I take omega 3 from vegan sources - does anyone know if the study links the risk to the fish source or omega three in general? I can't find out.
Generally I am not a fan of supplements anyway. This isn't the first time they have been linked to increased risk of disease. As Micheal Pollan points out - You can't isolate the nutrient from the food, the food from the diet or the diet from the lifestyle.
seeing as I've taking these for 20 years or so and have yet to succumb to prostate cancer, I'll keep risking it
I'd also want to see the full trial details before drawing any conclusions as well
herbi - omega3 is omega3 irrespective of the source - a chemical is a chemical essentially (without going into very technical details of some differences with more complex ones). the question is maybe - is there anything else in the source product that may be giving the outcome - perhaps something other than omega3.
Buddha - Omega 3 from plant sources is quite different. It is short chain rather than long chain and behaves differently on the body. This is why I wondered if the study had looked at different forms of omega 3. I don't think it did.
@herbfit yes but this cannot serve as the basis of a contraindication for omega 3. The benefits heavily outweigh the potential risk (see this article http://goo.gl/hrkEsu). Plus with the availability of vegan approved cultivated algae, n-3 nutrients can still be sourced without running the risks associated with the cancer causing chems that bio accumulate in sea food.
Comments
Intresting. Guess I'll stop taking mine from now on, shame I only take them because I hate fish.
I take omega 3 from vegan sources - does anyone know if the study links the risk to the fish source or omega three in general? I can't find out.
Generally I am not a fan of supplements anyway. This isn't the first time they have been linked to increased risk of disease. As Micheal Pollan points out - You can't isolate the nutrient from the food, the food from the diet or the diet from the lifestyle.
seeing as I've taking these for 20 years or so and have yet to succumb to prostate cancer, I'll keep risking it
I'd also want to see the full trial details before drawing any conclusions as well
herbi - omega3 is omega3 irrespective of the source - a chemical is a chemical essentially (without going into very technical details of some differences with more complex ones). the question is maybe - is there anything else in the source product that may be giving the outcome - perhaps something other than omega3.
If you haven't got or had prostrate cancer you haven't lived long enough.
Buddha - Omega 3 from plant sources is quite different. It is short chain rather than long chain and behaves differently on the body. This is why I wondered if the study had looked at different forms of omega 3. I don't think it did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57593293/omega-3-fatty-acids-may-raise-prostate-cancer-risk/
This has a bit more detail. Looks like they did specifically look at marine omega 3.
@herbfit yes but this cannot serve as the basis of a contraindication for omega 3. The benefits heavily outweigh the potential risk (see this article http://goo.gl/hrkEsu). Plus with the availability of vegan approved cultivated algae, n-3 nutrients can still be sourced without running the risks associated with the cancer causing chems that bio accumulate in sea food.