This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This including a WP:RS reference, was reverted due to WP:POV. This article attracts a lot of POV editing, and due to the high pace of research in the subject, there are plenty of studies, evidence, and other WP:RS to support just about anyone's opinion. Indeed, most aspects of n3 are still not fully understood or measured (serious research had not really started until the early 90s). It is of course fair game to include what the literature indicates for n3, but not to claim or imply conclusivity, accompanied by cherrypicked references, or in this case, a view within a WP:RS reference, dissenting from the referenced article's thesis. István ( talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've referenced 3 studies in the intro paragraph. How do I reference these again later in the article? NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This article cites MANY studies about the health benefits of omega-3. However, this article also gives the impression that the short-chain omega-3s found in flax seed oil (ALA) is just as good as EPA and DHA. ALL of the studies listed were using EPA & DHA, i.e. fish oil. The benefits section says "n−3 fatty acids" over and over again, but never clarifies that it's actually EPA and DHA. Sine these studies all were testing fish oil, shouldn't we be more clear about that? Should we then get rid of the health benefits sections and move those to the fish oil entry? Then tell people to reference that entry. NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 05:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I added the most common sources of omega-3 as fish and fish oil to the intro. This is because I feel many people coming to the page are interested in omega-3 in relation to fish oil, so it warrants mentioning at the beginning. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. thx! NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
the original point remains valid; i added a bit about the current scientific studies going on about fish oil supplements and associated health benefits. Feel free to add more to it, especially popular information about health claims and so forth. makeswell 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
"In congestive heart failure, cells that are only barely receiving enough blood flow become electrically hyperexcitable."
I searched Wiki for this hyperexcitable word and found it used in many articles but no specific page on it (in my search). What does it mean (and if there is a page for it (there should be since it's so popular) then could somebody just link to it from this page?)? Also if somebody wants to leave a note on my Talk Page saying what it means that'd be much appreciated. Thanks :) makeswell 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
It seems to me like we should merge "Health Benefits" with "Health Risks" Which currently exists under "Risks" into "Health Benefits and Risks"
the section under "Risks" entitled "Legal Risk for Manufacturers" wouldn't fit under this title I guess.
We could give this section a different title such as "Unproven Health Claims" or something more relevant to the consumer, if you guys want.
it seems most appropriate to have the "The n−6 to n−3 ratio" section next to the Health and Biology sections, too. Actually this topic is discussed in "Biological significance" as well, so maybe we should retitle the Biological Significance section or break it into pieces.
also, I'd move the "Dietary Sources" section right underneath the History and then Chemistry sections, though this doesn't seem to be as important.
It is misleading to give people the Health Benefits without clearly showing them that there are also Health Risks. I Suggest we merge these two so that people read "Health Benefits and Risks" then scroll down to the Benefits section and look for the Risks section as well. makeswell 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
are different, former ones belong to IUPAC conventions .....and latter ones ???.... -- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
By quick looking at the history, it seems to me that this trival naming starts after 1960 -- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
More refined results
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 07:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: additional search results using other academic search engines are required to verify the above findings -- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 07:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, the amount of omega 3 in the various fish listed varies quite considerably from other such lists I found on the Internet. Can someone explain why the discrepancy? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 05:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As published:
comparing omega-3 PUFAs (9.6 g/day)
As subsequently corrected:
comparing omega-3 PUFAs (6.6 mg/day)
http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X%2803%2900188-3/fulltext
Don't know how to add that in the article. Hank ( talk) 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I see a link to Fishoilblog.com has been removed due to not fitting within the external link policy. I'm assuming this is because links to blogs are discouraged. However, in this case, the word "blog" is misleading since this isn't some person's blog about life, or whatever. This is a news and research site that's updated on a regular basis. Every post links to clinical studies, and I've used this site to find research for the fish oil and omega-3 entries. However, the breadth of the information is far too much to be contained in Wikipedia, so I think for the sake of helping people to thoroughly and exhaustively understand the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, an external link is in order. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that one of the sources cited (FN 136: Cherian 1991) does find that chickens fed flax seed produce embryos and chicks with significantly higher levels of DHA in their brain tissue, which would suggest that chicken convert the ALA from flax seed to DHA, and that their eggs (at least the fertile one) have higher levels of DHA.
While the study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (FN 131) may be right to suggest that the claims of omega 3 egg marketers are overblown or that fish is a more cost effective source of DHA, the evidence does not support the claim that because flax seed's omega 3 oils are ALA, it necessarily follows that eggs from chickens fed flax seed are not higher in DHA or EPA.
See generally this review: http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/pfs21.htm
And this study: http://www.bourre.fr/pdf/publications_scientifiques/258.pdf
(As the parent of two vegetarians who keeps backyard chickens, I'll keep feeding my chickens flax seed, even if I wouldn't pay significantly more for "omega-3 eggs" at the store). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.154.0.250 ( talk) 22:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is biased into the benefits of the Omega-3 medicine. It's probably written for a Marketing campaign. Read from a reliable medical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Jacomet ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have restored numerous instances of the word "that" preceding an otherwise independent clause, which was originally a dependent clause. In most cases, the "that" clause was the object of a verb such as "showed" or "concluded." Without the "that," the subject of the (now independent) clause becomes the object of the verb, and the predicate of the clause becomes an unattached sentence fragment. — Jay L09 ( talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph, because it appears to be nothing more nor less than advertising content: " Milk and cheese from grass-fed cows may also be good sources of n−3. One UK study showed half a pint of milk provides 10% of the recommended daily intake (RDI) of ALA, while a piece of organic cheese the size of a matchbox may weasel words provide up to 88%, depending on the level of fat and drying. [1]" — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous problems with both the reference and its summary:
"Eggs produced by hens fed a diet of greens and insects contain higher levels of n−3 fatty acids (mostly ALA) than chickens fed corn or soybeans.[137]"
Removed "(mostly ALA)" as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-136 makes no mention of ALA, or the composition of the n-3 fatty acids
"The addition of flax and canola seeds to the diets of chickens, both good sources of alpha-linolenic acid, increases the omega-3 content of the eggs.[139] However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest reports "the omega-3s that FDA considers healthful (DHA and EPA) are not found in plants such as flax seed." It also reports "[e]ggs contain too much saturated fat and cholesterol to meet FDA’s definition of healthy."[135] "
The second sentence is extremely misleading, contradicts the findings of the study referenced in the previous sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-138 and is already covered in the section on flax & plant sources.
