Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

POV using RS

This edit including a WP:RS reference, was reverted due to WP:POV. This article attracts a lot of POV editing, and due to the high pace of research in the subject, there are plenty of studies, evidence, and other WP:RS to support just about anyone's opinion. Indeed, most aspects of n3 are still not fully understood or measured (serious research had not really started until the early 90s). It is of course fair game to include what the literature indicates for n3, but not to claim or imply conclusivity, accompanied by cherrypicked references, or in this case, a view within a WP:RS reference, dissenting from the referenced article's thesis. István (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA

I've referenced 3 studies in the intro paragraph. How do I reference these again later in the article?NutrisaurusRex (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Omega-3 benefits or fish oil benefits?

This article cites MANY studies about the health benefits of omega-3. However, this article also gives the impression that the short-chain omega-3s found in flax seed oil (ALA) is just as good as EPA and DHA. ALL of the studies listed were using EPA & DHA, i.e. fish oil. The benefits section says "n−3 fatty acids" over and over again, but never clarifies that it's actually EPA and DHA. Sine these studies all were testing fish oil, shouldn't we be more clear about that? Should we then get rid of the health benefits sections and move those to the fish oil entry? Then tell people to reference that entry. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Common sources of omega-3 in Intro

I added the most common sources of omega-3 as fish and fish oil to the intro. This is because I feel many people coming to the page are interested in omega-3 in relation to fish oil, so it warrants mentioning at the beginning. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. thx! NutrisaurusRex (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it off as there is a section dealing with sources in greater detail, and elevating one source over another in the lead invites tedious spam/NPOV editing among competing commercial and lifestyle interests.István (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
But there are NO studies showing benefit from ALA or flaxseed oil. However, there are thousands for long-chain EPA and DHA. This article needs to explain that better, don't you think?
It's more POV to try to assert an equality between kinds of omega-3s that doesn't actually exist! short chain and long chain are not equal. the research supports this notion. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the text "The most common sources of omega-3 fatty acids are fish and fish oil supplements." from the lead as this does not appear to be the case. "Most common" is a quantitative claim - reference world fish oil production is far below 1MMT, whereas world production of Brassica napus (Canola, rapeseed) exceeds 40MMT - even correcting for yield and fatty acid profile, the statement is unsubstantiated at best.
Regarding POV - my claiming POV was only for the statement "incredibly inefficient" as this is a value judgment, begging the question "for what" or "by what standard". The conversion pathway and its efficiency may be described and referenced objectively without application of value judgment or WP:OR.
Regarding "But there are NO studies showing benefit from ALA or flaxseed oil" is not true. here is one. There are others.
re: "It's more POV to try to assert an equality between kinds of omega-3s that doesn't actually exist!" - A careful reading of the article does not reveal any assertions that the different forms of n3 share are equals - upon what specifically is the statement based? There are many sections which describe the differences between these forms. István (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There are *thousands* of studies on EPA & DHA, and you found a single one for ALA? Look what the mayo clinic says: "There is evidence from multiple studies supporting intake of recommended amounts of DHA and EPA in the form of dietary fish or fish oil supplements lowers triglycerides, reduces the risk of death, heart attack, dangerous abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes in people with known cardiovascular disease, slows the buildup of atherosclerotic plaques ("hardening of the arteries"), and lowers blood pressure slightly... Although similar benefits are proposed for alpha-linolenic acid, scientific evidence is less compelling, and beneficial effects may be less pronounced."
The fact of the matter is that there is a *gross* inequity between studies demonstrating the health benefits of EPA & DHA vs. ALA, and such an inequity must be communicated if objectivity is the goal, rather than protecting the feelings of vegetarians. As such, I plan to move forward with rewriting this article to reflect the incredibly stark contrast. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

the original point remains valid; i added a bit about the current scientific studies going on about fish oil supplements and associated health benefits. Feel free to add more to it, especially popular information about health claims and so forth. makeswell 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

what does "hyperexcitable" cells mean?

"In congestive heart failure, cells that are only barely receiving enough blood flow become electrically hyperexcitable."

I searched Wiki for this hyperexcitable word and found it used in many articles but no specific page on it (in my search). What does it mean (and if there is a page for it (there should be since it's so popular) then could somebody just link to it from this page?)? Also if somebody wants to leave a note on my Talk Page saying what it means that'd be much appreciated. Thanks :) makeswell 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

merge Health Benefits and Risk sections into "Health Benefits and Risks", merge The n-6 to n-3 ratio with the health and biological significance sections, keep Legal Risk to Manufacturers seperate from

It seems to me like we should merge "Health Benefits" with "Health Risks" Which currently exists under "Risks" into "Health Benefits and Risks"


the section under "Risks" entitled "Legal Risk for Manufacturers" wouldn't fit under this title I guess. We could give this section a different title such as "Unproven Health Claims" or something more relevant to the consumer, if you guys want.

it seems most appropriate to have the "The n−6 to n−3 ratio" section next to the Health and Biology sections, too. Actually this topic is discussed in "Biological significance" as well, so maybe we should retitle the Biological Significance section or break it into pieces.

also, I'd move the "Dietary Sources" section right underneath the History and then Chemistry sections, though this doesn't seem to be as important.

It is misleading to give people the Health Benefits without clearly showing them that there are also Health Risks. I Suggest we merge these two so that people read "Health Benefits and Risks" then scroll down to the Benefits section and look for the Risks section as well. makeswell 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Info about the nomenclature.....

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC

Further information: Talk:Omega-6 fatty acid § Info about the nomenclature

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not confuse n-3 fatty acids with ω−3 ones, as the two naming systems .....

are different, former ones belong to IUPAC conventions .....and latter ones ???.... --222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the naming convention for the term.....according to Google scholar...???

