and concluded that men with the highest concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA-three fatty acids derived from fish and fish-oil supplements-had an increased risk of prostate cancer. Specifically, they reported a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer; a 44 percent increase in the risk of low-grade prostate cancer and an overall 43 percent increase in risk for total prostate cancer in a subset of patients with the highest level of these omega-3 fatty acids.

Important considerations of this data are the following:
• This study is not consistent with other studies (discussed below)

• The study did NOT include information or documentation of fish or fish oil intake in the study group. It was NOT set up initially to evaluate these factors, hence its relevance is not as significant as studies designed to specifically determine the impact of omega-3 fatty acids on prostate cancer risk.

• There is no evidence that anybody in this study took fish oil supplements or even ate fish.

• In usual circumstances, plasma levels of EPA and DHA reflect very recent intake and are considered a poor biomarker of long-term omega-3 intake.
• Patients with prostate cancer may have only recently increased their fish and/or fish oil consumption.

• Fish and fish oil ingestion produces a big rise in plasma omega-3 levels in about 4.5 hours and washes out around 48 hours.

• The data may reflect cancer activity rather than a causative association. Without dietary history or documentation of fish oil use there is no way of knowing.

Lastly, the following statement by the authors suggests that they may have significant bias: "There is really no evidence that taking dietary supplements is beneficial to health, and there is increasing evidence that taking high doses is harmful." Such a statement shows a clear axe to grind in light of a great deal of scientific evidence on the value of dietary supplementation.

A Closer Look at the Reported Results
Let's take a closer look at the reported results to see if things add up. The bottom line is that they do not. Let's first take a look at the blood levels of EPA+DHA - the major forms of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil supplements. As Table 1 shows the levels are quite similar among the groups. These blood levels of EPA+DHA are actually quite modest and do not reflect huge levels of fish or fish supplements being consumed. The average EPA+DHA plasma level for men is generally approximately 4%. So, the levels reported here are typical, but a little lower than normal and the ratio of EPA to DHA is also a little lower as well.

Table 1. Distribution of EPA and DHA among SELECT participants by prostate cancer grade (n=2273)*

No Cancer
(1364 pts.) Total Cancer
(834 pts.) Low-Grade Cancer
(684 pts.) High-Grade Cancer
(156 pts.)
Total EPA+DHA (% of total fatty acids) 3.52 3.66 3.66 3.74

What the researchers did next was divide cancer patients up by their blood levels of fatty acids and look at the hazard ratio - the relative risk over time - associated with different levels of the various fatty acids (see Table 2). As it relates to EPA, statistical significance was not achieved for total cancer or high-grade cancer (the P value has to be less than 0.05 to be deemed anything more than random chance). For DHA, there was statistical significance. But, again, the levels of DHA are typical of what is found in men consuming modest amounts of fish. However, the level of EPA was lower than that typically found and the ratio of EPA to DHA was also lower. What this may mean is that there may be increased conversion of EPA to DHA in prostate cancer. Though one interesting observation is that the hazard ratio (HR) actually went down in high-grade prostate cancer in the group with the highest level of DHA compared to the next highest group. This suggests that it is not that significant of a factor as one would expect if it was that the higher the level the higher the HR. But, this finding has a P value of 0.09 so no real conclusions can be made as it was probably a random finding.

Table 2. Associations between EPA and DHA among SELECT participants by prostate cancer grade (n=2273)

Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (% of total fatty acids) Total Cancer
(834 pts.) Low-Grade Cancer
(684 pts.) High-Grade Cancer
(156 pts.) Total Cancer
Hazard Ratio Low-Grade
Hazard Ratio High -Grade
Hazard Ratio
EPA
<0.43 183 146 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.43-0.57 176 140 39 0.91 0.91 1.06
0.58-0.82 231 198 37 1.16 1.28 0.93
>0.82 244 200 47 1.18 1.22 1.30
P value 0.08 0.48 0.38
DHA
<2.33 193 159 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.33-2.93 192 154 36 1.05 1.01 1.37
2.04-3.62 212 174 49 1.24 1.26 1.78
>3.62 237 197 42 1.39 1.42 1.46
P value 0.009 0.008 0.09
Total EPA+DPA+DHA
<3.68 176 146 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
3.68-4.41 196 159 35 1.15 1.10 1.39
4.42-5.31 217 176 52 1.28 1.26 1.87
>5.31 245 203 43 1.43 1.44 1.71
P value 0.007 0.009 0.02

The authors conclude that men are at higher risk of aggressive prostate cancer if the total plasma level of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA+DPA+DHA) is greater than 3.68%. If that were true, then aggressive prostate cancer would be a major health concern and the leading cause of death in any country with even moderate fish consumption. The facts are that population-based studies show just the opposite effect. For example, prostate cancer incidence and death rates are among the lowest known in populations consuming the traditional Japanese or Mediterranean diets, two diets with a relatively high content of EPA+DHA.

