BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > Miscellaneous > Miscellaneous Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 09-26-2012, 01:04 PM
AmbassadorW0lfe's Avatar
AmbassadorW0lfe AmbassadorW0lfe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 559
Default JAMA Study on Omega 3 supplementation

http://www.freep.com/article/2012091...cks-study-says

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....357266#RESULTS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891

So let me preface by saying that I'm aware of the long list of supposed benefits of fish oil supplementation (mainly from reading Lyle's books and articles) - from enhancing fat loss, reducing inflammation, to improving leptin dynamics. I personally use it and the risk-reward is very much worth it. I'm bringing this up for the sake of analysis and discussion.

A co-worker brought to my attention an article that states "fish oil has no effects towards preventing heart disease" and naturally I searched up the article because experience/knowledge - especially since being educated by this site - has made me weary/suspicious of most people's claims. As it turns out, it was very recently published by JAMA and is available on PubMed.

I'll say two things:
1) I'm inherently incredulous since there are supposedly hundreds (if not thousands) of studies suggesting benefits with fish oil consumption. It makes me wonder if the study possesses an inherent short-coming i.e. lack of control of variables, faulty analysis method, correlation vs. causation type errors, etc.
2) Admittedly, I am not specialized in analyzing scientific studies. I bring this up because I'm aware there are many more on this forum who seem very talented at deconstructing these studies (obviously Lyle and I believe seeing Myles do this too).

Can anyone provide any additional insight to this study, it's methodology, and how they came to these conclusions?
__________________
...Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 09-26-2012, 01:27 PM
atresia atresia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbassadorW0lfe View Post
http://www.freep.com/article/2012091...cks-study-says

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....357266#RESULTS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891

So let me preface by saying that I'm aware of the long list of supposed benefits of fish oil supplementation (mainly from reading Lyle's books and articles) - from enhancing fat loss, reducing inflammation, to improving leptin dynamics. I personally use it and the risk-reward is very much worth it. I'm bringing this up for the sake of analysis and discussion.

A co-worker brought to my attention an article that states "fish oil has no effects towards preventing heart disease" and naturally I searched up the article because experience/knowledge - especially since being educated by this site - has made me weary/suspicious of most people's claims. As it turns out, it was very recently published by JAMA and is available on PubMed.

I'll say two things:
1) I'm inherently incredulous since there are supposedly hundreds (if not thousands) of studies suggesting benefits with fish oil consumption. It makes me wonder if the study possesses an inherent short-coming i.e. lack of control of variables, faulty analysis method, correlation vs. causation type errors, etc.
2) Admittedly, I am not specialized in analyzing scientific studies. I bring this up because I'm aware there are many more on this forum who seem very talented at deconstructing these studies (obviously Lyle and I believe seeing Myles do this too).

Can anyone provide any additional insight to this study, it's methodology, and how they came to these conclusions?
http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot...k-you-may.html
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 09-26-2012, 02:24 PM
Roadkill Roadkill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 148
Default

Ok, so fish oil doesnt help with heart diseases unless you already had a stroke, is this surprising? If you are healthy and with low bf heart issues shoudnt even come to mind unless you have a genetic defect. If you think you can take fish oil to prevent heart problems and then sit around being fat you are wrong. Its like suplementing extra protein and not exercising but expecting to gain muscle. This doesnt take anything away from fish oil.

Last edited by Roadkill : 09-26-2012 at 02:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 09-26-2012, 03:49 PM
AmbassadorW0lfe's Avatar
AmbassadorW0lfe AmbassadorW0lfe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 559
Default

Thanks for the link to the blog atresia, very insightful.

Roadkill: I would say your commentary has the very same underpinnings that resulted in the deceptive, misleading, or insinuating nature of the articles i.e. "fish oil is pointless". No offense - and really, I agree with your overall message and the practicality of it "take fish oil, move more, eat better" - but my post refers to the isolated effects of fish oil and not the multivariate picture that results from proper nutrition, training, and fish oil supplementation. Much in the same way that many people misinterpreted the "beef is bad for you" studies. Beef - as Lyle points out in the protein book and other places - is a phenomenal (and tasty) source of protein and health effects become an issue in the context of a caloric surplus and excess fat intake.

I long have had this issue that most people aren't scientifically literate or competent in understanding scientific/statistical methodology (which is painfully evident when they cite scientific studies).

Admittedly, neither my undergraduate nor graduate studies were in a scientific field and nonetheless, my hypothesis would be were we to hold variables constant (weight, bodyfat%, activity level, macro nutrient composition, etc.) that the inclusion of fish oil would result in an improvement in several health markers. How big is that improvement? I don't know.

It seems that a large portion of the "normal" populace doesn't understand the concept of isolating the independent and dependent variables. Granted, I can't comment on how difficult of an experiment set up this would be (likely extremely difficult) but various forms of statistical analysis can reduce some of the multivariate noise. I ran into similar situations where I was arguing fitness/dieting for leanness vs. "health at every weight" where some friends were arguing instances of fatter individuals being "healthier" than lean individuals. Are there some fatter individuals who are "healthier" than their lean counterparts? Sure. But what was lost in their arguments was, if you take the "unhealthy" lean individuals and make them fatter, they would likely show worse health markers. This being based on the belief that simply getting fatter makes you more insulin resistant among other things.

In the same vein, if I were to take an individual and compare blood markers with and without long term fish oil supplementation, I would dare say fish oil improves the outcomes just on the expectation of leptin and inflammation-reduction benefits alone.
__________________
...Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.