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

By quick looking at the history, it seems to me that this trival naming starts after 1960 --222.67.208.221 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More refined results

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: additional search results using other academic search engines are required to verify the above findings --222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dietary sources - Fish

According to the article, the amount of omega 3 in the various fish listed varies quite considerably from other such lists I found on the Internet. Can someone explain why the discrepancy? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrigendum for article cited in footnote 28

As published: 

  comparing omega-3 PUFAs (9.6 g/day)

As subsequently corrected: 

  comparing omega-3 PUFAs (6.6 mg/day)

http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X%2803%2900188-3/fulltext

Don't know how to add that in the article. Hank (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking to a "blog"

I see a link to Fishoilblog.com has been removed due to not fitting within the external link policy. I'm assuming this is because links to blogs are discouraged. However, in this case, the word "blog" is misleading since this isn't some person's blog about life, or whatever. This is a news and research site that's updated on a regular basis. Every post links to clinical studies, and I've used this site to find research for the fish oil and omega-3 entries. However, the breadth of the information is far too much to be contained in Wikipedia, so I think for the sake of helping people to thoroughly and exhaustively understand the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, an external link is in order. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Eggs

It appears that one of the sources cited (FN 136: Cherian 1991) does find that chickens fed flax seed produce embryos and chicks with significantly higher levels of DHA in their brain tissue, which would suggest that chicken convert the ALA from flax seed to DHA, and that their eggs (at least the fertile one) have higher levels of DHA.

While the study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (FN 131) may be right to suggest that the claims of omega 3 egg marketers are overblown or that fish is a more cost effective source of DHA, the evidence does not support the claim that because flax seed's omega 3 oils are ALA, it necessarily follows that eggs from chickens fed flax seed are not higher in DHA or EPA.

See generally this review: http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/pfs21.htm

And this study: http://www.bourre.fr/pdf/publications_scientifiques/258.pdf

(As the parent of two vegetarians who keeps backyard chickens, I'll keep feeding my chickens flax seed, even if I wouldn't pay significantly more for "omega-3 eggs" at the store). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.154.0.250 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article is biased into the benefits of the Omega-3 medicine. It's probably written for a Marketing campaign. Read from a reliable medical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Jacomet (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Subordinate "that" clauses

I have restored numerous instances of the word "that" preceding an otherwise independent clause, which was originally a dependent clause. In most cases, the "that" clause was the object of a verb such as "showed" or "concluded." Without the "that," the subject of the (now independent) clause becomes the object of the verb, and the predicate of the clause becomes an unattached sentence fragment. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertising content

I have removed the following paragraph, because it appears to be nothing more nor less than advertising content: "Milk and cheese from grass-fed cows may also be good sources of n−3. One UK study showed half a pint of milk provides 10% of the recommended daily intake (RDI) of ALA, while a piece of organic cheese the size of a matchbox may[weasel words] provide up to 88%, depending on the level of fat and drying.[1]" — Jay L09 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with both the reference and its summary:

  • The reference is mostly about a request from an industry association (OMSCo, the UK Organic Milk Suppliers Cooperative) to a government agency to recognize the association's product as superior;
  • The reference's use of the term "Omega 3" suggests that the author of the reference doesn't know what he is writing about;
  • The summary misses the reference's only (allegedly scientific) point because the summary promotes dairy products from grass-fed cows, whereas the reference emphasizes the superiority of dairy products from clover-fed cows relative to grass-fed cows;
  • Once again, the clear term "alpha linolenic acid" is replaced with "Omega 3" or "n-3" and a comparison is made with fish to make the product seem better for human nutrition than it really is;
  • The reference does not supply the qualification "depending on the level of fat and drying" that had been inserted into the summary the weasel tag was removed;
  • The summary does, however, clearly express the gist of the reference, which might be stated as "You should be buying much more organic milk at a ridiculously inflated price!!!" — Jay L09 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "More Omega 3 in Organic Milk".

Corrections

"Eggs produced by hens fed a diet of greens and insects contain higher levels of n−3 fatty acids (mostly ALA) than chickens fed corn or soybeans.[137]"

Removed "(mostly ALA)" as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-136 makes no mention of ALA, or the composition of the n-3 fatty acids


"The addition of flax and canola seeds to the diets of chickens, both good sources of alpha-linolenic acid, increases the omega-3 content of the eggs.[139] However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest reports "the omega-3s that FDA considers healthful (DHA and EPA) are not found in plants such as flax seed." It also reports "[e]ggs contain too much saturated fat and cholesterol to meet FDA’s definition of healthy."[135] "

The second sentence is extremely misleading, contradicts the findings of the study referenced in the previous sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-138 and is already covered in the section on flax & plant sources.


"As compared with the controls, the omega-3 fatty acid content of eggs from hens fed flax and canola seed increased significantly (P<.05), and the brain tissue of embryos and chicks contained significantly (P<.05) more omega-3 fatty acids, predominantly docosahexaenoic acid (C22:63). The plasma of the chicks from hens fed flax seed contained significantly (P<.05) more omega-3 fatty acids than those fed the control diet. The arachidonic acid (C20:46) content in the egg yolk and chick plasma lipids from the flax fed laying hens were significantly reduced." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-138

Mentioning that plants such as flax lack DHA & EPA is both irrelevant and misleading when discussing animal sources of fatty acids, as animals are capable of converting dietary ALA into EPA & DHA (described in references 13-17), often at efficiencies far higher than the paltry 5% in adult human men. The results of the study clearly show Chickens eating a diet containing flax/canola seeds (containing ALA) leads to increased omega-3 fatty acid levels in eggs, tissues and plasma. Further, the authors specify increased levels of predominantly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were observed (not just ALA)

24.68.117.47 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory statements?

In the section The n−6 to n−3 ratio:


Metabolites of n−6 are more inflammatory (second paragraph)

n-6 fatty acids also reduce inflammation (last sentence)

Which one is true?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.26.96 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual Error

According to many literature and scholary sources, Omega 6 can be either pro -inflammtory or inflammatory.http://www.Livehealthytoday.org/pages/omega-fattyacids.phpLeo04 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This page claims that olive oil has a 3:13.1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Would that this were true! The page nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/509/2 shows that a tablespoon of olive oil has 103 mg of omega-3 and 1318 mg of omega-6 fatty acid.

The site http://www.oliveoilsource.com/definition/omega-3-and-omega-6-fatty acids states that olive oil has an average 10:1 ration of omega-6 to omega-3.

The British sports website http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/omega-3-omega-6.html says that olive oil is devoid of omega-3 and very low in omega-6, making it a very poor source of essential fatty acids.

