Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Family Physician logoLink to Canadian Family Physician
letter
. 2006 Sep 10;52(9):1060–1062.

Clarifying omega-3 fatty acid recommendations

Andy Biro
PMCID: PMC1783728  PMID: 17279211

I applaud Dr Schwalfenberg’s review of omega-3 fatty acids, published in the June 2006 issue of Canadian Family Physician.1 A recent article published in the British Medical Journal,2 however, which found no decrease in mortality or cardiovascular disease with omega-3 supplementation, appears to contradict Dr Schwalfenberg’s conclusions. I and others are left wondering. Comments would be appreciated.

Footnotes

e-mail

References

Can Fam Physician. 2006 Sep 10;52(9):1060–1062.

Response

Gerry Schwalfenberg

First, I would like to thank Dr Biro for his valid question.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) meta-analysis by Hooper et al1 came to the conclusion that there is a null effect for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. However, was it not only 2 years ago that another article in the BMJ said the opposite?2

More than 30 responses by prominent researchers have shown their concern with the recent BMJ article. One reviewer, Ka He, from Northwestern University, lists at least 5 reasons this review is inadequate.1 A second reviewer stated that the DART-2 trial included in the BMJ meta-analysis has a number of methodologic problems and should not have been included1 (inclusion of this trial alone made the results come out quite differently). Another reviewer stated that the BMJ article was a “disservice to public health.”1

Dietary recommendations and exercise are first-line therapy for cardiovascular disease. As physicians we instruct our patients to avoid certain “bad fats” (saturated and trans fats) and cholesterol. What about providing instruction on good fats? One of the reasons I wrote my article3 was to present dietary guidelines on good fats in cardiovascular disease.

Omega-3 and omega-6 are essential fatty acids and must be supplied to us by diet. Omega-3 fatty acids have well-known biologic effects, which I listed in Table 1 in my article (this table includes only the cardiovascular effects; there are many others).3 These are ignored in the review by Hooper et al.1

An outstanding systematic review (which included 97 studies and 275 000 patients) on various lipid-lowering agents and diets has concluded that omega-3 fatty acids are more effective than statins in reducing overall mortality and cardiac mortality.4

Most of the studies used in the BMJ review do not address the omega-6–to–omega-3 ratio. There is evidence that a 4:1 ratio is required for maximum benefit for cardiovascular disease and less than 2:1 to have any effect on cancer. This is almost impossible to achieve with our diet today (Canadian guidelines are currently 6:1). An excellent book, Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence, reviews this.5

Confounders in the BMJ meta-analysis include the influence of the omega-6–to–omega-3 ratio; the pre-existing omega-3 status in the participants (if you already have a full gas tank, adding more is not going to help your car); the source and type of omega-3; the strength and quality of the preparations; toxicants in the preparations; toxicant levels in people receiving omega-3 supplementation; and the design of each of the various studies used in the review. This is typical in the literature where one report shows one thing and another report (which neglects to address various confounders) shows another.

The main point of my article is that our ratio is much too high in (proinflammatory) omega-6 fatty acids and that advice to increase omega-3 fatty acids in the diet is needed. I did not address cancer, as the article was about cardiovascular effects, and this would have taken up more space than I was allowed.

I am quite concerned with the source and quality of omega-3 fatty acids, because these molecules are prone to oxidation and contamination. This is especially worrisome, as cardiovascular disease actually begins early in life (possibly in the perinatal period).6 Lifetime ingestion might mean more exposure to contaminants. Also, oxidized fatty acids are dangerous to our health. Lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress are also important factors.

After reviewing the world literature, most researchers (I include myself) remain convinced that an abundance of research supports the recommendation to supply more omega-3 in the diet. I hope this is helpful in clarifying this interesting and hotly debated area of medicine.

I would also like to thank Dr Daniels for his excellent question on omega-3 and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and a possible link to prostate cancer. How can we advise patients to increase their intake of ALA for its cardioprotective benefit when we put men at greater risk of prostate cancer? This concern was raised in the June issue of Patient Care.7

An excellent review of ALA and prostate cancer is in a little book called Flax—A Health and Nutrition Primer8 published by the Flax Council of Canada (http://www.flaxcouncil.ca). This lists 6 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies where some, but not all, show an increased risk of prostate cancer. The confounder in these studies (which usually use a food-frequency questionnaire) is that red meat is considered a source of ALA. Red meat has a very small amount of ALA; I did not include this in the list of sources of omega-3 fatty acids in my article. The Health Professionals Follow-up Study, cited in the Patient Care article,7 has shown a link between red meat consumption and prostate cancer. If you consider red meat a source of ALA, I think you can understand how they have come to the conclusion that ALA is linked to prostate cancer. In the same study, ALA from plant sources was not linked to prostate cancer.

Personally I do not think there is a link with plant sources of ALA and prostate cancer, but well designed studies need to be done. There are many unanswered questions.

Footnotes

e-mail

References

  • 1.Hooper L. [cited 2006 August 3]; doi: 10.1136/bmj.38755.366331.2F. Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.BMJ 2006;332:752-60; discussion available from: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7544/752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 2.Din JN. Omega 3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease—fishing for a natural treatment. BMJ. 2004;328:30–35. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7430.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schwalfenberg G. Omega-3 fatty acids. Their beneficial role in cardiovascular health. Can Fam Physician. 2006;52:734–740. Erratum in: Can Fam Physician 2006;52:952. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Studer M. Effect of different antilipidemic agents and diets on mortality: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(7):725–730. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.7.725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Simopoulos A. Omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acid ratio: the scientific evidence. World Rev Nutr Diet. 2003;92:1–174. doi: 10.1159/000073788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Genuis SJ. Time for an oil check: the role of essential omega-3 fatty acids in maternal and pediatric health. J Perinatol. 2006;26(6):359–365. doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Miller A. Benefits of flax. Patient Care. 2006;17(6):11. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Morris DH. Flax—a health and nutrition primer. Winnipeg, Man: Flax Council of Canada; 2003. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada

RESOURCES