From the Sunday Star-Times, on fish oil
Grey and colleague Dr Mark Bolland studied 18 randomised controlled trials and six meta-analyses of trials on fish oil published between 2005 and 2013. Only two studies showed any benefit but most media coverage of the studies was very positive for the industry.
On the other hand, the CEO of a fish-oil-supplement company disagrees
Keeley said more than 25,000-peer reviewed scientific papers supported the benefits of omega-3. “With that extensive amount of robust study to be then challenged by a couple of meta-analyses where negative reports are correlated together dumbfounds me.”
In fact, it happens all the time that large numbers of research papers and small experiments find something is associated with health then small numbers of large randomised trials show it doesn’t really help. If it didn’t happen, medical and public health research would be much faster, cheaper, and more effective. I’m a coauthor on at least a couple of those 25000 peer-reviewed papers, and I’ve worked with people who wrote a bunch more of them, and I’m not dumbfounded. You don’t judge weight of evidence by literally weighing the papers.
Mr Keeley takes fish oil himself, and believes he will “live to 70, or 80 or 90 and not suffer from Alzheimer’s.” That’s actually about what you’d expect without fish oil. He’s 60 now, so his statistical life expectancy is another 23 years, and by 83, less than 10% of people have developed dementia.
I wouldn’t say there was compelling evidence that fish-oil capsules are useless, but the weight of evidence is not in favour of them doing much good.
Recent comments