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

51–60 of 69 posts

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

#51

Post by ionwake »

kensai wrote: post #5
sigmaprimus wrote: post #2

Kind of an old article, here is a link to an article written around the same time that was updated last summer. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fish-oil-friend-or-foe-2...

At a certain point it says: "Evidence linking fish oil and cancer has been all over the map. Some research suggests diets high in fatty fish or fish oil supplements might reduce the risk of certain cancers, including prostate cancer. Other research shows just the opposite, a link between eating a lot of oily fish or taking potent fish oil supplements and a 43% increased risk for prostate cancer overall, and a 71% inc…

I wonder if anyone has compared cancer rates with those who eat euryhaline fish ( less sea toxins )

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

#52

Post by ionwake »

HuShifang wrote: post #38
internet_user wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what are vegetarians, or those with fish allergies, are supposed to be eating?

If one wanted omega-3s of the DHA/EPA variety, there's algae oil. It's commonly available as a supplement from many of the same companies that produce fish oil supplements.

What’s the mercury level

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

#53

Post by batter »

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.

I have abandoned flax seeds after finding out their impact on testosterone.

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

#54

Post by vibrato »

nraynaud wrote: post #24
vibrato wrote: post #19

Let me give an alternative view of this epidemiological study. "Those more interested in their health (motivated to take supplements or eat a high omega-3 diet) more likely to be diagnosed by their doctor with common health issues"

Participants were selected by having a cancer. Have you read the article? it's about growth rate.

Right. My point is that less health conscious people would have un-diagnosed cancer. This would make it appear that more health conscious people (higher omega-3) have higher rates of cancer than baseline.

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

#56

Post by shishy »

insertnickname wrote: post #44
shishy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair but the article does address this albeit briefly:

"Still, it is unlikely that the high levels of these fatty acids found in the highest quartile would be the result of diet alone. Adults are advised to eat two portions of fish a week, one of them oily, as part of a healthy balanced diet."

You are right that the study doesn't explicitly say fish oil supplements directly caused the high levels of fish oil which were observed in these patients with prostate cancer.

Dailymail at it again :).

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

#57

Post by insertnickname »

shishy wrote: post #56
insertnickname wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair but the article does address this albeit briefly: "Still, it is unlikely that the high levels of these fatty acids found in the highest quartile would be the result of diet alone. Adults are advised to eat two portions of fish a week, one of them oily, as part of a healthy balanced diet." You are right that the study doesn't explicitly say fish oil supplements directly caused the high levels of fish oil which we…

I suppose the NHS isn't to blame for what the Daily Mail wrote, but it's a bit confusing that they have a page on their website with the title "Fish oil supplements linked to prostate cancer". I now see that it's supposed to be part of a whole series ("Behind the Headlines") dissecting articles about health, so the headline is a quote or a restatement of what the Daily Mail wrote. It would be nice if they put it in quotemarks or otherwise indicated more clearly that they, the NHS, aren't making the claim (which clearly they aren't).

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

#58

Post by noneeeed »

rossdavidh wrote: post #50

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…

It's like the whole thing with vitamin supplements. Unless you are actually deficient in one of them, taking them isn't going to do much for you, and in some cases might actually cause you harm. It's like fertiliser on a field, after a certain point the plants can't use any more and it just runs off to the rivers.

Vitamin C is a good one for that, I seem to remember reading that at best taking large doses just means your piss contains a lot of it, and at worst, if you mega-dose for long periods, it raises your chance of getting some cancers.

It reminds me of the adverts on the London Underground. Every time I travel through London to see my parents there will be adverts medicalising lack of sleep and exhaustion, flogging supplements and "remedies" for what is basically being tired, or "chronic tiredness syndrome" as one advert described it. I'm so glad I didn't choose that life.

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

#59

Post by ip26 »

noneeeed wrote: post #58
rossdavidh wrote: post #50

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…

It's like the whole thing with vitamin supplements. Unless you are actually deficient in one of them, taking them isn't going to do much for you, and in some cases might actually cause you harm. It's like fertiliser on a field, after a certain point the plants can't use any more and it just runs off to the rivers. Vitamin C is a good one for that, I seem to remember reading that at best taking large doses just means…

Also risk of kidney stones.

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

#60

Post by ip26 »

dpatrick86 wrote: post #17

This was based on the SELECT trial data, which means that it could just as easily be measuring the effects of a very large and prolonged dose of 400 IU of alpha-tocopherol as it is omega-3. Greater than 12x RDA. Moreover, it's been many years since this was published. If prostate cancer-promoting effects were so plainly an obvious effect of marine omega-3 supplementation, you'd expect to have seen it abundantly repli…

Maybe not, it's a very slow growing cancer, so they say.
Post reply on HN