Post: #1

Quote:Link Between Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Increased Prostate Cancer Risk Confirmed

A second large, prospective study by scientists at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has confirmed the link between high blood concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids and an increased risk of prostate cancer.



Published July 11 in the online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the latest findings indicate that high concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA -- the three anti-inflammatory and metabolically related fatty acids derived from fatty fish and fish-oil supplements -- are associated with a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. The study also found a 44 percent increase in the risk of low-grade prostate cancer and an overall 43 percent increase in risk for all prostate cancers.

The increase in risk for high-grade prostate cancer is important because those tumors are more likely to be fatal.

The findings confirm a 2011 study published by the same Fred Hutch scientific team that reported a similar link between high blood concentrations of DHA and a more than doubling of the risk for developing high-grade prostate cancer. The latest study also confirms results from a large European study.

"The consistency of these findings suggests that these fatty acids are involved in prostate tumorigenesis and recommendations to increase long-chain omega-3 fatty acid intake, in particular through supplementation, should consider its potential risks," the authors wrote.

"We've shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful," said Alan Kristal, Dr.P.H., the paper's senior author and member of the Fred Hutch Public Health Sciences Division. Kristal also noted a recent analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that questioned the benefit of omega-3 supplementation for cardiovascular diseases. The analysis, which combined the data from 20 studies, found no reduction in all-cause mortality, heart attacks or strokes.

"What's important is that we have been able to replicate our findings from 2011 and we have confirmed that marine omega-3 fatty acids play a role in prostate cancer occurrence," said corresponding author Theodore Brasky, Ph.D., a research assistant professor at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center who was a postdoctoral trainee at Fred Hutch when the research was conducted. "It's important to note, however, that these results do not address the question of whether omega-3's play a detrimental role in prostate cancer prognosis," he said.

Kristal said the findings in both Fred Hutch studies were surprising because omega-3 fatty acids are believed to have a host of positive health effects based on their anti-inflammatory properties. Inflammation plays a role in the development and growth of many cancers.

It is unclear from this study why high levels of omega-3 fatty acids would increase prostate cancer risk, according to the authors, however the replication of this finding in two large studies indicates the need for further research into possible mechanisms. One potentially harmful effect of omega-3 fatty acids is their conversion into compounds that can cause damage to cells and DNA, and their role in immunosuppression. Whether these effects impact cancer risk is not known.

The difference in blood concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids between the lowest and highest risk groups was about 2.5 percentage points (3.2 percent vs. 5.7 percent), which is somewhat larger than the effect of eating salmon twice a week, Kristal said. The current study analyzed data and specimens collected from men who participated in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), a large randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test whether selenium and vitamin E, either alone or combined, reduced prostate cancer risk. That study showed no benefit from selenium intake and an increase in prostate cancers in men who took vitamin E.

The group included in the this analysis consisted of 834 men who had been diagnosed with incident, primary prostate cancers (156 were high-grade cancer) along with a comparison group of 1,393 men selected randomly from the 35,500 participants in SELECT. The National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine funded the research.

Also participating in the study were additional Fred Hutch scientists and researchers from the University of Texas, University of California, University of Washington, National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic.

As someone who eats a whole lot of salmon and regularly supplements with Omega-3:

Post: #2

"Kristal said the findings in both Fred Hutch studies were surprising because omega-3 fatty acids are believed to have a host of positive health effects based on their anti-inflammatory properties. Inflammation plays a role in the development and growth of many cancers."

Yep, surprising indeed. I used to take a ton of Omega3 supplements, but stopped a couple of years ago. I won't be starting again until the mechanism for tumour promotion is elucidated, if then.

Post: #3

I'll take my chances with a healthy brain from my Omega 3s to understand the still biggest single factor towards prostate health is diet and activity. Sedentary lifestyles have more effect and stress on are prostates then omegas had. Sitting down for prolong periods per day has been shown to skyrocket risk factors way higher the modest numbers they are tossing around in this study above.

Omega 3 has always been anti-inflammatory and the DHA and EPA strands have always promoted good healthy in the cell and vascular system. My guess is that these docs confused the abundance of extra prostaglandins in the bloodstream as some type of hyped risk for cancer when in fact the prostaglandins created by EPA and DHA are less active then normal ones crates elsewhere and this do no damage to cells in comparison.

