5 ms·

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 incre

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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706483/

insertnickname 8y ago
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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- shishy 8y ago
  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.
  - insertnickname 8y ago
    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.
    - shishy 8y ago
      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 :).
      - insertnickname 8y ago
        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).
com2kid 8y ago
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.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  agreed, and the headline talks about "link" because such a refined thinking doesn't fit in a headline.
- papa_bear 8y ago
  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 samples had significantly higher testosterone on average and were more likely to develop those tumors.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Young, and dead motorcyclists. Young male motorcyclist is the definition of testosterone-fueled lethality. (I grew out of sportbikes after two good friends died.)
    - nabla9 8y ago
      The so called balls to brain ratio.
      - chillwaves 8y ago
        I ride bikes but am low T. For shame.
    - nerflad 8y ago
dfawcus 8y ago
As I understand it, the fact that 1.00 is included in the range of CI indicates that the result in question could well be down to random chance/variation. i.e. because 1.00 is included, chance has not been eliminated.

insertnickname 8y ago

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.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
shishy 8y ago
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.
- insertnickname 8y ago
  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.
  - shishy 8y ago
    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 :).
    - insertnickname 8y ago
      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).

com2kid 8y ago

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.

nraynaud 8y ago
agreed, and the headline talks about "link" because such a refined thinking doesn't fit in a headline.
papa_bear 8y ago
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 samples had significantly higher testosterone on average and were more likely to develop those tumors.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Young, and dead motorcyclists. Young male motorcyclist is the definition of testosterone-fueled lethality. (I grew out of sportbikes after two good friends died.)
  - nabla9 8y ago
    The so called balls to brain ratio.
    - chillwaves 8y ago
      I ride bikes but am low T. For shame.
  - nerflad 8y ago

dfawcus 8y ago

As I understand it, the fact that 1.00 is included in the range of CI indicates that the result in question could well be down to random chance/variation. i.e. because 1.00 is included, chance has not been eliminated.