Friday, July 12, 2013

Fish Oil and Prostate Cancer

The report that an average  2.5% increase in omega 3 fatty acids was found in the blood of men that developed prostate cancer versus those that did not has produced a great deal of comment in the media. I plan to read the article. But before everyone makes assumptions it is helpful to recognize that this study did not actually investigate whether the men with prostate cancer ate more fish or even took any fish oil supplements. Nor did they look at 25- OH vitamin D 3 levels which  would have given a possible indication of exposure to free cadmium, a known cause of prostate cancer.  Elevations of substances in the blood do not necessarily mean elevated exposure. It can also mean a change in metabolism. In a study of mercury, pregnant women with elevated blood mercury had worse outcomes but women who ate the most fish, an important source of mercury exposure had the best outcome.  Blood lead levels correlate with toxic effects with no threshold but removing lead from gasoline and the subsequent drop in blood lead levels has led to no improvements in health . On the contrary, it  has allowed for increased toxicity from ambient cadmium air pollution in conjunction with the other chemicals, metals, viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites.

1 comment:

  1. It can't be a problem with fish oil since the Japanese (and others) who have very high consumption of fish are not dying en-mass of prostate cancer but it could be something associated with the supplement form of it. Most stuff is better in it's natural form. I just wonder how much of the supplements are coming from China -

    Or it may just be that men with otherwise unhealthy diet and lifestyle choices that might lead to prostate problems are just taking the EPA hoping to compensate and it isn't working out.

    This study stands out in what it didn't say, not so much for what it did say.

    - James from New York Body

    ReplyDelete