"As compared with the controls, the omega-3 fatty acid content of eggs from hens fed flax and canola seed increased significantly (P<.05), and the brain tissue of embryos and chicks contained significantly (P<.05) more omega-3 fatty acids, predominantly docosahexaenoic acid (C22:63). The plasma of the chicks from hens fed flax seed contained significantly (P<.05) more omega-3 fatty acids than those fed the control diet. The arachidonic acid (C20:46) content in the egg yolk and chick plasma lipids from the flax fed laying hens were significantly reduced."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-138
Mentioning that plants such as flax lack DHA & EPA is both irrelevant and misleading when discussing animal sources of fatty acids, as animals are capable of converting dietary ALA into EPA & DHA (described in references 13-17), often at efficiencies far higher than the paltry 5% in adult human men. The results of the study clearly show Chickens eating a diet containing flax/canola seeds (containing ALA) leads to increased omega-3 fatty acid levels in eggs, tissues and plasma. Further, the authors specify increased levels of predominantly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were observed (not just ALA)
24.68.117.47 ( talk) 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In the section The n−6 to n−3 ratio:
Metabolites of n−6 are more inflammatory (second paragraph)
n-6 fatty acids also reduce inflammation (last sentence)
Which one is true?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.26.96 ( talk) 14:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
According to many literature and scholary sources, Omega 6 can be either pro -inflammtory or inflammatory. http://www.Livehealthytoday.org/pages/omega-fattyacids.phpLeo04 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This page claims that olive oil has a 3:13.1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Would that this were true! The page nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/509/2 shows that a tablespoon of olive oil has 103 mg of omega-3 and 1318 mg of omega-6 fatty acid.
The site http://www.oliveoilsource.com/definition/omega-3-and-omega-6-fatty acids states that olive oil has an average 10:1 ration of omega-6 to omega-3.
The British sports website http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/omega-3-omega-6.html says that olive oil is devoid of omega-3 and very low in omega-6, making it a very poor source of essential fatty acids.
A table of fat components on the University of California at San Diego web page http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Nutrition/oil_good.html agrees with this evaluation, showing zero omega-3 to just one omega-6. It’s not clear why the math department is discussing nutrition, but it’s reasonable to assume they have their ratios going the right direction.
All of this suggests that this Wikipedia page may have reversed the values in the ratio for olive oil. If so, this particular error is not consistent, because the UCSD table lists the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio for canola oil as 1:3, and this Wikipedia article shows it as 1:7. This is may be a significant difference, but at least it goes in the right direction.
The problem may stem from the fact that the author is inconsistent in which fatty acid is given first in the references to ratios, and simply got the two confused in this one instance. I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it any further than this, so I hope the original author or someone else will do so.
Elaeo ( talk) 07:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so I'm noting here the sentence I removed from the intro:
And what I put in it's place:
I'm quite sure that's correct. The difference is important because consuming EPA and DHA won't ward off metabolism problems. That's because there is no general requirement for omega-3. Omega-3 isn't essential. There is a requirement for ALA. If you consume just ALA, you can have normal metabolism. Gronky ( talk) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"Though mammals cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids, they have a limited ability to form the long-chain n−3 fatty acids" This is contradictory. If they have a limited ability to form some types of n−3 fatty acids, then it's wrong to state they "cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids" 109.153.85.226 ( talk) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
What does "PUFA" mean? I wonder why this abbreviation was suddenly injected into the article without first defining it. Anyone? 109.153.85.226 ( talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
We need to use secondary sources rather than primary ones per WP:MEDRS. This article needs substantial work. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
For some reason this article goes to great lengths to demonstrate that omega-3 does not have beneficial health effects. The section cites an abundance studies and sources that are controversial. I have suspicions that someone on a crusade to play down the positive effects of omega-3 has presented a biased point of view. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I think some discussion might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.111.223 ( talk) 05:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me you might want to source your opinion with actual research, where is the data from proper large scale data that's come back negative? I recently read a small one with 44 subjects where pufa 's where you used as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy and they were markedly better than the mono therapy. But large scale negative studies I ve not come across doc. Working for the pharma companies much, huh doc? 94.66.112.123 ( talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Two meta-analyses found no evidence supporting the claim of a beneficial role.
This one concluded "Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association.";
This one concluded "Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease." I have updated the article to reflect the secondary sources accurately.
Zad
68
18:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"are fats commonly found in marine and plant oils. " Did you mean "are fats commonly found in marine animals and plant oils." or "are fats commonly found in marine and land plant oils." Marine oils somehow does not seem to be very descriptive. 84.228.219.232 ( talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) deavman
"Though mammals cannot synthesize omega−3 fatty acids, they have a limited ability to form the long-chain omega−3 fatty acids including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20 carbons and 5 double bonds), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22 carbons and 6 double bonds) and α-linolenic acid (ALA, 18 carbons and 3 double bonds)." is confusing. Should this not more clearly state that mammals can convert ALA to EPA and DHA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcgirton ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"Evidence does not support a beneficial role for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing cardiovascular disease (including myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death) or stroke.[2][9]"
Is followed by...
"Omega-3 fatty acids in algal oil, fish oil, fish and seafood have been shown to lower the risk of heart attacks.[23] Omega-6 fatty acids in sunflower oil and safflower oil may also reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.[24]"
Only a few paragraphs between "no evidence supports" and "studies show evidence". Are these older studies refuted by the newer ones claiming no evidence of benefit? Or are they measuring different things? In any case, as a reader not familiar with the scientific background, I was confused. After reading this, I could not say whether or not the scientific community supported claims that omega-3 and omega-6 had health benefits pertaining to heart disease and heart attacks. And if there is significant disagreement or controversy regarding this, such should be noted in the article. Whimper ( talk) 12:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Let somebody (who is enthusiastic enough) verify what is really written in this source: Lands, WEM (2005). Fish, Omega 3 and human health. American Oil Chemists' Society. ISBN 978-1-893997-81-3. Is there really written that one needs 4 times more omega-3 than omega-6? Maybe, there (as also in many other sources) the inverse proportion is present: the amount of omega-3 should be at least 1/4 of the amount of omega-6. -- D.M. from Ukraine ( talk) 20:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Have removed "A study published in July 2013 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has confirmed a link between high blood concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids and an increased risk of prostate cancer. [1] According to the study, high concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA – the three anti-inflammatory and metabolically related fatty acids derived from fatty fish and fish-oil supplements – are associated with a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. The study also found a 44 percent increase in the risk of low-grade prostate cancer and an overall 43 percent increase in risk for all prostate cancers. [1] [2]"
As this is using a primary source to refute a secondary source. We do not use popular press generally. Guidelines is here at WP:MEDRS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Common sources of animal omega–3 EPA and DHA fatty acids include fish oils, algal oil, egg oil, squid oils, krill oil "
Is algae an animal? 209.131.231.233 ( talk) 14:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The claim "The DHA obtained through the consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids is positively associated with cognitive and behavioral performance.", does not seem to be supported by the cited study. The study says "In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we observed no overall effect of 26 weeks of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on cognitive performance. "
http://www.neurology.org/content/71/6/430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.237.218 ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This page begins, "Omega-3 fatty acids ... refers to a group of three fats....". Come on, guys, there must be a lot more than 3 of them. A list later in this page names 11 of them. (Also fatty acids are, technically, not fats -- read fat to see why.)