A table of fat components on the University of California at San Diego web page http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Nutrition/oil_good.html agrees with this evaluation, showing zero omega-3 to just one omega-6. It’s not clear why the math department is discussing nutrition, but it’s reasonable to assume they have their ratios going the right direction.

All of this suggests that this Wikipedia page may have reversed the values in the ratio for olive oil. If so, this particular error is not consistent, because the UCSD table lists the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio for canola oil as 1:3, and this Wikipedia article shows it as 1:7. This is may be a significant difference, but at least it goes in the right direction.

The problem may stem from the fact that the author is inconsistent in which fatty acid is given first in the references to ratios, and simply got the two confused in this one instance. I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it any further than this, so I hope the original author or someone else will do so.

Elaeo (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Error: Omega-3 fats are not essential, ALA is

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so I'm noting here the sentence I removed from the intro:

Essential fatty acids are molecules that cannot be created by the human body but are vital for normal metabolism. One of the two families of these essential fatty acids is the omega-3 fatty acids.

And what I put in it's place:

The omega-3 fatty acids are "essential" fatty acids because they are vital for normal metabolism and cannot be synthesised by the human body. More precisely, ALA cannot be synthesised by the human body at all, and the other omega-3 fatty acids can only be synthesised from ALA.

I'm quite sure that's correct. The difference is important because consuming EPA and DHA won't ward off metabolism problems. That's because there is no general requirement for omega-3. Omega-3 isn't essential. There is a requirement for ALA. If you consume just ALA, you can have normal metabolism. Gronky (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction within a single sentence.

"Though mammals cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids, they have a limited ability to form the long-chain n−3 fatty acids" This is contradictory. If they have a limited ability to form some types of n−3 fatty acids, then it's wrong to state they "cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids" 109.153.85.226 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What's "PUFA"?

What does "PUFA" mean? I wonder why this abbreviation was suddenly injected into the article without first defining it. Anyone? 109.153.85.226 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Polyunsaturated fatty acid. Now fixed in the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

References

We need to use secondary sources rather than primary ones per WP:MEDRS. This article needs substantial work.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Health Effects" bias

For some reason this article goes to great lengths to demonstrate that omega-3 does not have beneficial health effects. The section cites an abundance studies and sources that are controversial. I have suspicions that someone on a crusade to play down the positive effects of omega-3 has presented a biased point of view. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I think some discussion might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.111.223 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recently read the position stand of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada on Dietary Fatty Acids (accessible here). The position stand states multiple benefits to cardiovascular health. Also note how NPOV the Fish_oil#Health_benefits article is in how it encompasses the reviews that did find health benefits from taking omega-3s and the reviews that did not. makeswell (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Tentative research showed benefit. So a lot of money was spent to do proper trials and those came back negative. Thus it does not appear there are significant benefits from supplementation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me you might want to source your opinion with actual research, where is the data from proper large scale data that's come back negative? I recently read a small one with 44 subjects where pufa 's where you used as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy and they were markedly better than the mono therapy. But large scale negative studies I ve not come across doc. Working for the pharma companies much, huh doc? 94.66.112.123 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@94.66 - Kindly assume good faith and comment on content, not on the contributor. If you wish to enquire about potential conflicts of interest, please do it in a civil way. Insinuating personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Two meta-analyses found no evidence supporting the claim of a beneficial role. This one concluded "Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association."; This one concluded "Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease." I have updated the article to reflect the secondary sources accurately. Zad68 18:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify

"are fats commonly found in marine and plant oils. " Did you mean "are fats commonly found in marine animals and plant oils." or "are fats commonly found in marine and land plant oils." Marine oils somehow does not seem to be very descriptive.84.228.219.232 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) deavman

Confusing statement

"Though mammals cannot synthesize omega−3 fatty acids, they have a limited ability to form the long-chain omega−3 fatty acids including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20 carbons and 5 double bonds), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22 carbons and 6 double bonds) and α-linolenic acid (ALA, 18 carbons and 3 double bonds)." is confusing. Should this not more clearly state that mammals can convert ALA to EPA and DHA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcgirton (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting evidence about health effects?

"Evidence does not support a beneficial role for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing cardiovascular disease (including myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death) or stroke.[2][9]"

Is followed by...

"Omega-3 fatty acids in algal oil, fish oil, fish and seafood have been shown to lower the risk of heart attacks.[23] Omega-6 fatty acids in sunflower oil and safflower oil may also reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.[24]"

Only a few paragraphs between "no evidence supports" and "studies show evidence". Are these older studies refuted by the newer ones claiming no evidence of benefit? Or are they measuring different things? In any case, as a reader not familiar with the scientific background, I was confused. After reading this, I could not say whether or not the scientific community supported claims that omega-3 and omega-6 had health benefits pertaining to heart disease and heart attacks. And if there is significant disagreement or controversy regarding this, such should be noted in the article. Whimper (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Omega-3 to omega-6 ratio

Let somebody (who is enthusiastic enough) verify what is really written in this source: Lands, WEM (2005). Fish, Omega 3 and human health. American Oil Chemists' Society. ISBN 978-1-893997-81-3. Is there really written that one needs 4 times more omega-3 than omega-6? Maybe, there (as also in many other sources) the inverse proportion is present: the amount of omega-3 should be at least 1/4 of the amount of omega-6. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

Have removed "A study published in July 2013 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has confirmed a link between high blood concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids and an increased risk of prostate cancer.[1] According to the study, high concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA – the three anti-inflammatory and metabolically related fatty acids derived from fatty fish and fish-oil supplements – are associated with a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. The study also found a 44 percent increase in the risk of low-grade prostate cancer and an overall 43 percent increase in risk for all prostate cancers.[1][2]"

As this is using a primary source to refute a secondary source. We do not use popular press generally. Guidelines is here at WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we should not use primary to refute secondary, but saying that a contradictory primary (especially when there has been more than one with that result (albeit by the same team[1]) seems overly exclusionary. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be able to use PMID 23766835? It looks like a good secondary source from just a couple of months ago (and the full text is available from PMC). Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes great find Looie. Great source. It is about blood levels rather than supplementation. How closely linked those two are, I am not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes we should not be using primary sources in this way, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Is algal oil an animal source?

