High percentage of omega-3s in the blood may boost risk of aggressive prostate cancer

I, like many other people, was under the impression that taking omega 3 oil supplements were good for your brain and that they were generally good for your overall health. It seems that new research declares the opposite to be true, especially when it's regarding prostrate cancer. Conversely a higher percentage of trans-fatty acids were linked with a lower risk

Analyzing data from a nationwide study involving more than 3,400 men, researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that men with the highest blood percentages of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, an inflammation-lowering omega-3 fatty acid commonly found in fatty fish, have two-and-a-half-times the risk of developing aggressive, high-grade prostate cancer compared to men with the lowest DHA levels.

Conversely, the study also found that men with the highest blood ratios of trans-fatty acids – which are linked to inflammation and heart disease and abundant in processed foods that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils – had a 50 percent reduction in the risk of high-grade prostate cancer. The researchers also found that omega-6 fatty acids, which are found in most vegetable oils and are linked to inflammation and heart disease, were not associated with prostate cancer risk.

It looks as though people should start being careful when taking omega 3 supplements and omega 3 rich fish.

The researchers undertook the study because chronic inflammation is known to increase the risk of several cancers, and the omega-3 fatty acids found primarily in fish and fish oil supplements have anti-inflammatory effects.

Then they found that the opposite was true, to much surprise:

"We were stunned to see these results and we spent a lot of time making sure the analyses were correct," said Brasky, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Hutchinson Center's Cancer Prevention Program. "Our findings turn what we know – or rather what we think we know – about diet, inflammation and the development of prostate cancer on its head and shine a light on the complexity of studying the association between nutrition and the risk of various chronic diseases."

High percentage of omega-3s in the blood may boost risk of aggressive prostate cancer

Anybody ever notice how when research starts showing that a certain thing increases brain functioning or heart health or something like that, it's not too long before another study starts showing that it causes cancer?

Apparently Folic acid can accelerate the growth of cancers too as well as mask signs of B deficiencies.
Of course no one is implying pregnant women should worry about this as it's important they get enough during the first few weeks of pregnancy, but concidering how highly fortified our foods can be in this these days - Anyone who eats a normal healthy diet would get their fair share anyway without all this fortification going on.

reply to post by Griffo


I wonder who their private funding comes from, while I did research on the funding of their programs (the do receive millions yearly from private funding) I can not find any names.

They also receive millions of tax payer dollars a year, but is the private funding what I will like to learn about.

Most of the medical data gathered by testing in the US has big pharma and special interest all over it.

They do emphasize that they need private funding to do their research as the government grants are not enough.

As a man, I've gotta say we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Eat the omega 3's.... save your heart (so we can continue to have sex without having a heart attack).

But eat the omega 3's and you get aggressive prostate cancer, killing your sex life and then killing you.

I'm going to avoid omega 3's and risk the heart attack whilst having sex and possibly die with a smile on my face.

reply to post by Griffo


It is also proven that research causes cancer in rats.

I bet I could link cancer to just about everything by carefully selecting my sample to get the results I want.

reply to post by 547000


Big pharma does hold patents for semi synthetic fish oil in the treatment of cholesterol.

So you can add one and one see where the research comes from and who will benefit.

And 100% of those who get cancer have been exposed to oxygen their entire lives.

But seriously, just get both transfats and omega3 and you should be fine, just don't take too much of either. And if you're worried about prostate cancer, just eat spicy food, the spicy chemical capsaicin is the cancer cure.

The American Association for Cancer Research reports studies suggesting capsaicin is able to kill prostate cancer cells by causing them to undergo apoptosis. The studies were performed on tumors formed by human prostate cancer cell cultures grown in mouse models, and showed tumors treated with capsaicin were about one-fifth the size of the untreated tumors. There have been several clinical studies conducted in Japan and China that showed natural capsaicin directly inhibits the growth of leukemic cells.

Another study carried out at the University of Nottingham suggests capsaicin is able to trigger apoptosis in human lung cancer cells as well.

Capsaicin is also the key ingredient in the experimental drug Adlea, which is in Phase 2 trials as a long-acting analgesic to treat post-surgical and osteoarthritis pain for weeks to months after a single injection to the site of pain. More over, it reduces pain resulted rheumatoid arthritis as well as joint or muscle pain from fibromyalgia or other causes.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


Well, yeah. If one group of researchers discovered a new molecule (or an existing molecule) that could improve your health wouldn't you want other people to do different areas of research to see if it is harmful in any way?

Like I said before, they were originally researching this to see if it could help prevent cancer, but to their surprise they found the opposite.

To everyone:

I understand that omega 3's will affect people in different ways because of genetic or metabolic differences, so it would be wise to take this with a pinch of salt. When I see a article that says "may cause cancer" I tend to ignore it, but keep it in the back of my mind until I see a few more articles that corroborate the evidence

I think it's a good rule of thumb that if you are a heathy being who gets cancer, your cancer gets to dine heathily. When your body is poorly fueld, then cancerous cells are as well.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
I think it's a good rule of thumb that if you are a heathy being who gets cancer, your cancer gets to dine heathily. When your body is poorly fueld, then cancerous cells are as well.

Not true at all. LOL you would die...

Poor diets contain much much more refined sugars and processed foods and carbs... all that is what cancerous cells love to eat. If you chance your diet to benefit the remaining healthy living cells within the cancerous areas of the body, you have a much greater possibilitiy of fending off the cancer in the end.

Also, do your research BEFORE taking any medications to make sure there are actual real clinical results that show that it will help, and not just cause cancer. Also for the risk of getting cancer from chemo or radiation, again research before hand. Change your diet up to help fortify those parts of your body (on a cellular level) before you start treatments so your body can hit the chemicals and toxic agents hard when they enter your body.

Was what I was thinking, not what I researched.

Now that I think of it, I remember something about reading up on sugar loving cancers.

So higher blood levels of the omega fatty acid DHA is associated with prostate cancer risk.

Maybe DHA is not supposed to stay in the blood?

Maybe the higher blood levels are caused by DHA not properly being absorbed somewhere, and it stays circulating in the blood stream.

Maybe there is another chemical that regulates cellular absorption of DHA, and low levels of this mystery chemical are the true cause.

The reason I wonder these things is, I have read that blood levels of vitamin b12 were used to check a person's b12 level, but this was found to not be accurate. The reason for the inaccuracy is because the b12 could just hang out in the persons blood and not be used. So a person could be suffering from b12 deficiency despite having adequate blood levels.