Short term, ranged, and non-clinical studies always remind me of the story of the "Shoe-fitting fluoroscopes" (1)
AKA - x-ray machines placed in shoe stores so you could stick your foot in, dial up the radiation, and see your wiggling toes in the shoe.
Invented in the 1920s. Debates raged for decades. Outlawed finally in most states in the 1970s.
So for 50 years people thought taking your kid to the shoe store and blasting their feet with radiation was a good idea.
Largely because they had limited data and ability to measure the outcome, as the data became available it became crystal clear that these had the potential to be dramatically harmful.
Even with this lesson in mind I took fish oil for years, despite a lack of clear data.
The study a couple of years ago that linked fish-oil (natural and supplemental) to a 41% increase in prostate cancer / 71% increase in aggressive prostate cancer, reminded me of the flouroscope story. (2)
This Harvard health article, a couple of years old, puts it best:
"How food, and its component molecules, affect the body is largely a mystery. That makes the use of supplements for anything other than treating a deficiency questionable." (3)
Not sure that comparing x-rays to fish oil is a good comparison of risk/reward.
People (like myself) take fish oil for a variety of reasons, in my case to lower the risks of serious heart disease over the risks it might contribute to prostate cancer.
Ultimately each person has to judge the benefits/risks for themselves until better data is available. It's also worth noting that prostate cancer is increasingly a risk for all men as they age, fish oil or not.
Indeed. Not to be too snarky, but if fish oil increases your longevity it may also increase your risk for cancer, simply because you'll live long enough to get one.
Simpson's paradox paradox comes into play here a little bit. Your risk of dying of prostate cancer is in the ballpark of 1 in 40 but your risk of dying of heart disease is 1 in 4.
If trading a higher risk of prostate cancer for a lower risk of heart-disease (which others have mentioned) might be the better choice here.
Caveats abound here, of course, but just because something 'increases your risk of' something doesn't mean it's an aggregate loss.
> The study a couple of years ago that linked fish-oil (natural and supplemental) to a 41% increase in prostate cancer / 71% increase in aggressive prostate cancer
AKA - x-ray machines placed in shoe stores so you could stick your foot in, dial up the radiation, and see your wiggling toes in the shoe.
Invented in the 1920s. Debates raged for decades. Outlawed finally in most states in the 1970s.
So for 50 years people thought taking your kid to the shoe store and blasting their feet with radiation was a good idea.
Largely because they had limited data and ability to measure the outcome, as the data became available it became crystal clear that these had the potential to be dramatically harmful.
Even with this lesson in mind I took fish oil for years, despite a lack of clear data.
The study a couple of years ago that linked fish-oil (natural and supplemental) to a 41% increase in prostate cancer / 71% increase in aggressive prostate cancer, reminded me of the flouroscope story. (2)
This Harvard health article, a couple of years old, puts it best:
"How food, and its component molecules, affect the body is largely a mystery. That makes the use of supplements for anything other than treating a deficiency questionable." (3)
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope
(2) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/09/jnci...
(3) http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fish-oil-friend-or-foe-20...