Flashback Friday: Should We Take EPA and DHA Omega-3 For Our Heart?

Flashback Friday: Should We Take EPA and DHA Omega-3 For Our Heart?
4.6 (92%) 65 votes

What’s the best way to fulfill the omega-3 essential fat requirements?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

According to two of perhaps the most credible nutrition authorities, the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority, we should get at least a half a percent of our calories from the essential short-chain omega-3 ALA; which is easy—just like a tablespoon a day of chia seeds or ground flax seeds, and you’re all set.

Our body can then take the short-chain ALA from our diet, and elongate it into the long chain omega-3s, EPA and DHA. But, the question has long been, can our bodies make enough for optimal health? How would you determine that? 

Take fiber, for example. A convincing body of literature showed an increased heart disease risk when diets were low in fiber. So, the Institute of Medicine came up with a recommendation for about 30 grams a day, which is an intake observed to protect against coronary heart disease and reduce constipation. Thus, just as cardiovascular disease was used to help establish an adequate intake for dietary fiber, it was used as a way to develop a recommendation for EPA and DHA.

So, with reviews published as late as 2009 suggesting fish oil capsules may help with heart disease, nutrition authorities recommended an additional 250mg a day of preformed EPA and DHA, since evidently we were not making enough on our own, if taking more helped. So, in addition to the one or two grams of ALA, it was suggested that we should take 250mg of preformed DHA/EPA, which can be gotten from fish, or algae.

Fish is a toughie, because, on one hand, fish has the preformed DHA and EPA. But, on the other hand, our oceans have become so polluted that fish may contain various pollutants, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides like DDT, flame retardant chemicals and heavy metals—including mercury, lead, and cadmium—that can negatively affect human health.

This was an editorial comment on a recent study of women that found that dietary exposure to PCBs was associated with increased risk of stroke, and an almost three times higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Unless you live next to a toxic waste dump, the main source of exposure to PCBs is fish consumption—of which perhaps salmon is the worst, though PCBs can also be found in lesser quantities in other meat sources.

This may explain why studies in the U.S. have shown that just a single serving of fish a week may significantly increase one’s risk of diabetes, emphasizing that even levels of these pollutants once considered safe may completely counteract the potential benefits of the omega-3s and other nutrients present in fish, leading to the type of metabolic disturbances that often precede type 2 diabetes.

Now, one could get their 250mg a day from algae oil, rather than fish oil. Algae oil is free of toxic contaminants, because it never comes in contact with anything from the ocean.

Then, one could get the best of both worlds—the beneficial nutrients, without the harmful contaminants. But, recently, it was demonstrated that these long-chain omega-3s don’t seem to help with preventing or treating heart disease after all. And since that’s the main reason we thought people should get that extra 250mg of preformed EPA and DHA, why do I still recommend following the guidelines? Because the recommendations were not just based on heart health, but brain health as well. To be continued…

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to PublicDomainPictures via Pixabay

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

According to two of perhaps the most credible nutrition authorities, the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority, we should get at least a half a percent of our calories from the essential short-chain omega-3 ALA; which is easy—just like a tablespoon a day of chia seeds or ground flax seeds, and you’re all set.

Our body can then take the short-chain ALA from our diet, and elongate it into the long chain omega-3s, EPA and DHA. But, the question has long been, can our bodies make enough for optimal health? How would you determine that? 

Take fiber, for example. A convincing body of literature showed an increased heart disease risk when diets were low in fiber. So, the Institute of Medicine came up with a recommendation for about 30 grams a day, which is an intake observed to protect against coronary heart disease and reduce constipation. Thus, just as cardiovascular disease was used to help establish an adequate intake for dietary fiber, it was used as a way to develop a recommendation for EPA and DHA.

So, with reviews published as late as 2009 suggesting fish oil capsules may help with heart disease, nutrition authorities recommended an additional 250mg a day of preformed EPA and DHA, since evidently we were not making enough on our own, if taking more helped. So, in addition to the one or two grams of ALA, it was suggested that we should take 250mg of preformed DHA/EPA, which can be gotten from fish, or algae.

Fish is a toughie, because, on one hand, fish has the preformed DHA and EPA. But, on the other hand, our oceans have become so polluted that fish may contain various pollutants, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides like DDT, flame retardant chemicals and heavy metals—including mercury, lead, and cadmium—that can negatively affect human health.

This was an editorial comment on a recent study of women that found that dietary exposure to PCBs was associated with increased risk of stroke, and an almost three times higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Unless you live next to a toxic waste dump, the main source of exposure to PCBs is fish consumption—of which perhaps salmon is the worst, though PCBs can also be found in lesser quantities in other meat sources.

This may explain why studies in the U.S. have shown that just a single serving of fish a week may significantly increase one’s risk of diabetes, emphasizing that even levels of these pollutants once considered safe may completely counteract the potential benefits of the omega-3s and other nutrients present in fish, leading to the type of metabolic disturbances that often precede type 2 diabetes.

Now, one could get their 250mg a day from algae oil, rather than fish oil. Algae oil is free of toxic contaminants, because it never comes in contact with anything from the ocean.

