Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 248 posts

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#81

Post by WaltPurvis »

dmix wrote: post #67
jryan49 wrote: post #43

So wait, what is disappointing about this: "Taking fish oil lowered the risk of heart attack by about 28 percent, which is a "statistically significant" finding, says Dr. JoAnn Manson, who is chief of the division of preventive medicine at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. She led the research." and "African-Americans in the study experienced a 77 percent lower risk of heart attack when compared to placebo,…

The fact fish oil and vitamin d have been touted for couple decades as helping prevent cancer? I remember both my parents taking both regularly growing up in the 90s and they both separately mentioned cancer prevention as the big reasons.

I have honestly never heard fish oil mentioned as a way to reduce cancer. I guess a lot of people have been taking/hyping it for that, but I've always only heard of it as a means of lowering your risk of heart problems. (And it sounds like the results of this study are that it dramatically lowers the risk of heart attack, as much or more as any prescription medication, so I agree with other commenters who say it's weird to describe this study as showing "disappointing" results for fish oil and heart disease.)

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#83

Post by rjplatte »

hashbig wrote: post #66
peterxpark wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a terrific new naturopathic doctor who actually cares about my health and will run blood panels frequently and let me know what lifestyle changes and supplements would help me. I never knew before that I was deficient in zinc. Before her though, most of my doctors were of the bland "if you aren't in extreme pain then it's not a problem" camp.

I would much rather have a "if you aren't in extreme pain then it's not a problem" doctor, than one who would over diagnose every minor issue.

I'd rather have a competent doctor than either of those.

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#84

Post by shanev »

jryan49 wrote: post #43

So wait, what is disappointing about this: "Taking fish oil lowered the risk of heart attack by about 28 percent, which is a "statistically significant" finding, says Dr. JoAnn Manson, who is chief of the division of preventive medicine at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. She led the research." and "African-Americans in the study experienced a 77 percent lower risk of heart attack when compared to placebo,…

"The study, which was also a randomized clinical trial, tracked participants for an average of five years. The volunteers took icosapent ethyl, which is sold under the brand name Vascepa and was developed by the Amarin Corporation, which funded Bhatt's research."

Because if they spun the study as a success, the funders of this study, a pharmaceutical company, wouldn't be able to promote their drug.

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#85

Post by lhl »

Leary wrote: post #34

Given these studies. I will stop taking fish oil. However, in light of further evidence by gwern as presented below, I will continue to take Vitamin D, even though my confidence in it is lessened. https://www.gwern.net/Longevity

I have my doubts on omega-3 supplementation as the amounts typically are not enough to change the omega-3:omega-6 ratios, which has been shown to have a big effect on hazard ratios for CVD. It looks like this study was for 1g of fish oil and there were no controls on dietary intake, so IMO the results aren't surprising.

I'd recommend that anyone interested in the health benefits of eating healthier... look into eating healthier. I really dig Marty Kendall's work on https://nutrientoptimiser.com/

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#86

Post by jazoom »

hashbig wrote: post #66
peterxpark wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a terrific new naturopathic doctor who actually cares about my health and will run blood panels frequently and let me know what lifestyle changes and supplements would help me. I never knew before that I was deficient in zinc. Before her though, most of my doctors were of the bland "if you aren't in extreme pain then it's not a problem" camp.

I would much rather have a "if you aren't in extreme pain then it's not a problem" doctor, than one who would over diagnose every minor issue.

And one who doesn't just happen to sell the thing she just told you you need.

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#87

Post by dang »

erichocean wrote: post #50
thomasfedb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly recent Cochrane review concludes: > ... we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of [omega-3] as a treatment for [major depression]. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect ... compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. https://www.coc…

> If the answer was easy we'd have found it, and we'd tell you about it. Like washing hands before dealing with women in labor? smh Also, enough with the "we", student doctor . You're not part of some privileged class of geniuses out to educate the rubes, on HN of all places.

Please don't cross into incivility.

Please also follow the site guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." There are plenty of other ways to interpret that "we".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#88

Post by _arvin »

staticassertion wrote: post #12
dawhizkid wrote: post #9

Why do we keep looking for some magic pill and ignore diet and exercise, especially when we talk about cancer and cardiovascular disease? Expecting a pill to counteract a sedentary lifestyle and a diet high in sugar and carbs is lunacy.

Diet and exercise have considerably higher costs than pills. Seems like that should be apparent. I don't see it as lunacy. Some chemicals we put into our bodies kill us, some cure our illnesses, some keep us awake or put us to sleep. It's lunacy to believe that some can benefit our health? Regardless, this isn't zero-sum. I don't think people are advocating for a pill to replace diet and exercise, but it seems obviou…

There's a cost to exercise? Walking, running, and jumping jacks are free.

Re: Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements

#90

Post by lhl »

Leary wrote: post #39
dawhizkid wrote: post #9

Why do we keep looking for some magic pill and ignore diet and exercise, especially when we talk about cancer and cardiovascular disease? Expecting a pill to counteract a sedentary lifestyle and a diet high in sugar and carbs is lunacy.

Show me a randomized control study of healthy people with lower all cause mortality from either diet or exercise, and I'll gladly change my ways.

One of the largest observational studies done, the PURE study (large, epidemiological cohort study of individuals aged 35-70 years (enrolled between Jan 1, 2003, and March 31, 2013) in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years (IQR 5·3-9·3). Dietary intake of 135 335 individuals was recorded using validated food frequency questionnaires) includes statistically significant all-cause mortality data and is the best controlled for study yet.

Here are the abstract results: Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12-1·46], ptrend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67-0·87], ptrenddoi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3

See also: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31812-9

If your primary interest is in longevity, IMO your best bet is to eat less often:

10.1016/j.cmet.2014.02.006

10.1111/j.1474-9726.2012.00798.x

10.1126/science.1172539

10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020

10.1111/acel.12338

10.1097/MCO.0000000000000239

10.1016/j.arr.2006.04.002

Also, exercise isn't bad either:

10.1371/journal.pone.0000465

Post reply on HN