omega-3s Archives - Health Tips From The Professor

Are Omega-3 Supplements Safe?

July 9, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Flaws And Blind Spots In This Study

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Has the omega-3 pendulum swung again? The recent headlines are downright scary. For example:

“Fish Oil May Increase the Risk of Stroke and Heart Conditions.”

“Fish Oil Supplements May Cause Harm, Study Finds. Is It Time to Ditch Them?”

“Fish Oil Supplements May Lead to Heart Problems”.

“Regular Use of Fish Oil Supplements Might Increase, Rather Than Lessen, The Risk of First Time Heart Disease and Stroke Among Those in Good Cardiovascular Health.”

Yikes! That sounds bad. Should we be thinking about giving up our omega-3 supplements?

But wait. Just a few weeks earlier we were reading headlines about the benefits and lack of side effects from omega-3 supplements. That’s confusing. Which headlines are correct?

To answer these questions:

I will review the study (G Chen et al, BMJ Medicine 2024; 3e000451.doi.10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000451) behind the headlines.

I will point out the flaws and blind spots in the study.

I will strip away the hyperbole and put the headlines into perspective.

How Was The Study Done?

The investigators made use of data from the UK Biobank Study. The UK Biobank Study is a large, long-term study in the United Kingdom which was designed to investigate the contributions of genetic predisposition and environmental exposure [including diet and supplementation] to the development of disease.

The UK Biobank Study enrolled 502,461 participants, aged 40-69 years, between January 1^st, 2006 and December 31^st, 2010. Participants were followed from entry into the program until March 31^st 2021, an average of 11.9 years.

The current study excluded any participants who had a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, heart failure, heart attack, stroke, or cancer at entry into the study, leaving 415,737 participants.

The participants were:

55% women.
Average age of 56 years, with 83.4% of them below 65 years old at entry into the study.
94.5% white.

The study was designed in a unique manner, in that it was designed to test the effect of omega-3 supplements on 6 specific transitions:

Primary prevention. This measured the transition of healthy (no diagnosed heart disease) people to either atrial fibrillation, major cardiovascular events, or death.

Secondary prevention. This measured the transition from atrial fibrillation to either major cardiovascular events or death.

Tertiary prevention. This measured the transition from major cardiovascular events to death.

Major cardiovascular events were further broken down to heart attacks, stroke and heart failure.

Participants were asked whether they used fish oil supplements when they entered the study and were categorized as either regular users or non-users. [Note: The users were not asked the dose or brand of fish oil supplements they used.]

Deaths were obtained from the national death registry and disease diagnosis from the National Health Service.

Are Omega-3 Supplements Safe?

Here is what the study found.

Primary Prevention – For healthy individuals (defined as having no diagnosed heart disease) using omega-3 supplements for an average of 11.9 years:

Increased the risk of atrial fibrillation by 13%.

Did not affect the risk of major cardiovascular events and death were unaffected by omega-3 supplementation.

When major cardiovascular events were broken down to their component parts, omega-3 supplementation:

- Decreased the risk of heart failure by 8%.

- Increased the risk of stroke by 5% (this was just barely statistically significance).

- Did not affect the risk of heart attack.

Secondary Prevention – For individuals with atrial fibrillation omega-3 supplementation:

Decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events by 9%.

Decreased the risk of death by 8%.

When major cardiovascular events were broken down into their component parts, omega-3 supplementation:

Decreased the risk of heart attacks by 15%.

Had no effect on the risk of stroke or heart failure.

Tertiary Prevention – For people who suffered major cardiovascular events during the study omega-3 supplementation:

Decreased the risk of death by 8%.

Since this is a very complex set of data, I have coded positive results in green and negative results in red.

And as if these complexities were not enough, when the investigators broke these effects down by population groups:

Omega-3 supplementation decreased the transition from healthy to death for men (7% decrease) and participants older than 65 (9% decrease).

I will discuss the significance of these observations below.

The authors concluded, “Regular use of fish oil supplements might be a risk factor for atrial fibrillation and stroke among the general population but could be beneficial for [reducing] progression of cardiovascular disease from atrial fibrillation to major adverse cardiovascular events, and from atrial fibrillation to death.”

In short, they were suggesting that omega-3 supplements should be avoided by the general population because they have no positive benefits and might increase the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke. But omega-3 supplements may be useful for those who already have heart disease.

Some of the articles you may have read about the study repeated this message. Others just emphasized the negative aspects of the study.

But is this message accurate? Let me start by discussing the flaws, blind spots, and hidden data in this study. Then I will summarize the 3 key findings of the study and tell you what they mean for you.

The Flaws, Blind Spots, And Hidden Data In This Study

Flaws: As I said above, there were two major flaws in the study.

Flaw #1: The study did not identify the dose of supplement used. This is important because the increased risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke is primarily seen in clinical trials using high dose omega-3 supplements.

Flaw #2: This was an association study which cannot prove cause and effect. However, the authors of this study reported it as showing that omega-3 supplement use caused atrial fibrillation and stroke – and all the news reports on the study have repeated that claim.

Flaw #3: Other experts have pointed out that the authors inflated the risks associated with omega-3 supplementation by reporting relative risk rather than absolute risk. Let me try to simplify the distinction.

The risk of atrial fibrillation was 4.24% in the non-supplement users and 4.80% in the omega-3 supplement users. That is an absolute increase in risk of 0.56% (4.80% – 4.24%). This is the increase in risk you actually experience. In contrast, 4.80% is 13% greater than 4.24%, which is how relative risk is calculated.

In response to the questions you are probably thinking:

Yes, this is a perfect example of the Mark Twain quote, “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics.”

Yes, all the percentages reported in this study are based on relative risk and are, therefore, inflated. However, I do not have access to their data, so I cannot tell you the absolute risk associated with their other observations.

Blind Spots: In their paper the investigators recommended against the use of omega-3 supplements to prevent heart disease because their data showed:

No benefit of omega-3 supplementation for preventing major cardiovascular events and deaths in a healthy population.

But did suggest an increased risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke in that same population.

However, their blind spot was in underestimating the difficulty of showing the benefit of any intervention in a healthy population. The example I always use is statin drugs. Statin Drugs:

Dramatically reduce the risk of a second heart attack and/or death in people who have already had a heart attack.

Reduce the risk of heart attacks in people who are at high risk of heart attacks.

Cannot be shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks in a healthy population.

This study suggests that omega-3 supplements are no different. In this study, omega-3 supplements:

Reduced the risk of death in people who had already experienced a major cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke.

Reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events and death in people with atrial fibrillation, which puts them at high risk for a heart attack or stroke.

Could not be shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events or deaths in a healthy population.

Hidden Data: There are some important data that were buried in the text and supplemental figures but were ignored in the concluding remarks of this study and all the articles written about it. For example:

The original study and all articles written about the study reported that omega-3 supplementation increased the risk of stroke in otherwise healthy individuals but ignored the observation that omega-3 supplementation decreased the risk of heart failure in that same group.

The second example of hidden data likely represents another blind spot of the authors. They concluded that omega-3 supplementation had no benefit for healthy individuals without asking whether omega-3 supplements might benefit higher-risk subpopulations within this group. To help you understand this statement let me start by giving you some perspective.

As I said above, statin drugs cannot be shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks in a healthy population. But when you include people at high risk of heart disease with healthy people in the dataset, you start to see a reduced risk of heart attacks.

Similarly, with supplements you often see no benefits with the general population, which is what is usually reported in the media. But when you look at higher risk groups within that population, the benefits of supplementation emerge.

This study is no different:

For healthy individuals, omega-3 supplementation had no effect on deaths during the 12-year follow-up period.

However, omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of death by 9% for both men and people ≥ 65. These represent two groups with elevated risk of heart disease within the otherwise healthy population.

Once again, these data were completely ignored.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study made 3 major points:

Point #1: Let me start with the one you’ve heard the most about. The risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke associated with omega-3 supplementation is real. We should not ignore it.

But what this study and most of the reports on the study didn’t tell you is that the risk is dose dependent. The risk is primarily seen with high doses of omega-3s. While no one has done a comprehensive dose response analysis, I can tell you that these side effects are:

Seldom reported in clinical studies at doses of 1 gm/day or less.
Sometimes reported in clinical studies at doses of ≥2 gm/day.
Frequently reported in clinical studies at doses of ≥4 gm/day.

However, atrial fibrillation and stroke occur in a very small percentage of omega-3 users, even at 4 gm/day. At this point we have no idea why some people are susceptible to these side effects and others are not. More research in this area is clearly needed.

Until we know more about who is at risk, my recommendation for people who are trying to reduce the risk of heart disease is to rely on something called the Omega-3 Index to determine your individual omega-3 needs rather than using high-dose omega-3 supplements.

The Omega-3 Index measures the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in your tissues. It is determined by the amount of omega-3s you consume and how you metabolize them, so it is individualized to you.

An Omega-3 Index of 4% is associated with a high risk of heart disease, while an Omega-3 Index of 8% is associated with a low risk of heart disease. There is no evidence that more than 8% provides additional benefit.

Most importantly, it only takes 1-1.6 gm/day of omega-3s to raise your Omega-3 Index from 4% to 8%. At these doses your risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke is extremely small.

For example, a recent meta-analysis of 29 studies with a total of 183,292 participants reported that people with an 8% Omega-3 Index had:

Decreased risk of ischemic stroke (stroke due to blood clots) with no detectable increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (stroke due to bleeding), and…

No detectable increased risk of atrial fibrillation.

I recommend getting your Omega-3 Index determined, and if it is low, increasing your omega-3 intake to get it into the 8% range. Some people go from 4% to 8% more rapidly than others, so you may need to repeat the test several times to optimize your Omega-3 Index.

If your health professional doesn’t have access to the Omega-3 Index test, you can order it from https://omegaquant.com (I have no financial stake in this company, but I know it as a reputable source of the Omega-3 Index test).

Does The Professor Plan To Reduce His Intake Of Omega-3 Fatty Acids? Three weeks ago, I shared that my wife and I have been taking around 3 gm/day of omega-3 supplements for the past 40 years. Now that the association of atrial fibrillation and stroke with high dose omega-3 intake has been firmly established, some of you may be wondering whether we plan to decrease our intake of omega-3 supplements.

The answer is, “No”. Remember that the increased risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke is only seen for a small subset of people taking high-dose omega-3 supplements. If we were part of that subset, we would likely have experienced one of those side effects by now.

However, if you are considering omega-3 supplementation for the first time, you don’t know whether you are part of that subset or not. So, my advice remains the same. Rely on optimizing your Omega-3 Index rather than high-dose omega-3 supplementation.

Point #2: Healthy individuals (those with no symptoms of heart disease) do not benefit from omega-3 supplementation. As I pointed out above, this ignores data from their study, namely.

Omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of heart failure in healthy subjects.

Omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of death in higher risk groups within the healthy population (namely men and people 65 and older).

As I discussed above, this is a pattern seen with statin drugs and most nutritional supplements. Simply put, you can’t show any benefit of statin drugs or most nutritional supplements in a “healthy” population, but you can show benefit when you focus on higher risk individuals within the “healthy” population.