"Common sources of animal omega–3 EPA and DHA fatty acids include fish oils, algal oil, egg oil, squid oils, krill oil " 

Is algae an animal? 209.131.231.233 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this claim supported by the citation?

The claim "The DHA obtained through the consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids is positively associated with cognitive and behavioral performance.", does not seem to be supported by the cited study. The study says "In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we observed no overall effect of 26 weeks of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on cognitive performance. "

http://www.neurology.org/content/71/6/430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.237.218 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

This page begins, "Omega-3 fatty acids ... refers to a group of three fats....". Come on, guys, there must be a lot more than 3 of them. A list later in this page names 11 of them. (Also fatty acids are, technically, not fats -- read fat to see why.)

-- Solo Owl 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs)


Nimptsch3 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

More recent studies blocked

I have been trying to update the information concerning Omega-3 link to increased risk of prostate cancer and it has been removed three times. The information that is now up is outdated and wrong. This is my first time trying to add something to a Wikipedia article so I am struggling with the process and apparently with the culture that allows one person to rescind updates while threatening to ban me when I try to do it. My interest is to get the facts right on the article as this could affect peoples lives but apparently someone is determined to keep the false, outdated and misleading information up there.Petmo100 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is where we discussed proposed changes. For references we use high quality secondary sources mostly per WP:MEDRS. The Select trial is a primary source and the part of the ACS you are linking two is more of a press release. Neither count. If you use pubmed you can limit the article you search for to review articles in the last 5 years. This is often a good starting point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Petmo100 that there is a culture of "trigger-happy" banning, or threats to do so, among some of those who run Wikipedia. Fletcherbrian (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The study is here, from PubMed: Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) 105 (15): 1132-1141 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.34.30 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article

In the section "Health Effects: Cardiovascular Disease" the initial sentence is:

Evidence does not support a beneficial role for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing cardiovascular disease (including myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death) or stroke.

Yet the section "Mechanism of Action: The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio" contains the following:

... three studies published in 2005, 2007 and 2008, including a randomized controlled trial, found that, while omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease in humans, the levels of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (and, therefore, the ratios) did not matter.

So, which part of the article is correct? Is there a lack of evidence or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.176.17 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

The second paragraph in the section "The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio" contradicts the statement in the first that the ratio does not matter. Am I missing something? 2605:A601:5AF:7001:FDD3:B2ED:F1B7:187A (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Mixture of blatantly biased reporting and overly technical language

The inconsistencies result from an obviously slanted tone in much of the copy. The primary author here is against the possible benefits of omega-3s and present the data in a heavily one-sided way. Even when a possible benefit is acknowledged, it is done so begrudgingly. What isn't biased is overly technical. This entry needs a lot of work. PFR 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup the best available literature supports few significant benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PFR. This article has been hijacked by someone with their own point of view that they want to promote. The article is far from the Neutral Point of View Required by Wikipedia (or any respectable encyclopedia). I think it should be rewritten.SylviaStanley (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to find systematic reviews and meta analysis in high quality journals or position statements of nationally recognized medical bodies and we can adjust the content based on them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Which parts do you feel are overly technical? I'll try to simplify the language if you can give me a few examples. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Verification of claim about inflammation and disorders

The article claims:

Cardiovascular disease, Rheumatism, and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are some of the many disorders[which?] the omega-3 and omega-6 ratio have been connected to through its association with the inflammatory response.

The cited journal article is "Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on serum markers of cardiovascular disease risk: A systematic review".[2] I only have access to the abstract, but it appears to only authoritatively address cardiovascular disease. I marked this claim with {{failed verification}}. Some cleanup may also be in order if this can be supported...it's unclear what "connected to" and "association with" mean. Also, a complete list of disorders should be presented or linked to rather than merely being hinted at. -- Beland (talk 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And that ref is old. Thanks I have removed the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Italics

What is the source for the italics of the “n” in n-3? CielProfond (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A number of problems with the page

I don't know whether these are bad and/or numerous enough to warrant a "Multiple issues" template.

  • The stuff about pregnancy probably needs a separate section from "developmental disabilities".
  • Regarding pregnancy, this article mentions preterm birth (but not other effects studied in pregnancy). Docosahexaenoic acid mentions attention & visual acuity. Fish oil mentions "psychomotor development".
  • I just cannot understand this sentence: "The rapid evolution of human diet away from a 1:1 omega-3 and omega-6 ratio, such as during the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution, has presumably been too fast for humans to have adapted to biological profiles adept at balancing omega-3 and omega-6 ratios of 1:1." The sentence falls apart at the end. Profiles? Adept?
  • The next sentence certainly feels like an overreach, but "commonly" and "the reason" are pretty vague: "This is commonly believed to be the reason why modern diets are correlated with many inflammatory disorders."
  • The very next sentence then states that "the ratio does not matter."
  • There is not much discussion here, or in the specific (EPA, DHA, ALA) pages about actual roles of these substances in normal physiology. This is admittedly a caricature, but they read like this: "Omega-3s are important! They maybe reduce the risk of multiple diseases. They are found in these foods." But where is the discussion of what they actually do? Essential fatty acid interactions does a fair job of this, but the only place the present article links to EFA interactions is in the "ratio" subsection.

Problems with other articles in the same general topic area:

  • Despite its merits, the Essential fatty acid interactions article has its own issues. 4th paragraph says (paraphrased): "Today's diet has less ω-3 and more pollution than a century ago; the diet from a century ago had less ω-3 and less pollution than the diet of early hunter-gatherers." Does the citation given really support that 1900s humans ate less omega-3 than earlier humans? I certainly can't find where it says that. Also I can find no reference to pollution at all in the citation given.
  • Essential fatty acid also has a bit of discussion of health effects, which I'm sure overlaps with material elsewhere.
  • The very first sentence of alpha-Linolenic acid says "ALA is an n−3 fatty acid, it is one of two essential fatty acids, so called because they are necessary for health, and they cannot be produced within the human body." Firstly, no, it is not one of two essential fatty acids. Secondly, comma splice.