-- Solo Owl 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle ( talk • contribs)
Nimptsch3 (
talk)
06:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to update the information concerning Omega-3 link to increased risk of prostate cancer and it has been removed three times. The information that is now up is outdated and wrong. This is my first time trying to add something to a Wikipedia article so I am struggling with the process and apparently with the culture that allows one person to rescind updates while threatening to ban me when I try to do it. My interest is to get the facts right on the article as this could affect peoples lives but apparently someone is determined to keep the false, outdated and misleading information up there. Petmo100 ( talk) 01:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Petmo100 that there is a culture of "trigger-happy" banning, or threats to do so, among some of those who run Wikipedia. Fletcherbrian ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The study is here, from PubMed: Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) 105 (15): 1132-1141 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.34.30 ( talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
In the section "Health Effects: Cardiovascular Disease" the initial sentence is:
Evidence does not support a beneficial role for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing cardiovascular disease (including myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death) or stroke.
Yet the section "Mechanism of Action: The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio" contains the following:
... three studies published in 2005, 2007 and 2008, including a randomized controlled trial, found that, while omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease in humans, the levels of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (and, therefore, the ratios) did not matter.
So, which part of the article is correct? Is there a lack of evidence or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.176.17 ( talk) 08:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the section "The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio" contradicts the statement in the first that the ratio does not matter. Am I missing something? 2605:A601:5AF:7001:FDD3:B2ED:F1B7:187A ( talk) 00:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The inconsistencies result from an obviously slanted tone in much of the copy. The primary author here is against the possible benefits of omega-3s and present the data in a heavily one-sided way. Even when a possible benefit is acknowledged, it is done so begrudgingly. What isn't biased is overly technical. This entry needs a lot of work. PFR 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The article claims:
The cited journal article is "Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on serum markers of cardiovascular disease risk: A systematic review". [2] I only have access to the abstract, but it appears to only authoritatively address cardiovascular disease. I marked this claim with {{ failed verification}}. Some cleanup may also be in order if this can be supported...it's unclear what "connected to" and "association with" mean. Also, a complete list of disorders should be presented or linked to rather than merely being hinted at. -- Beland ( talk 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the source for the italics of the “n” in n-3? CielProfond ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether these are bad and/or numerous enough to warrant a "Multiple issues" template.
Problems with other articles in the same general topic area:
I've been at this an hour and a half now. I don't have the energy to WP:BEBOLD any more, and it's probably not a good idea while I'm angry, either. I am aware that some of these are issues with other articles. I am most likely to edit the sectioning in this article, and the lead sentence of ALA, because it's easy and doesn't involve contradicting anyone. Maybe the bit about diet/pollution in the "interactions" article. Maybe the parts in the "ratio" subsection of the present article. Maybe tag some vague/conflicting sentences (which doesn't really fix anything). Anyone who helps would be... helpful. -- Officiallyover ( talk) 16:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In a strict sense, is it not true that ALA (18:3 n-3) and LA (18:2 n-6) are the two essential PUFAs as it says in alpha-Linolenic acid ? I am not aware of other essential fatty acids, what do you mean? Carystus ( talk) 21:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Intake of large doses (2.0 to 4.0 g/day) of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids as prescription drugs or dietary supplements are generally required to achieve significant (> 15%) lowering of triglycerides, and at those doses the effects can be significant (from 20% to 35% and even up to 45% in individuals with levels greater that 500 mg/dL). It appears that both EPA and DHA lower triglycerides, but DHA appears to raise LDL-C ("bad cholesterol") more than EPA, while DHA raises HDL-C ("good cholesterol") while EPA does not. There appears to be little difference between in effect between dietary supplement and prescription forms of omega-3 fatty acids but EPA and DHA ethyl esters (prescription forms) work less well when taken on an empty stomach of with a low-fat meal. [3]
References
- Jytdog ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Along the line of Jytdog's merge proposal, I propose to move the health section of fish oil to omega-3 fatty acid. Since the health claims of fish oil are aimed at DHA, EPA and the n-3 version of DPA (as far as I know), and since the health claims of shark liver oil should be covered in that article, the remainder (that is not PUFA n-3) can be covered in fish oil. How it should be divided between omega-3 fatty acids and the individual n-3 fatty acids, I don't know, but it seems reasonable to treat the health effects in omega-3 fatty acids since the health effect depend on the ratio e.g. of DHA to EPA (as they compete as substrates for eicosanoid cascade enzymes and possibly endothelium transporters), and since the dietary form the omega-3 come in can be either triglycerides, ethyl esters, phospholipids or free, the dietary forms, their source, their transport, fate and health impact could converge nicely in the omega-3 fatty acids article. It is not quite clear to me what form if any e.g. the DHA article deals with, and if health claims from these individual n-3 fatty acids should also move to omega-3 fatty acids. It would be best to have health and other aspects in one place to avoid repetitions. That way, e.g. the sources seal oil, krill oil, squid oil etc. could all point to one article for the majority of their health aspects. Carystus ( talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Ack. How to handle?? Jytdog ( talk) 23:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I took a peek at Omega-3 carboxylic acids to see what that is about. It looks clear. I stumbled over the term "Omega-3 carboxylic acids", thinking, shouldn't that be "Omega-3 free fatty acids", so I went ahead and created the page as a draft, because I think it is missing. Could the "Omega-3 carboxylic acids" change name to the drug in question*, and "Omega-3 free fatty acids" could then discuss the human biochemical aspects (which will be common to drugs and commercial products) and point to the drug(s) as well as commercial products and Omega-3 fatty acids section "Forms". (I realize from the above that it was renamed from Epanova)
In Omega-3 fatty acids, I have added sections "Form" and "Biochemistry", maybe "Mechanism of action" can be incorporated into "Biochemistry?
