How much omega-3 do you need?

#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
#94

Yes, I think it’s worth paying more to avoid it. Sometimes there is no choice. I have not found a high quality alternative to the EPA only PharmEPA, which sadly uses vit. E. Some other supplements use vit. C instead (f.ex. Super K2 by Life Extension) in order to stabilize lipids/oils which is better. The oils themselves are added in order to enhance absorption. And then the oils must be prevented from going rancid, so it’s a whole chain. But you need none of that. Just take your lutein, zeaxanthin and so on with fatty foods, and you don’t need to add the oils to the pill, or the vit. E to preserve the oil. And there are supps that don’t use those oils as medium. Shelf life is also a problem that’s introduced by the unnecessary use of these oils, because they go rancid. It’s a mess.

3 Likes
#95

FWIW, Matt Kaerberlein’s answer on the omega 3 worm data:

Your worm data is interesting. I’d have to go back and refresh myself on the other literature in this area in worms. I’m pretty sure Gary’s lab published the original work on omega-6 fatty acids extending lifespan in worms and I know Meng Wang has done a bunch of follow-up work on this. I can’t recall how it all fits together other than lysosomes are involved. And I don’t recall if they ever did anything with DHA or EPA.
I’ve never really thought of omega-3s as a pure longevity intervention in the sense of directly impacting the aging biology network, although I suppose they probably do in some sense given that there are connection with multiple hallmarks of aging. I agree it would be interesting to see if low DHA + high EPA and a positive impact on lifespan in worms. That would be a super cool result if it did and potentially worth moving into mice, maybe through the ITP.
You’ve convinced me I need to become more informed on this topic. Now I just need to find the time to do it!

8 Likes
#96

Here is a surprisingly good review by Mic the Vegan of some studies around the issue of long chain omega 3 supplementation. Worth watching IMHO, 18 minutes.

Omega-3 Deficiency in Vegans Causing Mental Decline | Dr. Joel Fuhrman Response

2 Likes