Again we return to Examine.com and a summary of a review looking at omega-3 fatty acids and either an increased or decreased risk of atrial fibrillation, as in an abnormal heart rhythm characterized by rapid and irregular beating of the atrial chambers of the heart.
This review found what they considered conflicting results. But were they really? Or was it yet again the lack of understanding of simple human physiology and biochemistry that reared its ugly head, as in about 99% of all studies ever published on nutrition? Let’s find out.
Quick Summary
“This review found that supplementation with long-chain omega-3 fatty acids increased the risk of atrial fibrillation in randomized controlled trials, whereas in observational studies higher long-chain omega-3 levels in the diet were associated with a reduced risk.”
Read that again. Keywords are “supplementation,” which was associated with an “increased risk” and “diet,” which was associated with an “reduced risk.” That would be all you need to know to understand the results. Still, I have a feeling that these imbeciles could not even grasp this simple distinction.
Now, as this was a long windy summary, I will have to shorten it down by only quoting the important parts where I will correct them and point out some real-world biochemistry and science. As always, the complete summary and the original study is linked for those wanting to engulf themselves.
Key study details
“The researchers performed separate meta-analyses of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 83,112 participants and 17 prospective cohort studies with 54,699 participants.
In the RCTs, the effect of long-chain omega-3 supplementation on the risk of atrial fibrillation (Afib) was dose dependent: lower doses (840–1,000 mg/day) increased the risk by 12%, and higher doses (1,800–4,000 mg/day) increased the risk by 51%.”
Again, the keyword being “supplementation.” And when an “risk” increases from merely 12% to a whopping 51% by doubling the dosage, we are clearly talking about a very toxic effect, as in poisoning.
“In contrast, the cohort studies that measured long-chain omega-3 levels in the blood found that the participants with higher levels had a 12% decreased risk of Afib. Several dietary studies that used food questionnaires to estimate omega-3 consumption from fish and seafood also found a reduced risk of Afib with higher omega-3 intake.”
And the keyword being “dietary studies,” as in getting your omega-3 from whole animal-based foods, such as red meat, organ meats, and fish/seafood.
Also, when you measure omega-3 levels in the blood, that is actually intact omega-3 that can be absorbed by the body. So, higher levels should show an improvement if you’ve been deficient. And again, if any nutrient comes from a natural animal-based source, it is in the same chemical form as we store and utilize nutrients ourselves, which means that they are totally harmless and any excess can easily be stored or discharged by the body without any kind of breakdown, damage and detoxification (which is what otherwise happens with supplements and plant-based toxic compounds.)
This is very basic level biology and biochemistry.
The big picture
“The summarized review did find some evidence that omega-3s increased the risk of developing Afib, but what is particularly confusing is that increased omega-3 levels in the blood and dietary intake were associated with a reduced risk of developing Afib. How can these conflicting results be reconciled, and what are the implications?”
Seriously? Do these people not understand the difference between dietary omega-3, as in the naturally occurring omega-3 found in animal-based foods which is natively protected by the food itself and that of supplemental omega-3, as in chemically removed and isolated omega-3 fatty acids put into a supplement? Do they not understand the simple oxidative reaction of fatty acids and how easily they turn rancid, especially polyunsaturated fats who are extremely vulnerable to oxidative stress?
Do they not know that when unsaturated fats become oxidized they form extremely toxic and damaging aldehydes, which is why all plant-based seed- and vegetable oils are so extremely toxic and damaging and contribute to all modern “diseases.”
Well, the omega fatty acids are the only unsaturated fats found in animal foods, and the only animal-derived fats that can oxidize, if you let the food sit out for extremely long, or if you are a complete idiot and separate the fats from the food itself, as in making a retarded supplement!
“Observational studies paint a different picture and add to the complexity. These studies reported that increased omega-3s in the diet and the blood were associated with a reduced risk of Afib. The Fatty Acids and Outcomes Research Consortium (FORCE) analyzed 17 cohort studies and found that higher omega-3 levels in the blood were associated with a 12% lower risk of Afib. There have also been similar risk reductions associated with dietary omega-3 intake. One detail worth noting is that dietary intakes of omega-3s are generally lower than supplementation dosages. In the few studies that have examined this comparison, dietary intakes of approximately 630 to 750 mg of omega-3 per day were associated with the lowest risk of Afib. These amounts are lower than even the lowest dosages of omega-3 supplements given in the RCTs.”