Note; what is "carboxylated DHA and EPA" and "Omega-3 carboxylic acids"? It goes without saying that the carboxyl group is present in this context. Carystus ( talk) 15:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Fish oil be merged into this article. The content there completely overlaps with, and is not in sync with, the content here. Jytdog ( talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes Jytdog, thanks. Carystus ( talk) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've moved 'Risk of deficiency' to the Health Effects section. Not sure if this is the ideal location for it, but it's perhaps better there than in the Dietary Sources section, which is where I'd found it. Meticulo ( talk) 06:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that PC is the only transport for DHA to the brain. PS is also a transport, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 ( talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"For omega-3 fatty acids, low quality evidence suggests a beneficial effect for a 12 week course of nutritional supplementation compared with placebo. However, the data emerged from a single trial with few participants, and this result has never been replicated to our knowledge. "
This is a quote from the BMJ article recently restored. Way too early for publication in an encyclopedia. JSR ( talk) 01:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In Daily Values there is a 2002 ref for Amer Heart Assoc guidelines and a call for an update. This appears to have been updated in 2017, but without a specific amount per day for coronary heart disease and without mention of triglycerides. The latter appears to have been covered in Miller 2011. I suspect these refs should be incorporated, but not sure if Daily values or Cardiovascular disease.
David notMD ( talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This [3] is an excellent source. What do you want to use it to say? Table 8 is a good summary. Not good evidence for much. Use is reasonable for the prevention of CHF among people at high risk and those with heart failure. Otherwise use is not supported. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the fresh perspective of someone who hasn't been working on a page can be useful. For those devoted to working on improving quality of this page, please be advised that it current reads overall in a slightly slanted / non-neutral way. Sometimes too much reliance on JAMA as a source can be problematic and may be part of the issue. A more neutral presentation or expanding into pro/con would be better. Also, the last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph don't belong there --- it's out of place and thoughts abruptly change direction. It's also an example of a non-neutral stance. Uberveritas ( talk) 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Quote from the "plant sources" section: Flaxseed (or linseed) (Linum usitatissimum) and its oil are perhaps the most widely available botanical source of the omega-3 fatty acid ALA. Flaxseed oil consists of approximately 55% ALA, which makes it six times richer than most fish oils in omega-3 fatty acids.[126] A portion of this is converted by the body to EPA and DHA, though the actual converted percentage may differ between men and women.[127]
Can this section be expanded to mention the human body's efficiency of converting ALA to EPA and DHA? I heard the human body is extremely inefficient at this, and it's worth pointing out as a means of clarification. People reading this (as is) may get the impression that it's sufficient to consume ALA by itself and avoid DHA and EPA because the human body converts it. That potentially could lead to people making poor decisions. TheyreOntoMe ( talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Some studies have been run on aggression, sometimes on prison populations, have tried to link omega-3 fatty acids to aggression
"There is some evidence to support the use of omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of conditions characterized by a high level of impulsivity and aggression and borderline personality disorders."
Would it be worth mentioning studies on aggression and omega-3 supplementation? -- Callinus ( talk) 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This section is woefully lacking in appropriate referencing, and needs input from someone knowledgeable in toxicology. The Fish oil article has some references about contamination. Maybe can be used here, albeit with understanding that appropriate processing removes some of the contaminants. David notMD ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29387889
Would be good to add to the wiki article? Especially considering the conclusion of the meta-analysis:
goes against for example this sentence in current wiki article (permalink id 832607652):
-- Treetear ( talk) 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - re " Fish Oil Drug May Reduce Heart Attack and Stroke Risks for Some - Large doses of an omega-3 fatty acid in fish oil sharply reduced the rate of cardiovascular events in people with a history of heart disease or Type 2 diabetes" [1] - is this study, recently described in The New York Times, worth adding/integrating to the " Omega-3 fatty acid" and/or " Cardiovascular disease" articles - or not? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
References
Dear Sirs ,
I am trying to remove a dead link in the reference section with my valid article on Omega 3 fatty acid . I have a website dedicated to fitness and overall well being and there was a researched article on omega 3 published by me which i thought is totally relevant as i dont have a product which i sell or anything like that . I need clarification in this regard pls .
Thanks , Sharad chhakara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddysouthpaw ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Zefr: The dash in 'omega-3' was derived from a minus sign, as in the third highest position number for the double bond. I made a note of this as a footnote. However, my footnote was reverted as unconstructive. Please explain. The first paragraph deals with nomenclatural issues, which necessarily includes chemical nomenclature. As such, the nomenclature only makes sense in light of this convention for numbering. Thus, this issue is clearly relevant. Omega-3 fatty acids are chemical substances, not just health supplements. Also, by convention, the 'n' in n-3 should be italicized. Alsosaid1987 ( talk) 03:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The industrial production is an important omission here. Jotting down some notes here.
Perusing, I discovered a good overview:
I also saw some expensive reports which mention major suppliers such as "Omega 3 Supplement Market Analysis By Source" from Grand View Research, "Omega 3 Market Transforming Global Revenue by 2025" from openPR.
Digging deeper, it appears that Cargill is producing omega-3 from canola and expects that to dominate the market in a few years: Omega-3s from plants: ‘This technology is going to have a massive impact on the industry’ (2018). II | ( t - c) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This article should start by explaining the characteristics (chemical or biological) that justify treating ALL omega-three fatty acids together as a distinct group. Just because ONE fatty acid is essential and it happens to be omega-3 is not enough.
At the very least, the article should clarify that the topic is omega-3 FAs that occur in the human diet, which is a very small subset of all omega-3 fatty acids. The latter include infinitely many inedible, indigestible, and even toxic FAs.
I want to believe that "omega-3" is more than a meme that the oil and health supplement industries have found useful for their marketing. But the article at present does not quite do that.
Anyway, health studies that tested the health effects of specific omega-3 fatty acids should be described as tests of THOSE fatty acids, not of "omega-3 acids" in general. This mischaracterization is like describing a study of the safety of Ferraris as being about the risks of driving red cars.
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
17:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
Zefr removed my edits saying that the following reviews are not MEDRS. Here are the following sources:
1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7440169
2) https://doi.org/10.31665%2Fjfb.2019.7192
I would like to know why they are not, as far as I know they do not come from predatory journals or publishers.