The problem, of course, is that most of us don’t really know whether we are “healthy” or not. For millions of Americans the first indication that they are at risk from heart disease is sudden death from a heart attack or stroke.

With that in mind, I will leave the decision about whether you want to supplement with omega-3s up to you. But if you decide to supplement, I recommend you optimize your Omega-3 Index rather than using a high dose omega-3 supplement.

Point #3: People with heart disease benefit from omega-3 supplementation. This recommendation is becoming non-controversial, so I won’t comment further other than to say high dose omega-3 supplements are probably not needed unless prescribed by your health professional.

The Bottom Line

You have been asking me about recent headlines saying that omega-3 supplements may increase rather than decrease the risk of heart disease. So, I analyzed the study behind the headlines. The study makes 3 claims:

Omega-3 supplements increase the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke when taken by healthy people.

Omega-3 supplements are of no benefit for healthy individuals.

Omega-3 supplements are beneficial for people who have heart disease.

In the article above I review the flaws, blind spots, and hidden data in the article and discuss what it means for you.

For more details about this study and what it means for you read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years. Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Does EPA Reduce Migraine Frequency?

June 11, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Causes Migraines And The Role Of Omega-3s In Prevention

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Migraines can be debilitating. And they affect millions of Americans. According to a recent survey 17.1% of women and 5.6% of men in the United States suffer migraine symptoms.

Symptoms range from frequent headaches to visual disturbances, nausea and vomiting, extreme light and sound sensitivity, brain fog, and debilitating pain. Sometimes all a migraine sufferer can do is retreat to a dark, quiet room and wait out the symptoms. This makes it virtually impossible to work, socialize, and interact with family.

For example, work absenteeism due to migraines is thought to cost US businesses up to $13 billion dollars annually. And, of course, there is no way to estimate the psychological cost of lost interactions with family and friends. And people who experience frequent migraines are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders.

Medications can provide some relief from migraine symptoms, but they all have side effects. Various natural approaches for migraine relief have been proposed, but none of them are proven.

What Causes Migraines And The Role Of Omega-3s In Prevention

Our understanding of migraines is complicated by the fact there appear to be multiple causes of migraines. It’s almost as if what we call “migraines” are really a variety of diseases with different causes but similar symptoms.

Migraines can be triggered by:

Hormonal fluctuations.
Weather changes.
Foods
- The top 3 food triggers of migraines are caffeine, red wine, and chocolate.
- Other common food triggers are artificial sweeteners, foods containing MSG, cured meats, aged cheeses, pickled and fermented foods, frozen foods, and salty foods.
Stress
Lack of sleep.
Certain drugs.
Missed meals.

Migraine triggers vary from person to person. And multiple neurophysiological pathways have been proposed to explain how each of these triggers progresses to a full-blown migraine.

To simplify a very complex subject, there are three main factors that influence each of these proposed pathways:

Susceptibility to migraines clearly runs in families.

75% of migraine sufferers are women.

Inflammation.

Because inflammation plays a strong role in progression and severity of migraines, there has been a strong interest in the use of long-chain omega-3s like EPA and DHA as nutraceuticals to reduce the frequency and severity of migraines.

However, previous studies have had mixed results. Some have suggested that omega-3s reduce the risk of migraines while others have come up empty.

The authors of the current study (H-F Wang, et al, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 118, 459-467, 2024) postulated that some previous studies failed to find a benefit of omega-3 supplementation because they were too short in duration, used a mixture of omega-3s, or were poorly designed.

They noted that high dose EPA alone had proven to be effective in reducing the risk of heart disease and depression. So, they performed a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with migraine sufferers using 1.8 grams of EPA per day.

How Was This Study Done?

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the gold standard for clinical studies. The investigators recruited 70 patients (15 men and 55 women) with episodic migraines (defined as migraines with or without aura occurring fewer than 15 days per month) from the neurology clinic of Kuang Tien General Hospital in Taiwan. The average age of the patients was 39 years old.

The subjects were randomly assigned to use either 1.8 gm/day of EPA or a soybean oil placebo for 12 weeks. Both were formulated with an orange flavoring to hide the taste difference. Neither the patients nor the physicians conducting the study knew who got the EPA and who got the placebo.

The patients filled out an extensive questionnaire about their migraines and related issues at entry into the study and at the end of 12 weeks. They were also asked to maintain headache diaries for at least 4 weeks prior to the study and for every 4 weeks of the 12-week study. They received training from the study coordinator on how to fill out the diaries and were encouraged to contact the coordinator if they had any questions about how to accurately fill out the diary.

The primary outcome of the study was the decrease in migraine frequency from baseline to 12 weeks. The study also assessed changes in:

Headache severity.

The need to use headache medicines.

Migraine-specific disability (The extent to which migraines resulted in disability).

Migraine-specific quality of life index (The extent to which migraines affected the quality of life).

Anxiety and depression (These are often side effects of chronic migraines).

While some of those outcomes appear to be overlapping, they are all well-established assessments used in migraine research. The questionnaire the doctors used was designed to provide a numerical rating for each of these outcomes.

Does EPA Reduce Migraine Frequency?

As expected, there were no significant changes in the placebo group. But in the group taking 1.8 gm/day of EPA:

Migraine frequency decreased by 60%.

Frequency that headache medication was needed decreased by 45%.

Headache severity decreased by 14%.

Sleep quality increased by 17%, but that increase was not statistically significant.

Migraine-related disability decreased by 73%.

Migraine-related quality of life improved by 31%.

Anxiety and depression decreased by 53%.

These differences were statistically significant for the women in the study, but not for men – probably because of the small number of men in the study.

The study also assessed side effects from EPA supplementation in this group. Side effects were minimal and were not different from the placebo group.

The authors concluded, “High-dose EPA significantly reduced migraine frequency and severity. Improved psychological symptoms and quality of life in migraine patients, and showed no adverse events [effects], suggesting its potential for prophylactic use for migraine patients.”

They went on to say, “The results of this study may not only serve as a valuable reference for future large-scale randomized clinical trials to investigate the optimal dosing and components of omega-3 fatty acids for migraine prevention but also underscore the need for replication of these findings in adequately powered and controlled studies.”

In other words, this study needs to be confirmed by additional studies. And future studies need to determine the optimal dose of EPA and the optimal ratio of EPA to DHA.

What This Study Means For Us And For You

The topic of omega-3s and migraines is of special significance for us. About 40 years ago my wife and I started taking a high purity omega-3 supplement containing both EPA and DHA to control inflammation. We didn’t have noticeable inflammation at the time, but we both had parents who suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and wished to avoid their suffering later in life.

In just a few weeks the migraines my wife had been experiencing for years disappeared. That piqued my interest, so I searched the literature and found several studies showing that omega-3 fatty acids reduce migraine symptoms. I have followed the twists and turns of omega-3 – migraine research ever since, which is how I came across this study.

As for our original purpose in taking an omega-3 supplement, all I can say is that we are now in our 80s, and neither of us suffer from the rheumatoid arthritis that plagued our parents.

And for my wife the disappearance of her migraines was an unexpected side benefit.

This study is a strong validation of the effect of omega-3s on reducing migraine symptoms. However, it is not the end of the story. As the authors said:

It needs to be confirmed by larger, well controlled studies.

The optimal dose of omega-3s needs to be determined.

The optimal ratio of EPA to DHA and possibly other long chain omega-3s needs to be determined.

This study used 1.8 grams/day of pure EPA. My wife takes 3 grams of EPA and 2 grams of DHA each day. But we don’t know whether she would experience the same benefit from a lower dose or whether that is the optimal ratio of EPA to DHA. We do know that EPA and DHA have different health benefits, so we plan to continue taking a supplement that contains both.

And finally, as I said above, it is almost as if what we call migraines are really a cluster of diseases with similar symptoms. There are multiple migraine triggers and multiple proposed explanations of how these triggers lead to full-blown migraines.

So, we shouldn’t think of omega-3s as a magic bullet. Rather, we should think of them as one of many approaches that may provide you with some migraine relief.

The Bottom Line

A recent double-blind, placebo controlled clinical study with migraine sufferers reported that when they were given 1.8 gm/day of EPA for 12 weeks:

Migraine frequency decreased by 60%.

Frequency that headache medication was needed decreased by 45%.

Headache severity decreased by 14%.

Migraine-related disability decreased by 73%.

Migraine-related quality of life improved by 31%.

Anxiety and depression decreased by 53%.

In other words, this study needs to be confirmed by additional studies. And future studies need to determine the optimal dose of EPA and the optimal ratio of EPA to DHA.

For more details about this study and what it means for you read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

____________________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Do Omega-3s Reduce Osteoarthritis Pain?

April 16, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Do Rheumatoid And Osteoarthritis Differ?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

This week I am concluding my series on recent omega-3 advances by reviewing a meta-analysis that asks whether omega-3s are beneficial for people with osteoarthritis.

This is an important question because osteoarthritis affects around 32.5 million adults in the United States, and that number is increasing each year as our population ages. Osteoarthritis causes pain and disabilities that can significantly affect quality of life.

And the costs are high. Health care costs due to osteoporosis are around $140 billion/year. And when you include lost workdays, the annual cost is around $468 billion.

There are several medications for reducing symptoms of osteoarthritis. But they each have side effects and some patients cannot tolerate them. Joint replacement surgery is the final resort. But the recovery period is long, and the surgery isn’t always effective. For both reasons many patients with osteoarthritis are looking for natural solutions.

Most of the research on omega-3s and arthritis has been done with patients who have rheumatoid arthritis. Omega-3 supplements have been shown to reduce the pain, swelling of the joints, and inflammation associated with rheumatoid arthritis for many people with the disease.

Based on several dose-response studies, the NIH says the optimal dose is around 2.7 gm/day of EPA + DHA but cautions not to go above 3 gm/day without your doctor’s OK.

The evidence is less clear for omega-3s and osteoarthritis. Some studies suggest that EPA + DHA reduce the pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis. But other studies have come up empty. There is no consensus as to whether omega-3s are beneficial for people with osteoarthritis.

When there is disagreement between individual studies, a meta-analysis of the studies is often helpful. By pooling the data from multiple studies, a meta-analysis can smooth out some of the differences between the studies and accumulate enough data points to discover effects that would not have been statistically significant with the smaller data sets from individual studies.

With that in mind, the authors of this manuscript (W Den et al, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 18: 381, 3023) performed a meta-analysis on the data obtained from 9 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at the effect of omega-3s versus a placebo on both pain and joint mobility in osteoarthritis patients.

How Do Rheumatoid And Osteoarthritis Differ?

While the causes of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis are very different, there are some underlying similarities between the two diseases that suggest both might benefit from omega-3 supplementation.

Rheumatoid Arthritis: Rheumatoid arthritis is thought to be an autoimmune disease, which means that our immune system attacks our cells rather than foreign invaders. It results in chronic inflammation that attacks our joints and can affect other tissues in our body.

It initially affects the lining of our joints which can result in painful, swollen joints. As the disease progresses it can also lead to bone erosion and joint deformity.

Osteoarthritis:Osteoarthritis is generally thought of as a “wear and tear” disease. It is associated with sports injuries and accidents. It is also associated with stress to particular joints due to repeated motions associated with either sports or a job. Obesity also increases wear and tear of the joints because it increases the load on the joints.