Then, one could get the best of both worlds—the beneficial nutrients, without the harmful contaminants. But, recently, it was demonstrated that these long-chain omega-3s don’t seem to help with preventing or treating heart disease after all. And since that’s the main reason we thought people should get that extra 250mg of preformed EPA and DHA, why do I still recommend following the guidelines? Because the recommendations were not just based on heart health, but brain health as well. To be continued…

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to PublicDomainPictures via Pixabay

284 responses to “Flashback Friday: Should We Take EPA and DHA Omega-3 For Our Heart?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

      1. WFPB-Hal- thanks for posting this excellent video. As soon as I saw the topic, my first thought was -that is the Wrong Question! It’s not the heart so much as it is the brain!

    1. Google the VITAL Study. It’s an ongoing study with 27,871 subjects, men over 50, women over 55. Conducted by Brigham&Womens Hospital (Harvard). It reported in Nov. 2018 that over 5 years, 1 gram/day of omega 3 fish oil reduced the risk of heart attacks by 28%, in African Americans by 77% and in people eating fish less than 1 1 /2 days/week, by 40%. It reduced fatal heart attacks by 50%. And it reduced death from cvd. Omega-3 fatty acids also reduced the rate of angioplasty procedures by 22%.

        1. No, you don’t have it right. The study news release from last Nov. said, “Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid intervention lowered the risk of heart attack by 28% and the risk of fatal heart attack by 50%.

            1. I choose to take fish oil, because I can take a large dose like 3-4 grams, much more than I couldget from eating fish alone. Algae I don’t know about, but suspect that there is far less omega 3s in them.

              1. The amount of omega 3 in both algae oil and fish oil is always stated on the label.

                Fish oil is cheaper but algae oil is probably safer since there is no risk of PCB/mercury etc contamination unlike with fish oil.

                Also,

                ‘The IOM did not establish a UL for any omega-3s, although it noted that high doses of DHA and/or EPA (900 mg/day of EPA plus 600 mg/day DHA or more for several weeks) might reduce immune function due to suppression of inflammatory responses. Doses of 2–15 g/day EPA and/or DHA might also increase bleeding time by reducing platelet aggregation [5]. However, according to the European Food Safety Authority, long-term consumption of EPA and DHA supplements at combined doses of up to about 5 g/day appears to be safe [175]. It noted that these doses have not been shown to cause bleeding problems or affect immune function, glucose homeostasis, or lipid peroxidation. The FDA recommends not exceeding 3 g/day EPA and DHA combined, with up to 2 g/day from dietary supplements [176]. Some doses used in clinical trials exceed these levels.’
                https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/

          1. Substituting saturated fats with unsaturated fats results in better outcomes. There are hundreds of studies confirming that. That DOES NOT mean we should all be taking fish oil supplements or that fish oil is in any way beneficial for our health. Please watch “Essential Fatty Acids: Recommendations for Plant Based Diets: Dr Tim Radak”

            1. Look at my many comments in which I mentioned 2 recently published Harvard major studies showing great benefits for fish oil in reducing heart attacks, the VITAL Study and the REDUCE-IT Study with a total of about 35,000 participants. The VITAL Study alone had almost 26,000 participants. The VITAL Study also found that fish oil reduced the need for angioplasties by 22%.

              Didn’t Dr. Greger recommend taking DHA and EPA for the brain this week, or did I get that wrong?

              Saturated fat in food isn’t all bad. Major studies have shown an association between eating dairy and significantly lower all cause mortality and sharply lower cardiovascular disease mortality. See the Golestan Study, the PURE Study, the huge Physicians and Nurses Health Studies. There is also a large Australian study. Fermented dairy, cheese and yogurt seems to be quite healthy and particularly good for the gut. In fact, the 42,000 Golestan Study found that the highest 1/5 of dairy eaters saw the largest decrease in all cause and cvd mortality.

      1. You are ignoring the big picture result which was ‘During the trial, 386 major cardiovascular disease events occurred among the 12,933 participants receiving omega-3 fatty acids, as compared with 419 such events among the 12,938 participants receiving placebo, an 8% reduction that was not significant.’
        https://www.vitalstudy.org/findings.html

        In oter words, there was no statistically significant reduction in cardiovascular events.

        1. You didn’t read the rest. You just read what you wanted to read. Read the rest of the release.  When they took strokes out of the major cardiovascular events, which fish oil didn’t prevent,they found major reductions in heart attacks. Your mind is so closed that you just readwhat you want to find, rather than what is there.
          The whole point of the release was to get out to the public this important result.

          1. Not at all. Alan already posted that information – what he didn’t post was the statement by the study authors that there was no statistically significant difference in total cardiovascular events between the fish oil group and the placebo group.

            Given that there were only about 400 events each in total in both the fish oil and the placebo groups, just how many events were there in each of the increasingly smaller subgroups that are cited as showing a benefit?

            Arguing that a study which showed that there was no significant difference in total cardiovascular events between the fish oil and the placebo groups, acually supports a recommendation to take fish oil supplements,seems.a trifle perverse.

            If I have a closed mind as you allege,then so does the AHA which also concludes that there is no good evidence to recommend fish oil supplemetation for the pimary prevention of cardiovascular disease. But that’s understandable. They probably don’t know as much about science, medicine and statistics as you do.

            1. newyorkguy, yes, if we keep reading it clarifies that the result that Fumbles posted was due to the fact that the findings were entirely to do with heart, and not stroke related deaths. Then it goes on to say about the 28% lower risk of heart attack, and 50% lower risk of death (heart disease related) and 22 % less risk of angiogram. That alone is worth it. Angiograms are horrific tortuous affairs. I will eat fish or any damn thing to avoid another one.