Thanks. Medhekp ( talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There are some new reviews on omega 3:
That's a lot of indicates, no evidence, provides a clue, conflicting results, necessary to identify the true clinical evidence and research bias.Our umbrella review indicates that omega-3 fatty acids supplementation reduces overall mortality from cardiovascular causes. Even though a few large RCTs showed no evidence of clinical effect of omega-3 on cardiovascular outcomes, our comprehensive review study still provides a clue of clinical utility of omega-3 fatty acids supplementation. Considering that there have been conflicting results in many existing studies, in future clinical trials, it is necessary to identify the true clinical evidence concerning omega-3 fatty acids supplementation through efforts to reduce various research biases.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This including a WP:RS reference, was reverted due to WP:POV. This article attracts a lot of POV editing, and due to the high pace of research in the subject, there are plenty of studies, evidence, and other WP:RS to support just about anyone's opinion. Indeed, most aspects of n3 are still not fully understood or measured (serious research had not really started until the early 90s). It is of course fair game to include what the literature indicates for n3, but not to claim or imply conclusivity, accompanied by cherrypicked references, or in this case, a view within a WP:RS reference, dissenting from the referenced article's thesis. István ( talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've referenced 3 studies in the intro paragraph. How do I reference these again later in the article? NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This article cites MANY studies about the health benefits of omega-3. However, this article also gives the impression that the short-chain omega-3s found in flax seed oil (ALA) is just as good as EPA and DHA. ALL of the studies listed were using EPA & DHA, i.e. fish oil. The benefits section says "n−3 fatty acids" over and over again, but never clarifies that it's actually EPA and DHA. Sine these studies all were testing fish oil, shouldn't we be more clear about that? Should we then get rid of the health benefits sections and move those to the fish oil entry? Then tell people to reference that entry. NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 05:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I added the most common sources of omega-3 as fish and fish oil to the intro. This is because I feel many people coming to the page are interested in omega-3 in relation to fish oil, so it warrants mentioning at the beginning. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. thx! NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
the original point remains valid; i added a bit about the current scientific studies going on about fish oil supplements and associated health benefits. Feel free to add more to it, especially popular information about health claims and so forth. makeswell 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
"In congestive heart failure, cells that are only barely receiving enough blood flow become electrically hyperexcitable."
I searched Wiki for this hyperexcitable word and found it used in many articles but no specific page on it (in my search). What does it mean (and if there is a page for it (there should be since it's so popular) then could somebody just link to it from this page?)? Also if somebody wants to leave a note on my Talk Page saying what it means that'd be much appreciated. Thanks :) makeswell 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
It seems to me like we should merge "Health Benefits" with "Health Risks" Which currently exists under "Risks" into "Health Benefits and Risks"
the section under "Risks" entitled "Legal Risk for Manufacturers" wouldn't fit under this title I guess.
We could give this section a different title such as "Unproven Health Claims" or something more relevant to the consumer, if you guys want.
it seems most appropriate to have the "The n−6 to n−3 ratio" section next to the Health and Biology sections, too. Actually this topic is discussed in "Biological significance" as well, so maybe we should retitle the Biological Significance section or break it into pieces.
also, I'd move the "Dietary Sources" section right underneath the History and then Chemistry sections, though this doesn't seem to be as important.
It is misleading to give people the Health Benefits without clearly showing them that there are also Health Risks. I Suggest we merge these two so that people read "Health Benefits and Risks" then scroll down to the Benefits section and look for the Risks section as well. makeswell 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
are different, former ones belong to IUPAC conventions .....and latter ones ???.... -- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 05:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
By quick looking at the history, it seems to me that this trival naming starts after 1960 -- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
More refined results
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 07:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: additional search results using other academic search engines are required to verify the above findings -- 222.67.208.221 ( talk) 07:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, the amount of omega 3 in the various fish listed varies quite considerably from other such lists I found on the Internet. Can someone explain why the discrepancy? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 05:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As published:
comparing omega-3 PUFAs (9.6 g/day)
As subsequently corrected:
comparing omega-3 PUFAs (6.6 mg/day)
http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X%2803%2900188-3/fulltext
Don't know how to add that in the article. Hank ( talk) 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I see a link to Fishoilblog.com has been removed due to not fitting within the external link policy. I'm assuming this is because links to blogs are discouraged. However, in this case, the word "blog" is misleading since this isn't some person's blog about life, or whatever. This is a news and research site that's updated on a regular basis. Every post links to clinical studies, and I've used this site to find research for the fish oil and omega-3 entries. However, the breadth of the information is far too much to be contained in Wikipedia, so I think for the sake of helping people to thoroughly and exhaustively understand the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, an external link is in order. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. NutrisaurusRex ( talk) 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that one of the sources cited (FN 136: Cherian 1991) does find that chickens fed flax seed produce embryos and chicks with significantly higher levels of DHA in their brain tissue, which would suggest that chicken convert the ALA from flax seed to DHA, and that their eggs (at least the fertile one) have higher levels of DHA.
While the study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (FN 131) may be right to suggest that the claims of omega 3 egg marketers are overblown or that fish is a more cost effective source of DHA, the evidence does not support the claim that because flax seed's omega 3 oils are ALA, it necessarily follows that eggs from chickens fed flax seed are not higher in DHA or EPA.
See generally this review: http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/pfs21.htm
And this study: http://www.bourre.fr/pdf/publications_scientifiques/258.pdf
(As the parent of two vegetarians who keeps backyard chickens, I'll keep feeding my chickens flax seed, even if I wouldn't pay significantly more for "omega-3 eggs" at the store). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.154.0.250 ( talk) 22:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is biased into the benefits of the Omega-3 medicine. It's probably written for a Marketing campaign. Read from a reliable medical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Jacomet ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have restored numerous instances of the word "that" preceding an otherwise independent clause, which was originally a dependent clause. In most cases, the "that" clause was the object of a verb such as "showed" or "concluded." Without the "that," the subject of the (now independent) clause becomes the object of the verb, and the predicate of the clause becomes an unattached sentence fragment. — Jay L09 ( talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph, because it appears to be nothing more nor less than advertising content: " Milk and cheese from grass-fed cows may also be good sources of n−3. One UK study showed half a pint of milk provides 10% of the recommended daily intake (RDI) of ALA, while a piece of organic cheese the size of a matchbox may weasel words provide up to 88%, depending on the level of fat and drying. [1]" — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous problems with both the reference and its summary:
"Eggs produced by hens fed a diet of greens and insects contain higher levels of n−3 fatty acids (mostly ALA) than chickens fed corn or soybeans.[137]"
Removed "(mostly ALA)" as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-136 makes no mention of ALA, or the composition of the n-3 fatty acids
"The addition of flax and canola seeds to the diets of chickens, both good sources of alpha-linolenic acid, increases the omega-3 content of the eggs.[139] However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest reports "the omega-3s that FDA considers healthful (DHA and EPA) are not found in plants such as flax seed." It also reports "[e]ggs contain too much saturated fat and cholesterol to meet FDA’s definition of healthy."[135] "
The second sentence is extremely misleading, contradicts the findings of the study referenced in the previous sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-138 and is already covered in the section on flax & plant sources.
