More concerns are being raised that fish oil may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation and other heart-related issues, but is there merit to this worry?
I wouldn't really say it's unproven nonsense but more that we should be careful in interpreting what the data states. There are mixed comments regarding fish oil and atrial fibrillitation, and the way to figure out the truth requires that we assess where these claims are coming from and determining whether the evidence is substantial. Some of the commentary around the meta-analyses provided suggest that some of the studies examined used very high doses of fish oil as compared to other studies so one factor could be looking into balancing dosing so that you maximize benefits and reduce adverse issues.
It's one thing to ask if there is evidence linking fish oil to increased risk of AF, but it's another if people cite this study from BMJ as clear evidence of a link. In this case I'd say that this isn't a good study to cite if one were to make that argument.
I just find it interesting that so many outlets will just run with this study without pointing out issues in the methodology.
Thank you. My initial impression was that all recent press about "hamrful" fish oil was unproven nonsense and this article confirms it for me.
I wouldn't really say it's unproven nonsense but more that we should be careful in interpreting what the data states. There are mixed comments regarding fish oil and atrial fibrillitation, and the way to figure out the truth requires that we assess where these claims are coming from and determining whether the evidence is substantial. Some of the commentary around the meta-analyses provided suggest that some of the studies examined used very high doses of fish oil as compared to other studies so one factor could be looking into balancing dosing so that you maximize benefits and reduce adverse issues.
It's one thing to ask if there is evidence linking fish oil to increased risk of AF, but it's another if people cite this study from BMJ as clear evidence of a link. In this case I'd say that this isn't a good study to cite if one were to make that argument.
I just find it interesting that so many outlets will just run with this study without pointing out issues in the methodology.