What do other Studies Show?
In addition to population-based studies, several studies have been conducted that were actually designed to determine the effects of fish and fish oil consumption in prostate cancer. In a detailed meta-analysis conducted in 2010, while fish consumption did not affect prostate cancer incidence, it was associated with a 63% reduced mortality due to prostate cancer.2 A meta-analysis examines all previously conducted studies. Here are some of the results from some of these studies:

• Researchers investigated the effect of dietary fatty fish intake among 6,272 Swedish men who were followed for 30 years. Results showed that men who ate no fish had a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer compared with those who consumed large amounts of fish in their diet.3

• Data from the Physician's Health Study, a study spanning 22 years, found that fish consumption (≥5 times per week) reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer by 36%.4 -specific death.

• A study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health that involved 47,882 men over twelve years found that eating fish more than three times a week reduced the risk of prostate cancer but had an even greater impact on the risk of metastatic prostate cancer. For each additional 500 mg of marine fat consumed, the risk of metastatic disease decreased by 24%.5

• In one of the best-designed studies, researchers in New Zealand examined the relationship between prostate cancer risk and EPA+ DHA in red blood cells (a more reflective marker for long-term omega-3 fatty acid intake). Higher levels of EPA+DHA were associated with a 40% reduced risk of prostate cancer.6

• In a study of 47,866 US men aged 40-75 years with no cancer history in 1986 who were followed for 14 years EPA+DHA intake at the highest levels was associated with a 26% reduced risk of developing prostate cancer.7

While some studies make an important distinction, others do not. When ascertaining the benefits of fish consumption it is important to find out how the fish is being prepared. For example, regular ingestion of fried fish was associated with a 32% increased risk for prostate cancer.8 In addition, many studies do not control for the quality of fish or fish oil. Some fish (and fish oil supplements) can contain environmental chemicals that can contribute to prostate cancer such as PCBs, heavy metals, and other toxic chemicals.9, 10 These are important considerations.

Final Comments
The best thing about this study is that it will stimulate more research into the role of omega-3 fatty acids in prostate health. The worst thing about this study is that it may lead to many men abandoning the use of fish oil supplements. Based upon a large amount of clinical data it makes sense for men to be consuming 1,000 mg of EPA+DHA daily for general health. And, if they are suffering from one of the over 60 different health conditions shown to be benefitted by fish oil supplementation the dosage should be increased to 3,000 mg of EPA+DHA daily.

References:

1. Brasky TM, Darke AK, Song X, et al. Plasma phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk in the SELECT Trial. J National Cancer Inst Online. July 10, 2013 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt174
2. Szymanski KM, Wheeler DC, Mucci LA. Fish consumption and prostate cancer risk: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov;92(5):1223-33.
3. Terry P, Lichtenstein P, Feychting M, Ahlbom A, Wolk A. Fatty fish consumption and risk of prostate cancer. Lancet 2001; 357: 1764-6
4. Chavarro JE et al. A 22-y prospective study of fish intake in relation to prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Am J Clin Nutr 2008; 88: 1297-303.
5. Augustsson, K., et al., A prospective study of intake of fish and marine fatty acids and prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 12(1): p. 64-7, 2003.
6. Norrish AE, Skeaff CM, Arribas GL, Sharpe SJ, Jackson RT. Prostate cancer risk and consumption of fish oils: a dietary biomarker-based case-control study. Br J Cancer 1999;81:1238-42.
7. Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Michaud DS, et al. Dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids and the risk of prostate cancer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;80(1):204-16.
8. Stott-Miller M, Neuhouser ML, Stanford JL. Consumption of deep-fried foods and risk of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2013 Jun;73(9):960-9.
9. Ritchie JM, Vial SL, Fuortes LJ, Robertson LW, Guo H, Reedy VE, Smith EM.Comparison of proposed frameworks for grouping polychlorinated biphenyl congener data applied to a case-control pilot study of prostate cancer. Environ Res. 2005;98(1):104-13.
10. Mullins JK, Loeb S. Environmental exposures and prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2012 Mar-Apr;30(2):216-9.