I've been at this an hour and a half now. I don't have the energy to WP:BEBOLD any more, and it's probably not a good idea while I'm angry, either. I am aware that some of these are issues with other articles. I am most likely to edit the sectioning in this article, and the lead sentence of ALA, because it's easy and doesn't involve contradicting anyone. Maybe the bit about diet/pollution in the "interactions" article. Maybe the parts in the "ratio" subsection of the present article. Maybe tag some vague/conflicting sentences (which doesn't really fix anything). Anyone who helps would be... helpful. --Officiallyover (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In a strict sense, is it not true that ALA (18:3 n-3) and LA (18:2 n-6) are the two essential PUFAs as it says in alpha-Linolenic acid ? I am not aware of other essential fatty acids, what do you mean? Carystus (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Note key summary of nov 2015 review

Intake of large doses (2.0 to 4.0 g/day) of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids as prescription drugs or dietary supplements are generally required to achieve significant (> 15%) lowering of triglycerides, and at those doses the effects can be significant (from 20% to 35% and even up to 45% in individuals with levels greater that 500 mg/dL). It appears that both EPA and DHA lower triglycerides, but DHA appears to raise LDL-C ("bad cholesterol") more than EPA, while DHA raises HDL-C ("good cholesterol") while EPA does not. There appears to be little difference between in effect between dietary supplement and prescription forms of omega-3 fatty acids but EPA and DHA ethyl esters (prescription forms) work less well when taken on an empty stomach of with a low-fat meal.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/releases/2013/07/omega-three-fatty-acids-risk-prostate-cancer.html; "Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial" - http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/09/jnci.djt174.abstract
  2. ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/health/fish-oils-may-raise-prostate-cancer-risks-study-confirms-6C10597283
  3. ^ Jacobson TA, et al, NLA Expert Panel. National Lipid Association Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia: Part 2. J Clin Lipidol. 2015 Nov-Dec;9(6 Suppl):S1-S122.e1. PMID 26699442 Free full text

- Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Move proposal

Along the line of Jytdog's merge proposal, I propose to move the health section of fish oil to omega-3 fatty acid. Since the health claims of fish oil are aimed at DHA, EPA and the n-3 version of DPA (as far as I know), and since the health claims of shark liver oil should be covered in that article, the remainder (that is not PUFA n-3) can be covered in fish oil. How it should be divided between omega-3 fatty acids and the individual n-3 fatty acids, I don't know, but it seems reasonable to treat the health effects in omega-3 fatty acids since the health effect depend on the ratio e.g. of DHA to EPA (as they compete as substrates for eicosanoid cascade enzymes and possibly endothelium transporters), and since the dietary form the omega-3 come in can be either triglycerides, ethyl esters, phospholipids or free, the dietary forms, their source, their transport, fate and health impact could converge nicely in the omega-3 fatty acids article. It is not quite clear to me what form if any e.g. the DHA article deals with, and if health claims from these individual n-3 fatty acids should also move to omega-3 fatty acids. It would be best to have health and other aspects in one place to avoid repetitions. That way, e.g. the sources seal oil, krill oil, squid oil etc. could all point to one article for the majority of their health aspects. Carystus (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The health claims of the fish oil article might be associated with omega-3's but fish oils are notable independently of its omega-3 content and their associated health effects. With that in mind, most but not all of the fish oil article should be merged into the Omega-3 article; a short WP:Summary style section on omega-3's with a {{main article}} link to Omega-3 fatty acid should be added to the fish oil article afterward. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


  • just want to add here that there is even more! This is like buying ginzu knives. We have:

Ack. How to handle?? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely worked over Omega-3 acid ethyl esters, Ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid, and Omega-3 carboxylic acids tonight, and made them into drug articles. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Just use your best judgment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I took a peek at Omega-3 carboxylic acids to see what that is about. It looks clear. I stumbled over the term "Omega-3 carboxylic acids", thinking, shouldn't that be "Omega-3 free fatty acids", so I went ahead and created the page as a draft, because I think it is missing. Could the "Omega-3 carboxylic acids" change name to the drug in question*, and "Omega-3 free fatty acids" could then discuss the human biochemical aspects (which will be common to drugs and commercial products) and point to the drug(s) as well as commercial products and Omega-3 fatty acids section "Forms". (I realize from the above that it was renamed from Epanova)

In Omega-3 fatty acids, I have added sections "Form" and "Biochemistry", maybe "Mechanism of action" can be incorporated into "Biochemistry?

