questionscan they make up their minds about omega 3 fish…

vote-for16vote-against
vote-for17vote-against

Orange Juice is Good... then bad ... then good
Eggs are Good... then bad ... then good
BACON: is Good... then bad (who cares, I'm gonna eat it anyway)

Everything in MODERATION is my moto (except for Bacon)

vote-for14vote-against

Your first mistake was linking the DailyFail. Try again with something that's not complete crap. Seriously, it's about equal to Star Magazine's journalistic standards.

vote-for4vote-against

@zuiquan: The sad thing is that the stories I have read from them lately have been much more accurate and breaking than US news sources. Our real news media sucks worse than a British tabloid.

vote-for2vote-against

@the550cordshop: Your message is good but I am unclear on what is your Moto.

vote-for5vote-against

I'll take my chances with fish over eating red meat too much.

vote-for1vote-against

There is always krill oil, I don't know if it is as harmful to eat it as fish oil.

vote-for4vote-against

Based on my knowledge of fishsticks, Fish Oil does not cause prostate cancer.

vote-for4vote-against

Johns Hopkins-
" Fish oil supplements as well as another omega-3 fatty acid found in plants don't help people who've had a heart attack avoid another, nor stabilize an increasingly common condition called atrial fibrillation, two studies reported at this week's American Heart Association meeting and published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, respectively, conclude.
The rub really centers on 'very good medical therapy,' something I strongly advocate. When what is known in medicine as the constellation of risk factors for heart disease are modified, other factors, such as fish oils, become less important. I am persuaded that if all the other risk factors such as smoking status, body weight, and exercise were added to the equation fish oil would cease to be the big seller it is right now."

Giving Fish Oil a Miss

vote-for2vote-against

This study has been widely discussed recently and has lots of mixed opinions from experts and doctors...

One of the discussed flaws in the study is that it basically suggests that eating fish will give you increased risk of prostate cancer... and that is nonsense, since all nations that eat a lot of fish, should automatically have increased prostate cancer risk, which they don't.

It was also never determined how the test objects got to have Omega 3 in their body, through eating fish or through fish oil supplements. And when did they start to intake substantial omega 3s? Before they were diagnosed, or after? For how long?

There are plenty scientific responses to this latest study that demand much more systematic and scientific data before conclusions can be made.