Source: DoctorMurray.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 05:28PM by Jackie.

Alliance for Natural Health
[www.anh-usa.org]

Badly Flawed Study of Fish Oils Leaps to Wildly Unsupported Conclusions about Cancer
July 16, 2013

The study’s authors showed similar biases in previous papers—yet the media keep stoking the flames without doing any serious analysis.

A new study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, led by Theodore Brasky, PhD, et al., has supposedly found a link between high concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA in the bloodstream—the three anti-inflammatory and metabolically related fatty acids derived from fatty fish and fish-oil supplements—and an increased risk of prostate cancer: a 44% increased risk of “low-grade” prostate cancer, and a 71% increased risk of “high grade” (that is, aggressive) cancer, according to their report.

Brasky and his colleagues looked at two groups: their own cohort of 834 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, of which 156 had high-grade cancer; and, for comparison, the data and blood samples from 1,393 men of the same age range randomly chosen from the 35,500 participants in the prostate cancer SELECT trial. In looking at the analysis of the men’s blood samples, Brasky et al. found that men who had the highest amount of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCω-3PUFA) in their system had an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to men with the lowest amount of LCω-3PUFA. At the same time, they found that omega-6 fatty acids were associated with lower risks of total prostate cancer.

Brasky and his colleagues had published a paper in 2011 indicating that DHA was positively associated with high-grade prostate cancer, but that trans-fatty acids (like those found in margarine and frying oils that contribute to heart disease) were associated with a decreased risk of aggressive prostate cancer. This new analysis seems to confirm their previous findings.

It’s like living in topsy-turvy land.

Brasky’s conclusions run contrary to almost every previous study on the subject. There are several prospective studies showing numerous benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in relation to cancer. In one, researchers investigated the effect of dietary fish intake among 6,272 Swedish men who were followed for thirty years. Men who ate no fish had a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer compared with those who consumed large amounts of fish in their diet. Similar studies have suggested lower prostate cancer risk associated with omega-3 fatty acids from fish in Japanese and Brazilian men.

An important Harvard study examined the link between dietary fish consumption and the risk of metastatic prostate cancer. The study involved 47,882 men over twelve years, and found that eating fish more than three times a week reduced the risk of prostate cancer but had an even greater impact on the risk of metastatic prostate cancer. For each additional 500 mg of marine fat consumed, the risk of metastatic disease decreased by 24%!

Let’s look at some of the problems with the study, both with the way the study was set up and with the conclusions reached by the researchers:

• The group Brasky used for comparison in his study were participants in SELECT (theSELenium and vitamin E Cancer prevention Trial) conducted from 2001 to 2008. The $114 million study was trying to determine whether vitamin E (in the form of incomplete and synthetic alpha-tocopherol, one of eight forms of vitamin E that in nature work together) and selenium can prevent prostate cancer. This study was called to a halt when an early look at the data showed no benefit for the treatment. In this clinical trial there were slightly more prostate cancers in men taking alpha-tocopherol vitamin E alone, and slightly more diabetes in men taking only selenium. But neither finding was statistically significant, meaning these findings were likely due to chance.

• No data was kept on the men’s dietary habits—neither among Brasky’s primary cohort, nor among the men in the SELECT trial. We do not know how much fish they might have consumed, or the quality or source of the fish oil supplements they took, or what other dietary supplements they might have taken or for how long. Perhaps the men with non-aggressive cancers took vitamins or other supplements; we just don’t know. Some fish (and fish oil supplements) can contain environmental chemicals that can contribute to prostate cancer. In other words, we have no idea where the omega-3 in the men’s systems came from—the study is silent on that issue, and that’s a huge problem.

• The Life Extension Foundation’s Bill Faloon and his colleagues will be publishing their own rebuttal of Brasky’s findings shortly in Life Extension magazine, but they gave us a preview of their analysis. Their examination of the same trial data makes them suspect that that the men who had the slightly higher omega-3 levels may have already had a higher risk of contracting prostate cancer at baseline (they had higher PSA scores and a family history of prostate cancer). In other words, it’s possible they developed prostate cancer because of preexisting disease and/or genetic predisposition.