Note; what is "carboxylated DHA and EPA" and "Omega-3 carboxylic acids"? It goes without saying that the carboxyl group is present in this context. Carystus (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointed out that stupid mistake above - I fixed it. Please don't create yet another omega-3 article - please see my comments here. "Omega-3 carboxylic acids" is the USAN and proposed INN for Epanovoa (sources: for USAN see here under 2014 and for the proposed INN see 3.8 here. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Fish oil be merged into this article. The content there completely overlaps with, and is not in sync with, the content here. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose – fish oil is a legitimate topic in it's own right. The current version of the article has been developed with a focus on the relevance of fish oil to human health. Some of these concerns could be directed to the Omega-3 article. The fish oil article should be redeveloped to cover the relevance of fish oil to the fish that produce it. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • support due to overlap in articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Where are you going to put material that doesn't overlap? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
the point (made by an editor below) that the material about health effects of given substances should be mostly consolidated in one place and should not be self-contradictory is a valid one...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, no one is disputing that. But that is not your initial point Your initial point was that the article on fish oil should be merged somewhere else, and presumably cease to exist. The issues relating to human health should be treated as a separate issue and preferably removed as far as possible from the article to some other place. In that way the article can be freed from the crippling medical tyranny that is now being imposed on many zoology articles, and can be properly developed instead as an article on the role fish oil plays in the biology of fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Then do something concerning the overlap. Fish oil is NOT omega-3 fatty acid: it can contain many more polyunsaturated fatty acids and is in general a mixture. Omega-3 fatty acid could, in this sense, be considered a subtopic of fish oil but it makes more sense to give it its own article, just like other types of fatty acids are better described in independent articles. The acids are in fact a topic in the major group of chemistry, fish oil is a topic in foods or fishery products. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • comment - if folks want to oppose, that's great, but please keep in mind that we are going to have to fix the overlapping content - pretty much all the content about health effects of Fish oil is sourced to studies about omega-3. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fish oil is simply not the same as Omega-3 fatty acid. To be clear, though, I do support Jytdog's general point (as I understand it) that the material about health effects of given substances should be mostly consolidated in one place and should not be self-contradictory. We need a place for the stuff that doesn't overlap (thus oppose), but we also need to fix the overlap. I also think that if you were going to force one to be a subset of the other, then fish oil would be a subset of omega-3, rather than the other way around. Fish oil discussions usually mention EPA and DHA only, with little if any mention of ALA, which is an omega-3, with its own literature about health effects. To make things even tougher on us, alpha-Linolenic acid, Eicosapentaenoic acid, and Docosahexaenoic acid each have their own pages, which go into at least some detail on health effects. Other omega-3 pages are much shorter—the longest of the "forgotten" omega-3 pages is Docosapentaenoic acid (which by the way, discusses a molecule that is DPA but is not an omega-3). Cod liver oil, which contains DHA & EPA, has its own page, which is also as it should be, because it is equivalent to neither fish oil nor to omega-3 fatty acids. There are other issues with this page, and I'm going to start a new talk page section. I will let this merge discussion sit for a little while; if someone feels there is consensus, then it can be closed per WP:MERGECLOSE. --Officiallyover (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    When I stated omega-3 fatty acid is in fact a subset of fish-oil, I meant of course (and I also added that) that omega-3 fatty acids are only one component of all the substances that fish oil is made up of. Fish oil can thus never be a subset of the topic omega-3 fatty acids, because it contains so many more substances. If one would be treated as a subset of the other, it should logically be the other way around. In a marine environment, omega-3 fatty acids are quite ubiquitous, as they are produced by a majority of algal species. They end up in (amongst others) fish oil because fish eat algae or because they eat creatures that ate algae. But that doesn't make fish oil a subset of omega-3 fatty acids because it would ignore all the other components that it is made of. The two subjects are really quite different. The only common thing is that one chemical component. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Close That would be tempting if fish oil = n-3 oils, but it takes only a slight afterthought to realize that fish oil has components that go way beyond PUFA n-3 (e.g. MUFA's (20:1 n-9), PUFA's n-6,7,9, squalene et.c.). If I get time I will make the fish oil article reflect it. I don't think it is up for discussion not to have a fish oil article. Thanks for bringing it up, though, it has been interesting, and I agree with Jytdog that if the fish oil article overlap the omega-3, the fish oil article or both articles need attention, good point. I think the merger proposal can be closed. Carystus (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that you meant to vote "oppose" here. Also I moved your comment from above, to its place here in chron order. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Jytdog, thanks. Carystus (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Risk of deficiency

I've moved 'Risk of deficiency' to the Health Effects section. Not sure if this is the ideal location for it, but it's perhaps better there than in the Dietary Sources section, which is where I'd found it. Meticulo (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

comment

I don't think that PC is the only transport for DHA to the brain. PS is also a transport, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Omega-3 fatty acids and psychosis

"For omega-3 fatty acids, low quality evidence suggests a beneficial effect for a 12 week course of nutritional supplementation compared with placebo. However, the data emerged from a single trial with few participants, and this result has never been replicated to our knowledge. "

This is a quote from the BMJ article recently restored. Way too early for publication in an encyclopedia. JSR (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating AHA guidelines

In Daily Values there is a 2002 ref for Amer Heart Assoc guidelines and a call for an update. This appears to have been updated in 2017, but without a specific amount per day for coronary heart disease and without mention of triglycerides. The latter appears to have been covered in Miller 2011. I suspect these refs should be incorporated, but not sure if Daily values or Cardiovascular disease.

Siscovick DS, Barringer TA, Fretts AM, Wu JH, Lichtenstein AH, Costello RB, Kris-Etherton PM, Jacobson TA, Engler MB, Alger HM, Appel LJ, Mozaffarian D; American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Clinical Cardiology. Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid (Fish Oil) Supplementation and the Prevention of Clinical Cardiovascular Disease: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017 Mar 13. pii: CIR.0000000000000482. PubMed PMID: 28289069.
Miller M, Stone NJ, Ballantyne C, Bittner V, Criqui MH, Ginsberg HN, Goldberg AC, Howard WJ, Jacobson MS, Kris-Etherton PM, Lennie TA, Levi M, Mazzone T, Pennathur S; American Heart Association Clinical Lipidology, Thrombosis, and Prevention Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism.; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology.; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing.; Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease.. Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011 May 24;123(20):2292-333. PubMed PMID: 21502576.

David notMD (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Added Miller 2011 to Cardiovascular disease and removed mention of AHA triglyceries from Daily Values. Also moved other stuff out of Daily values to appropriate sections. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Table 8 of Siscovick (2017) summarizes the update of the AHA position on omega-3 and various cardiovascular diseases. Briefly, for many indications, either no recommendation at this time or "Treatment is not indicated." Only two rate a "Treatment is reasonable": 1) Secondary prevention of CHD and SCD among patients with prevalent CHD, and 2) Secondary prevention of outcomes in patients with heart failure. For neither does the AHA recommend a specific amount of omega-3, although it notes that most trials were at or close to 1000 mg/day. The benefit appears to be on the order of a 9% decrease in relative risk, with no safety concerns. I am of the opinion that this new position paper needs to be incorporated into text now divided between Cardiovascular disease and Daily values, but I feel it calls for a physician to give it the proper weight. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This [3] is an excellent source. What do you want to use it to say? Table 8 is a good summary. Not good evidence for much. Use is reasonable for the prevention of CHF among people at high risk and those with heart failure. Otherwise use is not supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

My thinking is that parts of the last two paragraphs in Daily Values should be cut from there, the ref for the AHA guidelines from 2002 replaced with Siscovick, and this content be melded into the Cardiovascular disease section. As part of this, looks like the one gram per day AHA recommendation has been dropped, mostly because not enough RCT evidence at different doses to establish a minimum effective amount. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
THis is a good source aswell[4] Feel free to update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I will incorporate the changes is next few days. The omega-3 industry position is more aggressive (500 mg for healthy adults, 700-1000 for secondary prevention of CHD, >1000 for triglycerides), but I will defer to the AHA guidelines. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Replaced the 2002 AHA ref with Siscovick 2017, revised AHA recommendations accordingly and added EFSA and WHO. Did NOT add the industry organization recommendations David notMD (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup industry recommendations are not notable generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Content Issues