The wear and tear causes the cartilage that cushions the junction between bones to deteriorate. Eventually, the cartilage deteriorates to the extent that bone is grinding against bone, which can lead to bone loss and deformities.

Eventually, this results in an inflammation of the joint lining which causes pain and accelerates bone loss. It also causes deterioration of the connective tissue which holds bones together and connects them to muscle.

What Do These Diseases Have In Common? Inflammation is the common factor associated with both rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, and many studies suggest that omega-3s reduce inflammation. In the simplistic description of the two diseases I shared above, it sounds like inflammation occurs much earlier in the disease process for rheumatoid arthritis than for osteoarthritis. This might suggest that omega-3s could be more effective at reducing the symptoms and progression of rheumatoid arthritis than of osteoarthritis.

However, we know that the risk of developing osteoarthritis is increased by chronic inflammation caused by obesity, diseases like diabetes, and/or an inflammatory diet.

How Was This Study Done?

This study was a meta-analysis of 9 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies looking at the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the pain and loss of joint mobility associated with osteoarthritis. These studies were performed in countries from around the world and included a total of 2,070 participants.

The criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis were:

1) The articles were written in English.

2) The studies had to be double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (The gold standard for clinical studies).

3) Patients with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention group receiving omega-3 supplementation or a placebo group receiving olive oil or another plant oil.

4) The studies measured efficacy and safety outcomes including joint pain (efficacy), joint mobility (efficacy), and treatment-related adverse events (safety).

5) Patients in both the omega-3 and placebo groups were using medications to reduce osteoarthritis symptoms when they were enrolled in the study and were advised to continue with their prescribed medicines for the duration of the study.

The characteristics of the clinical studies included in this meta-analysis were:

Sample size (47-1221), Average = 230.

Mean age (55.9-68), Average = 63.

% men (13.8-45.1%), Average = 31%.

Omega-3 (EPA + DHA) dose (350 mg/day – 2,400 mg/day), Average = 1,085 mg/day.

Do Omega-3s Reduce Osteoarthritis Pain?

When the data from all 9 studies were combined in a single meta-analysis, omega-3 (EPA + DHA) supplementation:

Reduced joint pain by 29% compared to the placebo.

Increased joint mobility by 21% compared to the placebo.

Was not associated with any adverse effects.

The authors concluded, “The results of the meta-analysis indicate that supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids is effective to relieve pain and improve joint function in patients with osteoarthritis, without increasing the risk of treatment-related adverse events. These findings support the use on omega-3 fatty acid supplementation as an alternative treatment for osteoarthritis.”

What Are The Strengths and Limitations Of This Study?

Strengths:

All the studies included in this meta-analysis were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (the gold standard for clinical trials).

All the individual studies that qualified for this meta-analysis found that omega-3 supplementation reduced joint pain and improved joint mobility. This improves confidence that the conclusions of the meta-analysis are correct. The meta-analysis simply improved the statistical significance of this conclusion by combining the data from the individual studies.

Limitations:

The biggest limitation was that the individual studies included in this meta-analysis were not performed under the guidelines of the “Fatty Acids and Outcomes Research Consortium” that I discussed in last week’s issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

- The “Fatty Acids and Outcomes Research Consortium” guidelines harmonize the designs of individual studies, which strengthens the meta-analysis.

- - In contrast, the design of the individual studies within this meta-analysis was very different, which prevented the meta-analysis from being able to determine the optimal dose of omega-3 supplements and the minimum time required for omega-3 supplementation to significantly reduce the symptoms of osteoarthritis.

- The “Fatty Acids and Outcomes Research Consortium” guidelines would have also required these studies to measure tissue levels of omega-3s (something called Omega-3 Index) at the beginning and end of each study. This was not done in any of these studies.

- - This is important because if a patient’s tissue levels of omega-3s at the beginning of the study were already in the optimal range, you would expect little additional benefit from supplementation for that patient.

All the individual studies were very small. This limits the ability of these studies to provide definitive conclusions. Unfortunately, this is probably unavoidable.

- Double blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies are expensive. Only major pharmaceutical companies have the multi-million-dollar budgets required to conduct large double blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies that would provide more definitive evidence that omega-3 supplementation reduces the symptoms of osteoarthritis – and the follow-up studies that would determine the optimal dose of omega-3 supplements and the minimum time required to show an effect of omega-3 supplementation.

The patients in these studies were already taking medications to reduce their osteoarthritis symptoms prior to entering the study and were instructed to continue taking those medications during the study. This means that the studies were not asking whether omega-3s alone were effective at reducing osteoarthritis symptoms. They were asking whether omega-3 supplementation provided any additional benefits for people who were already taking medications to reduce symptoms.

- Unfortunately, this is also probably unavoidable. Current guidelines consider it unethical to withhold the medical “standard of care” from any patient in a clinical trial.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study, while not definitive, strengthens the evidence that omega-3 supplements containing EPA + DHA may reduce joint pain and improve joint mobility for people with osteoarthritis. It also shows that the doses required to achieve these benefits are not associated with any significant side effects.

While large scale double blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies to confirm these conclusions would be nice, they are unlikely to occur for the reasons discussed above.

The investigators said, “[This study shows that] supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids is effective to relieve pain and improve joint function in patients with osteoarthritis…These findings support the use of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation as an alternative treatment for osteoarthritis.”

This might lead you to believe that omega-3 fatty acids can potentially replace medications for reducing osteoarthritis pain and loss of joint mobility. That may be true, but that is not what the study showed.

Patients in both the omega-3 and placebo group continued their prescribed medicines for osteoarthritis. In reality, the study only shows that omega-3s provide additional benefit for people already taking osteoarthritis medications. The effect of omega-3 supplements by themselves has not been tested and, as I discussed above, is not likely to be tested in the foreseeable future.

However, the use of omega-3 supplements may allow you to reduce or eliminate the medications you are on for osteoarthritis and may delay the need for joint replacement surgery. Of course, if you wish to reduce/eliminate your medications and/or delay joint replacement surgery, I recommend consulting with your doctor first.

Finally, this study provides no information on the optimal dose of omega-3s. Some studies suggest the dose of omega-3s needed to reduce osteoarthritis symptoms may be less than that required to reduce rheumatoid arthritis symptoms, but that evidence is weak.

In the absence of good dose response data, I recommend you aim for an omega-3 index of 8%. You will find a more detailed discussion of the Omega-3 Index and how to use it in last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” article .

The Bottom Line

A recent meta-analysis looked at the effect of omega-3 supplementation on the pain and lack of joint mobility associated with osteoarthritis.

The study showed that omega-3 (EPA + DHA) supplementation:

Reduced joint pain by 29% compared to the placebo.

Increased joint mobility by 21% compared to the placebo.

Was not associated with any adverse effects.

For more details about the study and what it means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

_____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

How Much Omega-3s Are Best For Blood Pressure?

April 2, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I am continuing my series on recent omega-3 breakthroughs. Today I am going to cover a recent systematic review and meta-analysis (X Zhang et al, Journal of the American Heart Association, 11: e025071, 2022) that analyzed 71 double blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies with 4,973 subjects to determine the optimal dose of omega-3s needed to lower blood pressure.

But first, I will cover why this study is so important.

High blood pressure is called a “silent killer”. For most of us our blood pressure creeps up year after year, decade after decade. Factors like inactivity, obesity, smoking, poor diet, and excess alcohol consumption speed the increase.

Unfortunately, the symptoms of high blood pressure – things like headaches, anxiety, fatigue, and blurred vision – are easy to ignore or confuse with other health problems. And if these symptoms are ignored long enough, the result can be sudden death due to a stroke or heart attack.

Alternately, the consequence could be things like congestive heart failure, kidney failure, vision loss, and memory loss that change your quality of life forever. And once the genie is out of the bottle, it can never be put back again. The damage is permanent.

Omega-3s are often recommended for keeping blood pressure in the normal range. In fact, in 2019 the FDA approved a qualified health claim stating, “Consuming eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) omega-3 fatty acids in food or dietary supplements may reduce the risk of hypertension (high blood pressure) and coronary heart disease.”

But the amount of omega-3s needed to reduce the risk of high blood pressure is uncertain. Previous studies have come up with conflicting results. That is the question the study I will discuss today was designed to answer.

How Was This Study Done?

The investigators included 71 studies published between 1987 and 2020 with a total of 4,793 subjects ranging in age from 22 to 86 years in their systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies were all randomized, placebo-controlled trials looking at the effectiveness of omega-3 intake (primarily in the form of food or supplements containing both EPA and DHA) at lowering blood pressure. The placebo used in these studies was olive oil or other vegetable oils.

The studies included in this meta-analysis:

Included omega-3 intake from both diet (mackerel, salmon, trout, or tuna) and supplements (fish oil, algal oil, or purified omega-3 ethyl esters).

Were conducted in populations from Europe, North America, Australia and other Pacific islands, and Asia.

Included subjects with normal blood pressure as well as those with high blood pressure.

Ranged in length from 5 to 52 weeks (the average was 10 weeks).

Included approximately equal numbers of men and women.

The meta-analysis excluded studies that:

Lacked a placebo.

Lasted less than 4 weeks.

Included blood pressure medications.

Included individuals with preexisting cardiovascular events.

The data from these trials was analyzed by a statistical method called a 1-stage cubic spline regression model. This is a recently developed statistical method which the investigators stated was superior to the statistical methods used in previous studies because it reduces the likelihood the results are influenced by investigator bias.

How Much Omega-3s Are Best For Blood Pressure?

When the investigators combined the data from all 71 studies:

The maximum reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure was observed between 2g/d and 3 g/d.

The dose response was non-linear. Doses above 3 g/d offered no additional benefit.

When the investigators looked at subgroups within the studies:

Reduction in blood pressure was seen in both subjects with normal blood pressure and those with high blood pressure.

- However, reduction in blood pressure and the dose response were different in the two groups.

- - In subjects with normal blood pressure the dose response was non-linear with the optimum reduction between 2 and 3 g/d.

- - In subjects with high blood pressure the reduction in blood pressure was greater and the dose response was linear. The authors recommended a dose ≤ 3 g/d EPA + DHA for people with high blood pressure.

Subjects with hyperlipidemia had a greater reduction in blood pressure than subjects with normal lipid levels, and the dose-response was linear.

Subjects over the age of 45 had a greater reduction in blood pressure than subjects under the age of 45, and the dose response was linear.

There were no significant differences between:

- Diet versus supplementation.

- Type of omega-3 supplement (natural fish oil versus purified ethyl ester).

- Sex.

The authors concluded, “This dose-response meta-analysis demonstrates that the optimal combined intake of omega-3 fatty acids for blood pressure lowering is likely between 2 g/d and 3 g/d. Doses of omega-3 fatty acid intake above the recommended 3 g/d may be associated with additional benefits in lowering blood pressure among groups at high risk of cardiovascular disease.”

I should probably explain the reasoning behind this conclusion.

79% of the studies included in this meta-analysis were performed with subjects who had normal blood pressure. This group had a non-linear reduction in blood pressure with an optimal reduction between 2 and 3 g/d EPA + DHA.

