Omega-3's EPA/DHA are the most studied nutrients in history. 30,000 studies published as of December 2015.

So much for journalists claiming there is not enough science to recommend taking omega-3's from fish. Go on ignore the research. You are simply demonstrating natural selection. Darwin would be proud.
Have just returned from a conference on fish oil Omega-3s in the Canary Islands. Here are a few images from that meeting.

Omega-3's are not only the most studied nutrients. There are more randomized controlled studies on them than on many prescription medications. Take a look!

And the rate of positive findings, meaning benefit to study participants is consistently high. Around 80% of trials found benefit. The remainder found no effect. 80%. Not bad!

And there have been many many studies. 30,000 as of December 2015.

So how many studies did the naysayers in recent NYTimes and Frontline stories review?

Eighteen. Thats right, they selected Eighteen studies. From which they make the broad statement that there is not enough science. Wow. That is some bold assertion given the numbers.

I don't know about you but for me and my family...we're sticking with the fish oils. Because of the science.

My thanks to Adam Ismail at GOED for the images. Great presentation Adam! Check out the science of Omega-3s at Always Omega-3's and at the Fats of Life Newsletter.

Sugary beverages start to wreck your health in just two weeks.

Still drinking soft drinks or sugar sweetened beverages? It is time to stop. A new study shows us what just two weeks of drinking soda can do to your heart. And the subjects were young healthy people.

Sugary drinks have been linked to obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. What is worse, the more soda (or sweet tea, or lattes) people drink the more likely these outcomes. The sugar industry and soft drink companies argue that association isn’t proof that one actually causes the other. But you have to agree that when population studies show a link again and again, and the mechanism of harm is plausible, it is silly to deny such strong evidence.

This is exactly how how we proved smoking cigarettes caused disease. But when it comes to discovering the effects on a habit on our health there’s nothing like controlled experiments. And the best evidence to prove cause and effect comes from double blind placebo controlled studies.

And when you’re studying heart disease, all the study has to do is look at changes in markers of heart disease risk, such as LDL cholesterol, apoB, triglycerides and uric acid in the blood.

A new study did just that. The study has been published online ahead of print in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The researchers recruited a group of 85 people aged 18-40, and divided them into 4 groups. For 2 weeks participants drank beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) making up 0 percent, 10 percent, 17.5 percent or 25 percent of their daily caloric requirement. The participants were blinded to their drink content, and in order to do that the 0-percent drink for the control group was sweetened with aspartame.

Within 2 weeks, the people who were on the HFCS drinks had higher levels of LDL, triglycerides and uric acid, and the higher the HFCS they drank, the higher the level of heart risk factors.

Although the American Heart Association and the World Health Organization recommend that people limit added sugar to no more that 5 percent of daily calories, very few people do so, and levels of added sugar in the 10-20 percent are typical of the American diet. By this study’s assessment, the average American person’s sugar intake is certainly enough to increase cardiac risk.

Would replacing HFCS with regular sugar (sucrose) make a difference? Not likely. The fructose content in table sugar is 50 percent, compared to 55 percent in HFCS – just a slight difference – and since fructose is metabolized in our body in a way that promotes fat production, raises triglycerides and affects cholesterol levels, either one of these sweeteners would probably have the same negative effects; there's no reason to assume that sugar is any more safe than HFCS.

High dose fish oils protect heart from damage after a heart attack.

High doses of ethyl ester EPA/DHA omega-3 fatty acids may protect against further damage in myocardial infarction patients, a preliminary study suggests. The study was presented March 16 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), held from March 14 to 16 in San Diego.
The research included 374 myocardial infarction survivors who received standard treatment and took either a 4-gram prescription-only dose of omega-3 fatty acids each day or a placebo. Using magnetic resonance imaging, the patients' hearts were scanned two weeks, four weeks, and six months after their myocardial infarction.
The researchers found that, compared to those taking the placebo, patients taking the omega-3 capsules had lower levels of inflammation and were 39 percent less likely to show deterioration of heart function. There was also significantly less evidence of fibrosis. Patients with a 5 percent rise in the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood seemed most likely to benefit from the supplements.
Giving a high dose of fish oil soon after a heart attack appears to improve cardiac structure and heart functioning above and beyond the standard of care. The dose used was 3360 mg combined EPA/DHA in the ethyl ester form.