Omegas were championed for decades as a good way to combat heart disease but now it's all bad eh? Lol. Your brain literally starts to break down at the tiniest points without good fats. You need to balance all our Omegas, not strictly the 3s which are more abundant, also needed is the 6 and 9s but in this days age if your eating healthy your fine. Olive oil and nuts give you omega 9s, while any type of conventional healthy fat has Omega 6s (safflower, grapeseed oil).

Once a doctor stars telling me Salmon, and other fatty fishes which have filed civilizations for thousands of years... Is bad?

...Well good for him. I'll send him a card when he is old and sick with cancer and I am not.

Post: #4

So basically stop taking omega-3 and increase your risk of heart disease or take omega-3 and risk prostate cancer? We truly cannot win out here. However considering the vast health benefits of consuming omega-3, I'm tempted to wait on more of a consensus especially since I just bought like 60 capsules.

Post: #5

Correlation does not equal causation.

Post: #6

(07-11-2013 02:56 PM)frenchie Wrote:  Correlation does not equal causation.

Post: #7

Has to be more to it than that. Have a look at the incidence of prostate cancer by country: http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/prostate.asp

Why does Japan have such a low incidence, given the high fish content of their diet (I assume that this anecdotal belief is true). In fact, it appears that the Western world, including US/Canada, Australia, and Western Europe have the highest incidence of prostate cancer. Coincidentally, these are also among the most feminist countries.

On the other hand, the per capita mortality from prostate cancer is low in the US but high in Scandinavia. Conclusion: who fucking knows.

Post: #8

Yeah these "X correlates with Y, get scared!" studies definitely mislead people.

And in that study they didn't actually find out whether people were taking fish oil or not.

Like their first 2011 study, they just looked at DHA concentrations in blood, which can be altered by a number of things, not just supplementation. One thing that can increase them is low-fat diets.

This is a good breakdown of the 2011 study:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fish-oil-...z2YlTnRFIr

"For starters, if there is a legitimate link between high DHA levels in the blood and aggressive prostate cancer, we could point the finger at low-fat diets just as easily as fish. Is dietary DHA a trigger for tumor growth, or is it some consequence of fat reduction – such as the higher intake of grains or sugar that often fills the caloric void? Since this study didn’t document any diet variables, there’s no way to tell for sure."

So literally, a omega-3 rich healthy diet could cause the same DHA levels as a lower fat diet with more grains and sugar. Hmm, I wonder which one is more likely to be the cause of the higher prostate cancer rates, LOL.

Anyone with half a brain should be saying what's the OVERALL impact on your health of taking omega-3, compared with not taking it? A good Omega 3/6 ratio = reduced systemic inflammation which from what I understand is likely to lower your overall risk of getting a lethal cancer, alongside alzheimers, diabetes, dementia, and the autoimmune diseases.

Post: #9

BREAKING NEWS: Everything you do or consume has a correlation with some kind of cancer.

Post: #10

Is it just me or does "Omega-3 Fatty Acid" almost sound like it could be a username on the forum?

Post: #11

We don't want no fatties here, Tuth

Post: #12

(07-11-2013 05:48 PM)Architekt Wrote:  We don't want no fatties here, Tuth

Dude, it's fatty acid. It dissolves fatties.

Here's the idea: the guy's name is Omega-3 and his title or appelation is Fatty Acid. A better punctuation would be this.

Omega-3, Fatty Acid

Or, business-card style:

Omega-3
Fatty Acid

Post: #13

How's this:

Alpha-3, Fatty Solvent.

Post: #14

(07-11-2013 03:44 PM)Menace Wrote:  Has to be more to it than that. Have a look at the incidence of prostate cancer by country: http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/prostate.asp

Why does Japan have such a low incidence, given the high fish content of their diet (I assume that this anecdotal belief is true). In fact, it appears that the Western world, including US/Canada, Australia, and Western Europe have the highest incidence of prostate cancer. Coincidentally, these are also among the most feminist countries.

I was thinking something like this when I first read the article. Human civilizations developed near oceans and rivers because they provide a steady supply of food, this isn't anything new. Prostate cancer rates would have been astronomically high throughout human history if eating lots of fish caused it.

Post: #15

[quote='Athlone McGinnis' pid='488391' dateline='1373567784']
[quote]Link Between Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Increased Prostate Cancer Risk Confirmed [...]

