Fish oil studies reveal a rift in the science around the pros and cons of omega-3 fatty acids, raising questions about how much a person should take—if any at all. The latest fish oil findings published in BMJ Medicine are just another chapter in the ongoing saga of scientific disputes over the health impacts of various foods and supplements, including red meat, saturated fat, and eggs. To understand this premise, we need to dig into how science works and take a larger look at the research done to date.
Science is complex and contains limitations. Yet, scientific findings are often boiled down into bite-sized pieces that feed over-simplified headlines and leave readers reeling from an onslaught of seemingly contradictory findings. This article serves as a case study of how the media often reports sanitized sound bites and governing agencies decree sweeping recommendations and health policies based on an oversimplification of complex health issues.
415,737 people, aged 40-69, participated in the study. The researchers asked two primary questions: Primary Prevention in Healthy People Atrial Fibrillation: 13 percent increased risk Stroke: 5 percent increased risk Heart Failure: 8 percent reduced risk Myocardial Infarction: No significant effect Secondary Prevention in People With Known Cardiovascular Disease Myocardial Infarction: 15 percent risk reduction Heart Failure: 5 percent risk reduction Stroke: No effect Major Cardiovascular Events Heart Failure: 9 percent reduced ris.