You could achieve that dose in exactly the correct form, ethyl ester EPA/DHA with 5 capsules of Elite Omega-3 Gems from Carlson Laboratories.

Inflammation Resolution the Key to Preventing or Reversing Alzheimer's disease Suggests Compelling New Study

Supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids could help to prevent and even reverse the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. 

The connection is resolving inflammation. The beneficial fats may come to the affected person’s rescue by stimulating newly identified ‘resolution pathways’ in the brain, according to research outlining an ‘entirely new’ approach to the condition.

The new study, published in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, demonstrates a new approach to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease – suggesting that omega-3 fatty acid derivatives stimulate the uptake of amyloid-beta proteins. The proteins are the alleged culprits in the deteriorating health of brains affected by this dreadful disease. They apparently kill brain cells and form Alzheimer's disease hallmark plaques.

Led by Professor Marianne Schultzberg from the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, the team behind the research revealed that normal inflammatory processes should ultimately lead to tissue repair in a process known as restoration. However, with Alzheimer's disease this normal process is interrupted – meaning that rather than repair and restore tissue, debris from dead cells and other microorganisms fails to be cleared away, and instead accumulates in the brain, wreaking havoc.

"Our hypothesis is that stimulation of resolution of inflammation in Alzheimer's disease may result in reduced neuronal death in the brain, and in turn have a beneficial effect in disease progression and cognition,” explained Schultzberg.

“This is an entirely new approach and provides the opportunity to develop new treatment principles for Alzheimer's disease," she said.

The Swedish team found protective compounds formed in the brain from omega-3 fatty acids help to induce the resolution process and stimulate the uptake or clearing away of amyloid-beta proteins that have been linked to the progression of Alzheimer's disease through the development of plaques.

The team will now try to prove the hypothesis by using animal models to see if omega-3 fatty acids can prevent memory loss and further loss of brain cells.

In the study, Dr Schultberg and her group examined cerebrospinal fluid from 15 patients with Alzheimer's disease, 20 patients with mild cognitive impairment and 21 control subjects. They also analyzed brain tissue from 10 Alzheimer's patients and 10 control subjects.

Schultzberg and her team looked for the presence, and comparative levels of several inflammatory molecules and receptors involved in the resolution pathway – including specialised pro-resolving mediators (SPMs), receptors, biosynthetic enzyme, and downstream effectors - in postmortem hippocampal tissue from AD patients and non-AD subjects.

SPMs were also measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

The team found that SPMs and SPM receptors were detected in the human brain – indicating the resolution pathway does exist in the brain. They also found that levels of the SPM lipoxin A₄ (LXA₄) were reduced in AD patients, both in the CSF and hippocampus.

In addition, an enzyme involved in LXA₄ synthesis and two SPM receptors were elevated in AD brains, said the team, while LXA₄ and RvD1 levels in CSF correlated with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores.

As a result, the team concluded that the resolution pathway exists in the brain, adding that the alterations identified in the study “strongly suggest” a dysfunction of this pathway in Alzheimer’s disease.

They added that treatment with SPMs, or alternatively, by stimulating the resolution pathway – such as might occur with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation – “is suggested as a new and promising therapy in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease.”

Source

Alpha Lipoic Acid, Omega-3 EPA and DHA, and Vitamin E lower hemoglobin A1c in diabetics.

A study reported in the July-September 2013 issue of the Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research, found a that supplementation with either 300 mg Alpha Lipoic Acid, 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA, or 400 iu Vitamin E resulted in a reduction of hemoglobin A1c and fasting glucose levels in diabetics. These three supplement groups experienced encouraging decreases in blood glucose and HbA1c with no adverse effect. The study authors noted that vitamin E was the most cost effective though the maximum improvement in blood glucose and HbA1c was with the omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA.

