What!!!! Good grief! How confusing.

Conversely, high percentage of trans-fatty acids linked with lower risk

SEATTLE � The largest study ever to examine the association of dietary fats and prostate cancer risk has found what's good for the heart may not be good for the prostate.

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. In addition, neither of these fats was associated with the risk of low-grade prostate cancer risk. 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. They also found that none of the fats were associated with the risk of low-grade prostate cancer.

These findings by Theodore M. Brasky, Ph.D., and colleagues in the Hutchinson Center's Public Health Sciences Division were published online April 25 in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
"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."

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. In contrast, other fats, such as the omega-6 fats in vegetable oil and trans-fats found in fast foods, may promote inflammation. "We wanted to test the hypothesis that the concentrations of these fats in blood would be associated with prostate cancer risk," Brasky said. "Specifically, we thought that omega-3 fatty acids would reduce and omega-6 and trans-fatty acids would increase prostate cancer risk."

The mechanisms behind the impact of omega-3s on risk of high-grade prostate cancer are unknown. "Besides inflammation, omega-3 fats affect other biologic processes. It may be that these mechanisms play a greater role in the development of certain prostate cancers," Brasky said. "This is certainly an area that needs more research."

Currently there is no official recommended daily allowance for omega-3 fats for adults or children, although many nutrition experts and physicians recommend 450 milligrams of omega-3 DHA per day as part of a healthy diet.

The study was based on data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, a nationwide randomized clinical trial that tested the efficacy of the drug finasteride to prevent prostate cancer. While the trial involved nearly 19,000 men age 55 and older, the data in this analysis came from a subset of more than 3,000 of the study participants, half of whom developed prostate cancer during the course of the study and half of whom did not. The clinical trial was unique in that prostate biopsy was used to confirm the presence or absence of prostate cancer in all study participants.

Among the study participants, very few took fish oil supplements � the most common non-food source [?? editing error?] of omega-3 fatty acids, which are known to prevent heart disease and other inflammatory conditions. The majority got omega 3s from eating fish.

So based on these findings, should men concerned about heart disease eschew fish oil supplements or grilled salmon in the interest of reducing their risk of aggressive prostate cancer? Brasky and colleagues don't think so.

"Overall, the beneficial effects of eating fish to prevent heart disease outweigh any harm related to prostate cancer risk," Brasky said. "What this study shows is the complexity of nutrition and its impact on disease risk, and that we should study such associations rigorously rather than make assumptions," Brasky said.

###
The National Cancer Institute funded this study, which also involved researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the NCI.

__________________
-
- Jim
Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard

Confusing to be sure! Maybe I should take my husband off the DHA, and start buying canola oil again. Maybe cut out the salmon and replace with cheeseburgers, LOL! Hope we get some good thoughts on this one. Thanks for posting that jfh.

__________________
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanual Kant~

NatMedTalk and Beyond

I vote for cheeseburgers. Good fat there.

I downloaded this paper and read it this morning.
I think the researchers were as confused as anyone at their findings.
I'm not changing my omega 3 intake and I'm exactly the right age for PC, I've got several mates with this so PSA numbers and Gleason scores are discussed and it's definitely something not to ignore.

I don't think anyone would suggest that increasing transfat intake (even though they found lower aggressive PC incidence associated with higher transfat scores) because obviously that would increase your heart disease risk and therefore lead to higher total mortality.
So surely the same reasoning applied.
Cut the omega 3 intake and you raise triglyceride numbers and increase the risk of varies other chronic diseases including Alzheimer's. That doesn't sound a smart move.

