So fish oil causes prostate cancer, what does Veeky Forums think?

most people in the study ate fish oil

if they ate flaxseed, they'd have lower prostate cancer risk, because the lignans in flax are very protective against it

just massage your prostate regularly and lower your chance

Heart disease is more fatal than prostate cancer so I'm willing to take the risk

>not avoiding both
kek

>being a beta cuck and avoiding confrontation
lol my alpha cells just rip those cancer cells apart

harvardprostateknowledge.org/high-intake-of-omega-3-fats-linked-to-increased-prostate-cancer-risk
>One important point to keep in mind, though, is that there may be a difference between eating fish and taking fish-oil supplements. Over and over again, nutrition research has shown that diets full of food and drink that supply vitamins, minerals, and healthful fats are correlated with good health, whereas studies of supplements that try to isolate what are believed to be the healthful constituents of the food have consistently been disappointing.

>Just to be clear: this latest study correlated blood levels of omega-3 fats to prostate cancer. It wasn’t able to prove that omega-3 fats cause prostate cancer, nor did it go into how those blood levels came about and whether men with high blood levels were big fish eaters, took fish-oil supplements, or both.

>We like what our colleague, Dr. Howard Lewine, chief medical editor for Internet publishing for Harvard Health Publications, wrote about the Fred Hutchinson research:

>Despite this one study, you should still consider eating fish and other seafood as a healthy strategy. If we could absolutely, positively say that the benefits of eating seafood comes entirely from omega-3 fats, then downing fish oil pills would be an alternative to eating fish. But it’s more than likely that you need the entire orchestra of fish fats, vitamins, minerals, and supporting molecules, rather than the lone notes of EPA and DHA.

>keep buying fish like a good goy
>don't buy flax that is 1/10 the price and way more effective

>eating bowstrings

Where is this meta-analysis published? There's no citation for it. You can't meta-analyze a single nested case-control study from a p-hacked dataset or use it to draw causality on a blood omega 3 biomarker, nonetheless causality on fish or fish oil consumption which wasn't even looked at.

citation needed

for what, the price?

you can google flaxseeds prostate cancer to see the numerous studies on this

>you can google flaxseeds prostate cancer to see the numerous studies on this
Shifting the burden of proof doesn't put a lot of confidence in your argument.

i don't understand, how am i shifting the burden of proof? i don't have the links saved on my fucking phone, just look it up you absolute nigger

You made a claim and cannot provide citation(s). Are you mentally retarded?

alright, don't look it up, keep eating expensive useless crap. you win

Did you consider clicking on the link before just spewing every buzzword you knew. The absolute state of biological science readers

To a mind as shallow as yours everything is a buzzword.

I've looked into the topic enough to recognize low IQ tards like you that are too stupid to even remember a few lead author last names and publication years. No need to go full sour grapes mode.

I'm sorry my low iq is forcing you to make bad decisions :(

High test is known to increase risk for prostate cancer. It is then far more likely that men who pay attention to their health (consume fish oil) have high test, rather than fish oil itself causing prostate cancer.

Everything causes cancer btw, and genetics is the biggest factor.

Giving your dumb posts attention was a great decision. Today is sides day.

fucking why

>everything is either caused or prevented by testosterone and estrogen

Never change Veeky Forums

fap more often then

Test blockers shrink prostate tumors you mong

Please, stop with this. If you read what you linked you can clearly see that the same study is saying it's not conclusive.
>Fish oil has long been taken for various conditions. Scientific evidence suggests that omega-3 fatty acids can reduce pain, swelling, and inflammation (Goldberg & Katz, 2007; Maroon & Bost, 2006). Strong evidence supports the idea that fish oil helps to lower high-density proteins and the risk of heart disease and stroke (Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, 2015).
(Even if it increased prostate cancer risk, it looks like it still has a lot of other benefits)
>Several investigators have studied the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing prostate cancer. Many studies have shown a reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer when related to increased consumption of omega-3 fatty acids (Chavarro et al., 2007), whereas a more recent controversial case-cohort study by Brasky and colleagues (2013) found just the opposite.
(Study that shows that more fish oil equals less risk of prostate cancer: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17585059)
And look that it says "Many studies have shown a reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer", so in this case we are talking about 2+ studies confirming that fish oil reduces prostate cancer risk vs the one study we are talking right now that "concludes" the opposite.
>Since this study was only an observational design, causation statements were inappropriately cited in their conclusion statements. A cause-and-effect relationship remains unclear, and to conclude otherwise is not appropriate. Other researchers might say it may be coincidence, not causation.
>Also, the investigators reported that the study could not ascertain the source of omega-3 (dietary, from eating foods enriched with omega-3 such as salmon or herring, or taking fish oil supplements).

So, the majority of the studies are still in favor of taking fish oil (for the confirmed benefits).

If anybody is wondering how fish oil can be related to cancer the answer is in the nature of fish oil (mostly polyunsaturated fatty acids).

The many double-carbon bonds that PUFAs have make them volatile and easily oxidized. Lipid peroxidation generally occurs as a cascade where one reaction causes another, and so on. The end result of many oxidation cascades can be toxic or outright carcinogenic. A diet containing excessively high amounts of PUFA increases oxidative stress by producing free radicals. These radicals are especially toxic because of their lipophilic nature which makes them able to penetrate cell membranes and potentially damage DNA. Your body is able to detoxify these radicals in most cases, but if you smoke or are exposed to other environmental stressors then you may be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of lipid peroxidation. The best way to stay healthy is to keep your endogenous antioxidant status healthy by eating plant foods rich in phytochemicals which are known to stimulate detoxification enzymes.

PUFAs have also been shown to decrease the risk of many diseases including cancer. Fatty acid metabolism is complex and it isn't easy to generalize about any particular kind of at (ie: "fish oil is always good/bad")

IMO, fish oil is still a smart supplement to take, and fish is healthy (and tasty) but this sort of research should remind us that nothing is black-and-white and anything taken to an extreme can be bad for your health.

Flax only has the ala omega oil, which your body converts to a way smaller quantity of the other two omegas. 1/10 the price 1/10 the effectiveness.

but that way smaller quantity is still enough to meet your omega3 needs.
and it doesn't cause cancer, but prevents it.

...

ALA intake of fish oil. they didn't have them eat flaxseeds.

ALA is from plants. enjoy your cancer :^)

I think I'll be ok, I'm not syrian hamster living on soya oil.

>your brain on fish
case closed

>I deny evolutionarily conserved biochemistry
not an argument

doubt.jpg

I don't care. I still smoke and occasionally drink booze. There are many unhealthy habits I acquired during the years, omega-3 won't kill me.