Fish oil study shows 71% increase in the deadly form of prostate cancer.....

**Baldiewonkanobi** · 07-11-2013, 10:31 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...cancer-70.html

Baldie

**FIREBLAST** · 07-11-2013, 10:37 AM

Lmao, incredible! That's all I can say.

**Granite-Dawg** · 07-11-2013, 11:23 AM

you can make anything appear the way you want. I despise traditional media.

**crawfBigG** · 07-11-2013, 11:41 AM

Damn, I've been taking them for years.... seems you can find pros and cons for everything, who knows?

**rcp1936** · 07-11-2013, 11:57 AM

I eat salmon 2x a week and use olive oil in my salads and a handful of almonds in the salad also--all are Omega 3 rich

However I only use lean cuts of meat fat trimmed grilled for the remaining fat to run off

At my last screening my PS which has always been the very low end of normal was below normal

I made 77 a month ago

For what that is worth

BTW fish oils have been out in capsule form for many years now
Why all of a sudden this study

Who the hell knows ?

**alkaline.** · 07-11-2013, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by rcp1936

Why all of a sudden this study

Who the hell knows ?

big pharma is probably trying to come out with a "safer" form of fish oil...

**Baldiewonkanobi** · 07-11-2013, 02:11 PM

I agrre. Fish Oil in moderation is a plus to health/longlevity. I took them for 20 plus years then became highly alergic to them. My skin turned brilliant and itchy red. I stopped and 3 months later still no problems.

Balie

**MikeS** · 07-11-2013, 02:25 PM

Always makes me laugh how these supposed 'news websites' never provide a link to the study they mention. Why is this? probably because we'd find that they are either making it up or exaggerating entirely. This is why you are best not reading the news at all - it's usually all BS.

**MikeS** · 07-11-2013, 02:38 PM

So I found the study this 'news' story reports on. Here it is: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...jt174.abstract

As you'll see its a 'cohort' study, which basically means they took the lifestyle data of people with and without the cancer, and correlated omega-3's with the cancer. Bearing in mind they probably at some point simply asked people "how much omega3 do you take?" and whatever the people say that's what they use as data. Problem with this is that people lie, exagerate and sometimes flat out make stuff up - so its not very concrete.

The other thing is that unless they controlled for every single other lifestyle factor (alcohol, overeating, trans fatty acids, environment etc etc etc) they can't possibly single out one particular fatty acid.

I don't have access to the full thing and the abstract doesn't mention that they controlled for any other factors that may influence the results (i.e. the people with the highest n-3 intakes may also have had the highest trans fatty acid intake).

Until they come out with some sort of RCT type study that shows - on some level - cause and effect, take this story with a pinch of salt.