Again, dietary intake of omega-3s showed reduced risk. And it’s not about the intake in milligrams, it’s about the source. All omega-3 supplements will have some level of rancidity, it’s unavoidable due to the nature of separating the oil from the source. High quality supplements might have more active omega-3 and less oxidative damage, while most omega-3 supplements, as in the average, will be very rancid and contain a lot of aldehydes which will cause cardiovascular damage.
And that is why studies with supplementation are all over the place, showing different results each and every time, because the quality of the supplements given varies.
Still, even the best supplements will cause some damage due to oxidation and rancidity, and that will increase over time as the supplement is exposed to humidity, heat, light, and oxygen.
A high-quality supplement directly out of the factory might be somewhat potent and free of oxidative damage, but once it reaches the shelves or the customer it’s another story.
“The mechanism for this potential risk is still unclear. The summarized review provides a hypothesis related to how omega-3s influence the nervous system’s control of the heart by enhancing vagal tone (the activity of the vagus nerve). There is some evidence that omega-3s can enhance some markers of vagal tone, such as reduced resting heart rate and increased heart rate variability.”
Yes, omega-3 does enhance some markers of vagal tone, but only in a positive manner, as in reduced resting heart rate and increased heart rate variability. Again, anything natural, as in omega-3 from animal-based foods are identical to how we store and utilize that nutrient. It cannot cause harm. If you get too little, you’ll be deficient and problems can arise. But if you get more than you need, your body will either store it or discard it. Nothing bad will happen.
However, if you get the same omega-3 from a supplement, only a part of it will be functional, accepted and put to use by the body. This might mitigate a deficiency, or it might not. However, the rest of it, as in the damaged fatty acids and the aldehydes will cause damage, which will outweigh the positives most of the time, and that damage is mainly caused in the cardiovascular system which affects the heart. In physiology and biochemistry we already know that oxidized damaged unsaturated fats and aldehydes are known to cause a lot of damage including atrial fibrillation. We have seen this with all plant-based unsaturated fats and also with omega-3 when it becomes damaged and rancid. So, yes, this is a no-brainer.
Examine.com’s take
“The findings of this review — that omega-3 supplementation increased the risk of atrial fibrillation — should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations that may introduce bias. Because Afib was not a primary outcome for most studies, the risk in RCTs may be overestimated. Additionally, because this was not a formal systematic review, it lacked key features that ensure rigor and transparency, such as complete reporting of screened articles and preregistration.”
No, you silly supplement shills, this is all about the source and simple biochemistry. You should know how vulnerable unsaturated fats are and what happens to them. Ignoring this simple and universal truth is very dishonest and simply shows your allegiance to the food- and supplement industry.
And the conclusion is simple, get your omega-3s from whole animal-based foods! There is plenty in red meat, organ meats and eggs to fulfill your everyday needs. If you for some reason have trouble and need a supplement, source out those with a good reputation and chew your capsules to make sure that there is no foul taste to the oil, no aftertaste, nothing. If it is, if there is any hint of it tasting like flax seed or any seed- vegetable oil, it is rancid and should go into the bin!
Personally, I would never waste the money as even the highest quality omega-3 supplements will be somewhat rancid, and the older they are, the worse it will be. And you as a customer have no way of knowing when it was manufactured and how long it has been sitting on a shelf if you order it online or buy it in a store.
If you need help with any kind of health problems or transitioning from your current way of eating to our natural species-appropriate, species-specific way of eating, I’m available for both coaching and consultation.
Coaching and Consultation
And if you found the article and my insights helpful and enjoy my daily free information, please consider donating to help pay the webhosting bills and keep the site running. And if you’re interested in discussing and sharing information with likeminded people, consider joining our uncensored community at Ungovernable.se. Thank you!