              1. if there was no significant difference in total events in both groups but reductions in some smaller subgroups/types, then shouldn’t there have been increased numbers of events in some other subgroups/types to arrive at a total of cardiovascular events that was more or less the same for both the fish oil and placebo groups?

                1. It’s all academic anyway since there is good reason to take omega 3 oil for brain health irrespective of whether or not it bnefits cardiovascular health. Apparently.

                  For the record, I take (algal) omega 3 oil daily.

              2. Thanks for recognizing that Barb. Yes, it’s an unbelievable result. And it was picked up in the media. I read about it
                in the Wall St. Journal in Feb. Today, I posted a link to a CBS News online article about it and another Harvard fish oil study,
                using a prescription form of EPA that also had fantastic results, including reducing stroke. Here is the link. Note the quote
                from the cardiologist.

                https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-fish-taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-cut-heart-attack-risk-studies-find/

      2. One study. On the other hand

        ‘ The results of a 2018 meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials that included 77,917 patients with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, or at high risk of CVD were contrary to those of earlier analyses. This analysis found that omega-3 supplementation (376–2,550 mg EPA+DHA/day) for 1 year or longer does not reduce the risk of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other major vascular events [58]. A 2014 meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials also found that LC- omega-3 supplementation does not significantly lower the risk of coronary disease, including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, coronary insufficiency, coronary death, angina, or angiographic coronary stenosis [59]. Similarly, the authors of two meta-analyses published in 2012 concluded that omega-3 supplementation does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of CVD [60], and is not effective for the primary or secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease [61].’
        https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/

        1. If this was the Cochrane meta analysis, it said it was awaiting the results of 2 large studies. Those were the ones I have mentioned, the VITAL Study and the REDUCE-IT Study. Both showed significant lowerings of all cause and cardiovascular mortality from taking fish oil.

    2. Both Dr Grager and the AHA agree that the evidence is not there to jutify recommending omega 3 supplemetation as a strategy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

      However a report earlier this month suggested that simply eating more plant foods might do the trick instead ….

      ‘Eating mostly plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods may be linked to better heart health and a lower risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke or other cardiovascular disease according to new research published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the Open Access Journal of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.
      …………
      People who ate the most plant-based foods overall had a:

      16% lower risk of having a cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks, stroke, heart failure and other conditions;
      32% lower risk of dying from a cardiovascular disease and
      25% lower risk of dying from any cause compared to those who ate the least amount of plant-based foods.
      “Our findings underscore the importance of focusing on your diet. There might be some variability in terms of individual foods, but to reduce cardiovascular disease risk people should eat more vegetables, nuts, whole grains, fruits, legumes and fewer animal-based foods. These findings are pretty consistent with previous findings about other dietary patterns, including the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, or DASH diet, which emphasize the same food items,” Rebholz said.’
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190807092326.htm

      1. I think people should eat more vegetables, I certainly do, but I don’t care what the AHA says. The Harvard VITAL Study with almost 26,000 participants is the gold study for the benefits from fish oil and I’m certainly not waiting for the AHA to take it. Older people should definitely consider taking it, because there are no risks, unlike aspirin, which has unacceptably high risks of bleeding in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, especially for thin people. BTW, in 2013, Dr. Greger said the vegans have the same rate of heart disease as meat eaters, despite having the lower cholesterol levels.
        I think Dr. Greger recommended DHA and EPA for the brain just this week. So the question of whether to take or not for the heart is academic.

  1. Algae oil is a ridiculous price! It’s out of the question. American Heart association still recommends 2 servings of fish per week. Dr Ornish recommends fish oil as well in a fairly hefty dose of 2 grams if I recall correctly. I take a small dose on an irregular basis since Fumbles posted an article about how the body will slow down making it if supplements are regularly taken.

    https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/nutrition-basics/aha-diet-and-lifestyle-recommendations
    https://www.ornish.com/proven-program/nutrition/

    1. Algae oil comes in a range of prices brand by brand and so does fish oil. It looks like the “higher quality” fish oils are more expensive and about equal or a bit more expensive than algae oil depending on brand while very cheap fish oil supplements are available but I would already question the quality of any fish oil supplement let alone a $3 supplement. Maybe it’s a good sign that algae oil tends to be more pricey in that more lab testing goes into it and so on and hopefully it will get cheaper and cheaper. But if you already take a small does irregularly, then why would algae oil be too expensive? Dividing it up like that would make it go a long way. Sometimes we get what we pay for. In the case of algae oil, we’re not only paying for a safer, purer product, but we’re also paying for sustainability and a cruelty free product. And while cheap fish oil might sound like the most practical solution to someone, putting aside the marine life and the contaminants, it isn’t a practical solution in the long term because fish oil is one of the most unsustainable things you could possibly purchase. I don’t think that something that unsustainable should be seen as an option because it might momentarily help one person; it’s one of those scenarios where you have to take in the bigger picture.

      On a side note, if any of the moderators could pass it along to Dr. Greger, I would be VERY curious to see how purslane compares to fish consumption in regards to EPA.

      1. A recent meta-analysis study concluded purslane “might” be helpful, esp if you are a female. Unfortunately not enough high quality evidence yet to really evaluate thoroughly: purslane just not sexy enough. If you cut and paste the title into scholar.google.com you can download the paper in its entirety for free.