As someone who eats a whole lot of salmon and regularly supplements with Omega-3:


[/quote]

i stopped taking fish oil pills about 5 years ago because i was wary about mercury contamination in the fish used to make the pills. now i find that the oils themselves are cancerous !!!

Post: #16

(07-11-2013 06:33 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  [quote='Athlone McGinnis' pid='488391' dateline='1373567784']

Quote:Link Between Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Increased Prostate Cancer Risk Confirmed [...]

As someone who eats a whole lot of salmon and regularly supplements with Omega-3:

i stopped taking fish oil pills about 5 years ago because i was wary about mercury contamination in the fish used to make the pills. now i find that the oils themselves are cancerous !!!

Yeah I took an Environmental Biology class where my professor said that mercury toxins come from the smoke of power plants which ponds and rivers all over the world. Every fish you eat, whether if its fresh from the pond or from the supermarket will contain some mercury in it.

Heres a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish


They also did a study in Canada years ago on mothers of an Inuit tribe in Quebec where 98% of their diet consists of fish. It resulted that many of the mothers who were giving birth had dangerously elevated levels of mercury in their bloodstream and breast milk.

http://juneauempire.com/stories/041104/sta_inuit.shtml

Just something to think about.

Post: #17

Please read this article: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fish-oil-...te-cancer/

Can't believe every study you read. What I linked above provides research links/studies etc.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"In 2001, a study of over 6,000 Swedish men found that the folks eating the most fish had drastically lower rates of prostate cancer than those eating the least. Another study from New Zealand found that men with the highest DHA markers slashed their prostate cancer risk by 38% compared to the men with the lowest DHA levels. And yet another study tracking Japanese men in Japan and Brazil found that omega-3 levels in the blood were consistently linked with a reduction in prostate cancer."

No need to stop taking fish oil unless you feel it isn't benefiting you.

Post: #18

(07-11-2013 05:58 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 05:48 PM)Architekt Wrote:  We don't want no fatties here, Tuth

Dude, it's fatty acid. It dissolves fatties.

Here's the idea: the guy's name is Omega-3 and his title or appelation is Fatty Acid. A better punctuation would be this.

Omega-3, Fatty Acid

Or, business-card style:

Omega-3
Fatty Acid

All of my wat. You may have them.

Post: #19

(07-11-2013 06:15 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 03:44 PM)Menace Wrote:  Has to be more to it than that. Have a look at the incidence of prostate cancer by country: http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/prostate.asp

Why does Japan have such a low incidence, given the high fish content of their diet (I assume that this anecdotal belief is true). In fact, it appears that the Western world, including US/Canada, Australia, and Western Europe have the highest incidence of prostate cancer. Coincidentally, these are also among the most feminist countries.

I was thinking something like this when I first read the article. Human civilizations developed near oceans and rivers because they provide a steady supply of food, this isn't anything new. Prostate cancer rates would have been astronomically high throughout human history if eating lots of fish caused it.

I was actually going to say that. . .They smoke like hell in Japan too, smokes are cheap, and pretty much everyone smokes, and they do it a lot!

Maybe the fact that most people takes trains + walk everywhere there counteracts a LOT of bad stuff that people in the west get. . .since we just sit in our cars, and at the job all day.

Post: #20

Post: #21

(07-11-2013 06:02 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  How's this:

Alpha-3, Fatty Solvent.

True alphas are #1...

Should be Alpha Fatty Dis/solver?

Post: #22

(07-11-2013 05:58 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 05:48 PM)Architekt Wrote:  We don't want no fatties here, Tuth

Dude, it's fatty acid. It dissolves fatties.

Here's the idea: the guy's name is Omega-3 and his title or appelation is Fatty Acid. A better punctuation would be this.

Omega-3, Fatty Acid

Or, business-card style:

Omega-3
Fatty Acid

Post: #23

That is one of the worst explanations of why correlation is not equal to causation I have ever seen. Ever. Speechless. Wow.

Post: #24

People who smoke have a higher chance to get cancer. People who drink alcohol have a higher chance of liver problems. People who are players have a higher chance to get herpes/hiv/whatever. People who drive have a higher chance to die than people who walk. People who are born have a 100% chance to die. Should they stop doing it?

Post: #25

(07-12-2013 02:22 AM)mental Wrote:  People who are born have a 100% chance to die. Should they stop doing it?

Well...