The observations here as well as my own experience of omega 3A supplements makes me think that there is a subpopulation that respond with mood changes when supplementing with omega 3. In this paper there is a signal in that direction.
This NHANES analysis has shown that DHA is associated with depression in American adults (OR = 0.996, 95% CI 0.993–0.999, P = 0.014). Bidirectional MR analysis demonstrated a significant causal relationship between DHA and depression in the European population (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.84–0.97, P = 0.006).
They say that “Three multivariate regression models were constructed: crude, unadjusted; model 1, adjusted for age, gender, and race/ethnicity; model 2, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, RIP, BMI, smoking, and alcohol consumption.” So obviously we want the results of model 2, but in the abstract, they only give the result of model 1 (“OR = 0.996”), whereas in the text they note “It is important to note, though, that the association between the two was not statistically significant in Model 2, but the trend remained. For this result, similar to the study by Wang et al. [22], they also observed that the association between plasma DHA and depression did not persist after controlling for all potential confounding factors.” The model 2 found OR = 0.998, 95% CI 0.995–1.001, P= 0.11) That’s not professional. It makes me doubt the rest of the paper…
They don’t cite the VITAL-DEP trial that showed increased depression with EPA + DHA but cite other small trials that align with their conclusion that DPA is protective: shows a lack of intellectual honesty
Adding to the discussion. A few years ago I discovered that my supplement EPA (500) + DHA (250) made my heart ache, then I read that indeed EPA can cause Afib so I switch to DHA (500)+ EPA (250) and the pain stopped.
I have been taking this DHA supplement for years and forgot about all my initial concerns. A couple weeks ago the bottle run out and I took again the EPA one and my heart start aching again.
I’m writing this post because a part of the heart pain coming back I am happier, more motivated, hornier and I feel like I have been living in a fog for years. Is either the less DHA or the extra EPA.
I’ve been suffering from some pretty annoying dry and sticky eye (meibioum gland dysfunction), with no obvious trigger. But funnily enough, my opthamoligst recommended taking fish oil supplements. And then it occurred to me - I had stopped taking them for a while, partly based on this thread.
I’m now using some steroid drops, artificial tears, warm compress eye masks etc, which are improving things, and I’m also restarting fish oil. I got two products:
Nordic Naturals ProOmega 2,000: I take only 1; thus 560 EPA + 435 DHA
Nordic Naturals ProDHA Spectrum: I take only 1; thus 360 EPA + 845 DHA, plus “FloraGLO” Lutein and Zeaxanthin
The latter obviously including some extra goodies to hopefully assist with eye function.
I’ve never noticed any change in mental state from starting, stopping, or changing dose of fish oil
Metoprolol is the magic pill for afib for me. You can buy from India. Seems dumb to cause a problem with a pill, then take another pill to fix it. But it is done and don’t argue with what works.
In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 26 sites in Canada and Australia, we assigned adult patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis to daily supplementation with fish oil (4 g of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids [1.6 g of EPA and 0.8 g of DHA]) or corn-oil placebo.
That’s a pretty hefty dose
1228 participants underwent randomization; 610 were assigned to the fish-oil group and 618 to the placebo group.
Decent sized study IMO
During 3.5 years of follow-up, the rate of serious cardiovascular events was significantly lower in the fish-oil group than in the placebo group (0.31 vs. 0.61 per 1000 patient-days; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.70; P<0.001).
Massive reduction!
The hazard ratio for cardiac death was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.75); for fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.80); for peripheral vascular disease leading to amputation, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.86); for fatal and nonfatal stroke, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.76); and for a first cardiovascular event or death from any cause, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.87).
All looks very encouraging.
The patients obviously being rather sick, on hemodialysis, is a major factor. But this still looks like a very strong signal for fish oil being cardioprotective.
I asked a colleague of mine (nephrologist) what he thought, and he remarked that it almost looks too good to be true. The cardiovascular event curves start to separate pretty much immediately after the randomisation. Makes you wonder whether the effect is by anticoagulation, because something like modulating atherosclerosis would presumably take a much longer time to occur.
For the corn oil question, presumably we have data on MACE in this sort of patient, since it’s a known clinical problem, and it would be relatively easy to compare the expected MACE vs the corn oil group.