Be aware they were comparing the worst PC with the slowest PC. and there were much higher numbers in the low PC group and the numbers in the aggressive PC group were low so it's possible it's a statistical quirk.
Bear in mind this a the first report and probably others will do the same and in 5yrs time will have a meta analysis that will compare all the findings and cause even greater confusion. If there was an obvious route by which DHA could promote aggressive PC incidence whilst not affecting other PC types that would make it easier to accept but they are quite convinced that DHA status has absolutely no measurable impact (good or bad) on the vast majority of PC cases so why it should appear to be linked to the aggressive PC tumours only is a puzzle as is the finding that deadly TRANSFAT slows aggressive PC types is just so confusing as to be bewildering.
The trouble with reading these papers is it keeps you awake at night trying to work out what may be going on.
Hopefully someone clever on a blog somewhere is explaining a possible explanation but it sure isn't going to be me.

And I don't think they should have even presented such finding, until they discovered all the pathways involved in fatty acids and prostate cancer.

I'm not changing such either.

This will become the same debate as good coffee / bad coffee, and good egg / bad egg.

Translation: People taking omega 3s have lower incidence of many diseases and this hurts big pharma so they have to publish a bullshit article.

It would have been useful if they would have mentioned the ratios involved.

Omega 6 to 3 is a balancing act, and they are talking about people with the highest amount of Omega 3. Was it way above average, or how darn high was it?

Maybe this will spur on a more detailed study in which a large range of ratios can be measured against the added risk of Prostate Cancer.

I also wondered what role Mercury played in this, given most of them got the Omega three from fish?

Dan

I don't have time to read all this right now, however, I will say that this finding shouldn't be that surprising. The most beneficial component of omega 3 seems to be EPA rather than DHA. If you already have a good diet and are fairly low risk of heart disease, then taking flax seed oil or a straight EPA supplement might be better. Higher consumption of DHA, which gets incorporated into cell membranes has higher level of lipid peroxidation which could lead to cancer. Although, I would think no one should consider having trans fats in their diets! Ever! They should be banned.

Omega-3s, Angiogenesis and Cancer: Part II Perfect Health diet comment on this paper and subsequent discussion.

Hyperlipid's comment to the point as always.

New Study: Will Omega-3s Boost Your Risk of Prostate Cancer?

I think everyone will agree with that.

I'm still quite surprised. One of the more popular anti-cancer diets, The Budwig Diet, promotes the use of flax oil with cottage cheese. "By simply eating a combination of just two natural and delicious foods not only can cancer be prevented but in case after case it was
actually cured. (These two natural foods, organic flax seed oil & cottage cheese) must be eaten together to be effective since one triggers the properties of the other to be released.) Lipids are only water-soluble and free-flowing when bound to protein; thus the importance of protein-rich cottage cheese. When high quality, electron-rich fats are combined with proteins, the electrons are protected until the body requires energy. This energy source is then fully and immediately available to the body on demand, as nature intended."

I was assuming that since flax seed is the highest vegetable source of omega3, that this was the reason it was chosen. I suppose it makes a difference that cottage cheese is included.

Here is Dr. Spreen's answer to this:

I second this statement! At least one program for treating prostate cancer naturally, includes mercury detox and includes the statement:

"Mercury detox is critical to restoring a healthy prostate."

www.prostate90.com/program/dental.htm

Wouldn't the men in Japan and surrounding areas have a high rate of prostate cancer?

I don't take fish oil supplements anymore after reading a few articles on how there is no correlation with lowering cholestrol and heartattacks or strokes. Then there's a lot of reports of high Mercury, so I started to ask myself, why am I taking this again.

https://www.wellnessnwealth.net/healt...ased-longevity

Japan is an enigma. We just can't compare normal studies with them. Their very high iodine (12mg per day) skews statistical data. Iodine is an excellent mercury chelator. There must be something else in their diet to balance high omega3.

Well Japan is just one country and Asia alone accounts for two-thirds of total consumption. I would imagine that many countries around the world that consume a lot of fish would have this issue.
French Guiana for instance the link below indicates that 50% or more of their animal protein comes from fish. I don't think French Guiana and Japan have that much in common for instance, except high consumption of fish and both countries have low risk of prostate cancer.

https://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheri...onsumption.htm

Seems like the highest link is milk and Japanese don't drink milk or Dairy.
https://www.cancerproject.org/surviva...s/prostate.php