The Omega-3 Debate: Understanding the Controversy
Generally speaking, the merits of omega-3 are not the subject of controversy. I just read a blog post on this very topic. Using Lovaza as a scapegoat, the author tries to establish an analogy between fish oil and snake oil. For those of you who don’t know, Lovaza is a prescription brand of fish oil.
In my view, the argument that fish oil is nothing more than a modern-day potion is wrong because its conclusions are not supported by sound evidence, and they depend on several false assumptions.
Lovaza and the Snake Oil Analogy: What’s the Real Story?
First, the argument claims that omega-3s have little or no effect on general health, yet it never really does anything to explain the basis for this conclusion. Instead of pointing to fish oil benefits proven by research to support this statement, the author cites findings from a meta-analysis (a fancy word for an academic Google search), which indicate omega-3s have limited effects on restenosis, which is a “narrowing of the arteries. There is one glaring problem with the assumption here. Restenosis is not analogous to general health. If it were, everyone with narrow arteries would be unhealthy, and everyone without them would be healthy.
Misconceptions About Omega-3s’ Effects on General Health
Second, the argument concludes that taking fish oil supplements for elevated triglycerides is useless. He supports this argument by pointing to Lovaza’s inability to prevent heart disease. There are two false assumptions here. For one thing, the argument assumes that Lovaza and all fish oil supplements are alike. Yet, Lovaza is an ethyl ester (EE)-based product and is inferior to its natural triglyceride (TG)-based rivals. For another, it assumes that a reduction in triglycerides has no bearing on the reduced risk for heart disease.
Why Restenosis Isn’t a Stand-In for Overall Wellness
Furthermore, the scientific review left much to be desired as a basis for an argument on the effects of omega-3s on heart disease. For example, many key words such as “docosahexaenoic”, “eicosapentaenoic”, and “CVD” were left out of the study, and others, such as “omega-3s”, were included. Thus, it makes it difficult to apply any of the findings to additional heart disease risk factors other than restenosis. To illustrate, I conducted a mini-experiment and replicated the search using the added terms. Granted, I only used one scholarly database, but I found nearly 300 more studies! Moreover, many of the existing scientific studies are concerned with specific fatty acids that comprise omega-3, and rarely use that term as a catch-all.
Triglycerides and Heart Disease: Separating Fact from Fiction
Finally, the argument omits the overwhelming evidence from clinical studies suggesting that omega-3 fatty acids may be very helpful in treating a variety of health conditions, including heart disease. To be sure, there are numerous studies which support the hypothesis that omega-3s have positive health benefits for cases of Angina, Arrhythmia, Athersclerosis, Congestive Heart Failure, High Cholesterol/Triglycerides, along with heart disease.
In short, for the reasons listed above, I believe the argument that fish oil is nothing more than a modern-day potion is wrong.