CORVALLIS, Ore. Literally hundreds of clinical trials, including some that have gained widespread attention, have been done on the possible benefits of omega-3 fatty acids for the prevention of heart disease producing conflicting results, varied claims, and frustrated consumers unsure what to believe.
A recent analysis done by scientists in the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, published in the Journal of Lipid Research, has sorted through many of these competing findings, and it helps to explain why so many of the studies seem to arrive at differing conclusions.
The review concludes that both fish consumption and dietary omega-3 fatty acid supplements may still help prevent heart disease; that some fatty acids, from certain sources, are more effective than others; that these compounds may have enormous value for serious health problems other than heart disease; and that the very effectiveness of modern drug therapies for heart disease may be one explanation for the conflicting findings on the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.
"After decades of studying omega-3 fatty acids, it's clear that they have value in primary prevention of heart disease," said Donald Jump, author of the analysis, a principal investigator in the Linus Pauling Institute, and professor in the OSU College of Public Health and Human Sciences.
"It's less clear how much impact fish oils have in preventing further cardiovascular events in people who already have heart disease," Jump said. "The studies done several decades ago showed value even for that patient population, but the more recent studies are less conclusive. We believe that one explanation is the effectiveness of current state-of-the-art treatments now being offered."
Some of the earliest work that raised interest in omega-3 fatty acids was done in the 1970s with Greenland Inuits, who ate large amounts of fish and were found to have unusually low levels of cardiov
|Contact: Donald Jump|
Oregon State University