• Faloon also points out that Brasky’s conclusions are based on only a single blood test, even though this was a long-term study. Plasma levels of omega 3 can change dramatically in the short term, so this study does not reflect a long-term incorporation of omega-3 into the patients’ cells and tissues. This is especially important when you consider that the difference in omega-3 blood measures associated with increased cancer risk were so trivial that if a man had just one salmon meal the night before, he could have wound up in the “higher” omega-3 group even if he never ingested omega-3 again.

• Another significant factor: omega-3 plasma levels in the subjects were only about 40% of what would be expected in health-conscious people taking the proper dose of fish oil. It should be apparent that this report had no meaning for those who boost their omega-3 consumption through diet and supplements.

•In an earlier study by the same authors, they reported that the risk for aggressive prostate cancer rose, then fell, then rose with increasingly high blood concentrations of DHA. This is not a consistent response—and the current study did nothing to clear up this strange ambiguity.

• No mortality data is provided in Brasky’s analysis, so we really don’t know if men with prostate cancer would survive longer if they avoided omega-3s. However, as Bill Sardi points out, Japanese men consume the most omega-3 fish oil from dietary sources in the world, and they are recently reported to have a rising incidence in their risk for prostate cancer (likely due to better detection methods) but a declining risk for death from this very same disease. Aren’t better survival rates the gold standard for evaluating the success or failure of a treatment?

Despite the fact that the study showed no causal link between prostate cancer and fish oil supplementation or the presence of omega-3s in blood, the paper’s senior author made the following blanket statement in a press release: “We’ve shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful.” Have you ever heard such an absurd conclusion?

CAM physicians have mixed opinions on omega-3s from fish oil. Some, like respected California integrative doctor Robert J. Rowen, MD, recommend against fish oil because of the danger that it can oxidize once it reaches warm, oxygen-rich bloodstreams. These doctors recommend vegetable precursors (parental essential oils, e.g., flax oil). Others, like Dr. Jonathan Wright, recommend taking fish oils—but always with vitamin E (in the form of mixed tocopherols) to prevent against oxidative damage.

The pharmaceutical industry has developed their own omega-3 drugs, with more in the pipeline, some of which are in phase III of clinical trials. Since these drugs are only available by prescription, our concern is that studies like this will scare consumers away from supplementing sensibly, and will drive people to use the Big Pharma version when prescribed by a doctor.

Certainly the media plays a big role in that. Outlet after outlet merely parroted the press release and cobbled together one alarmist headline after another, with no context or critical analysis provided.

As we noted above, it is vital for natural health consumers who use supplements to do so wisely, in consultation with a qualified health expert. Understand what levels of each supplement is optimal for you and your condition. Use the most natural forms of any substance available: first, if you can, in food, and secondarily in natural, organic supplements. And always take them with the co-factors that make them safe and most able to be utilized by the body. As always, it’s a matter of balance, education, and following the advice of an experienced healthcare practitioner.

Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution (including link to original content) to ANH-USA. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.Copyright © 2013 Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA).

The information in Pulse of Natural Health is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified professional about any issue regarding their health and well-being.

Joeh Fuhrman, MD, diet and nutrition author, also takes exception to the SELECT study as being invalid regarding associating Fish Oil and Omega 3 risks re prostate cancer; although he doesn't like fish oil for other reasons.

[www.diseaseproof.com]

Gordon

Okay,

This is what I often wonder about: Democrats are "right" about their views, and Republicians are "right" about their views. Therefore, we have a stalemate. Nobody is "right" all the time. Everyone has their views. It seems it is the same when we start talking about supplements. Just this morning on NPR I heard Dr Paul Offit talking about supplements and a recent scientific paper that just came out from supposedly a very repudible group of scientists saying supplements have absolutely no benefit at all, and can possibly cause harmful effects as people use them for longer periods of time. (Paul A. Offit, MD is an American pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases and an expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology. He is the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine that has been credited with saving hundreds of lives every day, etc, etc) Maybe it's all a conspiracy, he and others are working for the government, or the pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. In the end we believe what we want to believe. Do the "scienticic tests" by the supplement proponents outweigh the ones done by scientists who say supplements may even be harmful? What side do you want to be on? It seems everyone has their own agenda for whatever reason, so it just seems prudent to be skeptical with both sides because, afterall, they both believe they are right.

