despre uleiul/untura de peste

As the Inuit people spread across the Arctic, they developed one of the most extreme diets on Earth. They didn’t farm fruits, vegetables or grains. There weren’t many wild plants to forage, aside from the occasional patch of berries on the tundra.

For the most part, the Inuit ate what they could hunt, and they mostly hunted at sea, catching whales, seals and fish. Western scientists have long been fascinated by their distinctly un-Western diet. Despite eating so much fatty meat and fish, the Inuit didn’t have a lot of heart attacks.

In the 1970s, Danish researchers studying Inuit metabolism proposed that omega-3 fatty acids found in fish were protective. Those conclusions eventually led to the recommendation that Westerners eat more fish to help prevent heart disease and sent tens of millions scrambling for fish oil pills.

Today, at least 10 percent of Americans regularly take fish oil supplements. But recent trials have failed to confirm that the pills prevent heart attacks or stroke. And now the story has an intriguing new twist.

A study published last week in the journal Science reported that the ancestors of the Inuit evolved unique genetic adaptations for metabolizing omega-3s and other fatty acids. Those gene variants had drastic effects on Inuit bodies, reducing their heights and weights.

Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of the new study, said that the discovery raised questions about whether omega-3 fats really were protective for everyone, despite decades of health advice. “The same diet may have different effects on different people,” he said.

Food is a powerful force in evolution. The more nutrients an animal can get, the more likely it is to survive and reproduce. Humans are no exception. When we encounter a new kind of food, natural selection may well favor those of us with genetic mutations that help us thrive on it.

Some people, for example, are able to digest milk throughout their lives. This genetic adaptation arose in societies that domesticated cattle thousands of years ago, in such places as Northern Europe and East Africa. People who trace their ancestry to other regions, by contrast, tend to more often be lactose-intolerant.

Dr. Nielsen wondered if the Inuit had a similar evolutionary change when they shifted to a diet made up mainly of meat.

In recent years, he and his colleagues have been collaborating with researchers at the University of Greenland to study Inuit DNA. Originally, they searched for mutations that raise the risk of developing diseases such as diabetes.

But then Dr. Nielsen and his colleagues took a different tack, searching for mutations that might have provided the Inuit with some benefit.

To sharpen the focus of their search, the scientists selected 191 Greenlanders whose ancestry was 95 percent Inuit or greater. (Many Greenlanders can trace some of their ancestry to Europe because of the island’s colonization by Denmark.) The researchers looked at the DNA of these people for variations in genes important to metabolism.

“We wanted to scan the genome and ask, where do we find the strongest signals of natural selection?” Dr. Nielsen said.

The researchers found several genetic variants at different locations in the genome that were unusually common in the Inuit, compared with people in Europe or China. Several of these variations occurred within a cluster of genes that direct construction of enzymes called fatty acid desaturases. (The genes are called FADS, for short.)

This discovery was particularly tantalizing, because the scientists knew that these enzymes helped regulate the different fats in our bodies, including omega-3 fatty acids.

Even more intriguing was the fact that one of these gene variants was present in almost every Inuit in the study. It is much less common in other populations: About a quarter of Chinese people have it, compared with just 2 percent of Europeans.

Natural selection is the only known way this gene variant could have become so common in the Inuit. Dr. Nielsen said this adaptation might have arisen as long ago as 20,000 years, when the ancestors of the Inuit were living in the Beringia region, which straddles Alaska and Siberia.

To uncover the effect of this variant gene, the scientists compared the Inuit in their study with others with more European ancestry. Some had inherited a European version of the variant. People with two copies of the Inuit gene had different blood levels of fatty acids than people without them, the researchers found.

It’s possible that with so much extra omega-3 in their diet, the Inuit evolved a way to bring blood levels of fatty acids back into a healthy balance. “It seems that a genetic adaptation has counteracted the high intake of omega-3 fatty acids,” said Marit E. Jorgensen, an author of the new study from the University of South Denmark.

The adaptation did more than just change blood levels of fatty acids, the scientists found. Inuit who carried two copies of the variant gene were on average an inch shorter and 10 pounds lighter than those without a copy.