"As compared with the controls, the omega-3 fatty acid content of eggs from hens fed flax and canola seed increased significantly (P<.05), and the brain tissue of embryos and chicks contained significantly (P<.05) more omega-3 fatty acids, predominantly docosahexaenoic acid (C22:63). The plasma of the chicks from hens fed flax seed contained significantly (P<.05) more omega-3 fatty acids than those fed the control diet. The arachidonic acid (C20:46) content in the egg yolk and chick plasma lipids from the flax fed laying hens were significantly reduced."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#cite_note-138
Mentioning that plants such as flax lack DHA & EPA is both irrelevant and misleading when discussing animal sources of fatty acids, as animals are capable of converting dietary ALA into EPA & DHA (described in references 13-17), often at efficiencies far higher than the paltry 5% in adult human men. The results of the study clearly show Chickens eating a diet containing flax/canola seeds (containing ALA) leads to increased omega-3 fatty acid levels in eggs, tissues and plasma. Further, the authors specify increased levels of predominantly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were observed (not just ALA)
24.68.117.47 ( talk) 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In the section The n−6 to n−3 ratio:
Metabolites of n−6 are more inflammatory (second paragraph)
n-6 fatty acids also reduce inflammation (last sentence)
Which one is true?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.26.96 ( talk) 14:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
According to many literature and scholary sources, Omega 6 can be either pro -inflammtory or inflammatory. http://www.Livehealthytoday.org/pages/omega-fattyacids.phpLeo04 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This page claims that olive oil has a 3:13.1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Would that this were true! The page nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/509/2 shows that a tablespoon of olive oil has 103 mg of omega-3 and 1318 mg of omega-6 fatty acid.
The site http://www.oliveoilsource.com/definition/omega-3-and-omega-6-fatty acids states that olive oil has an average 10:1 ration of omega-6 to omega-3.
The British sports website http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/omega-3-omega-6.html says that olive oil is devoid of omega-3 and very low in omega-6, making it a very poor source of essential fatty acids.
A table of fat components on the University of California at San Diego web page http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Nutrition/oil_good.html agrees with this evaluation, showing zero omega-3 to just one omega-6. It’s not clear why the math department is discussing nutrition, but it’s reasonable to assume they have their ratios going the right direction.
All of this suggests that this Wikipedia page may have reversed the values in the ratio for olive oil. If so, this particular error is not consistent, because the UCSD table lists the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio for canola oil as 1:3, and this Wikipedia article shows it as 1:7. This is may be a significant difference, but at least it goes in the right direction.
The problem may stem from the fact that the author is inconsistent in which fatty acid is given first in the references to ratios, and simply got the two confused in this one instance. I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it any further than this, so I hope the original author or someone else will do so.
Elaeo ( talk) 07:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so I'm noting here the sentence I removed from the intro:
And what I put in it's place:
I'm quite sure that's correct. The difference is important because consuming EPA and DHA won't ward off metabolism problems. That's because there is no general requirement for omega-3. Omega-3 isn't essential. There is a requirement for ALA. If you consume just ALA, you can have normal metabolism. Gronky ( talk) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"Though mammals cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids, they have a limited ability to form the long-chain n−3 fatty acids" This is contradictory. If they have a limited ability to form some types of n−3 fatty acids, then it's wrong to state they "cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids" 109.153.85.226 ( talk) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
What does "PUFA" mean? I wonder why this abbreviation was suddenly injected into the article without first defining it. Anyone? 109.153.85.226 ( talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
We need to use secondary sources rather than primary ones per WP:MEDRS. This article needs substantial work. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
For some reason this article goes to great lengths to demonstrate that omega-3 does not have beneficial health effects. The section cites an abundance studies and sources that are controversial. I have suspicions that someone on a crusade to play down the positive effects of omega-3 has presented a biased point of view. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I think some discussion might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.111.223 ( talk) 05:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me you might want to source your opinion with actual research, where is the data from proper large scale data that's come back negative? I recently read a small one with 44 subjects where pufa 's where you used as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy and they were markedly better than the mono therapy. But large scale negative studies I ve not come across doc. Working for the pharma companies much, huh doc? 94.66.112.123 ( talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Two meta-analyses found no evidence supporting the claim of a beneficial role.
This one concluded "Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association.";
This one concluded "Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease." I have updated the article to reflect the secondary sources accurately.
Zad
68
18:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"are fats commonly found in marine and plant oils. " Did you mean "are fats commonly found in marine animals and plant oils." or "are fats commonly found in marine and land plant oils." Marine oils somehow does not seem to be very descriptive. 84.228.219.232 ( talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) deavman
"Though mammals cannot synthesize omega−3 fatty acids, they have a limited ability to form the long-chain omega−3 fatty acids including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20 carbons and 5 double bonds), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22 carbons and 6 double bonds) and α-linolenic acid (ALA, 18 carbons and 3 double bonds)." is confusing. Should this not more clearly state that mammals can convert ALA to EPA and DHA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcgirton ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"Evidence does not support a beneficial role for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing cardiovascular disease (including myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death) or stroke.[2][9]"
Is followed by...
"Omega-3 fatty acids in algal oil, fish oil, fish and seafood have been shown to lower the risk of heart attacks.[23] Omega-6 fatty acids in sunflower oil and safflower oil may also reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.[24]"
Only a few paragraphs between "no evidence supports" and "studies show evidence". Are these older studies refuted by the newer ones claiming no evidence of benefit? Or are they measuring different things? In any case, as a reader not familiar with the scientific background, I was confused. After reading this, I could not say whether or not the scientific community supported claims that omega-3 and omega-6 had health benefits pertaining to heart disease and heart attacks. And if there is significant disagreement or controversy regarding this, such should be noted in the article. Whimper ( talk) 12:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Let somebody (who is enthusiastic enough) verify what is really written in this source: Lands, WEM (2005). Fish, Omega 3 and human health. American Oil Chemists' Society. ISBN 978-1-893997-81-3. Is there really written that one needs 4 times more omega-3 than omega-6? Maybe, there (as also in many other sources) the inverse proportion is present: the amount of omega-3 should be at least 1/4 of the amount of omega-6. -- D.M. from Ukraine ( talk) 20:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Have removed "A study published in July 2013 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has confirmed a link between high blood concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids and an increased risk of prostate cancer. [1] According to the study, high concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA – the three anti-inflammatory and metabolically related fatty acids derived from fatty fish and fish-oil supplements – are associated with a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. The study also found a 44 percent increase in the risk of low-grade prostate cancer and an overall 43 percent increase in risk for all prostate cancers. [1] [2]"
As this is using a primary source to refute a secondary source. We do not use popular press generally. Guidelines is here at WP:MEDRS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Common sources of animal omega–3 EPA and DHA fatty acids include fish oils, algal oil, egg oil, squid oils, krill oil "
Is algae an animal? 209.131.231.233 ( talk) 14:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The claim "The DHA obtained through the consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids is positively associated with cognitive and behavioral performance.", does not seem to be supported by the cited study. The study says "In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we observed no overall effect of 26 weeks of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on cognitive performance. "
http://www.neurology.org/content/71/6/430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.237.218 ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This page begins, "Omega-3 fatty acids ... refers to a group of three fats....". Come on, guys, there must be a lot more than 3 of them. A list later in this page names 11 of them. (Also fatty acids are, technically, not fats -- read fat to see why.)
