From a new study:
Men who eat salmon and other fish high in omega-3 fatty acids on a regular basis have a decreased risk for developing advanced prostate cancer, new research suggests.
The association was most pronounced among men believed to have a genetic predisposition for developing aggressive prostate cancer.
Men in the study who ate one or more servings of fatty fish a week were found to have a 63% lower risk for developing aggressive prostate cancer than men who reported never eating fish, study co-researcher John S. Witte, PhD, tells WebMD.
The study is not the first to find that men who eat fatty fish have a lower risk for the most deadly forms of prostate cancer. But Witte says clinical trials are needed to show that eating foods high in omega-3 fatty acids actually lower risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
“Needed”? Or is this like a Grammy winner thanking God in his acceptance speech? That is, ritualistic. I prefer this way of making the point:
Roswell Park Cancer Institute President and professor of oncology Donald Trump, MD, tells WebMD that there is enough evidence suggesting a protective role for omega-3 against prostate cancer to justify a large trial studying whether eating a diet rich in omega-3s — or even taking omega-3 supplements — can actually lower risk of prostate cancer.
Someday an astute person will write a paper called “How accurate are clinical trials?”
The protective power of fish oil is supported by the very low rate of prostate cancer in Japan — 15 times lower than in America, according to this.
Thanks to Peter Spero.
Someone has written an article similar to “How accurate are clinical trials?” See Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research by John P. A. Ioannidis or his more sensationally titled popular summary “Why Most Published Research Findings are False” published in Chance magazine.
The rate of prostate cancer in India is 34 times less than US (see https://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2005/12/empty.html)
and most Indians eat very little fish or fish oil
How do people that eat no fish get omega-3?
There is omega-3 in grass-fed meat and in plants. But I would agree that the India fact suggests that there are promoters of prostate cancer in the Western diet.
Rapeseed oil is actually widely consumed in India. This oil has 2:1 ratio of short-chain omega-6/omega-3 fats.
In India strong correlation is found between oil consumption and metabolic disorders. The relevant research has not been done but I believe that these disorders are more among the people that consume oils other than rapeseed.
Rapeseed oil is similar to canola, aside from containing “erucic acid”, which Wikipedia says is an omega-9 oil that rats have trouble digesting. Apparently breeding rapeseed to taste less bitter damaged the process for making omega-9, so lacking it is promoted as a feature.
[…] Enlace a la fuente del estudio. […]
clinical trials are needed for fish oil. Maybe even for fish – if it’s not the fish but something associated with fish happening in Japan.
Just like the ill fated beta carotene cancer trials, fish may be awesome for you but fish oil could increase your risk.
I remember when this stuff happened. Nary a peep out of mainstream media.
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22beta+carotene%22+cancer+smokers&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=o&oq=
https://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/vitamin-supplements-smoking-and-lung-cancer-risk
>> In this study 18% more lung cancers developed in the
>> people taking the alpha tocopherol and beta carotene pills.
but … but … ANTIOXIDANTS ARE GOOD FOR YOU !!!
Add the recent results showing vitamin C and E supplements block some of the body’s adaptive responses to exercise.
This kind of thing is one reason I’m skeptical of the vitamin D hoopla going on now.