- Because of its size this group exerted a major influence on the results, which explains why the average results for the entire group showed a non-linear reduction in blood pressure with an optimal reduction between 2 and 3 g/d EPA + DHA.

- Subjects with normal blood pressure and normal lipid levels are at low risk of cardiovascular disease. The high-risk groups (high blood pressure, high cholesterol and/or triglyceride levels, and over 45) all had a linear dose response suggesting that doses above 3 g/d EPA + DHA may be optimal.

The authors also said, “We found associations [between omega-3 intake and blood pressure] among both hypertensive (high blood pressure) and nonhypertensive (normal blood pressure) groups, suggesting that omega-3 fatty acids could be beneficial for controlling blood pressure even before the onset of hypertension.

This means that the intake of omega3 fatty acids could have implications on a person’s future risk of stroke, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality.”

In other words, they are saying their data suggests that EPA + DHA intakes in the 2-3 g/d range may prevent high blood pressure and the effects it can have on our health.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

The authors of this study claim their data support a dose of 2-3 mg/d of EPA + DHA to prevent a future increase in blood pressure and all its associated health consequences. They also say that an EPA+ DHA dose ≥ 3g/d may be optimal for people who already have high blood pressure and/or other risk factors for heart disease.

I am not an expert on statistics, so I cannot evaluate the author’s claim that their statistical method was superior to the methods used in earlier studies that gave conflicting results.

However, their results are consistent with recommendations of several major health and government agencies.

For example, the European Food Safety Authority has said, “An intake of EPA and DHA of ~3 g/d is required to bring out the claimed hypotensive (blood pressure lowering) effect”.

The FDA has approved qualified health claims stating that consuming EPA and DHA in foods or dietary supplements may reduce the risk of hypertension (high blood pressure) and coronary heart disease but did not recommend a dose to achieve these results.

The American Heart Association has recommended ~ 1 g/d of EPA + DHA for patients with documented coronary heart disease and 2–4 g/day of EPA + DHA to lower triglycerides.

And the American Heart Association features this article on their website with the headline, “Consuming about 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids a day may lower blood pressure.”

When we contrast that with the fact that the average American gets less than 100 mg/d of EPA + DHA from their diet it is obvious that many Americans would likely benefit from increasing the amount of EPA and DHA in their diet.

The Rest Of The Story

There are four additional points I would like to make:

In trying to explain the differences between dose response in high and low risk subjects, the authors said, “There could be mechanistic differences in bioavailability and efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid intake in these populations.”

In last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” article I reviewed a study that measured individual differences in the utilization of EPA and DHA and concluded that a blood measurement called Omega-3 Index was a more reliable indicator of health outcomes than the dose of omega-3s consumed.

For that reason, I recommend personalizing your dose of EPA + DHA to reach an Omega-3 Index of 8%, which appears to be optimal for heart health and provides significant blood pressure reduction. This is an iterative process which will require frequent measurement of your omega-3 index and adjustment of EPA + DHA dose until you find the level of EPA + DHA supplementation you need to achieve an Omega-3 Index of 8%.

This study and similar studies measure the health benefits of the long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Short chain omega-3s from nuts, seeds, and plant oils are healthy, but their conversion to EPA and DHA is very inefficient.

Both the FDA and American Heart Association recommend that doses of EPA + DHA above 3 g/d should be taken under a physician’s supervision because high doses can cause bleeding problems.

This is another reason for basing your intake of EPA + DHA on Omega-3 Index rather than on the dose recommended by a clinical study. Based on dozens of clinical studies, an Omega-3 Index of 8% appears to be safe unless you have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood-thinning medication (see below).

If you are on a medication to thin your blood, you should consult with your physician before increasing or decreasing your omega-3 intake because changes in dietary omega-3s can affect the optimal dose of medication they prescribe.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the dose of EPA + DHA needed to lower blood pressure.

The study concluded that a dose of 2-3 mg/d of EPA + DHA was optimal for preventing a future increase in blood pressure and all its associated health consequences.

It also concluded that an EPA+ DHA dose ≥ 3g/d was optimal for lowering blood pressure in people who already have high blood pressure and/or other risk factors for heart disease.

Based on previous studies, I recommend optimizing your omega-3 index rather than relying on a dose of EPA + DHA that may not be right for you.

For more details about this study and what it means to you read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

About The Author

Do Omega-3s Improve Recovery From A Heart Attack?

March 26, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Where Do We Go From Here?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Despite years of controversy, the benefits of omega-3s remain an active area of research. Over the next few weeks, I will review several groundbreaking omega-3 studies. This week I will focus on omega-3s and heart health.

I don’t need to tell you that the effect of omega-3s on heart health is controversial. One month a new study is published showing an amazing health benefit from omega-3 supplementation. A month or two later another study comes up empty. It finds no benefit from omega-3 supplementation.

That leads to confusion. On one hand you have websites and blogs claiming that omega-3s are a magic elixir that will cure all your ills. On the other hand, there are the naysayers, including many health professionals, claiming that omega-3 supplements are worthless.

I have discussed the reasons for the conflicting results from omega-3 clinical studies in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. You can go to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and put omega-3s in the search box to read some of these articles.

Or if you prefer, I have also put together a digital download I call “The Omega-3 Pendulum” which briefly summarizes all my previous articles. It’s available on my Chaney Health School Teachable website.

Today I will discuss a study (B Bernhard et al, International Journal of Cardiology, 399; 131698, 2024) that asks whether 6 months of high dose omega-3 supplementation following a heart attack reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events over the next 6.6 years.

You might be wondering why the study didn’t just look at the effect of continuous omega-3 supplementation for 6 years following a heart attack. There are two very good reasons for the design of the current study.

1) The investigators wanted to do a double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial, the gold standard for clinical studies. However, that kind of study is impractical for a multi-year clinical trial. It would be prohibitively expensive, and patient compliance would be a big problem for a study that long.

2) The months immediately after a heart attack are critical in determining the long-term recovery of that patient. There is often a period of massive inflammation following a heart attack. And that can lead to further damage to the heart and reclosing of the arteries leading to the heart, both of which increase the risk of future adverse cardiac events.

Previous studies have shown that high dose omega-3s immediately following a heart attack can reduce inflammation and damage to the heart. However, those studies did not determine whether the cardioprotective effect of omega-3 supplementation immediately after a heart attack lead to improved long-term outcomes, something this study was designed to determine.

How Was The Study Done?

The investigators enrolled 358 patients who had suffered a heart attack from three Boston area medical centers between June 2008 and August 2012.

The patient demographics were:

Gender = 70% female.
Average age = 59
Average BMI = 29 (borderline obese).
Patients with high blood pressure = 64%
Patients with diabetes = 25%.

The patients were divided into two groups. The first group received capsules providing 4 gm/day of EPA, DHA, and other naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acids. The other group received a placebo containing corn oil. This was a double-blind study. Neither the patients nor the investigators knew which patients received the omega-3 fatty acids and which ones received the placebo.

The patients were instructed to take their assigned capsules daily for 6 months. At the beginning of the study, blood samples were withdrawn to determine the percentage of omega-3s in the fatty acid content of their red cell membranes (something called omega-3 index). Patients were also tested for insulin resistance and given a complete cardiovascular workup. This was repeated at the end of the 6-month study.

[Note: Previous studies have shown that an omega-3 index of 4% or lower is associated with high risk of heart disease, and an omega-3 index of 8% or above is associated with a low risk of heart disease.]

At 2-month intervals the patients were contacted by staff using a scripted interview to determine compliance with the protocol and their cardiovascular health. Once the 6 months of omega-3 supplementation was completed, the patients were followed for an additional 6.6 years. They were contacted every 6 months for the first 3 years and yearly between 3 years and 6 years.

The investigators quantified the number of major cardiac events (defined as recurrent heart attacks, the necessity for recurrent coronary artery bypass grafts, hospitalizations for heart failure, and all-cause deaths) for each patient during the 6.6-year follow-up period.

Patients in both groups were treated according to current “standard of care” protocols which consisted of diet and exercise advice and 5-6 drugs to reduce future cardiovascular events.

Do Omega-3s Improve Recovery From A Heart Attack?

When the investigators looked at the incidence of adverse cardiac events during the 6.6-year follow-up period, there were three significant findings from this study.

1) There were no adverse effects during the 6-month supplementation period with 4 gm/day of omega-3s. This is significant because a previous study with 4 gm/day of high purity EPA had reported some adverse effects which had led some critics to warn that omega-3 supplementation was dangerous. More study is needed, but my hypothesis is that this study did not have side effects because it used a mixture of all naturally occurring omega-3s rather than high purity EPA only.

However, this could also have been because of the way patients were screened before entering this study. I will discuss this in more detail below.

2) When the investigators simply compared the omega-3 group with the placebo group there was no difference in cardiovascular outcomes between the two groups. This may have been because this study faced significant “headwinds” that made it difficult show any benefit from supplementation. I call them “headwinds” rather than design flaws because they were unavoidable.

- It would be unethical to deny the standard of care to any patient who has just had a heart attack. That means that every patient in a study like this will be on multiple drugs that duplicate the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids – including lowering blood pressure, lowering triglycerides, reducing inflammation, and reducing plaque buildup and blood clot formation in the coronary arteries.

That means that this study, and studies like it, cannot determine whether omega-3 fatty acids improve recovery from a heart attack. They can only ask whether omega-3 fatty acids have any additional benefit for patients on multiple drugs that duplicate many of the effects of omega-3 fatty acids. That significantly reduces the risk of a positive outcome.

- As I mentioned above, it would have been impractical to continue providing omega-3 supplements and placebos during the 6.6-year follow-up.

And the study was blinded, meaning that the investigators did not know which patients got the omega-3s and which patients got the placebo. That meant the investigators could not advise the omega-3 supplement users to continue omega-3 supplementation during the follow-up period.

Consequently, the study could only ask if 6 months of high-dose omega-3 supplementation had a measurable benefit 6.6 years later. I, for one, would be more interested in knowing whether lower dose omega-3 supplementation continued for the duration of this study reduced the risk of major coronary events.

3) When the investigators compared patients who achieved a significant increase in their omega-3 index during the 6-month supplementation period with those who didn’t, they found a significant benefit of omega-3 supplementation.

This was perhaps the most significant finding from this study.

If the investigators had stopped by simply comparing omega-3 users to the placebo, this would have been just another negative study. We would be wondering why it did not show any benefit of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation.

However, these investigators were experts on the omega-3 index. They knew that there was considerable individual variability in the efficiency of omega-3 uptake and incorporation into cell membranes. In short, they knew that not everyone taking a particular dose of omega-3s will achieve the same omega-3 index.

And that is exactly what they saw in this study. All the patients in the 6-month omega-3 group experienced an increase in omega-3 index, but there was considerable variability in how much the omega-3 index increased over 6 months.

So, the investigators divided the omega-3 group into two subgroups – ones whose omega-3 index increased by ≥ 5 percentage points (sufficient to move those patients from high risk of heart disease to low risk) and ones whose omega-3 index increased by less than 5 percentage points.

When the investigators compared patients with ≥ 5% increase in omega-3 index to those with <5% increase in omega-3 index:

Those with an increase in omega-3 index of ≥ 5% had a 2.9% annual risk of suffering major adverse cardiac events compared to a 7.1% annual risk for those with an increase of <5%.