        Phytother Res. 2019 Jan;33(1):3-12. doi: 10.1002/ptr.6203. Epub 2018 Oct 3.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30281177
        Effect of purslane on blood lipids and glucose: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Hadi A1, Pourmasoumi M2, Najafgholizadeh A3, Kafeshani M1, Sahebkar A4,5,6.

        Abstract
        Despite a history of purslane usage as a herbal treatment for dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia management, existing evidence from clinical trials is controversial. The aim for the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of purslane supplementation on lipid parameters and glycemic status in adult populations. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to January 15, 2018, searching for randomized controlled trials that assessed the impact of purslane on fasting blood glucose (FBG), triglycerides, total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Based on the detected heterogeneity between studies, a random- or fixed-effect model was applied in the meta-analysis. The findings from six randomized controlled trials, comprising 352 participants, indicated that purslane can reduce FBG (-4.54 mg/dl, 95% CI [-7.54, -1.53]; I2 = 0.53%) and triglycerides (-19.16 mg/dl, 95% CI [-38.17, -0.15]; I2 = 0%) levels. Changes in TC, LDL-C, and HDL-C concentrations did not reach a statistically significant level. Subgroup analysis showed a favorable effects of purslane on FBG, triglycerides, TC, and LDL-C in a subset of studies in which purslane was administered >1.5 g/day. Categorization based on gender showed that purslane was more effective in improving FBG, TC and LDL-C in females compared with males. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the purslane might be effective on the improvement of blood lipid and glucose levels. Further robust studies with sufficient durations and dosages of supplementation are needed to confirm these results.

        1. Hi,
          Purslane makes a delicious salad raw…I find a lot of it growing as weeds on the edge of a farm fields; at a farm that offers “pick-your-own” green beans etc….

    2. Considering that a WHPB diet is cheaper than the typical meat based diet, I find the extra cost (which is not that much) easy to cover.

      1. Not sure that’s true, unless people are buying organic, grass fed meats. The highest cost of food is from the large amount of processed foods and snacks that present themselves as food, and are not food, and restaurants. If we get rid of that and then the budget is golden.

        End

    1. Konrad, thank you for posting this one. I found the conclusion that statins “increase arachidonic acid”, and that these drugs are “toxic to mitochondria in a dose dependent manner”, pages 15-17, pretty scary given how many people are taking them.
      Many studies have already shown that statins increase risk of type-2 diabetes, especially in women.
      The question I have is how do these drugs impact brain function?

    2. Subsequent to that 2013 study you quote, a 2017 study of people with CAD found

      ‘High‐dose eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid provided additional benefit to statins in preventing progression of fibrous coronary plaque in subjects adherent to therapy with well‐controlled low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The benefit on low‐intensity statin, but not high‐intensity statin, suggests that statin intensity affects plaque volume.’https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779017/

      The intensity of statin use and the levels of blood cholesterol bothnappear to affect whether or not omega 3 supplements provide additional benefits.

    3. The REDUCE-IT Study found that taking a purified, prescription for of EPA significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in people with high triglycerides who were on statins.

  2. “As one example: in discussing cardiovascular disease, Greger challenges the idea that omega-3 fats from fish offer disease protection, citing a 2012 meta-analysis of fish oil trials and studies advising people to load up on the ocean’s fattiest bounty (page 20) (5Trusted Source).

    Greger writes that the researchers “found no protective benefit for overall mortality, heart disease mortality, sudden cardiac death, heart attack, or stroke” — effectively showing that fish oil is, perhaps, just snake oil (page 20).

    The catch? This meta-analysis is one of the most heavily criticized publications in the omega-3 sea — and other researchers wasted no time calling out its errors.

    In an editorial letter, one critic pointed out that among the studies included in the meta-analysis, the average omega-3 intake was 1.5 g per day — only half the amount recommended to reduce the risk of heart disease (6Trusted Source). Because so many studies used a clinically irrelevant dosage, the analysis might have missed the cardioprotective effects seen at higher omega-3 intakes.

    Another respondent wrote that the results “should be interpreted with caution” due to the study’s numerous shortcomings — including the use of an unnecessarily stringent cutoff for statistical significance (P < 0.0063, instead of the more common P < 0.05) (7Trusted Source). At more widely used P-values, the study might have deemed some of its findings significant — including a 9% reduction in cardiac death, a 13% reduction in sudden death, and an 11% reduction in heart attack associated with fish oil from food or supplements.

    And yet another critic noted that any benefit of omega-3 supplementation would be hard to demonstrate among people using statin drugs, which have pleiotropic effects that resemble — and possibly mask — the mechanisms involved with omega-3s (7Trusted Source). This is important, because in several of the no-benefit omega-3 trials, up to 85% of the patients were on statins (8Trusted Source)."
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review#section1

    1. Konrad- Dr. Greger recommends Omega-3’s for brain health so it’s a bit of a moot point whether or not the meta analysis on the omegas and heart health is correct or invalid. Either way he recommends people take them.

      1. But, the ongoing VITAL Study with 27,871 subjects has found that taking 1 gram/day of omega-3 fish oil reduces heart attacks by 28%, reduces fatal heart attacks by 50%, reduces heart attacks in African Americans by 77% and in people eating fish less than 1 1/2 times/week, by 40%. Reduces the need for angioplasties by 22% and also reduces death from cvd. This is important for people to know. And Dr. Greger is not telling people to take fish oil, which incidentally, can be highly purified.

