This is one of the most difficult questions in modern evidence-based medicine.

What we know about omega-3

Omega-3 fatty acids are one of the pillars of modern healthy eating.

The usefulness of these compounds has long been beyond doubt: they reduce blood pressure and the risk of heart disease, including heart attacks, normalize metabolism, and fight “bad” cholesterol. In general, they are simply irreplaceable.

Source

And literally. These fatty acids are not synthesized Omega ‑ 3 Fatty Acidsthe body on its own. Therefore, it is important to get them from the outside - with food or in the form of dietary supplements.

In such an irreplaceable status, omega-3 acids have firmly taken root in the diet and have even been introducedA fish a day, keeps the cardiologist away! - A review of the effect of omega-3 fatty acids in the cardiovascular systemin international medical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. There have been dozens of studies supporting the benefits of these fatty acids.

However, it turned out that the research may not be all that accurate. And omega-3 suddenly became a kind of bifurcation point on which all evidence-based medicine stumbled.

It's simple: scientists decided to double-check the results of previous scientific works. For this, the so-called meta-analyzes were carried out - this is when experts take at once a lot of studies related to one topic, and compare their methodology and results. The goal is to eliminate all extraneous factors that could sneak into the original work and influence their conclusions, and to derive some general statistics.

Omega-3 intake does not (or only slightly) affect the health of the cardiovascular system and does not reduce the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction.

They rule out any overlap. Situations when in one group everyone eats fish and leads an active lifestyle (as in the "fish" communities), and in the other - entirely residents of nervous gas-polluted megacities are impossible. All categories of people - and active, and nervous, and smokers , and fish lovers - are divided into control groups approximately equally.

This review confirmed the findings of previous meta-analyzes that omega-3 fatty acids do not prolong life and do not improve the health of the heart and blood vessels, as previously assumed.

Source

It should be noted here: Cochrane is so authoritative that WHO is also guided by its data. Therefore, the publication had the effect of an exploding bomb. Scientists from large research centers began their own double-check. And there was a medical scandal.

It is very possible that one of the parties again did not take into account all the factors and came to the wrong conclusions. This version is quite reasonable, for example, for the meta-analysis of the Harvard Medical School.

This selectivity in the selection of participants and drugs may have influenced the results of the meta-analysis. For example, maybe omega-3 supplements play a role in people taking diabetes medications. But this does not mean that for the rest, such supplements are not dummies.

The most authoritative Cochrane continues to insist on its own. On the official website of the organization, despite published meta-analyzes from Harvard and the Mayo Clinic, it is still available with the reaction of the world's largest experts to the news that omega-3 acids turned out to be a dummy. Some of the quotes are impressive.

Omega-3 supplements cost a lot. My advice to anyone who buys them in the hopes of reducing the risk of heart disease: Better spend your money on vegetables.

Tim Chico, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Emeritus Consultant Cardiologist at the University of Sheffield (UK)
In addition, even if you don't believe Cochrane and take the side of Harvard Medical School and others like them, another controversial issue arises. The lion's share of the evidence in the conclusion about the benefits of omega-3 is based on the use of prescription drugs, rather than conventional dietary supplements. OTC supplements can be very different.Omega ‑ 3 Fatty Acids from drugs in composition and have a much lesser effect.

However, you shouldn't write off omega-3 fatty acids.

First, the current scientific debate concerns only the link between omega-3 and cardiovascular health. Other possible beneficial properties of Omega ‑ 3 Fatty Acids these fatty acids have not been studied so thoroughly.

Source

Today it is believed that taking omega-3s relieves depression, reduces the risk of mental disorders , fights inflammation and autoimmune diseases. Perhaps it is so. Until proven otherwise.

Secondly, it is normal for the emergence of new data to force physicians to revise old recommendations. And even if scientists have not agreed yet, no one will forbid you to take omega-3, even if not in the form of dietary supplements with dubious value, but, for example, in the form of fatty sea fish.

Moreover, you don't need a lot of fish: to get a dose of omega-3, which is considered healthy, it is enoughFish and shellfish one serving (about 140 g) per week.

---