5 ms·

There is a 20,000 person 2x2 randomized controlled trial underway right now looking at how useful fish oil is in preventing disease: http://www.vitalstudy.org h

There is a 20,000 person 2x2 randomized controlled trial underway right now looking at how useful fish oil is in preventing disease: http://www.vitalstudy.org http://www.vitalstudy.org Results will be out around 2017-2020. An observational study from the 1970s and a critique of an observational study from the 1970s will carry little merit compared to a 20k RCT. Knowing that we'll have better data in 5 years, the comment by the researcher is nauseating: "They simply don't do anything for you. The people should know that it doesn't help to prevent heart disease." Since we haven't quite reached an apex in research in fish oil, the comment is short-sighted and is overstating what we know about fish oil to date.

mikestew 12y ago
Just because we might have better data sometime down the road does not make the researcher's comment false. Assuming that the original study was flawed as claimed, then we're left to conclude that fish oil is in fact snake oil until we have evidence to the contrary.
- bcebulla 12y ago
  The researcher's comment IS false based on the information we have available to date. We do not know if fish oil is worthless or not. The researcher implicitly states that he knows fish oil is worthless based on the evidence to date, when the evidence to date is much more mixed. The NEJM article in this thread is much better evidence -- a 13k RCT that found no statistically significant benefit in 1g/day of omega 3s. On the other hand, there was a large 11k trial in the 90s that did find benefit 1g/day of omega 3s: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10465168 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10465168 The VITAL study underway will be interesting. It's the largest trial to date on fish oil and is looking at a healthy normal population, as opposed to those with CVD or high-risk of CVD.
Cowicide 12y ago
Agreed, plus those that say that fish oil is completely useless should take a hard look at what the prestigious Mayo Clinic has to say about it: http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-acids-fish-oil-alpha-linolenic-acid/evidence/hrb-20059372 http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-ac...

mikestew 12y ago

Just because we might have better data sometime down the road does not make the researcher's comment false. Assuming that the original study was flawed as claimed, then we're left to conclude that fish oil is in fact snake oil until we have evidence to the contrary.

bcebulla 12y ago
The researcher's comment IS false based on the information we have available to date. We do not know if fish oil is worthless or not. The researcher implicitly states that he knows fish oil is worthless based on the evidence to date, when the evidence to date is much more mixed. The NEJM article in this thread is much better evidence -- a 13k RCT that found no statistically significant benefit in 1g/day of omega 3s. On the other hand, there was a large 11k trial in the 90s that did find benefit 1g/day of omega 3s: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10465168 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10465168 The VITAL study underway will be interesting. It's the largest trial to date on fish oil and is looking at a healthy normal population, as opposed to those with CVD or high-risk of CVD.

Cowicide 12y ago

Agreed, plus those that say that fish oil is completely useless should take a hard look at what the prestigious Mayo Clinic has to say about it: http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-acids-fish-oil-alpha-linolenic-acid/evidence/hrb-20059372 http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-ac...