        1. Sure ignore all the other studies and focus on the one that supports your beliefs

          ‘The results of a 2018 meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials that included 77,917 patients with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, or at high risk of CVD were contrary to those of earlier analyses. This analysis found that omega-3 supplementation (376–2,550 mg EPA+DHA/day) for 1 year or longer does not reduce the risk of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other major vascular events [58]. A 2014 meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials also found that LC- omega-3 supplementation does not significantly lower the risk of coronary disease, including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, coronary insufficiency, coronary death, angina, or angiographic coronary stenosis [59]. Similarly, the authors of two meta-analyses published in 2012 concluded that omega-3 supplementation does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of CVD [60], and is not effective for the primary or secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease [61]’

          ‘https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/

    2. Konrad

      None of which, even if correct, shows that omega supplements actually offer cardiovascular benefits.

      The AHA also does not recommend omega 3 supplementation for the primary prevention pf heart disease.

      1. The Vital Study is a large ongoing study of fish oil and Vit. D conducted by Brigham & Womens Hospital (Harvard). It has reported that one gram/day of omega-3 fish oil over a 5 year period reduced the risk of heart attack by 28%. In African Americans it reduced that risk by 77% and in people who eat fish less than 1 1/2 times/week, it reduced the risk of heart attack by 40%. That’s just one gram. I take as much as 3.5 g./day. Perfectly safe. You can get highly pure fish oil, even pharmaceutical grade, so toxicity is a bogus concern.

        1. This ignores the key point that the VITAL study found no statistically significant reduction in overall cardiovascular events in those peoplen taking a fish oil supplement.

            1. Anybody who can read?

              ‘During the trial, 386 major cardiovascular disease events occurred among the 12,933 participants receiving omega-3 fatty acids, as compared with 419 such events among the 12,938 participants receiving placebo, an 8% reduction that was not significant.’
              https://www.vitalstudy.org/findings.html

          1. The release said that if you take out strokes, which the fish oil didn’t prevent, you saw majorreductions in heart attacks, including a 50% reduction in fatal heart attacks. Also, thosetaking fish oil required 22% fewer angioplasties.
            You have to read the release carefully to understand this. 

            |

            |

            1. ‘The results of a 2018 meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials that included 77,917 patients with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, or at high risk of CVD were contrary to those of earlier analyses. This analysis found that omega-3 supplementation (376–2,550 mg EPA+DHA/day) for 1 year or longer does not reduce the risk of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other major vascular events [58]. A 2014 meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials also found that LC- omega-3 supplementation does not significantly lower the risk of coronary disease, including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, coronary insufficiency, coronary death, angina, or angiographic coronary stenosis [59]. Similarly, the authors of two meta-analyses published in 2012 concluded that omega-3 supplementation does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of CVD [60], and is not effective for the primary or secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease [61].’
              https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/

    3. When it comes to fish oil though, I think many of the doctors worry about the results of the DART-2 study where the men had a higher risk of cardiac death when they supplemented with fish oil capsules.

      Those “advised to eat fatty fish had a 29% reduction in…mortality.” Pretty impressive; no wonder it got a lot of attention. But, people seemed to have forgotten about the sequel, the DART-2 trial. Same group of researchers, an even bigger study—3,000 men. And, those “advised to eat oily fish, and particularly those supplied with fish oil capsules, had a higher risk of cardiac death.”

      1. Interesting stuff, Deb! Thanks for posting. I’m sure the fishing and fish oil industries didn’t mind people forgetting about that bigger followup study.

      2. The VITAL Study is a large, (12,000 subjects) ongoing study of fish oil and Vit. D conducted by Brigham & Womens Hospital (Harvard). It has reported that over 5 years one gram of fish oil/day reduced the risk of heart attack by 28%, in African Americans reduced the risk of heart attack by 77% and in people who eat fish less than 1 1/2 days /week, the reduction was 40%. It’s safe to take much higher doses of fish oil and it can be bought highly purified.

        1. Dr. G may revisit this then, but he would still recommend algae, however, we need a study to compare fish oils to agea to control. But I do agree many of the new fish oil supplements that are pharm quality are probably ok.

          End

        2. The VITAL study reported that there was no significant reduction in total cardiovascular events in people taking fish oil supplements.

          1. Tom- is a heart attack a cardiovascular event?
            Read the release.      https://www.vitalstudy.org/findings.html Cardiovascular disease. During the trial, 386 major cardiovascular disease events occurred among the 12,933 participants receiving omega-3 fatty acids, as compared with 419 such events among the 12,938 participants receiving placebo, an 8% reduction that was not significant. Upon closer examination, this result was due almost entirely to a reduction in heart attacks without a reduction in strokes. Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid intervention lowered the risk of heart attack by 28% and the risk of fatal heart attack by 50% but had no benefit on stroke or cardiovascular deaths not related to heart disease. Additionally, omega-3 fatty acids reduced the rate of angioplasty procedures by 22%.