Higher vitamin D levels correlated with improved breast cancer prognosis.

An article published online on October 9, 2013 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment found a link between higher levels of serum vitamin D and improved prognosis in women with early stage breast cancer.
When the lowest versus highest categories of serum vitamin D were compared in a pooled analysis, women whose levels were low had a risk of recurrence that was more than double that of subjects whose levels were high and a risk of death that was 76% higher. 
The authors point out that vitamin D, when activated, can alter the transcription and expression of specific genes, resulting in growth arrest, apoptosis, aromatase suppression, decreased inflammation, and inhibition of angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis, all of which help combat cancer. A measurement of vitamin D at your next checkup will help you determine your level, and if it is below 30 ng/ml a higher level of supplementation should be considered. Be sure your vitamin D is vitamin D3 cholecalciferol and not the less active vitamin D2 ergocalciferol.

Fish oils and prostate cancer. Are supplements dangerous?

I have been asked to explain the reported “findings” of the SELECT study. This is the study generating new headlines claiming that fish oil supplements are linked to an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer. 

For starters, the men in the SELECT study were not given fish oil supplements. What the results were reporting were levels of EPA, DPA and DHA omega-3s in blood, and cancer risk. And it is very important to note that the difference of omega-3 levels when comparing the healthy (control) group and the combined cancers group was nearly insignificant.

That difference is 4.66% in the combined cancer group versus 4.48% in the control group. It is a minute variance. Eating one additional serving of fish compared to the control group could result in that difference. Again no fish oil supplements were given in the study, so to blame omega-3 supplements for the reported findings is totally irresponsible.

Another point to consider is this. The reported omega-3 levels in any of the SELECT participants are not high levels. They are only slightly higher than the levels in those who consume a western diet typically average. Therefore any country that consumes a diet based on fish would have incredibly high levels of aggressive prostate cancer, and that is not the case.

What does the science really say about fish consumption or omega-3 levels and risk of prostate cancer?

The studies almost uniformly show that eating fish or having higher plasma levels of omega-3 is protective.  Several large scale epidemiological studies, including those looking at native Japanese men, Inuit men and people that live in South America, have shown that a high intake of fish and a high omega-3 status is linked to a lower incidence of many cancers including prostate cancer.

In a 2010 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Szymanski et al, the authors pooled data from four studies on fish consumption and death from prostate cancer and found a 63% decrease in risk for high fish consumption.

One must be very careful with making decisions based on the latest headlines. People do have a tendency to make decisions based on the last study or news advertised, rather than the sum of evidence of many studies published on a specific topic. But we must not do this. We must take into consideration the totality of evidence that we have on a topic, not just the latest headline on CNN.

In addition, studies should be read critically – there are inherent flaws in most of them.

The findings from this most recently reported study: Brasky et al. 2013 ( SELECT) are from an observational study (looking back in time) and observational studies do not prove cause and effect.

Scientific studies that are prospective in design are considered more important in weighing total evidence and give us more useful guidance in our choices on diet or supplements that might improve our health.

Are there more useful, prospective studies that demonstrate protective benefits of omega 3 fatty acids against prostate cancer?

Yes there are quite a few. Lets consider some of those.

Researchers investigated the effect of dietary fish intake amongst 6272 Swedish men who were followed-up for 30 years. That study reported that men who ate no fish had a two to three-fold increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer compared with those who consumed large amounts of fish in their diet.

TerryP, Lichtenstein P, Feychting M, Ahlbom A, Wolk A. Fatty fish consumption andrisk of prostate cancer. Lancet 2001; 357: 1764–6

Another prospective cohort study based on the Physician’s Health Study found that fish consumption (≥5 times per week) was not related to prostate cancer risk but was protective of prostate cancer–specific death.