JW

Jim: I think the old adage of, "Follow the money trail," applies particularly well to the supplement, drug industry and maybe the whole medical field.

For example, Dr. Offit no doubt makes a lot of money from his many books, etc., (see link below), so he needs to keep his name out there to keep selling them. I also wonder how much he makes in consulting fees from vaccine manufacturers.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Certainly he's not alone - The Mercolas, Michael Murrays, Sinatras, et. al., all have financial reasons to recommend their particular supplements. They may truly believe in what they sell but could any reasonable person down everything they recommend? They all like, as do many physicians who sell supplements in their offices these days, to have a particular blend of supplements under their own label so they can get premium prices for them over just pricing the ingredients separately. Even Joel Fuhrman, who's diet has done wonders for me for a couple of years now, is a salesman.

Bottom line for me is whether the supplements do anything for me, and that's very hard to tell in most cases. Jackie, for example, is very good about getting tested for what she takes so she has calibration. The rest of us not so much.

I'm convinced that the Essential Trio do help keep the PVC's down; at my age (76) some boosters like Vitamin D, DHEA, testosterone, etc., keep my system balanced and test results in good ranges but we all have to have some limit on how much time and money we are willing to spend on our minds and bodies.

Gordon

Hi Jim - I totally agree that we should remain skeptical for a variety of reasons .... and that it seems many of the people pushing supplements are in it for the money. Food sources are always the best good choice... but when you are still deficient, then supplements come to the rescue as restorative.

Various comments keep coming forth... I'm waiting for LEF because of there extensive research and Townsend Letter to publish their responses.

Hope you are doing well.
Best to you,
Jackie

If anyone knows the research and history, it's Michael Murray ND since he's been in the Research area for years including Enzymatic Therapy and now director of product development for Natural Factors.

Here's Michael Murray's response:
July 23rd, 2013
Does Fish Oil Really Boost Prostate Cancer?

Omega-3s May Help Treat Depression, Osteoarthritis and Prostate CancerOn July 10, 2013, the media jumped on news that too much fish oil might boost prostate cancer risk. As someone who has studied the many benefits of fish oil for many years, my alarm bells went off. The story seemed, well, fishy to me.

So I did what a good scientist and medical person should do. I kept an open mind, but examined the study itself–who conducted it, how it was conducted, and what conclusions were drawn based on hard evidence. After all, a study’s conclusion is only as good as the study itself.

Why the Study Is Flawed
The pedigree of the study source is impressive. It was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and was conducted by researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, WA.

Unfortunately, the data used was from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (“the select study”), a study that has been widely maligned for its wrongheaded use of synthetic vitamin E in doses that were too large.

Because the select study was not set up initially to evaluate fish or fish oil intake in the study group, its relevance is not as significant as studies designed to specifically determine the impact of omega-3 fatty acids on prostate cancer risk. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that anybody in the select study took fish oil supplements or even ate fish!

To reach their conclusion about fish oil, the researchers measured the levels of fats in the blood of the SELECT study participants, and concluded that men with the highest concentrations of EPA, DPA, and DHA–three fatty acids derived from fish and fish-oil supplements–had an increased risk of prostate cancer. Specifically, they reported a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer; a 44 percent increase in the risk of low-grade prostate cancer; and an overall 43 percent increase in risk for total prostate cancer in a subset of patients with the highest level of these omega-3 fatty acids. Yet, the actual percentages of the omega-3 fatty acids were low in both groups. None of the participants in the SELECT study actually had high levels of omega 3 fatty acids.

Overall, the noncancer patients had a value of omega-3 fats of 3.62 percent, while the level was 3.66 percent in the cancer group. or a more detailed discussion on the data and why the study’s conclusions are misleading, see my article
(How a Selected Bad Study Became Big News).
[doctormurray.com]

Introduction
On July 10, 2013, major media headlines and news stories claimed “Too Much Fish Oil Might Boost Prostate Cancer Risk.” Wow, that sure seems fishy given all of the positive health benefits linked to fish oil intake. In examining the study, there are numerous issues that clearly indicate that perhaps the conclusion is wrong, but really a study’s conclusion is only as good as the data used (garbage in = garbage out).