            1. ‘During the trial, 386 major cardiovascular disease events occurred among the 12,933 participants receiving omega-3 fatty acids, as compared with 419 such events among the 12,938 participants receiving placebo, an 8% reduction that was not significant’

              1. Sorry to keep posting this over and over again but then Alan NewYorkGuy keeps posting the same stuff over and over again and the full facts need to be known before people can make an informed choice

                ‘The results of a 2018 meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials that included 77,917 patients with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, or at high risk of CVD were contrary to those of earlier analyses. This analysis found that omega-3 supplementation (376–2,550 mg EPA+DHA/day) for 1 year or longer does not reduce the risk of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other major vascular events [58]. A 2014 meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials also found that LC- omega-3 supplementation does not significantly lower the risk of coronary disease, including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, coronary insufficiency, coronary death, angina, or angiographic coronary stenosis [59]. Similarly, the authors of two meta-analyses published in 2012 concluded that omega-3 supplementation does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of CVD [60], and is not effective for the primary or secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease [61]’
                https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/

    4. Seriously, Konrad? You cite the infamous WFPB denier Denise Minger as your source of information? This is the lady, an English major with no formal science education, who carved out an internet name for herself by accusing T. Colin Campbell (author of The China Study) of bad science. If there is anyone in the world who is biased and constantly cherry picks data that would be Denise Minger. Her main goal in life is to create doubt about the benefits of eating a WFPB diet. Quoting anything she writes is laughable.

    5. The VITAL Study is an ongoing 27,871 person study of fish oil and Vit. D. It reported in Nov. 2018, that over 5 years, 1 gram/day of fish oil reduced heart attacks by 28%, in African Americans it reduced heart attacks by 77% and in people who eat fish less than 1 1/2 times/week, reduced heart attacks by 40%. It reduced fatal heart attacks by 50%. And it lowered death from heart disease. You can take a lot more than 1 g./day of fish oil and get it as pure as you want, even pharmaceutical grade.

      1. You keep writing this Alan ….. and keep ignoring the fact that the VITAL study found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among those taking fish oil supplements.

        1. Have you read the news release from the study? They thought the results were so importantthat they decided to publish them before the study was even published. There were major reductions in heart attacks, including fatal heart attacks in those taking fish oil. Someone else posted the link. Try reading it.

          1. I posted the link myself – in fact I was the first person here to so. try reading it yourself instead of just seizing on the bits you like.

            The point is that you seem to be ignoring the statement by the study authors themselves (even though you quote it here) that

            “During the trial, 386 major cardiovascular disease events occurred among the 12,933 participants receiving omega-3 fatty acids, as compared with 419 such events among the 12,938 participants receiving placebo, an 8% reduction that was not significant.”

            Of course the team thought their findings were important. What research team doesn’t? That doesn’t prove anything.

            Perhaps you should try to ‘educate’ the AHA which clearly doesn’t have your statistical expertise and deep understanding of the implications of the study results?

            1. You are being completely dishonest as anyone can see who goes to the VITAL Study web site and read the release of the study results.

  3. Maybe Dr. Greger could go on the Joe Rogan podcast. He could yeah about strategies for how someone who eats may to eat it healthier. He had a lot of videos on that, like boiling the meat or eating spinach or walnuts before, or the Australian wild meat eating studies.

    Anyway, 1. is there any benefit to time restricted eating or intermittent fasting for someone not overweight? If so, what are the general principles that I should follow?

    2. Should I avoid foods that increase metabolism for longevity because I don’t need to increase metabolism? Maybe just eat foods that slow metabolism like green leafy vegetables to counteract?

    3. Dr. Valter Lango in good book says to avoid eating lots of fruits due to some sugar pathway similar to a protein aging pathway. What are Dr. Greger’s thoughts on this.

    1. Why does he need to go on Joe Rogan when he has a whole website with a bunch of the information you are requesting for? Use the search bar above!

      1. Ugo- the more people we can expose this website to the better! Dr. Greger probably isn’t very well known among the people who follow Joe Rogan. Slightly different crowds I imagine.

    2. Why would he do that? That’s stupid. That’s like going out of your way to tell someone who smokes how to “smoke healthier.” Like, ok, put this unnatural poison in your lungs but always pair it with a tall glass of hibiscus tea, etc. etc… Why not have a video explaining a “healthier way” to eat twinkles? Some people are always gonna eat crap like twinkles, too, right? Or what about a health way to be a lazy couch potato… take a 1/4th tsp of turmeric every hour?

      1. He already has videos about how to eat meat if you are going to eat it (advanced glycogen end-products or eating the l avocado or walnuts or spinach or beats or turmeric or lots of vitamin c first) and also lots of people eating meat aren’t going to give up soon. Also sometimes you are in a situation where you kind of have to eat meat if you don’t want to offend someone or it’s a holiday. So they might start a transition into healthier way of eating. Also, that might make it more likely for Dr. Greger to be in the podcast. Also, when people ask Dr. Greger, “what about meat once a week?” he answers “that’s 6 times better than everyone else!”

  4. I’m confused on one of the statements towards the end, “ marine sourced” algae isn’t exposed to the contamination of the oceans like fish is.

    Ok, then where is marine source algae sourced from?

  5. Does anyone know of, or use perilla oil? Apparently it has a very high omega-3 fatty acid content (more than 50 percent fatty acid) compared to most other plant oils. I came across this reference; but before I give it a go I’d really value from any insights/feedback – Thanks!
    “…the [perilla] seed oil contains the omega 3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). In comparing to other plant oils, perilla seed oil consistently contains the one of the highest proportion of omega-3 (ALA) fatty acids, at 54–64%. The omega-6 (linoleic acid) component is usually around 14% and omega-9 (Oleic acid) is also present in perilla oil. These polyunsaturated fatty acids are most beneficial to human health and in prevention of different diseases like cardiovascular disorders, cancer, inflammatory, rheumatoid arthritis etc.” (Cited in Oriental Pharmacy Experimental Medicine. 2011 Mar; 11(1): 51–59. Published online 2011 Mar 4. doi: 10.1007/s13596-011-0002-x)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167467/

  6. Our hearts don’t need no stinkin’ supplements of any description if our diet is healthy. No plant cell exists which does not contain oil “phyto-lipids,” some much more than others.