Sometimes the fresh perspective of someone who hasn't been working on a page can be useful. For those devoted to working on improving quality of this page, please be advised that it current reads overall in a slightly slanted / non-neutral way. Sometimes too much reliance on JAMA as a source can be problematic and may be part of the issue. A more neutral presentation or expanding into pro/con would be better. Also, the last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph don't belong there --- it's out of place and thoughts abruptly change direction. It's also an example of a non-neutral stance. Uberveritas (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Stating the evidence from the best sources available is not-neutral . It is how NPOV is defined in WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph might be better off in a separate paragraph, but the content is definitely important enough to be in the lede. More detail is provided farther down in the article. As to the fact of those three refs being published in JAMA , authors of potentially important articles aim for high status journals (JAMA, NEJM...). The articles contain the facts and conclusions of the authors, not an anti-supplement bias by the journal. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification / elaboration of human conversion to DHA and EPA needed

Quote from the "plant sources" section: Flaxseed (or linseed) (Linum usitatissimum) and its oil are perhaps the most widely available botanical source of the omega-3 fatty acid ALA. Flaxseed oil consists of approximately 55% ALA, which makes it six times richer than most fish oils in omega-3 fatty acids.[126] A portion of this is converted by the body to EPA and DHA, though the actual converted percentage may differ between men and women.[127]

Can this section be expanded to mention the human body's efficiency of converting ALA to EPA and DHA? I heard the human body is extremely inefficient at this, and it's worth pointing out as a means of clarification. People reading this (as is) may get the impression that it's sufficient to consume ALA by itself and avoid DHA and EPA because the human body converts it. That potentially could lead to people making poor decisions. TheyreOntoMe (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See the text and references in Interconversion section. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Prison aggression

Some studies have been run on aggression, sometimes on prison populations, have tried to link omega-3 fatty acids to aggression

"There is some evidence to support the use of omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of conditions characterized by a high level of impulsivity and aggression and borderline personality disorders."

Would it be worth mentioning studies on aggression and omega-3 supplementation? -- Callinus (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Too much of that lit is about correlations rather than RCTs. What is needed is more original research (primary lit) and then a good review (secondary lit).David notMD (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Contamination section needs work

This section is woefully lacking in appropriate referencing, and needs input from someone knowledgeable in toxicology. The Fish oil article has some references about contamination. Maybe can be used here, albeit with understanding that appropriate processing removes some of the contaminants. David notMD (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I am refraining from any more edits to the article - after having done a bunch in April 2017 - because I have clients (dietary supplement companies) that sell fish oil products, and so want to avoid conflict of interest. I may come back and propose content and citations here in Talk, for other editors to review and consider adding to the article. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 meta-analysis regarding cardiovascular events & omega-3 supplement use

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29387889

  • Aung T, Halsey J, Kromhout D, et al. Associations of omega-3 fatty acid supplement use with cardiovascular disease Risks: meta-analysis of 10 trials involving 77917 individuals. JAMA Cardiol 2018. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.5205

Would be good to add to the wiki article? Especially considering the conclusion of the meta-analysis:

  • "This meta-analysis demonstrated that omega-3 fatty acids had no significant association with fatal or nonfatal coronary heart disease or any major vascular events. It provides no support for current recommendations for the use of such supplements in people with a history of coronary heart disease."

goes against for example this sentence in current wiki article (permalink id 832607652):

  • "However, omega−3 fatty acid supplementation greater than one gram daily for at least a year may be protective against cardiac death, sudden death, and myocardial infarction in people who have a history of cardiovascular disease.[20]"

--Treetear (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Added content to the article here which reflects (the conclusion of the) meta-analysis. Reading flows well with previous and following sentence in the article with regards to "one gram" statements. --Treetear (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Omega-3 FA reduces CVD risk in some patients?

FWIW - re "Fish Oil Drug May Reduce Heart Attack and Stroke Risks for Some - Large doses of an omega-3 fatty acid in fish oil sharply reduced the rate of cardiovascular events in people with a history of heart disease or Type 2 diabetes"[1] - is this study, recently described in The New York Times, worth adding/integrating to the "Omega-3 fatty acid" and/or "Cardiovascular disease" articles - or not? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Connor, Anahad (25 September 2018). "Fish Oil Drug May Reduce Heart Attack and Stroke Risks for Some - Large doses of an omega-3 fatty acid in fish oil sharply reduced the rate of cardiovascular events in people with a history of heart disease or Type 2 diabetes". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 September 2018.

Pls help !

Dear Sirs ,

I am trying to remove a dead link in the reference section with my valid article on Omega 3 fatty acid . I have a website dedicated to fitness and overall well being and there was a researched article on omega 3 published by me which i thought is totally relevant as i dont have a product which i sell or anything like that . I need clarification in this regard pls .

Thanks , Sharad chhakara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddysouthpaw (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see these guidelines: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). For Wikipedia's purposes, 5am-success.com is not a reliable source for medical information. Also, please have a look at WP:COI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Zefr: The dash in 'omega-3' was derived from a minus sign, as in the third highest position number for the double bond. I made a note of this as a footnote. However, my footnote was reverted as unconstructive. Please explain. The first paragraph deals with nomenclatural issues, which necessarily includes chemical nomenclature. As such, the nomenclature only makes sense in light of this convention for numbering. Thus, this issue is clearly relevant. Omega-3 fatty acids are chemical substances, not just health supplements. Also, by convention, the 'n' in n-3 should be italicized. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it was well-enough explained already in the first paragraph. Points why I felt your edit was unconstructive: 1) seems redundant; 2) not lede info; 3) incorrect format for a ref (see WP:REFB); 4) n-3 italics are shown in the first line; 5) unsourced by WP:SCIRS. --Zefr (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't see a lucid explanation. My point was that the dash used to be a minus sign. A dash in omega-x could mean any number of things semantically, but the minus sign indicates a numbering x smaller than the maximum, omega. I know it's a minor quibble, but it enlightens the origin of the notation. As for source, it is mentioned in the following review: https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228994. As for location, I would not have made terminology part of the lead and deferred it to a later point of the article, but changing that would require a complete overhaul of the article. A footnote in the lead is a reasonable fix. Let me know of any alternatives.
Also, the second time the number n appears, it is not italicized. As per mathematical typographical convention, all Latin alphabet letters used as variables should be italicized. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it, seems like the Chemistry section would be the place for clarification using that 2009 source, unless there's a more recent one. You can place the edit, knowing it might be challenged by other editors. --Zefr (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't really care that much, so long as this aspect of fatty acid nomenclature is talked about on Wikipedia somewhere. (In fact, the article on fatty acids does discuss this.) Nevertheless, I have tried to clarify the information in the lead by spelling things out more explicitly. Hope it's not confusing. If it is, revert it, explain, and I'll be happy to try again. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the attempt, but I feel it's an excessive word burden on the introduction; see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6-8. I suggest moving as much of the definition as possible to a separate first section called 'Nomenclature'. --Zefr (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right. The original intro paragraph has much the same problem (though it is somewhat shorter). I think all that needs to be said in the lead is a definition that omega-3 fatty acids are characterized by having a double bond three away from the end. It can be merged with the second paragraph, and the rest can be moved into a body section on nomenclature.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Implemented the above. Arguably, the new lead is arguably somewhat heavy on listing of nutritional sources, but is more accessible to a lay audience. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Industrial production, with algae-based production and emerging canola-based production