“That’s quite extreme,” said Dr. Nielsen.

Indeed, it’s rare to find a single gene that can influence height and weight so drastically. In recent years, scientists have run a number of large studies pinpointing hundreds of genes that affect height and weight, but each one played a minuscule role in the variation from person to person.

Those studies missed this influential gene variant because they focused mostly on people of European ancestry. So Dr. Nielsen and his colleagues also investigated how it affects Europeans. As it turns out, the gene variant is linked to a drastic drop in height and weight in that population, too.

The idea that the Inuit adapted to eating fatty food was very plausible, said Anthony G. Comuzzie, a geneticist at the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio who was not involved in the study. But he cautioned that natural selection might not have favored the FADS variant but a neighboring, as yet unknown piece of DNA that conferred evolutionary advantages.

As that gene spread through the Inuit population, the FADS variant might simply have been passed down with it.

Dr. Nielsen and his colleagues are planning to investigate the long-term health effects of the gene variants they’ve found. They may help explain why some of us metabolize fats more effectively than others, and why omega-3s haven’t been the heart panacea once hoped.

But the research may also shed light on what sort of dietary changes might benefit the Inuit in particular. “Very soon, these results could be translated into help for people with their dietary choices,” Dr. Nielsen said.

----------------------------

Millions of Americans take fish oil supplements to promote heart and vascular health. But a new analysis suggests that some consumers may not always get what they are paying for.
The new research, carried out by a testing company called LabDoor, analyzed 30 top-selling fish oil supplements for levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a group of compounds with anti-inflammatory effects. It found that six of those products contained levels of omega-3s that were, on average, 30 percent less than stated on their labels.

The research found more problems when it looked specifically at levels of two particular omega-3s that are promoted for brain and heart health: docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). Tests showed that at least a dozen products contained DHA levels that were, on average, 14 percent less than listed on their packaging.

According to the Nutrition Business Journal, fish oil products generated about $1.2 billion in sales in the United States last year, making them among the most popular dietary supplements on the market. But like most supplements, they are largely unregulated. Companies do not have to register their products with the Food and Drug Administration or provide proof that the capsules and liquids they sell contain the ingredients on their labels and the doses advertised.

Researchers and health officials say that mislabeling is a frequent problem in the supplement industry.

A number of studies suggest that regular fish consumption is protective against heart disease, and some research suggests it may lower the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other chronic conditions as well. The American Heart Association recommends that Americans eat two servings a week of fatty fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and it points to studies showing that fish oil supplements help reduce the rate of cardiac events in people with cardiovascular disease.

Omega-3s are also essential for brain and nervous system health, said Dr. Joseph C. Maroon, a neurosurgeon at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the author of “Fish Oil: The Natural Anti-Inflammatory.” Eating fatty fish high in omega-3s and low in mercury and other contaminants, like sardines and wild salmon, is ideal, he said, but fish oil supplements can be an alternative.

“I think it’s one of the most important supplements people can take,” said Dr. Maroon, who is also chair of the medical advisory board for GNC, the nation’s largest specialty retailer of dietary supplements. “The omega-3 fatty acids are essential for so many functions in the body.”

But research on fish oil has not been conclusive. A large meta-analysis of high quality clinical trials published in 2012 found that purified fish oil supplements did not appear to help people with a history of heart disease, though some experts questioned whether the patients studied had been taking the pills long enough to see an effect. Other research has raised questions about whether high levels of omega-3s may raise the risk of prostate cancer.

In the current analysis, researchers carried out detailed tests to assess the supplements’ omega-3 content, their levels of mercury, and the extent to which they showed any signs of rancidity or deterioration. Samples of each product were either purchased online on sites like Amazon or bought off the shelves in stores and tested immediately.

Then they were ranked according to quality and value. Among the companies whose supplements ranked highly were Nordic Naturals, Axis Labs and Nature Made. LabDoor, which is funded in part by the investor Mark Cuban and by Rock Health, a nonprofit digital health incubator, posted its full list of rankings and results on its website.