That’s a risk reduction of almost 60%, and it was highly significant.

The authors concluded, “In a long-term follow-up study, treatment with [high dose] omega-3s for 6 months following a heart attack did not reduce adverse cardiac events compared to placebo. However, those patients who were treated with omega-3s and achieved ≥ 5% rise in omega-3 index experienced a significant reduction of adverse cardiac events after a median follow-up period of 6.6 years…Additional studies are needed to confirm this association and may help identify who may benefit from omega-3 fatty acid treatment following a heart attack.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

I should start by saying that I do not recommend 4 gm/day of omega-3 fatty acids following a heart attack without checking with your doctor first.

If you are on a blood thinning medication, the dose of either the medication or the omega-3 supplement may need to be reduced to prevent complications due to excess bleeding.

In addition, the investigators excluded patients from this study who might suffer adverse effects from omega-3 supplementation. This is a judgement only your doctor can make.

With that advice out of the way, the most important takeaway from this study is that uptake and utilization of omega-3 fatty acids varies from individual to individual.

The omega-3 index is a measure of how well any individual absorbs and utilizes dietary omega-3s. And this study shows that the omega-3 index is a much better predictor of heart health outcomes than the amount of omega-3 fatty acids a person consumes.

This is not surprising because multiple studies have shown that the omega-3 index correlates with heart health outcomes. It may also explain why many studies based on omega-3 intake only have failed to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation.

Vitamin D supplementation is a similar story. There is also considerable variability in the uptake of vitamin D and conversion to its active form in the body. 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in the blood are a marker for active vitamin D. For that reason, I have long recommended that you get your 25-hydroxy vitamin D level tested with your annual physical and, with your doctor’s help, base the dose of the vitamin D supplement you use on that test.

This study suggests that we may also want to request an omega-3 index test and use it to determine the amount of supplemental omega-3s we add to our diet.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The idea that we need to use the omega-3 index to determine the effectiveness of the omega-3 supplement we use is novel. As the authors suggest, we need more studies to confirm this effect. There are already many studies showing a correlation of omega-3 index with heart health outcomes. But we need more double blind, placebo-controlled studies like this one.

More importantly, we need to understand what determines the efficiency of supplemental fatty acid utilization so we can predict and possibly improve omega-3 utilization. The authors suggested that certain genetic variants might affect the efficiency of omega-3 utilization. But the variability of omega-3 utilization could also be affected by:

Diet, especially the presence of other fats in the diet.

Metabolic differences due to obesity and diseases like diabetes.

Gender, ethnicity, and age.

Design of the omega-3 supplement.

We need much more research in these areas, so we can personalize and optimize omega-3 supplementation on an individual basis.

The Bottom Line

A recent study asked whether high dose omega-3 supplementation for 6 months following a heart attack reduced major cardiac events during the next 6.6 years.

When they simply compared omega-3 supplementation with the placebo there was no effect of omega-3 supplementation on cardiac outcomes.

However, when they based their comparison on the omega-3 index (a measure of how efficiently the omega-3s were absorbed and incorporated into cell membranes), the group with the highest omega-3 index experienced a 60% reduction in adverse cardiac events over the next 6.6 years.

This is consistent with multiple studies showing that the omega-3 index correlates with heart health outcomes.

More importantly, this study shows there is significant individual variation in the efficiency of omega-3 absorption and utilization. It also suggests that recommendations for omega-3 supplementation should be based on the omega-3 index achieved rather than the dose or form of the omega-3 supplement.

For more information on this study and what it means for you read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Do Omega-3s Reduce Cognitive Decline?

October 31, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Should You Supplement With Omega-3s?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Do omega-3s reduce cognitive decline, or is this another nutrition myth?

There is certainly good reason to believe that the long chain omega-3s EPA and DHA are good for brain health.

DHA is an essential part of the membrane that coats our neurons. As such, it is a major component of our brains and plays an important role in its structural integrity.

While EPA is not found in the brain it reduces inflammation and improves blood flow to the brain, both of which are important for brain health.

But the role of DHA and EPA in reducing cognitive decline remains controversial. Some studies strongly support their role in slowing cognitive decline while other studies find no effect.

So, the question remains, “Do omega-3s reduce cognitive decline or not?”

The study (B-Z Wei et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 117: 1096-1109, 2023) I will review today was designed to answer that question.

This study supports the hypothesis that omega-3s, especially DHA and EPA, reduce cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. But it also raises several questions that need to be resolved by future studies.

Why Is The Effect Of Omega-3s On Cognitive Decline Controversial?

Why is it so difficult to come up with definitive answers about whether omega-3s reduce cognitive decline? It is probably because the relationship between omega-3s and brain health is complex. For example:

Because omega-3’s beneficial effects are widely publicized, many people are already consuming adequate amounts of omega-3s. A supplement study that does not measure the omega-3 status of participants at the beginning of the study and does not focus on participants with inadequate omega-3 status is doomed to failure.

Omega-3s may benefit older people more than younger people. A study that is not large enough to measure the effect of omega-3s on both groups is doomed to failure.

The APOE ɛ4 genotype is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s. Some studies suggest omega-3s are more beneficial for people with the APOE ɛ4 genotype, while other studies come to the opposite conclusion. This is a critical variable that needs to be resolved.

The ability of DHA to cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in our brain may be influenced by our genetics, especially our APOE ɛ4 status, and adequate levels of other nutrients, especially B vitamins. Unless studies are large enough to separate out these variables, they are doomed to failure. This study suggests accumulation of DHA in the brain is a critical variable that needs to be resolved.

Multiple studies suggest that higher doses of omega-3s are more effective at reducing cognitive decline than low doses of omega-3s. This study confirms that effect and identifies a threshold dose that is needed to provide measurable benefits. Studies providing supplemental omega-3s at doses below that threshold are likely to fail. And meta-analyses that combine low dose studies with high dose studies are also likely to come up empty.

Finally, people who take omega-3s for years are likely to benefit more than those who take omega-3s for just a few months. Again, this study confirms that effect, which means that studies involving short-term supplementation with omega-3s are likely to fail. And meta-analyses that combine short-term and long-term studies are likely to come up empty.

With so many potential pitfalls, it is easy to understand why many studies come up empty, and the effect of omega-3s on cognitive decline remains controversial.

How Was This Study Done?

This study consisted of two parts:

Part 1 used data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). The ADNI study is a multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical markers for early detection and tracking of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Participants undergo standardized neuroimaging, psychological assessments, in-person interviews for medical history, and cognitive evaluations on entry into the study and at the end of the study.

This study followed a cohort of 1135 participants (average age = 73, 46% females) without dementia at entry into the study for 6 years.

Omega-3 supplement use was determined based on a questionnaire at the beginning of the study. Participants who used omega-3 supplements for over a year were considered omega-3 users. They were further divided into medium-term users (1-9 years) and long-term users (>10 years).

Alzheimer’s Disease was diagnosed by neurologists based on brain scans, cognitive scores, and the ability to live independently.

Part 2 was a meta-analysis of 31 studies with 103,651 participants. The studies included in the meta-analysis all:

Measured the relationship of omega-3 intake with the risk of Alzheimer’s Disease, all-cause dementia, or cognitive decline.

Were cohort studies (studies that follow a group of people over time) or case control studies (studies that compare people who develop a disease with those who do not).

Provided risk estimates or data that could be used to calculate risk.

Were original publications, not reviews or meta-analyses.

Do Omega-3s Reduce Cognitive Decline?

The results from Part 1 (data from the ADNI study) were as follows:

Omega-3 supplement users had a 37% lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease than non-users.

Long-term (>10 years) omega-3 supplement users fared even better. They had a 64% lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease than non-users.

When they broke the results for long-term omega-3 supplement users into subgroups:

- Males (67% risk reduction) benefitted more than females (50% risk reduction).

- People over 65 (65% risk reduction) benefited more than those under 65 (22% risk reduction).

- People with the APOE ɛ4 genotype (71% risk reduction) benefitted more than those who were APOE ɛ4 negative (55% risk reduction).

The results from Part 2 (data from the meta-analysis) were as follows:

Dietary omega-3 intake lowered the risk of cognitive decline by 9%.

- People with the APOE ɛ4 genotype fared better (17% risk reduction).

- Their data suggested that a threshold of 1 gm/day omega-3s was needed before significant risk reduction was seen.

Dietary DHA intake lowered the risk of dementia by 27% and Alzheimer’s Disease by 24%.

Each 100 mg/day increase in DHA and EPA was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of cognitive decline (8% for DHA and 9.9% for EPA).

The authors concluded that,

1) “Long-term omega-3 supplementation may reduce risk of Alzheimer’s Disease; and

2) Dietary omega-3 fatty acid intake, especially DHA, may lower risk of dementia or cognitive decline…

3) However, further investigation is needed to understand the gene environment interactions involved in…[these effects of omega-3 fatty acids].”

Should You Supplement With Omega-3s?

This study provides strong support for the hypothesis that omega-3 supplementation reduces the risk of cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer’s Disease as we age. It also suggests that a dose of 1 gram/day may be needed to obtain a significant benefit.

However, it also highlights the difficulty in designing definitive experiments to test this hypothesis. This study shows that gender, age, genetics (especially the APOE ɛ4 genotype), type of omega-3s, dosage, and duration of supplementation all exert a significant influence on the effect of omega-3s on cognitive decline.

It is extremely difficult to design a study that optimizes all these variables, which almost guarantees that the effect of omega-3s on cognitive decline will remain controversial for the foreseeable future.

However, omega-3s lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides, reduce inflammation and are heart-healthy. And the threshold for all these effects is around 1 gram/day or more. If omega-3s also reduce cognitive decline, you can consider that a side-benefit.

The Bottom Line

The role of omega-3s in reducing cognitive decline remains controversial. Some studies strongly support their role in slowing cognitive decline while other studies find no effect.

So, the question remains, “Do omega-3s reduce cognitive decline or not?”

A recent study was designed to answer that question. Among other things the study showed:

Omega-3 supplement users had a 37% lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease than non-users.

Long-term (>10 years) omega-3 supplement users fared even better. They had a 64% lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease than non-users.

Dietary DHA intake lowered the risk of dementia by 27% and Alzheimer’s Disease by 24%.

Each 100 mg/day increase in DHA and EPA was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of cognitive decline (8% for DHA and 9.9% for EPA).

The threshold for observing a significant effect of omega-3s on cognitive decline was around 1 gram/day.

For more information on this study read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

___________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Should Athletes Be Taking Omega-3s?

July 25, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can Omega-3s Protect Your Brain?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Contact sports like football and soccer can be an athlete’s ticket to fame and fortune. That is a powerful motivator. But many elite athletes in contact sports pay a terrible price after their playing days are over.

Repeated head trauma can lead to a condition called Chronic Trauma Encephalopathy or CTE. In CTE, a protein called Tau forms clumps that spread through the brain, killing brain cells. Eventually, this can lead to irrational behavior and/or early-onset Alzheimer’s, which is, indeed, a terrible price to pay for their brief moment in the spotlight.

The NCAA is aware of the damaging effects of repeated head trauma and are experimenting with rule changes and improvements to protective head gear to reduce it. But, given the pressures of college teams to win at all costs, it will be impossible to completely eliminate head trauma from contact sports.