The industrial production is an important omission here. Jotting down some notes here.

Perusing, I discovered a good overview:

I also saw some expensive reports which mention major suppliers such as "Omega 3 Supplement Market Analysis By Source" from Grand View Research, "Omega 3 Market Transforming Global Revenue by 2025" from openPR.

Digging deeper, it appears that Cargill is producing omega-3 from canola and expects that to dominate the market in a few years: Omega-3s from plants: ‘This technology is going to have a massive impact on the industry’ (2018). II | (t - c) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a better justification and statement of scope

This article should start by explaining the characteristics (chemical or biological) that justify treating ALL omega-three fatty acids together as a distinct group. Just because ONE fatty acid is essential and it happens to be omega-3 is not enough.
At the very least, the article should clarify that the topic is omega-3 FAs that occur in the human diet, which is a very small subset of all omega-3 fatty acids. The latter include infinitely many inedible, indigestible, and even toxic FAs.
I want to believe that "omega-3" is more than a meme that the oil and health supplement industries have found useful for their marketing. But the article at present does not quite do that.
Anyway, health studies that tested the health effects of specific omega-3 fatty acids should be described as tests of THOSE fatty acids, not of "omega-3 acids" in general. This mischaracterization is like describing a study of the safety of Ferraris as being about the risks of driving red cars.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Are these references reliable ?

Hi all,

Zefr removed my edits saying that the following reviews are not MEDRS. Here are the following sources:

1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7440169

2) https://doi.org/10.31665%2Fjfb.2019.7192

I would like to know why they are not, as far as I know they do not come from predatory journals or publishers.

Thanks. Medhekp (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Medhekp: in 1) with this edit, you used a low-quality medical publication (impact factor 1.5) to state an anti-disease effect against cancer. Such a conclusion would be major medical news, and would require national regulatory approval for supplement products as approved prescription drugs for use against cancer (such status does not exist). In 2) from the Journal of Food Bioactives, this journal does not appear to even be listed with an impact factor, and is a vague publication from a society on nutraceuticals. The LPI review - written by competent nutritional biochemists - is a better source for potential adverse effects of PUFAs. Zefr (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Article needs updating

There are some new reviews on omega 3:

  • "Omega-3, omega-6 and total dietary polyunsaturated fat on cancer incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials" [5]
  • "The effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation in pregnancy, lactation, and infancy: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized trials" [6]
  • "Omega-3 fatty acids supplementation on major cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized controlled trials" [7]
  • "Effect of omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [8]
  • "The efficacy and safety of omega-3 fatty acids on depressive symptoms in perinatal women: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials" [9]
  • "Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation and cardiovascular outcomes: do formulation, dosage, and baseline cardiovascular risk matter? An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" [10]
  • "Fish intake, n-3 fatty acid body status, and risk of cognitive decline: a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of observational and experimental studies"[11]
  • "Dietary and supplemental long-chain omega-3 fatty acids as moderators of cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease" [12]
  • "Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation and cardiovascular outcomes: do formulation, dosage, and baseline cardiovascular risk matter? An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" [13]
  • "Very long-chain n-3 fatty acids and human health: fact, fiction and the future" [14]
  • "Omega-3 supplementation and cardiovascular disease: formulation-based systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis" [15]
  • "Association between omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and risk of major cardiovascular disease events: a systematic review and meta-analysis" [16]
  • "Marine n−3 Fatty Acids and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer" [17]
Thanks for posting these. I will go through these whenever I find the time.
  • I don't have access to the first one.
  • Choi 2021 concludes:

    Our umbrella review indicates that omega-3 fatty acids supplementation reduces overall mortality from cardiovascular causes. Even though a few large RCTs showed no evidence of clinical effect of omega-3 on cardiovascular outcomes, our comprehensive review study still provides a clue of clinical utility of omega-3 fatty acids supplementation. Considering that there have been conflicting results in many existing studies, in future clinical trials, it is necessary to identify the true clinical evidence concerning omega-3 fatty acids supplementation through efforts to reduce various research biases.

    That's a lot of indicates, no evidence, provides a clue, conflicting results, necessary to identify the true clinical evidence and research bias.
CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
In regard to the Cochrane review, the text on the article is not fully accurate to what the review says. The Wikipedia article currently reads "Moderate and high quality evidence from a 2020 review showed that EPA and DHA, such as that found in omega−3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplements, does not appear to improve mortality or cardiovascular health." However, when we click on the updated Cochrane review the conclusion reads "Moderate‐ and low‐certainty evidence suggests that increasing LCn3 slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease mortality and events, and reduces serum triglycerides (evidence mainly from supplement trials)." In the "key results" section, we also read "Increasing EPA and DHA may slightly reduce risk of coronary death and coronary events (low‐certainty evidence, coronary events are illnesses of arteries supplying the heart)". [18], [19] Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omega-3_fatty_acid/Archive_3&oldid=1172748980"