The company found that several of the products it tested compared favorably to Lovaza, the prescription fish oil marketed by GlaxoSmithKline that can cost hundreds of dollars for a one-month supply. Lovaza is a prescription drug held to strict regulations, so it is subjected to regular quality control tests. But some of the products analyzed by LabDoor contained similar or greater levels of omega-3s at a fraction of the cost.

The analysis showed, however, that mislabeling was not uncommon, affecting at least a third of the supplements tested. One of the products had only half the amount of DHA advertised, for example, and another contained only two thirds, said Neil Thanedar, the chief executive of LabDoor. There were also several products that did not mention DHA content on their labels at all.

As for heavy metals, the study found that all of the products tested contained only very low levels of mercury, ranging from one to six parts per billion per serving. That range is far below the upper safety limit of 100 parts per billion set by the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s, or GOED, an industry trade group.

The data provide a good starting point for people considering taking a fish oil supplement, said Philip Gregory, the editor in chief of Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, which evaluates evidence on dietary supplements. But much of the recent evidence on the supplements has been negative, he said, and it is not clear that most people gain anything from taking them.

“It may be that for people with heart disease who are already well treated with statins or high blood pressure medication, fish oil supplements may not offer any additional benefit,” he said. “Similarly, for those who already consume fish in their diet, adding a supplement probably doesn’t offer additional benefit.”

Another caveat applies to the testing itself. Dr. Gregory said that the new research provides “a snapshot in time,” which may not be a reliable indicator of the overall quality of a line of supplements. Dr. Gregory recommends that consumers check with the USP Dietary Supplement Verification program, a nonprofit group that does regular spot checks on certain supplements and provides a seal to the ones that meet its requirements. Products that carry the seal are widely considered high quality. But the program is voluntary, and as a result many supplement makers do not take part in it.


Lulu New York
You can get Omegas without killing fish! Flax seed/oil for one. And the fact that Krill from the Antarctic Ocean are being harvested is maniacal!! The WHOLE Antarctic Ecosystem relies on Krill. You think penguins and elephant seals are cute? Don't support the slaughter of krill! BTW, the Japanese are big in the krill business, just like whales and dolphins. Get your Omegas elsewhere!!


Scott L PacNW
Fish do not synthesize omega-3, they eat it. Cut out the middle-fish and go straight to the source. Buy algae omega-3 supplements. Fish get omega-3 by eating algae.

If you want vitamin C do you eat an orange or do you eat someone who eats oranges? Same thing.

Fish oil-free omega-3 will not have mercury.

We are destroying all life in the oceans at a rapid pace. Fish die slow deaths when caught. Save the planet, boycott cruelty. Buy algae omega-3 supplements.

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Fortunately, an ever-increasing number of supplements, widely available in health food stores and on the Internet, derive EPA and DHA from marine algae, a diverse set of photosynthetic organisms that make these fatty acids. Marine algae is grown in controlled environments and the oil is extracted and concentrated into supplements. In fact, fish get their EPA and DHA by eating marine algae . . . ."

Thanks.

James Kling Harrisburg, PA
My concern is less over the inaccurate levels of DHA and EPA, and more about how the fish oil is processed. In fish, the fragile omega-3s have natural antioxidants to protect them from degradation (e.g., tocopherols). If processing involves heat, or exposure to oxygen or sunlight, the omega-3s may be partially rancid.

Better to find sustainable sources of wild salmon, mackerel, anchovies, smelts, etc. and to not overcook them. And good fresh farm eggs - from actual pasture-based farms, not "free range" or any other marketed nonsense - contain a good serving of omega-3s (mostly DHA).


APS WA
Farmed salmon have inverted ratios of omega 6:omega 3 fatty acid, better to get wild salmon that have the omega 3:omega 6 ratio in the right direction.


John La Puma MD Santa Barbara CA
For those who prefer fish for their EPA and DHA
a: don't saute or fry salmon, trout, herring, mackerel...the omega-3s and the vitamin D leak out, as they are fat-soluble
b. choose canned, line caught, younger tuna in oil, not in water: it retains more of the omega-3s.
c. eating omega-3 rich fish also lowers triglyceride levels, as do omega-3 supplements: by doing so, both can help prevent pancreatitis.