So, it is important to ask, “What else we can do?” Several studies have suggested that omega-3s may mitigate the damaging effect of repeated head trauma. For example:

The omega-3s DHA and EPA are metabolized to molecules called resolvins and protectins, which protect brain tissue from oxidative stress and help restore damaged brain tissue.

DHA and EPA also reduce the inflammation associated with brain injury, so the brain can heal faster.

DHA and EPA boost the level of a protein called BDNF in the brain. It helps trigger the production of new brain cells, which also aids in the recovery from brain injury.

Finally, some medical clinics have reported that high dose omega-3s help speed the recovery from severe head trauma.

This is concerning because omega-3s are largely missing from the diet of college athletes.

This raises the question, “Should athletes be taking omega-3s?”

The kinds of studies mentioned above suggest that DHA and EPA might help protect athletes from the damaging effects of repeated head trauma, but it is difficult to prove:

If a patient comes into a clinic with severe brain trauma, the symptoms are obvious. And if omega-3s speed recovery it will become apparent in weeks or months. This effect is easy to measure.

On the other hand, the effects of repeated, minor head trauma on a highly trained athlete are often not apparent until decades later. Therefore, any protective effects of omega-3s would also not become apparent for decades. Clinical studies don’t last that long.

Because of this, current research focuses on markers of brain damage such as neurofilament light chain or Nf-L. Nf-L is a neuronal protein that is released into the bloodstream by dying neurons. It is widely considered to be an early marker for neurodegenerative diseases such as those seen in former college football players. Previous studies have shown:

Nf-L blood levels increase during the season for NCAA-level college football players.

College football players have a very low omega-3 index, a measure of omega-3 status.

DHA supplementation reduces Nf-L levels in college football players.

With this in mind, the authors of this study (JL Heileson et al, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 18:65, 2021) looked at the effect of a high-dose, comprehensive omega-3 supplement on Nf-L levels in the blood of NCAA football players during the playing season.

How Was This Study Done?

Volunteers from two geographically distinct NCAA football teams were recruited for this study. One team (n=31) was given a daily high-dose omega-3 supplement providing 2,000 mg of DHA, 560 mg of EPA, and 320 mg of DPA starting during pre-season (fall) practices and continuing through the entire season. Compliance with the supplement regimen was 93%.

Volunteers from the other team (n=35) received no supplements and served as a control.

Participants from both teams were advised which foods were high in omega-3s and were asked to limit servings to no more than 2 per week for the duration of the study.

Players were excluded from the study if they:

Were on long-term (>20 days) anti-inflammatory therapy.

Were using fish oil supplements.

Ate more than two servings of fish per week.

Were on medications to control blood pressure or blood lipid levels.

Blood samples were drawn 7 days before pre-season practice, at the end of pre-season practice, 3 times during the season, and at the end of the season (a total of 6 blood draws).

The blood samples were analyzed for Nf-L, a marker of brain injury, and Omega-3 Index, a measure of omega-3 status.

Should Athletes Be Taking Omega-3s?

As I stated above, compliance with the supplementation regimen was excellent (93%) and this was reflected in the blood levels of long-chain omega-3s. Between the first and last blood sample drawn:

DHA and EPA levels increased 2-fold.

DPA levels, on the other hand, decreased slightly.

- This suggests that the beneficial effects of omega-3 supplementation were primarily due to DHA and EPA. I will discuss the implications of this below.

The omega-3 index increased from 4.3%, which is considered poor, to 7.4%, which is considered near optimal.

The effect of omega-3 supplementation on Nf-L levels was striking:

In the control team (no supplementation) Nf-L levels increased 1.5-fold during the pre-season practices and remained elevated throughout the regular season.

In the team receiving omega-3 supplementation there was no significant increase in Nf-L levels.

The authors of the study concluded, “These findings suggest a…neuroprotective effect of combined EPA+DPA+DHA omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in American-style football athletes.”

The authors went on to say, “Similar elevations of Nf-L have been reported with RHI [repeated head injuries] in other contact sport athletes. These data suggest that those other contact sports athletes may also benefit from omega-3 supplementation…”

So, let’s return to the original question, “Should athletes be taking omega-3s?” Here is my take on the study:

The conclusions of the authors are appropriately cautious. This study shows that omega-3 supplementation reduces an indicator of possible brain damage (Nf-L), but the actual symptoms of brain damage don’t appear for decades.

- Therefore, this study suggests, but doesn’t prove, that omega-3 supplementation may reduce Chronic Trauma Encephalopathy (CTE) for athletes who competed in contact sports during their college years.

This study used an omega-3 supplement containing EPA, DHA, and DPA. It resulted in an increase in EPA and DHA levels, but not DPA levels. Thus, there is no evidence that the DPA portion of the supplement was needed. I recommend a supplement with a 4:1 ratio of DHA to EPA for brain health.

This study did not establish an optimal dose of omega-3s. Until more information is available, I would recommend around 2,000 mg of DHA and 500 mg of EPA for athletes in contact sports, but the optimal dose may be lower or higher.

Can Omega-3s Protect Your Brain?

If you are not a college athlete competing in contact sports (which would include most of us), you are probably wondering what this means for you. Here are my thoughts.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

You never know when you may suffer unexpected head trauma. It could be a car accident. It could be a fall. You might be playing a friendly game of softball and get hit in the head by a foul ball. You get the point.

And the best time to make sure you have enough omega-3s (specifically DHA + EPA) in your brain is before the trauma occurs.

But how much DHA + EPA is enough? This is where it gets confusing.

Recommendations range from 500 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day depending on whether the goal is to reduce death from heart disease, lower blood pressure, or lower triglycerides.

This study used 2,500 mg/day to reduce a marker of brain damage in college athletes, but we don’t know whether that is optimal.

Finally, these numbers are averages, and none of us are average. We all utilize omega-3s from supplements with different efficiencies.

My recommendation is to use the Omega-3 Index as a gauge. It tells us how much DHA + EPA we have actually accumulated in our tissues.

An Omega-3 Index of 8% is considered optimal for heart health, and this study suggests it might be optimal for brain health as well.

So, my recommendation is to get your Omega-3 Index measured at 6-month intervals until you have determined the amount of supplemental DHA + EPA you need to attain and maintain an 8% Omega-3 Index.

Based on this study, I would recommend a high-purity supplement with an ~4:1 ratio of DHA to EPA if your primary goal is brain health. But other studies suggest that an EPA to DHA ratio of 3:2 may be optimal for heart health.

In short:

While the evidence is not definitive, this study suggests that it might be prudent to have accumulated enough DHA and EPA in your neural tissue to help reduce the complications of unexpected brain trauma.

This study also suggests that you may wish to aim for an Omega-3 Index of 8%.

- An Omega-3 Index of 8% likely has side benefits. There is also evidence that it may reduce the rate of cognitive decline as you age, help protect your heart, and reduce inflammation.

The ratio of DHA to EPA in the supplement you choose may be different for brain health and heart health. If you are equally interested in brain and heart health, just be sure your supplement provides both DHA and EPA.

The Bottom Line

Repeated head injuries are a major concern for NCAA football players and college athletes in other contact sports. That’s because repeated head injuries during their playing years are associated with a degenerative brain condition called Chronic Trauma Encephalopathy or CTE, which can lead to irrational behavior and/or early-onset Alzheimer’s.

A recent study looked at the effect of a high-dose, comprehensive omega-3 supplement on Nf-L, a marker of brain injury, in NCAA football players during the playing season. Two teams were selected.

In the team receiving no omega-3s, Nf-L increased 1.5-fold during preseason practice and remained elevated throughout the playing season.

In the team receiving omega-3 supplementation there was no significant increase in Nf-L levels.

The authors of the study concluded, “These findings suggest a…neuroprotective effect of… omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in American-style football athletes.”

For more information on this study and what it means for all of us who are not college athletes, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Can You Slow The Aging Process?

July 11, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Holistic Approach To Living Healthy Longer

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Ever since Ponce de Leon’s famed 1513 expedition, people have been searching for the proverbial “Fountain of Youth”.

There have been hucksters selling pills and potions to reverse the aging process. Most of them didn’t work. They were no better than snake oil.

There have been legitimate scientists investigating the effect of supplements, diets, and lifestyle on the aging process. Most of these studies have come up empty.

In this study (M Gagesch et al, Journal of Frailty And Aging, 12: 71-77, 2023) the authors hypothesized that a holistic approach might be better than individual interventions. They asked whether a combination of vitamin D3 supplementation, omega-3 supplementation, and exercise might be more effective at slowing the aging process than any one of them alone.

There was good reason for choosing each of these interventions:

Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels have been associated with frailty in several studies. But association studies do not prove cause and effect, and no randomized, placebo control studies have measured the effect of vitamin D supplementation on frailty.

Omega-3 fatty acids have been linked to skeletal muscle health, and some studies have suggested omega-3 supplementation may improve muscle function in older adults.

A recent study has reported that a supervised exercise program reduced frailty in older adults. The authors wanted to see if the same was true for unsupervised, at-home exercise program.

How Was This Study Done?

The data from this study were collected as part of the DO-HEALTH study, a 3-year, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to identify interventions that support healthy aging in European adults aged 70 and older.

Initially, 2,157 healthy, community-dwelling adults were enrolled from five countries (Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France, and Portugal). They were examined in clinical centers at the beginning of the study and years 1, 2, and 3, with phone follow-up at 3-month intervals.

Aging was measured by something called the frailty index. At each clinic visit the participants were evaluated in five areas:

Weakness was measured as grip strength. Weakness was defined as being in the lowest quintile of grip strength for someone their age and gender.

2) Fatigue was defined as a positive answer to the question, “In the last month have you had too little energy to do the things you wanted to do?”

3) Involuntary weight loss was defined as >5% weight loss within a year.

4) Low gait speed was defined as <2 ft/sec walking speed.

5) Low activity level was defined as a response of, “Less than once a week” to the question, “How often do you engage in activities that require a low or moderate level of energy such as gardening, cleaning the car, or going on a walk?”

- Participants with 0 positive items were classified as robust.
- Those with 1 or 2 positive items were classified as pre-frail.
- Those with 3 or more positive items were classified as frail.

Only those participants from the DO-HEALTH study classified as robust at the first clinical visit (1,137 participants) were included in this study. The study measured how many of them became pre-frail or frail during the average follow-up of 2.9 years.

The interventions were:

Capsules containing a total of 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 with sunflower oil capsules as a placebo.

Capsules containing a total of 1,000 mg of EPA and DHA in a 1:2 ratio with a sunflower oil capsule as a placebo.

Exercise consisting of an unsupervised strength-training routine for 30 minutes, 3 times per week.

In this case the control was an unsupervised joint-flexibility routine for 30 minutes, 3 times per week.

The interventions were done individually, two together (vitamin D + omega-3, vitamin D + exercise, omega-3 + exercise), and all three together (vitamin D + omega-3 + exercise).

The results were corrected for age, sex, and low-trauma falls in the preceding 12 months.

Finally, the study measured blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and omega-3 levels at each office visit. They found:

28% of the participants were deficient in vitamin D at the beginning of the study.
The interventions gave the expected increase in vitamin D and omega-3 status.