-- Solo Owl 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle ( talk • contribs)
Nimptsch3 (
talk)
06:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to update the information concerning Omega-3 link to increased risk of prostate cancer and it has been removed three times. The information that is now up is outdated and wrong. This is my first time trying to add something to a Wikipedia article so I am struggling with the process and apparently with the culture that allows one person to rescind updates while threatening to ban me when I try to do it. My interest is to get the facts right on the article as this could affect peoples lives but apparently someone is determined to keep the false, outdated and misleading information up there. Petmo100 ( talk) 01:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Petmo100 that there is a culture of "trigger-happy" banning, or threats to do so, among some of those who run Wikipedia. Fletcherbrian ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The study is here, from PubMed: Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) 105 (15): 1132-1141 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.34.30 ( talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
In the section "Health Effects: Cardiovascular Disease" the initial sentence is:
Evidence does not support a beneficial role for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing cardiovascular disease (including myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death) or stroke.
Yet the section "Mechanism of Action: The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio" contains the following:
... three studies published in 2005, 2007 and 2008, including a randomized controlled trial, found that, while omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease in humans, the levels of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (and, therefore, the ratios) did not matter.
So, which part of the article is correct? Is there a lack of evidence or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.176.17 ( talk) 08:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the section "The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio" contradicts the statement in the first that the ratio does not matter. Am I missing something? 2605:A601:5AF:7001:FDD3:B2ED:F1B7:187A ( talk) 00:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The inconsistencies result from an obviously slanted tone in much of the copy. The primary author here is against the possible benefits of omega-3s and present the data in a heavily one-sided way. Even when a possible benefit is acknowledged, it is done so begrudgingly. What isn't biased is overly technical. This entry needs a lot of work. PFR 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The article claims:
The cited journal article is "Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on serum markers of cardiovascular disease risk: A systematic review". [2] I only have access to the abstract, but it appears to only authoritatively address cardiovascular disease. I marked this claim with {{ failed verification}}. Some cleanup may also be in order if this can be supported...it's unclear what "connected to" and "association with" mean. Also, a complete list of disorders should be presented or linked to rather than merely being hinted at. -- Beland ( talk 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the source for the italics of the “n” in n-3? CielProfond ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether these are bad and/or numerous enough to warrant a "Multiple issues" template.
Problems with other articles in the same general topic area:
I've been at this an hour and a half now. I don't have the energy to WP:BEBOLD any more, and it's probably not a good idea while I'm angry, either. I am aware that some of these are issues with other articles. I am most likely to edit the sectioning in this article, and the lead sentence of ALA, because it's easy and doesn't involve contradicting anyone. Maybe the bit about diet/pollution in the "interactions" article. Maybe the parts in the "ratio" subsection of the present article. Maybe tag some vague/conflicting sentences (which doesn't really fix anything). Anyone who helps would be... helpful. -- Officiallyover ( talk) 16:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In a strict sense, is it not true that ALA (18:3 n-3) and LA (18:2 n-6) are the two essential PUFAs as it says in alpha-Linolenic acid ? I am not aware of other essential fatty acids, what do you mean? Carystus ( talk) 21:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Intake of large doses (2.0 to 4.0 g/day) of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids as prescription drugs or dietary supplements are generally required to achieve significant (> 15%) lowering of triglycerides, and at those doses the effects can be significant (from 20% to 35% and even up to 45% in individuals with levels greater that 500 mg/dL). It appears that both EPA and DHA lower triglycerides, but DHA appears to raise LDL-C ("bad cholesterol") more than EPA, while DHA raises HDL-C ("good cholesterol") while EPA does not. There appears to be little difference between in effect between dietary supplement and prescription forms of omega-3 fatty acids but EPA and DHA ethyl esters (prescription forms) work less well when taken on an empty stomach of with a low-fat meal. [3]
References
- Jytdog ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Along the line of Jytdog's merge proposal, I propose to move the health section of fish oil to omega-3 fatty acid. Since the health claims of fish oil are aimed at DHA, EPA and the n-3 version of DPA (as far as I know), and since the health claims of shark liver oil should be covered in that article, the remainder (that is not PUFA n-3) can be covered in fish oil. How it should be divided between omega-3 fatty acids and the individual n-3 fatty acids, I don't know, but it seems reasonable to treat the health effects in omega-3 fatty acids since the health effect depend on the ratio e.g. of DHA to EPA (as they compete as substrates for eicosanoid cascade enzymes and possibly endothelium transporters), and since the dietary form the omega-3 come in can be either triglycerides, ethyl esters, phospholipids or free, the dietary forms, their source, their transport, fate and health impact could converge nicely in the omega-3 fatty acids article. It is not quite clear to me what form if any e.g. the DHA article deals with, and if health claims from these individual n-3 fatty acids should also move to omega-3 fatty acids. It would be best to have health and other aspects in one place to avoid repetitions. That way, e.g. the sources seal oil, krill oil, squid oil etc. could all point to one article for the majority of their health aspects. Carystus ( talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Ack. How to handle?? Jytdog ( talk) 23:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I took a peek at Omega-3 carboxylic acids to see what that is about. It looks clear. I stumbled over the term "Omega-3 carboxylic acids", thinking, shouldn't that be "Omega-3 free fatty acids", so I went ahead and created the page as a draft, because I think it is missing. Could the "Omega-3 carboxylic acids" change name to the drug in question*, and "Omega-3 free fatty acids" could then discuss the human biochemical aspects (which will be common to drugs and commercial products) and point to the drug(s) as well as commercial products and Omega-3 fatty acids section "Forms". (I realize from the above that it was renamed from Epanova)
In Omega-3 fatty acids, I have added sections "Form" and "Biochemistry", maybe "Mechanism of action" can be incorporated into "Biochemistry?