ChavarroJE et al. A 22-y prospective study of fish intake in relation to prostatecancer incidence and mortality. Am J ClinNutr 2008; 88: 1297–303.

Other studies have suggested lower prostate cancer risk with Omega 3 fatty acids from fish in Swedish men.

NorrishAE, Skeaff CM, Arribas GLB, et al. Prostate cancer risk and consumption of fishoils: A dietary biomarker-based case-control study. Br J Cancer. 1999;81:1238–42.

And this study showed lower prostate cancer risk with Omega 3 fatty acids from fish in Japanese and Brazilian men..

KobayashiM, et al, Serum n-3 fatty acids, fishconsumption and cancer mortality in six Japanese populations in Japan andBrazil Japan J Cancer Res.1999 Sep;90(9):914-21.

A large prospective cohort established in 1986 looked at 51,529 American men, 40 – 75 years of age, completed a mailed questionnaire about demographic and medical information found that a high intake of fish was associated with a lower risk of metastatic prostate cancer. A similar association was also found for dietary marine fatty acids from food.

Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, et al, Dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids and the risk of prostatecancer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;80(1):204-16.

An important clinical study published by a group at the Harvard School of Public Health examined the link between dietary fish consumption and the risk of metastatic prostate cancer. This paper reported results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study that involved 47,882 men over twelve years. During the twelve years, 2,483 cases of prostate cancer were identified. Of these, 617 were advanced and 278 were metastatic. Eating fish more than three times a week reduced the risk of prostate cancer but had an even greater impact on the risk of metastatic prostate cancer. For each additional 500 mg of marine omega-3 consumed, the risk of metastatic disease decreased by 24%!

Augustsson,K., et al., A prospective study of intake of fish and marine fatty acids andprostate cancer. Cancer EpidemiolBiomarkers Prev, 12(1): p. 64-7, 2003.

And again, in the 2010 meta-analysis (an analysis of multiple studies) Szymanski and his team found that a significant 63% reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality in those that consumed fish but no link between eating lots of fish and men’s risk of developing prostate cancer.

SzymanskiKM, Wheeler DC, Mucci LA. Fish consumption and prostate cancer risk: a reviewand meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr.2010 Nov;92(5):1223-33.

When one considers the larger picture, the headlines claiming that men who consume omega-3 supplements are at increased risk of prostate cancer, based on one study where no one used omega-3 supplements, and where levels of omega-3s were only 0.02% in variance among cancer cases and healthy cases, seem preposterous.

Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

You might think that 97% consensus among the scientific community would motivate our intelligent US public to demand some sensible changes to energy policies… BUT WAIT… 57% of the public is NOT yet ready to accept the science of man made global warming. Why not? Because of pseudonews organizations 

(Yes Fox and Drudge, I’m talking about you) promoting the fossil fuel funded, pseudo-science talking points designed to keep said 57% of the public slumbering on in a mind numbed delusional state of false security. And those same fossil fuel lobbyists get voters to keep their fossil fuel elected puppets in Washington to maintain oil, gas, coal, carbon based energy policies at status quo, choking the atmosphere with CO2 emissions at an unprecedented rate. Frack you if you don’t fall into line. Sunscreen anyone? Gas mask?

Quoting comment from the study, which you can read here.

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on man-made global warming is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Read the Pew study here.

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. 

The number of papers rejecting man-made global warming is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on man-made global warming, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on man-made global warming."

References

Ding D, Maibach E W, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C and Leiserowitz A 2011 Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement Nature Clim. Change 1 462–5

Oreskes N 2010 My facts are better than your facts: spreading good news about global warming How Do Facts Travel? ed M S Morgan and P Howlett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 135–66

Boykoff M T and Boykoff J M 2004 Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press Glob. Environ. Change 14 125–36

Boykoff M T 2007 Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006 Area 39470–81

Boykoff M T and Mansfield M 2008 ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid pressEnviron. Res. Lett. 3 024002