Can You Slow The Aging Process?

At the end of 3 years:

61.2% of the participants had declined from robust health to the pre-frail category.

2.6% of the participants had declined from robust health to the frail category.

[Note: The terms “pre-frail” and “frail” are measures of aging which I have described above.]

The number of participants in the frail category were too small to obtain a statistically significant measure of the effects of vitamin D, omega-3s, and exercise on frailty, so I will only discuss the results measuring their effect on pre-frailty in this review. These results are:

None of these interventions had a statistically significant effect on aging by themselves, as measured by the transition from robust health to pre-frailty.

None of these interventions had a statistically significant effect on aging when combined in pairs, although the vitamin D3-omega-3 pair came close to significance (31% reduction in pre-frailty with a probability of 94% (probabilities of 95% and above are considered significant.))

However, the combination of vitamin D3, omega-3s, and exercise reduced the risk of aging by 39%, which was statistically significant (96% probability).

The authors concluded, “Robust, generally healthy and active older adults without major comorbidities [diseases], may benefit from a combination of high-dose, supplemental vitamin D3, marine omega-3s, and SHEP [unsupervised strength training] with regard to the risk of becoming pre-frail over 3 years.”

A Holistic Approach To Living Healthy Longer

This study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, which is the gold standard for clinical studies. It was also unusually large (1,137 participants) and long (3 years) for this kind of study.

It was also much better than most double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in that it included three interventions (vitamin D3 supplementation, omega-3 supplementation, and exercise) and looked at their effect on aging individually, in pairs, and all three together.

One take-home lesson from this study was that a holistic approach that included all 3 interventions was superior to any one of these interventions alone or in pairs.

But the most important take-home lesson is this:

If you asked your doctor what you should do to slow the aging process, he or she would probably tell you, “Exercise may help, but forget supplementing with extra vitamin D or omega-3s. They have no proven benefits.”

They would be correct based on studies of each of these interventions individually. And the studies they might quote would be double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, the gold standard of clinical studies.

But would that be the best advice. Clearly not. The best advice would be to follow a holistic approach and use all 3 interventions together.

Unfortunately, this is true for most studies of supplementation. Supplements are tested individually, as if they were “magic bullets”. And most of these studies come up short. They fail to find a significant benefit of supplementation.

Supplements are almost never tested holistically in combination with each other and other interventions, but that’s where the “magic” really happens.

If you are a regular reader of “Health Tips From The Professor”, this should come as no surprise to you. I have often shared the Venn diagram on the upper left and said that the sweet spot is when two or more of these interventions overlap.

Of course, this is the first study of its kind. More studies are needed. More importantly, we need studies to fill in the other parts of the Venn diagram. We need to ask about the effect of diet and obesity on aging. For example:

If we add a healthy diet to vitamin D, omega-3s, and exercise, can we reduce aging even more dramatically?

Is the effort it takes to lose excess weight worth it? Does adding it to diet, supplementation, and exercise reduce the aging process even more?

Of course, I think the answer to those questions is an unequivocal, “Yes”. Multiple studies have shown that both a healthy weight and a healthy diet help you live healthier longer.

But I am a scientist. Neither diet nor weight loss have been tested in combination with supplementation and exercise. I would like to see studies combining all these modalities in a single double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment.

So, what does this mean for you? If you want to slow the aging process, if you are in search of your personal “Fountain of Youth…

This study suggests that vitamin D3 supplementation (2,000 IU/day), omega-3 supplementation (1,000 mg of EPA + DHA), and an exercise program that emphasizes strength training can help you slow the aging process.

But that is only the beginning. I also recommend…

Including a healthy diet and a healthy weight in your anti-aging regimen.

Making sure your diet has enough protein and leucine, since older adults need more of both to maximize the benefits of strength training.

Including other supplements as evidence for their benefit in slowing the aging process becomes available.

The Bottom Line

A recent double-blind, placebo-controlled study looked at the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation (2,000 IU/day), omega-3 supplementation (1,000 mg/day EPA + DHA in a 1:2 ratio), and an unsupervised strength training program on the aging process.

It differed from most other double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in that:

It was larger (1,137 participants) and longer (3 years) than most.

More importantly, each intervention was tested individually, in pairs, and all 3 together.

The study found that:

None of these interventions had a statistically significant effect on aging by themselves.

None of these interventions had a statistically significant effect on aging when combined in pairs, although the vitamin D3-omega-3 pair came close to significance.

However, the combination of vitamin D3, omega-3s, and exercise reduced the risk of aging by a statistically significant 39%.

One take-home lesson from this study was that a holistic approach that included all 3 interventions was superior to any one of these interventions alone or in pairs.

But the most important take-home lesson is this:

But would that be the best advice? Clearly not. The best advice would be to follow a holistic approach and use all 3 interventions together.

Supplements are almost never tested holistically in combination with each other and other interventions, but that’s where the “magic” really happens.

For more information on this study and my recommendations on how to slow the aging process read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

___________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

June 13, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I talked about one of the greatest strengths of the scientific method – namely that investigators constantly challenge, and occasionally disprove, existing paradigms. That allows us to discard old models of how things work and replace them with better ones.

Last week I shared a study that disproved the paradigm that low to moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than total abstinence. This week I share several studies that challenge the belief that HDL cholesterol is good for your heart.

The belief that HDL is good for your heart has all the hallmarks of a classic paradigm.

It is supported by multiple clinical studies.

Elaborate metabolic explanations have been proposed to support the paradigm.

It is the official position of most medical societies, scientific organizations, and health information sites on the web.

It is the recommendation of most health professionals.

It has been repeated so often by so many trusted sources that everyone assumes it must be true.

Once we accept the HDL/heart health paradigm as true, we can construct other hypotheses on that foundation. For example:

Raising your HDL levels naturally takes effort. Pharmaceutical companies have been pursuing the “magic pill” that raises HDL levels without any effort on your part.

Low carb diets like the Keto and Paleo diets are high in saturated fat. The low carb enthusiasts claim this is a good thing because saturated fat raises HDL levels, and HDL is good for your heart.

But what if the underlying HDL/heart health paradigm weren’t true? These hypotheses would be like the parable of a house built on a foundation of sand. The paradigm will be washed away as soon as it is critically tested.

So, let’s look at experiments that have challenged the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Do Drugs That Increase HDL Levels Work?

The first hint that the HDL/heart health paradigm might be faulty happened when a pharmaceutical company developed a drug that selectively increased HDL levels.

The drug company thought they had found the goose that laid golden eggs. Just imagine. People wouldn’t have to lose weight, exercise, or change their diet. They could simply take a pill and dramatically decrease their heart disease risk. A drug like that would be worth $billions.

The problem was that when they tested their drug (torcetrapib) in clinical trials, it had absolutely no effect on heart disease outcomes (AR Tall et al, Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 27:257-260, 2007).

The pharmaceutical company couldn’t believe it. Raising HDL levels just had to reduce heart disease risk. They concluded they didn’t have the right drug, and they continued to work on developing new drugs.

That was 16 years ago, and no HDL-increasing drug has made it to market. Have they just not found the right drug, or does this mean the HDL/heart health paradigm is incorrect?

Does Saturated Fat Decrease Heart Disease Risk?

Now let’s turn to two claims of low carb enthusiasts.

#1: Saturated fats decrease your risk of heart disease in the context of a low carb diet. I have debunked that claim in several previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”. But let me refer you to two articles here – one on saturated fat and heart disease risk and one on low-carb diets.

#2: Saturated fats decrease heart disease risk because they raise HDL levels. This is the one I will address today.

The idea that saturated fats decrease heart disease risk because they raise HDL levels is based on a simplistic concept of HDL particles. The reality is more complex. Several clinical studies have shown:

The type of fat determines the property of the HDL particles.

- When polyunsaturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have an anti-inflammatory effect. When saturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have a pro-inflammatory effect.

Anti-inflammatory HDL particles relax the endothelial cells lining our blood vessels. That makes the lining of our blood vessels more pliable, which improves blood flow and reduces blood pressure.

- Anti-inflammatory HDL particles also help reduce inflammation of the endothelial lining. This is important because an inflamed endothelial lining is more likely to accumulate fatty plaques and to trigger blood clot formation that can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

So, the question becomes, “What good is it to raise HDL levels if you are producing an unhealthy, pro-inflammatory HDL particle that may increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks, and strokes?”

In short, these studies suggest it isn’t enough to just focus on HDL levels. You need to ask what kind of HDL particles you are creating.

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

Once the studies were published showing that…

Drug-induced increase of HDL levels without any change in health habits is not sufficient to decrease heart attack risk, and…

Not all HDL particles are healthy. There are anti-inflammatory or pro-inflammatory HDL particles, which likely have opposite effects on heart attack risk…

…some people started to question the HDL/heart health paradigm. And one group came up with the perfect study to test the paradigm.

But before I describe the study, I need to review the term “confounding variables”. I described the term and how it affects clinical studies in last week’s article. Here is a brief synopsis:

The studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm are association studies. Association studies measure the association between a single variable (in this case, increase in HDL levels) and an outcome (in this case, heart disease events, heart disease deaths, and total deaths).

Associations need to be corrected for other variables known to affect the same outcome (things like age, gender, smoking, and diabetes would be examples in this case).

Confounding variables are variables that also affect the outcome but are unknown or ignored. Thus, they are not used to correct the associations, which can bias the results.

The authors of this study (M Briel et al, BMJ 2009:338.b92) observed that most interventions that increase HDL levels also lower LDL levels. Lowering LDL is known to decrease the risk of heart disease deaths. But this effect had been ignored in most studies looking at the association between HDL and heart disease deaths.

They hypothesized that the change in LDL levels was a confounding variable that had been ignored in previous studies and may have biased the results.

To test this hypothesis the authors searched the literature and identified 108 studies with 299,310 participants that:

Compared the effect of drugs, omega-3 fatty acids, or diet with either a placebo or usual care.
Measured both HDL and LDL levels.
Measured reduction in cardiovascular risk.
Had a randomized control design.
Lasted at least 6 months.

They found that every 10 mg/dl decrease in LDL levels in these studies was responsible for a:

7.1% reduction in heart disease events (both heart disease deaths and non-fatal heart attacks).

7.2% reduction in heart disease deaths.

4.4% reduction in total deaths.

After correcting for the effect of decreased LDL levels on these heart disease outcomes, the increase in HDL levels had no statistically significant effect on any of the outcomes.

The authors concluded, “Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating HDL cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths. The results support reduction in LDL cholesterol as the primary goal for lipid modifying interventions.”

In other words, this study:

Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Does that mean that everything you knew about HDL is wrong? Not exactly. It just means that you need to change your perspective.

Don’t focus on HDL levels. Peek behind the curtain and focus on what’s behind the HDL levels. For example:

Losing weight when overweight increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to weight loss than to the increase in HDL levels.

Exercise increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to exercise than to the increase in HDL levels.

Reversing pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the reversal of diabetes than to the increase in HDL levels.

High-dose omega-3 fatty acids increase HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the omega-3 fatty acids than to the increase in HDL levels.

The Mediterranean diet increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the diet than to the increase in HDL levels.