    Eaters of animal corpse like to point out that man is an “omnivore.” They neglect to consider that there are 30,000 known edible plants (“omni,”) and that is where all herbivores get both protein AND oil, and of course everything else their body requires.

    1. Not all plant lipids are the same. Only some can be converted to EPA/DHA by the human body. The discussion is about optimal nutrition, not what is enough to stay alive.

    1. Antal

      If I may, I would like to add to Spring03’s very sensible response. This video basically relates to the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the general population. It doesn’t relate to secondary prevention orto people with special risk factors.

      If you have the time and inclination, you might find reading the AHA’s scientific adviosry on this general issue to be helpful

      https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000482

    1. This is not authoritative, but I think the short answer is no, you don’t get the preventive benefits from low dose aspirin that you get from omega-3 fish oil. I have seen a statistic that aspirin helps very few people to prevent heart attacks. My source is the cardiologist Dr. Malhotra. You can find the statistics in one of his talks on youtube.

          1. Deb, You have to do your research on this. Researchers are advising that the public not take aspirinfor primary prevention of heart attacks. There have been two studies in the past year or so aboutthe dangers of bleeding from aspirin. The last one I remember was in Nov. 2018 on aspirincausing intercranial bleeding. I think it was in JAMA. I’ll try to get you citations tomorrow.  As for the Inuits, I don’t know. Are you suggesting that they die from too much fish oil? Atherapeutic dose of 3-4 grams of fish oil is not dangerous.

            1. They die if they bleed even a nose bleed from how much fish oil is in their diet and yes, they have a lot more than the average community.

              I am just sharing that it can be an issue.

              1. It’s not an issue at all for the average person. Nobody claims that supplementing with fishoil causes bleeding at the 1-3 or 4 gram level/day. It’s quite safe. If eskimos are consuming10 or more grams of fish oil/day, it’s understandable that they may have problems with bleeding.Millions of people are safely taking 1-4 grams/day of omega3 fish oil.  On the other hand, aspirin has minimal benefit for primary prevention of heart attacks, withan unacceptably high rate of bleeding in the brain or gastrointestinal tract.

          2. Benefits of aspirin for primary prevention of heart attacks are minimal, while risk of bleeding is much higher.Negative studies about aspirin and bleeding are increasing.
            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1812000  New England Journal of Mediine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800722?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article  NEJ Med CONCLUSIONS Aspirin use in healthy elderly persons did not prolong disability-free survival over a period of 5 years but led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage than placebo.
            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1803955?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

            In the primary analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, now published in the Journal, we report that the daily use of aspirin did not provide a benefit with regard to the primary end point of disability-free survival among older adults. A numerically higher rate of the secondary end point of death from any cause was observed with aspirin than with placebo.

        1. Dr. Malhotra is a well-respected intervention cardiologist who has done many thousands ofstent surgeries and knows wherein he speaks. He is not a quack, because you say he is,nor is he untrustworthy, because you say he is.  Would you like to provide a citation showing that he takes money from the drug and meatindustries? You misread the article. It’s not there. He certainly doesn’t take money from the drug industry, because it’s well-known that he thinks that statins are a fraud and there is toomuch reliance on drugs in medicine. Get your facts straight, before making accusations thatyou can’t back up. His views on saturated fat are becoming more and more mainstream.  Even the highly respected MD scientist, Dr. William Li who thinks saturated fat is bad, in hisbook Eat to Beat Disease, recommends that people eat 2 slices of cheese/day and seems toendorse eating as much as 6 slices/day, as well as dark meat chicken and yogurt. That is quite a bit of saturated fat.
          Ever hear of the Golestan Dairy Food Intake Study? Published in the J. of Epidemiology in 2017.Funded by the National Cancer Institute, the NIH, several universities including Harvard and an international cancer research organization. This study followed more than 42,000 people in a province of Iran for 11 years, from 2004. It found that people who ate dairy, including high fat dairyhad a significantly lower all-cause mortality and a 28% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality! Eating cheese and yogurt had significant reductions in these too. The highest 1/5 ofdairy eaters saw the greatest benefits.  A Harvard study based on the huge Physicians and Nurses Studies also found a significantreduction in all-cause mortality from eating dairy. Cheese is made from starter cultures whichhave a beneficial effect on gut health. Same with yogurt. Cheese also contains Vitamin K2 whichhas been found to have a positive effect on cardiovascular health and also is supposed to removecalcium from arteries. These are possible reasons for the reported outcomes. We know that dairy is high in saturated fat. Right?

          1. Newyorkguy,

            I will put Finland up as dying from heart attacks in their 40’s and 50’s and having the highest level of Alzheimer’s and that happened when they switched to a high dairy diet. They lowered the heart attack rate by lowering saturated fats and doing that did lower it by something like 84%.

            People are getting rid of Diabetes by going off saturated fats and I am one of them who have had every symptom of Diabetes go away and that all happened only after I gave up dairy. I was a big dairy eater and I had so many health problems, which went away as I went in a Whole Food Plant Based direction.