The Pooch Wendell, MA
It's possible that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are only protective/beneficial because most people are receiving massive overdoses of omega-6's from refined seed oils. Remove the "vegetable" oils, eat wild-caught fatty fish, and the omega-6:omega-3 ratio may fall into line without the need for supplementation.

The plant form (ALA) of omega-3s must be converted in the body to the active form (DHA or EPA). This conversion is accomplished with low and variable efficiency amongst individuals. Sardines, mackerel, etc., provide a larger and more useful dose of omega-3s than plant sources.


kelfeind McComb, Mississippi
All the research fails to mention one fact, namely that the fish need fish oil more than we do. Catching and grinding up schools of fish for these little capsules is surely worse than any excess of industrial agriculture. Second, as reported in the recently released AHA/ACA cholesterol guidelines, fish oil doesn't do what its boosters claim it does: reduce heart disease.

As a cardiologist, I see my patients yearly mostly to be able to stop any medications or supplements that they are on that may prove harmful or are unproven. Fish oil is now at the top of that list


Tod Cooperman, M.D. New York
A larger review of fish oil supplements (covering twice as many products and including algal and krill oils) is available from ConsumerLab.com, which has been testing these products repeatedly since 2001. Unlike LabDoor, it also tests for PCB contamination, which is of great concern with fish oils (mercury is of concern with fish “meats” because mercury binds strongly to proteins, not oils). ConsumerLab.com’s report also includes information regarding appropriate dosing for different uses of fish oil, additional clinical information, an Approved/Not Approved rating system, and specific price comparisons identifying the lowest cost to obtain high-quality omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA).


_____________________________________

Fish oil is now the third most widely used dietary supplement in the United States, after vitamins and minerals, according to a recent report from the National Institutes of Health. At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly, most believing that the omega-3 fatty acids in the supplements will protect their cardiovascular health.

But there is one big problem: The vast majority of clinical trials involving fish oil have found no evidence that it lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke.

From 2005 to 2012, at least two dozen rigorous studies of fish oil were published in leading medical journals, most of which looked at whether fish oil could prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. These were people who had a history of heart disease or strong risk factors for it, like high cholesterol, hypertension or Type 2 diabetes.

All but two of these studies found that compared with a placebo, fish oil showed no benefit.

And yet during this time, sales of fish oil more than doubled, not just in the United States but worldwide, said Andrew Grey, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the author of a 2014 study on fish oil in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“There’s a major disconnect,” Dr. Grey said. “The sales are going up despite the progressive accumulation of trials that show no effect.”

In theory at least, there are good reasons that fish oil should improve cardiovascular health. Most fish oil supplements are rich in two omega-3 fatty acids — eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) — that can have a blood-thinning effect, much like aspirin, that may reduce the likelihood of clots. Omega-3s can also reduce inflammation, which plays a role in atherosclerosis. And the Food and Drug Administration has approved at least three prescription types of fish oil — Vascepa, Lovaza and a generic form — for the treatment of very high triglycerides, a risk factor for heart disease.

But these properties of omega-3 fatty acids have not translated into notable benefits in most large clinical trials.

Some of the earliest enthusiasm for fish oil goes back to research carried out in the 1970s by the Danish scientists Dr. Hans Olaf Bang and Dr. Jorn Dyerberg, who determined that Inuits living in northern Greenland had remarkably low rates of cardiovascular disease, which they attributed to an omega-3-rich diet consisting mainly of fish, seal and whale blubber. Dr. George Fodor, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa, outlined flaws in much of this early research, and he concluded that the rate of heart disease among the Inuit was vastly underestimated. But the halo effect around fish oils persists.

The case for fish oil was bolstered by several studies from the 1990s, including an Italian study that found that heart attack survivors who were treated with a gram of fish oil daily had a drop in mortality, compared with patients taking vitamin E. These findings prompted groups like the American Heart Association to endorse fish oil about a decade ago as a way for heart patients to get more omega-3s in their diets.

“But since then, there has been a spate of studies showing no benefit,” said Dr. James Stein, the director of preventive cardiology at University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics. Among them was a clinical trial of 12,000 people, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2013, that found that a gram of fish oil daily did not reduce the rate of death from heart attacks and strokes in people with evidence of atherosclerosis.