And if you want to go the drug route:

Statins and some other heart drugs increase HDL levels, but the reduction in heart disease outcomes is probably due to their effect on LDL levels rather than their effect on HDL levels.

On the other hand:

Saturated fats increase HDL levels. But saturated fats increase heart disease risk and create pro-inflammatory HDL particles. So, in this case the increase in HDL levels is not a good omen for your heart.

Drugs have been discovered that selectively increase HDL levels. However, there is nothing of value behind this increase in HDL levels, so the drugs have no effect on heart disease outcomes.

The Bottom Line

In this article I discuss several studies that have challenged the HDL/heart health paradigm – the belief that HDL is good for your heart.

For example, one group of investigators analyzed the studies underlying the HDL/heart health paradigm. They hypothesized that these studies were inaccurate because they failed to account for the effects of LDL levels on heart disease outcomes.

After correcting for the effect of decreased LDL levels on heart disease outcomes in the previous studies, the authors showed that increases in HDL levels had no significant effect on any heart disease outcome.

In other words, this study:

Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Does that mean that everything you knew about HDL is wrong? Not exactly. It just means that you need to change your perspective. Don’t focus on HDL levels. Focus on what’s behind the HDL levels. For more information on that, read the article above.

For more information on this study, and what it means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again

May 9, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is It Three Strikes And You Are Out?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you are pregnant, you want the best for your unborn baby. Your doctor has recommended a prenatal supplement, but do the prenatal supplements on the market meet your needs? A few months ago, I shared two studies that concluded that most prenatal supplements on the market are woefully inadequate.

In fact, the authors said, “[Our] analysis found that prenatal supplements vary widely in content, often only contain a subset of essential vitamins, and the levels were often below…recommendations.”

In other words, their study found that most prenatal vitamins on the market may not be adequate to support your needs and the needs of your child through pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Now, a third study on the topic has been published (KA Saunders et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 117: 823-829, 2023. It differs from the previous studies in that:

1) The previous two studies took a comprehensive approach, while this study focused on 6 key nutrients.

The previous studies included all nutrients important for a healthy pregnancy including choline, iodine, and vitamin K, which have only recently been shown to be important for a healthy pregnancy.

This study focused on 6 nutrients, vitamin A, vitamin D, folic acid, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids, which have long been recognized as essential for a healthy pregnancy.

2) The previous two studies focused on prenatal supplements, while this study focused on all supplements that might be taken by pregnant women.

3) The previous two studies asked whether supplements provided recommended amounts of all nutrients needed for a healthy pregnancy. This study took a “Goldilocks approach” and asked whether levels of these 6 essential nutrients were appropriate (“just right”). The study:

Started by determining the intake of these 6 key nutrients by American women. The authors of the study then added the amount of each nutrient provided by the supplements in their study to the amount of that nutrient in the diet of American women and:

- Calculated the minimum amount of each nutrient that would be needed to assure that 90% of American women taking a particular supplement would meet the recommended intake for pregnant and lactating women.

- Calculated the maximum amount of each nutrient provided by supplements in their study to assure that that 90% of American women taking that supplement would not get potentially toxic amounts of that nutrient.

In other words, for each of the 6 nutrients they calculated a supplemental dose range that was neither too low nor too high. They called this the “appropriate dose range” for each nutrient. Goldilocks would have called it “just right”.

I’m sure you are anxiously waiting to learn what their study found. But before we go there, I will describe how the study was done.

How Was The Study Done?

For the dietary intake portion of the study, the authors used dietary intake data previously collected from the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) study.

The ECHO study is a consortium of 69 medical centers across multiple states. It is an observational study of mothers and their offspring designed to understand the effects of early life exposures on child health and development.

The current study analyzed dietary intake data for 2450 participants from 6 medical centers across 5 states in the ECHO study. The women in this study were diverse with respect to ethnicity, education, and weight.

All pregnant women in the current study completed at least one 24-hour dietary recall between 6-week gestation until delivery (24% completed one dietary recall. 76% completed two or more dietary recalls). Dietary intake was generally assessed with an expert interviewer and included all foods and beverages consumed in the previous 24 hours.

For the supplement portion of the study, the authors used the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database because it is the most complete listing of supplements in the US. The authors selected 20,547 supplements that contained at least one of the 6 essential nutrients from this database.

To determine which of the 20,547 supplements contained appropriate levels of the 6 nutrients (vitamin A, vitamin D, folic acid, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids) selected for this study, the authors used the process described in the introduction above. Briefly:

The authors added the amount of each nutrient provided by the supplements in their study to the amount of that nutrient in the diet of American women and:

Calculated the minimum amount of each nutrient that would be needed to assure that 90% of American women taking a particular supplement would meet the recommended intake for pregnant and lactating women.

Calculated the maximum amount of each nutrient provided by supplements in their study to assure that that 90% of American women taking that supplement would not get potentially toxic amounts of that nutrient.

In other words, for each of the 6 nutrients they calculated a supplemental dose range that was neither too low nor too high. They called this the “appropriate dose range” for each nutrient.

Why Are The 6 Nutrients Included In This Study Important?

Dietary Intake Is Often Inadequate

The diet analysis of pregnant American women in this study found:

42% were at risk of inadequate vitamin A intake.

96% were at risk of inadequate vitamin D intake.

45% were at risk of inadequate folic acid intake.

55% were at risk of inadequate calcium intake.

93% were at risk of inadequate iron intake.

67% were at risk of inadequate omega-3 intake.

The percentage of women at risk for inadequate intake of these nutrients varied with age, ethnicity, and income levels. But the overall message is clear. Most American women are not getting enough of these essential nutrients from their diet alone.

The Risk of Inadequate and Excessive Intake Of These Nutrients

These 6 nutrients were chosen in part because reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration have concluded that inadequate intake of these nutrients are associated with complications during pregnancy and delivery. They can also adversely affect the health and normal development of the baby.

This is important because the Cochrane Collaboration is considered the Gold Standard of clinical studies. You can find a more detailed description of Cochrane Collaboration studies and why they are the Gold standard here.

[Note: The Cochrane Collaboration has not yet evaluated choline, iodine, and vitamin K for pregnant women, but their inclusion in prenatal supplements is supported by multiple clinical studies.]

In addition, excess intake of all these nutrients except omega-3s can harm both the fetus and the mother. The is why the Food and Nutrition Board has set ULs (Upper Limits – the level above which toxicity can occur) for 5 of the 6 nutrients. This is important because previous studies have suggested that up to 25% of women may be getting toxic levels of one or more of these nutrients when you consider both their dietary intake and their prenatal supplement.

Summary

In other words, both too little and too much of these nutrients can harm the mom and her baby. It is critical that prenatal supplements get the dosing right.

It is for that reason that the authors of this study have set an “appropriate dose range” (high enough that 90% of women have enough of each nutrient to prevent deficiency and low enough that 90% of women do not exceed the UL for each nutrient) as the standard for evaluating the adequacy and safety of supplements for pregnant women.

Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again

Of the 20,547 supplements (421 labeled as prenatal supplements) available on the US market as of December 31, 2022, the investigators reported that:

Only 69 (0.3%) supplements contained all 6 nutrients considered essential for a healthy pregnancy.

Only 1 supplement contained all 6 nutrients at the appropriate doses, and it wasn’t even labeled as a prenatal supplement.

In addition:

One supplement containing all 6 nutrients put 100% of the women in their study at risk for excessive intake of folic acid.

Another supplement containing all 6 nutrients put 46% of the women in their study at risk of inadequate calcium intake.

The authors concluded, “Almost no US dietary supplements provide key nutrients in the doses needed for pregnant women. Affordable and convenient products that fill the gap between food-based intake and estimated requirements of pregnancy without inducing excess intake are needed to support pregnant women and their offspring.”

In short, the conclusion of this study can be summed up as, “Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again”.

[Note: It sometime takes a while for supplement labels to be posted in the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database. The authors acknowledged that this study may not include supplements introduced or reformulated in the last quarter of 2022.]

Is It Three Strikes And You Are Out?

If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, this should be a wake-up call.

70% of pregnant women in this country take prenatal supplements, usually based on recommendations by their health care provider. They assume the prenatal supplements meet their needs and the needs of their unborn baby.

Yet three studies evaluating the adequacy of prenatal supplements have been published in the past few months. They took very different approaches in evaluating the supplements. But all three studies concluded that the vast majority of prenatal supplements on the market are woefully inadequate.

You may be wondering, “Is it three strikes, and you are out?” Are there no decent prenatal supplements on the market? The answer to those questions is, “No. There are good prenatal supplements on the market.”

You may be wondering how I can say that in the face of such overwhelming negative data. That’s because while all 3 studies were very good studies, they each had “blind spots”:

1) Each of the studies used very stringent criteria for identifying adequate prenatal supplements. In some cases, their criteria were stricter than the RDA recommendations and the recommendations of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for pregnant and lactating women. It could be argued that their criteria were too stringent.

2) In the case of the current study, it could also be argued that evaluating only 6 nutrients is not a good criterion for evaluating the adequacy of prenatal supplements. For example, I looked up the one supplement rated as adequate in this study. It does provide appropriate doses of the 6 nutrients this study focused on. It also provides appropriate doses of vitamin K and iodine. But it does not provide choline. It is a very good supplement for women, but it is not the perfect prenatal supplement.

So, what can you do? How can you find the best prenatal supplement for you? Unfortunately, you cannot rely on advice from your friends or your health professional. You cannot rely on advertisements. That is a good place to start, but you have to do your own sleuthing.

With that in mind, I have listed 7 simple rules for selecting the best possible prenatal supplement in my article about the first two studies. Use these rules for evaluating every prenatal supplement you come across. Happy sleuthing.

The Bottom Line

A recent study evaluated all 20,547 supplements on the US market to see if they met the needs of pregnant women in this country.

They focused on 6 nutrients (vitamin A, vitamin D, folic acid, calcium, iron, and omega-3s) known to be essential for a healthy pregnancy.

They determined the dietary intake for all 6 nutrients in a cross section of pregnant women in the US.

They added the amount of the 6 nutrients in each of the 20,547 supplements to the dietary intake of those nutrients by pregnant women.

They then asked which supplements provided the “appropriate dose” of all 6 nutrients. They defined “appropriate dose” as the dose range that was.

- High enough to prevent deficiency of that nutrient in 90% of pregnant women taking the supplement…and…

- Low enough to prevent toxicity from that nutrient in 90% of pregnant women taking the supplement.

In other words, for each of the 6 nutrients they calculated a supplemental dose range that was neither too low nor too high.

Of the 20,547 supplements (421 labeled as prenatal supplements) available on the US market:

Only 69 (0.3%) supplements contained all 6 nutrients they considered essential for a healthy pregnancy.

Only 1 supplement contained all 6 nutrients at the appropriate doses, and it wasn’t even labeled as a prenatal supplement.

If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, this should be a wake-up call.

Yet three studies evaluating the adequacy of prenatal supplements have been published in the past few months. And all three studies concluded that the vast majority of prenatal supplements on the market are woefully inadequate.

You may be wondering how I can say that in the face of such overwhelming negative data. That’s because while all 3 studies were very good studies, they each had “blind spots”:

For more details on this study and 7 tips on finding the best prenatal supplement for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance