How much omega-3 do you need?

#74

Dr. Greger gives his 2 cents:

Should You Take Fish Oil

1 Like
#75

He doesn’t mention the brain at all. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on why he left that out, since it’s a big reason why so many people take fish oil.

2 Likes
#76

Here’s my talk with Bill Harris, PhD of OmegaQuant about Omega 3’s. He might be biased (he sells the omega index test) and he might not know about every single omega 3 study ever completed but the guy has 40 years of scientific study in the field and 300+ published research papers. I’m inclined to trust his opinion.

Bill says:

  • an omega index of 8+% is ideal, and higher omega index (EPA + DHA in red blood cell membrane) associated with lower ACM, lower mortality from CVD, cancer, and everything aside from CVD and cancer, on average). ALA does not seem to matter so it is not included in the test.
  • get 1.5 grams of combined EPA and DHA (fish and supplements combined) everyday (or on a daily average taking a couple times a week); the ratio of EPA:DHA doesn’t matter as far as anyone knows
  • you don’t need an expensive fish oil; the oxidation risk is a marketing ploy in his opinion
  • no reliable evidence that DHA is harmful; no evidence DHA is good for the brain or better than EPA
  • some omega 6’s are good for health (as good as EPA/DHA), so an omega 3:6 ratio is meaningless without knowing which omega 6’s. Just get enough EPA/DHA
  • Afib risk is questionable and tiny in any case
  • fatty15 is completely unproven
  • SPMs are not necessary to supplement (the body makes SPMs from EPA and DHA) and the currently available SPM supplements are not SPMs but rather substrate.

And here is my own Omega Index (full version). I recommend everyone get tested and then use the calculator on the OmegaQuant website to determine EPA / DHA need to reach 8%.

Omega-3 Index 2025.pdf (3.7 MB)

7 Likes
#77

Bill the grifter strikes again!

2 Likes
#78

Fine to be skeptical, but lets not be cynical. Be specific in criticisms please.

2 Likes
#79

Are you joking? I’ve spent hours researching the evidence and posting it everywhere on the forum. Especially here:

Not a single person has denied the evidence other than gesturing “But we’ve been doing it for a long time based on association studies!”. Matt Kaeberlein “doesn’t really disagree with my position”: How much omega-3 do you need? - #69 by adssx Bill/OmegaQuant never got back to me.

The evidence on omega 3, EPA and DHA is the opposite of every single thing that Bill said (based on the list of bullet points).

His arguments are mostly based on weak association studies that he published.

He sells and promotes the omega 3 index.

He is the definition of a grifter.

Prove me wrong.

4 Likes
#80

Yikes. Hard to trust someone who describes RCTs and MRs as not reliable.

2 Likes
#81

The data you’ve provided is very helpful.

I haven’t listened to the podcast, and have not followed the EPA DHA thread that closely - which is likely the situation with most people. So rather than just calling someone a grifter, its helpful to explain why a person is wrong.

2 Likes
#82

Yes, you’re right, but in this case, my posts proving it wrong start just three messages above. Anyway, I wonder if there would be a way to put a bounty on that. I would be willing to pay someone who could prove me wrong on DHA being detrimental to health. It’s very unfortunate (and quite telling) that none of the “influencers” (beside Matt K) got back to me…

3 Likes
#83

Don’t you find it concerning that practically every single health guru supplement stack features EPA/DHA, even though they may differ widely on most other supplements? There is as far as I can see near universal consensus that fishoil/long chain marine omega 3 FA must be a feature of everyone’s daily supplement. Even vegan gurus advocate algae based oils.

And yet, if you really dig deep, there seems surprisingly weak evidence in support of that. There is actually more evidence for fish consumption.

So if they all agree on such weak evidence, of what worth are the rest of their recommendations, where they even disagree among themselves.

I guess it’s the very banal truism that science or argument does not gain validation from “authority” - very shameful to have to say this. We know this from the age of 10 years old.

Deming: “In God we trust. All others must bring data.”

Where is the data?

6 Likes
#84

I agree, it’s very weird. I assume that:

  1. No one does the research.
  2. It seems “natural” / “low risk”
  3. As you say there’s evidence for fish consumption so people infer from that that omega 3 supplementation is good (whereas fish consumption might be good due to avoidance of red meat and other benefits than just omega 3)
  4. It gets more complex because omega 3 is made of different components. I’m sure that if EPA and DHA were totally different supplements never sold together as part of something else then people would just get EPA. Imagine if tomorrow you cannot buy vitamins separately but you can only buy “Vitamins” containing everything. Then all health gurus would tell you to take “Vitamins”. They would be somehow right: most people need some kind of vitamins…
6 Likes
#85

Then you have missed seeing Adssx at his finest and funniest in the multiple threads on his one man crusade against DHA.

6 Likes
#86

For what it’s worth, EPA and DHA shortened lifespan in C. Elegans in this Ora Biomedical experiment: Ora Biomedical Million Molecule Challenge Results - #371 by adssx

4 Likes
#87

Unfortunately, it’s probably not worth much. I don’t think C. Elegans die of heart attacks.

1 Like
#88

Alone it’s not worth much, but combined with similar results in mice and negative results in Mendelian randomization and failed trials in humans it makes the conclusion clearer.

3 Likes
#89

Well, it confirms my completely unscientific prejudice (which I call grandly my intuition, as it sounds better), that the whole EPA/DHA thing is way overblown, and too much of it destabilizes mitochondrial cell membranes, making them too leaky and prone to peroxidization. Not good for aging (something discussed on the CR list over 20 years ago!).

I only started supplementing with small amounts of EPA (500mg, three times a week) a couple of years ago, because I was worried old people (I’m in my 60’s) don’t metabolize short chain omega 3 acids to long chain as efficiently as young organisms.

I just had my OmegaCheck results, and it came in at 5.5 , which they claim is at the very edge of low risk. Good enough for me, as my prejudice (sorry, my intuition) is that long chain omega 3 in excess is pro-aging.

Of course I’m aware of the idea that levels above 8 are protective against NDDs, but I think of it as negative pleiotropy, where you pay a price. I’m OK with 5.5 and lowering my NDD risk by other means than stuffing myself with EPA/DHA. Obviously, it depends on your individual situation and risk profile. Maybe if I was particularly at risk of NDDs, I would elect a different strategy. YMMV.

4 Likes
#90

Most omega-3 products use tocopherols (vitamin E) to prevent oxidation. Personally, I prefer to avoid added tocopherols. For example, Myprotein in the UK lists tocopherols in the ingredients but doesn’t indicate the amount.

Does anyone know if the amount is so small that they’re not required to list it as a percentage of the recommended daily intake? And does it make sense to specifically look for omega-3 supplements without added vitamin E or tocopherols?

#91

Just checked the labels on my Carlson Elite DHA Gems and Carlson Elite EPA Gems supplements containers. Both list “natural mixed tocopherols” as one of the other ingredients.

My quick “research” indicates that alpha-tocopherol is vitamin E. Tocopherol - Wikipedia

It is possible that the tocopherols in use in these products is a different form of tocopherol. Have no idea if that matters.

#92

Yes, I’ve raised this issue before - a lot of supplements use vit. E in various forms to stabilize oils. For example, the PharmEPA by Igennus has 10mg of d-alpha tocopherol, which is a whopping 67% of your daily value. I only take half the dose, and only 3 times a week, but I’m still not happy about it. “Mixed natural tocopherols” also appear as stabilizing agents in lots of supplements, including the lutein, zeaxanthin, meso-zeaxanthin supps I use daily. The NOW brand astaxanthin I use has both d-alpha tocopherol and “mixed tocopherols”, in unspecified amounts. If you start adding all of that vit. E in various forms that are in your supplements, this becomes a significant amount ingested and a serious issue given the deleterious effects of vit. E supplementation.

4 Likes
#93

@CronosTempi, thank you for sharing your thoughts - that’s exactly what I was concerned about.

I’ve been buying omega-3 supplements in Germany that don’t contain tocopherols. They usually have a shorter shelf life, but I don’t really see that as a disadvantage since I use them up well before expiration. Sensory experience plays here role too (oxidised oil has rancid taste).

I wasn’t sure if avoiding tocopherols (amounts largely unknown) really justified the higher price, but your post confirms that it might be worth it after all.

1 Like