“I think that the era of fish oil as medication could be considered over now,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Gianni Tognoni of the Institute for Pharmacological Research in Milan.

Dr. Stein said the early fish oil studies took place in an era when cardiovascular disease was treated very differently than it is today, with far less use of statins, beta blockers, blood thinners and other intensive therapies. So the effect of fish oil, even if it were minor, he said, would have been more noticeable.

“The standard of care is so good today that adding something as small as a fish oil capsule doesn’t move the needle of difference,” he said. “It’s hard to improve it with an intervention that’s not very strong.”

Dr. Stein also cautions that fish oil can be hazardous when combined with aspirin or other blood thinners. “Very frequently we find people taking aspirin or a ‘super aspirin’ and they’re taking fish oil, too, and they’re bruising very easily and having nosebleeds,” he said. “And then when we stop the fish oil, it gets better.”

Like many cardiologists, Dr. Stein encourages his patients to avoid fish oil supplements and focus instead on eating fatty fish at least twice a week, in line with federal guidelines on safe fish intake, because fish contains a variety of healthful nutrients other than just EPA and DHA. “We don’t recommend fish oil unless someone gets absolutely no fish in their diets,” Dr. Stein said.

But some experts say the case for fish oil remains open. Dr. JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the large clinical trials of fish oil focused only on people who already had heart disease or were at very high risk. Fish oil has also been promoted for the prevention of a variety of other conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer’s and depression.

Dr. Manson is leading a five-year clinical trial, called the Vital study, of 26,000 people who are more representative of the general population. Set to be completed next year, it will determine whether fish oil and vitamin D, separately or combined, have any effect on the long-term prevention of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and other diseases in people who do not have many strong risk factors.

Dr. Manson says that although she recommends eating fatty fish first, she usually does not stop people from taking fish oil, in part because it does not seem to have major side effects in generally healthy people.

“But I do think people should realize that the jury is still out,” she said, “and that they may be spending a lot of money on these supplements without getting any benefit.”


CanWeGetReal Tokyo
Did I read this article correctly? 1) Studies based on people who already have atherosclerosis seem to gain no benefit. 2) (Not explicitly stated) The vast majority of people taking fish oil do NOT have atherosclerosis, but are seeking prevention. 3) statins, beta blockers are pharmecuetical competition for these natural supplements. No mention of the miserable, myriad side effects of statins. Journalism, anyone? 4) A more comprehensive study of the preventitive benefits of fish oil is still underway. And YET, the title of this article is over-arching, categorically condemning of fish oil supplements. Hmm, I wonder if point 3) has anything to do with this?


Jeffrey Dach MD Davie Florida
The main reason to take fish oil is the benefit for cardiovascular disease prevention. A recent Harvard study by Dr. Mozaffarian (Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(7):515) showed that higher omega 3 fatty acid levels in the blood were associated with a 20-30% reduction in mortality from cardiovascular disease. Another use is for Dry Eye Syndrome. Since the lubrication of the eye is an oily film, one might think nutritional oil consumption to be of benefit. That is what Dr Rahul Bhargava found in a 2013 study in the Journal of Ophthalmology, entitled "a randomized controlled trial of omega-3 fatty acids in dry eye syndrome". A third use for the anti-inflammatory effects of fish oil is found in rheumatoid arthritis. Dr Kremer reported in 1995 Arthritis Rheumatism on the "Effects of high-dose fish oil on rheumatoid arthritis after stopping nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs". He found that patients taking fish oil exhibit improvements, and some patients are able to discontinue NSAIDs without a flare-up in arthritis symptoms. There exists a large body of research over many years showing benefits. I wouldn't dismiss fish oil just yet. Jeffrey Dach MD


pale fire Boston
Seems like a very misleading headline, given the article core content. A more accurate one might read: "Uncertain fish oil benefits for those who already have heart disease or are at very high risk for it."


Ravi Atlanta, GA
Fish Oil helped for my dry eyes and the effect is palpable the very next day I took it and it did help with my uncles psoriasis so don't rule fish oil out yet. Cardiovascular disease is not the only disease.

