The article references a meta-analysis, which is hardly a smoking gun.
The analysis suggests variation between afib occurrence/risk and the brand or omega-3 supplement or dose.
Additional points from the article:
* despite finding a link between afib and omega-3 supplementation, the meta-analysis didn’t find increased heart or stroke risk
* although the analysis linked a prescription-strength omega-3 supplement with higher afib risk, the analysis indicated that omega-3 appeared to reduce heart attack and stroke risk
Existing evidence and analysis find that omega-3 can impact various medical conditions and health factors.
I think that, as with any medication, one should consult their doctor and weigh the cost-benefit / risk-reward of taking omega-3 supplements/prescriptions.
Sure, it could be. For those that want to really know what's going on it's better to actually get the data. Fortunately, it's not that hard to do. A couple times a year I track all my dietary intake for a week using an app. I'm not just interested in the macro-nutrients (protein, fat & carbs) but also all the micronutrients. There are apps that are more focused on micronutrients.
I can track just a couple of typical one-week samples a year and get a decent ballpark approximation because my normal diet isn't super varied. Vacations and a few special occasions aside, I typically eat mostly the same types things in about the same amounts because I like those things and it's convenient. I decided to spot check micronutrients because for the last five years I've been on a very low carb diet that's working great for me health wise and I've also had significant improvements in cognitive sharpness and emotional stability vs eating a 'normal' diet that made me obese for decades.
Because what I eat is fairly limited, I was concerned that over a long time period I might be missing out on some important nutrients. After getting a few data points, I was pleased to learn I was already covering everything my body needs. The only thing I was a little low on was DHA/EPA. While I can eat lots of fish on a VLC diet, I just don't particularly like fish, so I don't choose to eat much. For that reason I've added a high-quality supplement. Except for special cases like mine, I do agree it's entirely possible (and preferable) to cover all your body's nutritional needs with real foods. The challenge is that individual metabolisms can vary. General dietary advice is based on large-scale averages across many individuals. I'd also caution that the typical FDA "Food Pyramid" that is still widely promoted isn't ideal for every individual. My metabolism was certainly an outlier and the recommended 'balanced' diet wasn't working optimally over the long run for me.
sinenomine|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
koprulusector|3 years ago
The analysis suggests variation between afib occurrence/risk and the brand or omega-3 supplement or dose.
Additional points from the article:
* despite finding a link between afib and omega-3 supplementation, the meta-analysis didn’t find increased heart or stroke risk
* although the analysis linked a prescription-strength omega-3 supplement with higher afib risk, the analysis indicated that omega-3 appeared to reduce heart attack and stroke risk
Existing evidence and analysis find that omega-3 can impact various medical conditions and health factors.
I think that, as with any medication, one should consult their doctor and weigh the cost-benefit / risk-reward of taking omega-3 supplements/prescriptions.
UncleOxidant|3 years ago
rubicon33|3 years ago
Randomly inflating certain micronutrients without actually monitoring their levels is probably way more dangerous than just eating “healthy”.
mrandish|3 years ago
I can track just a couple of typical one-week samples a year and get a decent ballpark approximation because my normal diet isn't super varied. Vacations and a few special occasions aside, I typically eat mostly the same types things in about the same amounts because I like those things and it's convenient. I decided to spot check micronutrients because for the last five years I've been on a very low carb diet that's working great for me health wise and I've also had significant improvements in cognitive sharpness and emotional stability vs eating a 'normal' diet that made me obese for decades.
Because what I eat is fairly limited, I was concerned that over a long time period I might be missing out on some important nutrients. After getting a few data points, I was pleased to learn I was already covering everything my body needs. The only thing I was a little low on was DHA/EPA. While I can eat lots of fish on a VLC diet, I just don't particularly like fish, so I don't choose to eat much. For that reason I've added a high-quality supplement. Except for special cases like mine, I do agree it's entirely possible (and preferable) to cover all your body's nutritional needs with real foods. The challenge is that individual metabolisms can vary. General dietary advice is based on large-scale averages across many individuals. I'd also caution that the typical FDA "Food Pyramid" that is still widely promoted isn't ideal for every individual. My metabolism was certainly an outlier and the recommended 'balanced' diet wasn't working optimally over the long run for me.