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

Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

nhs.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#41

Post by hannob »

vfc1 wrote: post #4

The article does not talk about alternatives. A great alternative for Omega-3s are ground flax seeds, one tablespoon a day mixed for example in your oatmeal is enough - https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/omega-3-fatty-acids Also for the derived DHA/EPA, there are pollutant-free alternatives based on algae oil.

> The article does not talk about alternatives.

Alternative for what?

You don't need an alternative for a food supplement with unproven benefits and potential risks. The alternative is to not take it.

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#42

Post by pmoriarty »

rozab wrote: post #21
vfc1 wrote: post #4

The article does not talk about alternatives. A great alternative for Omega-3s are ground flax seeds, one tablespoon a day mixed for example in your oatmeal is enough - https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/omega-3-fatty-acids Also for the derived DHA/EPA, there are pollutant-free alternatives based on algae oil.

...did you even read the article? The study found a link between blood concentration of omega-3 fatty acids and prostate cancer. The issue is with omega-3s in general, not that particular form of supplement. The article also states that there is little evidence for any benefits from similar supplements. I think that if the risks associated with pollutants in fish oil capsules were significant enough to affect the res…

The HN Guidelines ask:

"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

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

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#43

Post by sandworm101 »

papa_bear wrote: post #33
com2kid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding was that basically every man will, if they live long enough, have some cancerous cells in their prostate. The main risk seems to be going from "so slow growing you die of old age first" to "fast enough growing it becomes a problem", unless I am horribly mistaken.

I worked in a lab that was studying prostate cancer for a summer internship, and most of our samples came from young men who died in motorcycle accidents. They found that a majority of the samples had some presence of benign tumors, but it only really becomes noticeable once malignant tumors develop. I don't know how representative the samples were of the entire population - one theory was that our young motorcycle s…

Young, and dead motorcyclists. Young male motorcyclist is the definition of testosterone-fueled lethality. (I grew out of sportbikes after two good friends died.)

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#44

Post by insertnickname »

shishy wrote: post #12
insertnickname wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this: > This was a large, well designed study that supports previous research linking high blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids with prostate cancer risk. However, it cannot show that fish oil supplements cause prostate cancer and it is possible that other confounders affected men’s risk (although the researchers tried to take these into account). Their conclusion contradicts their own headline.

It does not contradict their headline. Headline says there is some correlation between the two but they are careful to explain later that this does not necessarily imply causation and that further research is required.

The correlation they have found is between high levels of fish oil in blood tests and prostate cancer. They do not know whether those high levels are the result of supplementation or merely of eating fish. At least that's how I understood the article.

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#45

Post by nabla9 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #43
papa_bear wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in a lab that was studying prostate cancer for a summer internship, and most of our samples came from young men who died in motorcycle accidents. They found that a majority of the samples had some presence of benign tumors, but it only really becomes noticeable once malignant tumors develop. I don't know how representative the samples were of the entire population - one theory was that our young motorcycle s…

Young, and dead motorcyclists. Young male motorcyclist is the definition of testosterone-fueled lethality. (I grew out of sportbikes after two good friends died.)

The so called balls to brain ratio.

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#47

Post by tth3uoku »

internet_user wrote: post #35

tocopherols have been shown to have negative effects, including increased mortality, in other studies too. Nothing new here.

Most research has focused on α-tocopherol, which is thought to displace γ-Tocopherol. In a 2000 study of the relationship between α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, selenium, and prostate cancer, men in the highest fifth of the distribution for γ-tocopherol were five time less likely to develop prostate cancer than men in the lowest fifth. [1]

"Recent epidemiological and preclinical studies have indicated that γ- and δ-tocopherols may be more effective because they are more efficient traps for reactive oxygen and nitrogen species." [2]

1. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/92/24/2018/2633585 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337152/

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#48

Post by chillwaves »

nabla9 wrote: post #45
sandworm101 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young, and dead motorcyclists. Young male motorcyclist is the definition of testosterone-fueled lethality. (I grew out of sportbikes after two good friends died.)

The so called balls to brain ratio.

I ride bikes but am low T. For shame.

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#49

Post by jazoom »

com2kid wrote: post #7
anaphor wrote: post #3

Keep in mind that this does not mean you have a 70% chance of getting prostate cancer if you take fish oil supplements. Based on this[0], it's roughly an increase from about 0.02% chance to about 0.034% chance (given no other information to base your risk on) [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706483/

My understanding was that basically every man will, if they live long enough, have some cancerous cells in their prostate. The main risk seems to be going from "so slow growing you die of old age first" to "fast enough growing it becomes a problem", unless I am horribly mistaken.

This is how most doctors I know perceive it as well. I know quite a few doctors since I'm one myself.

Re: Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer (2013)

#50

Post by rossdavidh »

There is, I am starting to believe (regardless of whether or not this particular finding holds up), an ongoing problem with our approach to nutrition. The anti-pattern goes like this: 1) people who eat/drink X have health benefits 2) it seems to be related to X having Y in it 3) let's sell Y as a pill 4) dang, no health benefits, how did that happen?

Now this could be for several reasons. Maybe eating/drinking X is a marker for a lifestyle that is healthy, or for coming from a background that includes beneficial genes of some sort. Maybe Y is not the only thing in X which matters, it's just the most obviously related thing, and you really need the whole package. Maybe the amount of Y you get from eating/drinking X is good, but in concentrated form at high levels there are drawbacks of some sort.

But, however you look at it, putting Y into a pill (that can often be patented and sold as medicine) is not the same as eating/drinking X, and despite the financial incentives for claiming it is, we need to recognize that.

Post reply on HN