Funny that they laud statins, blood thinners and other drugs not citing their side effects which gives an idea who is funding this research. Now a days, it is normal to look down on vitamins and supplements while promoting drugs and pharmaceuticals.


RCT New York, N.Y.
Sorry, no sale. I inherited my mother's gene for arthritis in the hands and fingers. When I take two fish oil capsules per day, no pain. When I don't, pain returns after a few days. I eat lots of fish, but the supplement seems to do the trick.


Barb Columbus, OH
Dismissing fish oil supplements in favor of what? More medications that benefit big pharma?

Where is the listing of the current studies - only alluded to in this article.

I'm almost 79 years old and have a good heart. I will continue taking my fish oil supplements daily.


Ruralist Upstate NY
This article falls into the common medical-reporting trap of asking "does it help everyone or does it help no-one?" when the real question is "Who benefits from this?" If fish oil has the same mode of action as statin, then obviously one would not expect to see a response if statins are routinely used. If it serves as a preventative, one would not expect to see an effect in those who already have a disorder. I don't know what the right answer is.

Unfortunately, this article does nothing to enlighten me. If anything it is counterproductive in that it continues the dangerous message-shifting from "this intervention is great" to "this intervention is useless" seen in so much health reporting.


SMB Boston
In this age of fashionable irony and cynicism, it's interesting how the NYT "health news" increasingly discounts simple preventative strategies in favor of the latest and greatest magic bullets of Big Pharm. The article fails to mention at least one other use of fish oil that is well supported by opthamological research: Treatment of "dry eye," that affects over 7% of all Americans, especially post-menopausal women, and up to a third of some East Asian populations. It's also showing associations with improvement in behavioral symptoms associated with Alzheimers, ADD and ADHD.

Truth is, we do not know enough about metabolic interactions of fatty acids with other pathways to expect improvement in people already suffering heart disease. The impact could be more preventive in otherwise healthy younger people by tamping down chronic inflammation. Or through supporting internal microbiotic communities that themselves mediate heart disease risk. Consider, for instance, how complicated the relation between diabetes and sugar intake has become.

This is not to say we have to go all in on the wonders of fish oil. But I'm as skeptical of NYT journalists vested in breathlessly "debunking" current dietary health claims as I am of some of the initial claims themselves. The experts quoted, with one exception, are carefully selected to advance the writer's "news flash," rather than for balance, or for a useful reality check on how little we know about fatty acid physiology.


Anne New York City
My doctor was able to substantially reduce the dosage of antidepressant medication I've been taking when I added fish oil, as he suggested. Nordic Naturals makes the only fish oil with third party testing for purity and I take a tablespoon (a therapeutic dosage) of the high EPA/DHA ProOmega oil per day. It's expensive but the results are remarkable. My skin has never looked better, a wonderful side effect.


Richard Head Mill Valley Ca
Again its taking a substance and measuring against one single parameter. Fish oil has many studies to show its effectiveness in improving health in many areas.
1- calcified plaques that containing alpha 3 acids (fish oil) levels have much less tendency to break apart-shown in carotid artery studies
2- IQ levels in children born from mothers with adequate fish oil levels higher then those without.
3- Use of statin drugs efficiency improved if alpha 3's also taken.
4- Alpha 3's metabolize to an important anti inflammatory molecule and this is further enhanced when aspirin added.
5- The higher levels of fish oil in mothers milk the better nutrition for the infant. Better brain development and more function.
6- Most chronic diseases are promoted by inflammation and Fish oil has been shown, in various University studies, to produce antiinflammatory molecules. Does this cure heart disease? Maybe not by itself but most athereosclerosis is due to inflammation and anything that suppresses this is vitally important. I don't think the Jury is out, they just haven't examined all the overwhelming evidence.
See letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com-Atherosclerosis, and alpha 3 omega fish oil actions.