Continue the original report Does Fish Oil Really Boost Prostate Cancer
[doctormurray.com]



This is Dr. Murray on breast cancer and Omega 3's

Omega-3 Fatty Acids And Breast Cancer

Introduction:
The recent controversial study on omega-3 fatty acids and prostate cancer risk (click here to read my comments) has led to a lot of questions about the effects of omega-3 fatty acids in breast cancer and other health conditions. While the total level of omega-3 fatty acids from dietary sources is important, what is even more important is the ratio of the omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

The human diet is designed to consume a ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 of 1:1. However, the ratio commonly consumed by most Americans of omega-3 to omega-6 is 1:15 meaning that most people consume way too much omega-6 in addition to being woefully deficient in omega-3 fatty acids.

Rich sources of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids include fish, particularly cold-water fish like salmon, mackerel, halibut, and herring, as well as fish oil supplements. The omega-6 fatty acids are found in meat and dairy as well as common vegetable oils such as corn, safflower, and soy.

Continue [doctormurray.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2013 06:25PM by Jackie.

Hi Jackie,

Eventhough I have been taking Dr Murray's multivitamins for some time, I honestly am not sure what I believe or think about him Obviously, he has a nice website,says he is an expert, and has been researching for 20 years, sells many books, and lots and lots of supplements, so obviously he does have an agenda.

I'm not so sure what I think about this statement, "Because the select study was not set up initially to evaluate fish or fish oil intake in the study group, its relevance is not as significant as studies designed to specifically determine the impact of omega-3 fatty acids on prostate cancer risk. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that anybody in the select study took fish oil supplements or even ate fish!

To reach their conclusion about fish oil, the researchers measured the levels of fats in the blood of the SELECT study participants, and concluded that men with the highest concentrations of EPA, DPA, and DHA–three fatty acids derived from fish and fish-oil supplements–had an increased risk of prostate cancer"

I do not really know if this is true or not. It would be interesting to hear the researchers rebuttal to this statement.
I'm sure they would have one./

Hope you are doing well also(BTW after my 2nd hip replacement, my cobalt & chromium levels are now back to normal)

Jim

Hi Jim - Thanks for pointing that out. It would be interesting and I'm sure more will surface eventually as it typically does. Maybe we should write them?

I've met with Dr. Murray on a couple of occasions at presentations... he comes across as totally genuine and extremely knowledgeable.... but then, they are in the supplement business. However, I've never suspected that he has a hidden agenda... unlike some of the others where I sense the opposite.

So glad your cobalt and chromium levels have normalized... and I'm glad to know you are still reading here. Seems like a long time ago, Jim, since we had lunch in Cleveland.... Ten years for me coming up. Time marches on!!

Best to you,
Jackie

Mark Hyman, MD weighs in on the Fish Oil/Prostate Cancer report:

July 26, 2013

Whenever a newly published health study challenges current thinking, you can bet it won’t be long before the news media starts ratcheting up the drama and jumping to conclusions. This is true of a recent study called “Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial,” published in the July 2013 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. This study suggests a higher risk of prostate cancer among men who eat omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in fatty fish like sardines and salmon or in fish oil supplements.

Because I encourage my patients and readers to get plenty of omega-3s, I want to respond to these reports and offer my answer to the question they’ve raised: can fish oil cause prostate cancer? But first, let’s examine the findings.

What the Study Found

The study, which was conducted at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA, claims a link between increased blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids and increased incidence of prostate cancer. The highest blood plasma levels of these polyunsaturated fatty acids, specifically EPA, DHA and DPA, were associated with the highest risk. The research also showed that higher levels of linoleic acid (or omega-6 fatty acids, which most Americans eat too much of) were actually associated with a lowered risk. This would suggest that the more fish or fish oil a man included in his diet, the greater the chances he would develop prostate cancer. It would also mean that increasing his omega-6 fatty acid intake would be a good idea.

So, have I led you astray by telling you to eat your fatty fish and limit your intake of processed vegetable oils that contain omega-6 fatty acids? Should I warn you against taking fish oil and instead tell you to eat more cottonseed and sunflower seed oils? Let’s look at the facts and decide.

A Closer Look at the Study

Continue: [drhyman.com]

Thanks for all the URLs !