Note; what is "carboxylated DHA and EPA" and "Omega-3 carboxylic acids"? It goes without saying that the carboxyl group is present in this context. Carystus ( talk) 15:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Fish oil be merged into this article. The content there completely overlaps with, and is not in sync with, the content here. Jytdog ( talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes Jytdog, thanks. Carystus ( talk) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've moved 'Risk of deficiency' to the Health Effects section. Not sure if this is the ideal location for it, but it's perhaps better there than in the Dietary Sources section, which is where I'd found it. Meticulo ( talk) 06:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that PC is the only transport for DHA to the brain. PS is also a transport, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 ( talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"For omega-3 fatty acids, low quality evidence suggests a beneficial effect for a 12 week course of nutritional supplementation compared with placebo. However, the data emerged from a single trial with few participants, and this result has never been replicated to our knowledge. "
This is a quote from the BMJ article recently restored. Way too early for publication in an encyclopedia. JSR ( talk) 01:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In Daily Values there is a 2002 ref for Amer Heart Assoc guidelines and a call for an update. This appears to have been updated in 2017, but without a specific amount per day for coronary heart disease and without mention of triglycerides. The latter appears to have been covered in Miller 2011. I suspect these refs should be incorporated, but not sure if Daily values or Cardiovascular disease.
David notMD ( talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This [3] is an excellent source. What do you want to use it to say? Table 8 is a good summary. Not good evidence for much. Use is reasonable for the prevention of CHF among people at high risk and those with heart failure. Otherwise use is not supported. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the fresh perspective of someone who hasn't been working on a page can be useful. For those devoted to working on improving quality of this page, please be advised that it current reads overall in a slightly slanted / non-neutral way. Sometimes too much reliance on JAMA as a source can be problematic and may be part of the issue. A more neutral presentation or expanding into pro/con would be better. Also, the last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph don't belong there --- it's out of place and thoughts abruptly change direction. It's also an example of a non-neutral stance. Uberveritas ( talk) 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Quote from the "plant sources" section: Flaxseed (or linseed) (Linum usitatissimum) and its oil are perhaps the most widely available botanical source of the omega-3 fatty acid ALA. Flaxseed oil consists of approximately 55% ALA, which makes it six times richer than most fish oils in omega-3 fatty acids.[126] A portion of this is converted by the body to EPA and DHA, though the actual converted percentage may differ between men and women.[127]
Can this section be expanded to mention the human body's efficiency of converting ALA to EPA and DHA? I heard the human body is extremely inefficient at this, and it's worth pointing out as a means of clarification. People reading this (as is) may get the impression that it's sufficient to consume ALA by itself and avoid DHA and EPA because the human body converts it. That potentially could lead to people making poor decisions. TheyreOntoMe ( talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Some studies have been run on aggression, sometimes on prison populations, have tried to link omega-3 fatty acids to aggression
"There is some evidence to support the use of omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of conditions characterized by a high level of impulsivity and aggression and borderline personality disorders."
Would it be worth mentioning studies on aggression and omega-3 supplementation? -- Callinus ( talk) 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This section is woefully lacking in appropriate referencing, and needs input from someone knowledgeable in toxicology. The Fish oil article has some references about contamination. Maybe can be used here, albeit with understanding that appropriate processing removes some of the contaminants. David notMD ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29387889
Would be good to add to the wiki article? Especially considering the conclusion of the meta-analysis:
goes against for example this sentence in current wiki article (permalink id 832607652):
-- Treetear ( talk) 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - re " Fish Oil Drug May Reduce Heart Attack and Stroke Risks for Some - Large doses of an omega-3 fatty acid in fish oil sharply reduced the rate of cardiovascular events in people with a history of heart disease or Type 2 diabetes" [1] - is this study, recently described in The New York Times, worth adding/integrating to the " Omega-3 fatty acid" and/or " Cardiovascular disease" articles - or not? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
References
Dear Sirs ,
I am trying to remove a dead link in the reference section with my valid article on Omega 3 fatty acid . I have a website dedicated to fitness and overall well being and there was a researched article on omega 3 published by me which i thought is totally relevant as i dont have a product which i sell or anything like that . I need clarification in this regard pls .
Thanks , Sharad chhakara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddysouthpaw ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Zefr: The dash in 'omega-3' was derived from a minus sign, as in the third highest position number for the double bond. I made a note of this as a footnote. However, my footnote was reverted as unconstructive. Please explain. The first paragraph deals with nomenclatural issues, which necessarily includes chemical nomenclature. As such, the nomenclature only makes sense in light of this convention for numbering. Thus, this issue is clearly relevant. Omega-3 fatty acids are chemical substances, not just health supplements. Also, by convention, the 'n' in n-3 should be italicized. Alsosaid1987 ( talk) 03:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The industrial production is an important omission here. Jotting down some notes here.
Perusing, I discovered a good overview:
I also saw some expensive reports which mention major suppliers such as "Omega 3 Supplement Market Analysis By Source" from Grand View Research, "Omega 3 Market Transforming Global Revenue by 2025" from openPR.
Digging deeper, it appears that Cargill is producing omega-3 from canola and expects that to dominate the market in a few years: Omega-3s from plants: ‘This technology is going to have a massive impact on the industry’ (2018). II | ( t - c) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This article should start by explaining the characteristics (chemical or biological) that justify treating ALL omega-three fatty acids together as a distinct group. Just because ONE fatty acid is essential and it happens to be omega-3 is not enough.
At the very least, the article should clarify that the topic is omega-3 FAs that occur in the human diet, which is a very small subset of all omega-3 fatty acids. The latter include infinitely many inedible, indigestible, and even toxic FAs.
I want to believe that "omega-3" is more than a meme that the oil and health supplement industries have found useful for their marketing. But the article at present does not quite do that.
Anyway, health studies that tested the health effects of specific omega-3 fatty acids should be described as tests of THOSE fatty acids, not of "omega-3 acids" in general. This mischaracterization is like describing a study of the safety of Ferraris as being about the risks of driving red cars.
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
17:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
Zefr removed my edits saying that the following reviews are not MEDRS. Here are the following sources:
1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7440169
2) https://doi.org/10.31665%2Fjfb.2019.7192
I would like to know why they are not, as far as I know they do not come from predatory journals or publishers.
Thanks. Medhekp ( talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There are some new reviews on omega 3:
That's a lot of indicates, no evidence, provides a clue, conflicting results, necessary to identify the true clinical evidence and research bias.Our umbrella review indicates that omega-3 fatty acids supplementation reduces overall mortality from cardiovascular causes. Even though a few large RCTs showed no evidence of clinical effect of omega-3 on cardiovascular outcomes, our comprehensive review study still provides a clue of clinical utility of omega-3 fatty acids supplementation. Considering that there have been conflicting results in many existing studies, in future clinical trials, it is necessary to identify the true clinical evidence concerning omega-3 fatty acids supplementation through efforts to reduce various research biases.