Bill Harris Sioux Falls, SD
As a long-time researcher in omega-3s, I've watched the fish oil rollercoaster since the mid 1980s. This most recent posting by O'Connor continues the trend. The best meta-analysis (grand summary of many studies) published to date was from Rizos et al. in JAMA 2012;308:1024-1033). They concluded that fish oil capsules offer “no benefit” for heart patients. Unfortunately, Rizos used a highly controversial statistical maneuver. In their actual data (Fig 2) there was a highly statistically significant reduction in cardiac death associated with fish oil use (p<0.01 for the stat-saavy). So fish oils DID reduce risk for cardiac death. Why the "no effect" conclusion? Rizos et al. decided to set the statistical bar higher than I’ve ever seen it in meta-analyses. They defined a significant p-value as <0.006, instead of the universally accepted p<0.05. This trick changed a positive finding into a negative one and generated a media storm of "fish oils don't work." More recent meta-analyses (Chowdhury et al. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:398-406) reported that higher dietary intakes AND higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids were both significantly linked to reduced risk for heart disease. The problems with the recent fish oil studies are legion, and include using a low dose for a short period of time in older, already-ill patients who are also being treated with up to 5 heart medicines. In this setting it’s nearly impossible to show a benefit. With 0 risk, I still recommend fish oil. AMP Rockvill MD
Ok, so one gram of fish oil a day doesn't prevent heart disease.
It may come as a surprise to the US health establishment, but there actually are diseases other than heart disease.
High dose fish oil worked on my suicidal depression when an endless series of psychotropic meds (with low dose fish oil) had not, and with no discernible side effects (my blood clots fine). When I don't get my normal dosage, the symptoms come roaring back.
Various studies show good effects on a variety of brain-related issues, and also several inflammation-related conditions.
PS: I have no reason to believe that high dose fish oil is safe for the long term, nor do I believe it is environmentally responsible. On the other hand, it's keeping me alive, so I don't really care.


Les Bethesda, MD
Another example of a 'miracle supplement' that does nothing other than drain your wallet. The counter example of the other story in the Times today that meat is not so toxic after all.

When will people ever listen - eat a balanced and varied diet that includes as much fresh and unprocessed food as you can afford, consume modest amounts of alcohol, don't use tobacco, and exercise. This is not a secret.

You don't need to buy a book, go to a health retreat, buy bottles of the latest fad at the GNC, etc. Every one of these so far has turned out to be bogus - the only thing they are effective for is to make fortunes for their proponents. They may be scams or they may be well meaning, but they are bogus.

​ ZICERI DE DOREL SCHOR

​

( DIN VOLUMUL "SA FIM SERIOSI" , OPERA OMNIA 2014).

* Minciuna presupune studii superioare adevărului.

* Cel mai mult îmi place să mă întâlnesc cu şefii mei care au ieşit deja la pensie.

* Nicăieri nu este mai bine decât în altă parte.

* Un idiot bogat este considerat, în primul rând, bogat. Un idiot sărac este considerat, în primul rând, idiot.

* Cine nu-i iubeşte pe proşti are tare mulţi duşmani.

* Nu poţi muşca apa.

* Problema asta mă depăşeşte, e mult prea mică pentru mine.

* Rataţii, sau plătitorii de rate.

* Politician e unul care strigă. Diplomat e unul care tace.

* Dreptate e asta? Eu alerg şi el ajunge!?

* La egală distanţă între Polul Nord şi Polul Sud se află Interpolul...

* Partea leului o ia leoaica.

* Nimeni nu-i modest degeaba.

* Cele mai mari moşteniri le primesc, de regulă, oamenii bogaţi.

* Cine nu ştie să facă nimic e gata să facă orice.

* O memorie prea bună nu lasă destul loc noutăţilor.

* El e purtătorul de cuvânt. Ea e purtătoarea de cuvinte...

* Vorbim despre sănătate mai ales când suntem bolnavi.

* Prietenul la nevoie te cunoaşte.

* Nici un profesor de logică nu a ajuns prim ministru.

* Un musafir care pleacă este întotdeauna binevenit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TUDOR MUSATESCU - SAVORI INTELECTUALE

·       Unii trăiesc gratis, alţii degeaba.

·       Dacă într-o vorbă îndeşi mai mult decât încape, devine vorbă goală.

·       De ce prostul e mărginit, când prostia e nemărginită?

·       Bănuitorul se trezeşte înaintea ceasului deşteptător, ca să-l controleze dacă sună exact.

·       În fiecare zi de primăvară când vin rândunelele, pesimistul fredonează "vezi rândunelele se duc".

·       Caloriferul stins e mai rece decât frigiderul în funcţiune.

·       Dragostea... Bătăi de inimă pentru dureri de cap. Sentimentul care vine în galop şi dispare în vârful picioarelor.

·       Femeile nu înşeală, compară.

·       Lanţurile au redactat definiţia libertăţii.

·       Ideea bine clocită trebuie să facă adepţi, nu pui.

·       Când stai de vorbă cu proştii numai duminica e o adevărată sărbătoare.

·       De ce au militarii acte de stare civilă?

·       Fost primar, fost prefect, fost senator, fost ministru, conu Mişu a fost numai un fost.

·       Ca să măsori distanţele, trebuie să le şi străbaţi.

·       Marele cusur al femeilor este că te iubesc, totdeauna, când ai altceva de făcut.

·       Nu sunt sensibil la frig. Chiar şi gerul mă lasă rece.

·       E frumos să fii bun, dar trebuie să fii şi bun la ceva.

·       Numai după invidia altora îţi dai seama de propria ta valoare.

·       Fericirea se trăieşte numai de la o clipă la alta. Între ele bagă intrigi viaţa.

·       Laşitatea este sentimentul care n-are nici măcar curajul să spună cum îl cheamă.

·       Plictiseala lungeşte ziua şi scurtează viaţa.

·       Plantă care le provoacă insomnii unora: laurii altora.

·       Minciuna premeditată nu mai e chestiune de fantezie, ci de caracter.

·       Adevăraţii cai de cursă nu aleargă pentru premii, ci numai ca să-şi pună sângele în mişcare.

·       Gloria, când moare, nu face testament în favoarea nimănui.

·       În ziua victoriei, nu uita să-ţi aminteşti şi de înfrângerile anterioare.

·       Nu gloria este efemeră, ci numai cei ce o au.

·       Amintirile unora se numesc remuşcări.

·       Fiecare inimă are podul ei cu vechituri, pe care nu se îndură să le arunce niciodată, dar le scutură din când în când.

·       Amintirile sunt asemenea cărţilor din biblioteca ta. Cauţi câte una când nu mai ai nimic nou de citit.

·       Nu i-am cerut vieţii nimic. Tot ce am avut, i-am smuls. Şi tot ce n-am avut, mi-a furat.

·       Cu vremea să mergi în pas, nu la pas.

·       Una e să crezi şi alta e să fii credul.

·       Una e să ceri, alta e să cerşeşti, şi cu totul altceva e să revendici..

·       Amabilitatea adevărată trebuie să fie, în primul rând, o chestiune de caracter şi apoi una de educaţie.

·       Nu plânge fără motiv. Şi mai ales, nu plânge când ai motive.

·       Când ţi se cuvine ceva, să nu ceri. Pretinde.

·       Viitorul unui om, ca şi al unei lumi, se construieşte, nu se visează.

·       Te-ai întrebat vreodată câte mâini au făcut pâinea, pe care, cu una singură, o duci la gură?

·       Fără mâna omului, omenirea ar fi trăit în patru labe.

·       Bănuiala e serviciul de spionaj al oamenilor neînarmaţi pentru viaţă.

·       În fiecare tren al lumii, viaţa circulă pe compartimente.

·       Era atât de urât, încât atunci când se strâmba, părea mai drăguț.

·       Când priveşti marea, gândul o ia în derivă.

·       Suntem chit, tinere confrate. Dumneata nu mă cunoşti şi eu nu te recunosc.

·       Poţi să fii într-o ureche şi totuşi foarte serios la treabă: dacă eşti ac.

·       Noaptea, viteza gândului circulă în "ani-întuneric".

·       Şi dacă ai chelit, ce? Parcă pe lumea asta nu sunt şi vulturi pleşuvi?

·       Focul sacru nu se aprinde cu chibrituri.

·       Numai covoarele se nasc ca să fie călcate în picioare.