            1. I can point to Dr. Barnard healing people of Diabetes by taking them off of refined carbs and fats. Dr. Ornish has reversed cancer and heart disease and has regrown telomere with a diet low in saturated fat. Many of his studies have been vegan and he is one who has an Alzheimer’s study, which will be coming out soon and his study will tell me more than anything because he believes he can reverse it with his diet.

              It won’t be a Bredesen stew of trying every single thing to see if something works.

              I am looking forward to it.

              Looking at the Adventists, they did not need dairy for longevity.

              But I do know that dairy and calcium are in the top 10 of the burden of disease study.

              It is just that they are below, fruit, vegetables, legumes, whole grains and nuts and seeds.

              Whole Food Plant-Based is excellent for the gut microbiome on its own without the risks of the viruses and hormones in dairy.

              I honestly can’t eat cheese anymore.

              Before I went Whole Food Plant-Based, I know that cheese bound me up and I would have such rock hard stool when I ate it and would spend so long in the bathroom just trying to go that my legs would fall asleep.

              That was then and now, the few times I had even one slice of pizza it was so excruciatingly painful. I felt so sick. It took a while to understand that I loved cheese so much that the bathroom sessions were just something I didn’t even acknowledge to myself. Now, I spend 1 minute in the bathroom and never have problems going and I don’t want to ever go back.

              1. It really is interesting.

                I never thought about it that we would have reading material in the bathroom because we ate cheese.

                It did bother me back then sometimes.

                When I had to sit in the bathroom at the gym for a half-hour because I had cheese for dinner, that did bother me.

                My gut microbiome seems to be working so much better after giving up cheese and dairy yogurt.

                I do eat non-dairy yogurt, but I don’t feel like I need probiotics at all. Beans and fiber fulfill the role.

              2. Deb,

                Interesting revelations and correlations between cheese consumption and bathroom reading materials. :-)

                As for pizza, we order it without cheese (“vegan”), and ask for no oil. We skip the “vegan cheese” as well. It’s a rare treat, which we enjoy. And despite one waitress’s astonishment that anyone could eat pizza without cheese, it’s actually quite tasty. We add additional spices, such as Italian Herb mix and fresh cut basil at the table.

                btw, pizza used to have small amounts of cheese, mostly for flavoring. Then some time ago, there was a glut of cheese, an overproduction leading to an over abundance, and the USDA got busy and worked with the food industry to increase the cheese content of just about all prepared foods, it seems. So we now have triple cheese pizza, even pizza with cheese in the crust, and cheese just everywhere else. The consumers’ health be damned!

                1. Dr J.

                  Tomorrow is a relative’s 90th birthday party at a pizza place and I will be ordering a pizza without cheese.

                  I have done it once before.

                  I used to eat pizza so often and now it is very rare.

                  I used to eat lasagna and macaroni and cheese and ravioli and I don’t eat any of it anymore and really haven’t eaten almost any of it in the past year and a half.

                  I don’t miss it or even think about it.

                  The few occasions when I have had cheese or oil, my body complained for a few hours.

            2. Thinking about Finland’s health deteriorating to having people dying in their 40’s and 50’s and being number one for Alzheimer’s and having lowering saturated fat be what helped them, tells me that dairy, even if it has some protective good gut microbiome issues, there is also a serious danger from the fat and it had to be fat because lowering the fat is how they improved things.

              I will suggest that calcium and cultures may genuinely have some protection, but there is also danger and that is important for people to know.

            3. Most diabetics that I read about, including doctors with diabetes, report that they were able to reverse their diabetes with carbohydrate restriction, not fat restriction. In fact,many say that their diabetes was cured or reversed on a ketogenic diet, which is fairlyhigh in fat, with moderate protein and minimal carbohydrate.
              I don’t know what the diet was in people in the Finnish Study. I do know that they wereheavy smokers with very bad hypertension.

              1. newyorkguy,

                There is a whole movement of people curing their Diabetes on the highest of high carbs low fat.

                A week or two and they are off all of their meds.

                See Dr. Barnard videos on YouTube or Dr. Greger’s video explaining the mechanism difference between Keto and WFPB.

                Whole Food Plant Based the pancreas goes back to functioning normally. Keto, it is more that fat doesn’t spike blood sugar.

                Almost all of the people around me tried to go Keto because they are meat eaters, but almost all of the Diabetics are on 2 to 3 meds and, yes, it is because they don’t do it perfectly enough to have the benefit and instead just end up with more insulin resistance.

                My Keto best friend is just about to jump ship if she can figure out vegan foods that she likes.

                Yes, I went Whole Food Plant Based and my brother and his wife and my closest friends and their families went Keto.

                I failed miserably at Atkins as a young person and had my high school friend’s father lose weight on Atkins, but drop dead of a heart attack right after losing the weight. He was so happy with his new body and new level of energy and he had happy plans for his life and all of the sudden it was all gone. Dr. Greger’s book on Atkins verified what I had already seen. I do know that most people don’t do Keto the same way as Atkins and that Dr. Berg and people like Dr. Bredesen and Dr. Seyfried only have people eat meat more as a condiment – 5% of calories of a calorie-restricted diet. I couldn’t have done that either. I threw up whenever I tried to use oil and women don’t get the same benefit of Intermittent fasting and I have failed every calorie-restricted diet I have ever tried.

                Mastering Diabetes is a site, which has a lot of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics who are Whole Food Plant-Based and their testimonials.

                I am actually surprised that it improves things so much for Type 1 Diabetics.

                1. Here are a few of Dr. Greger’s understanding of the cause of Type 2 Diabetes. It will help you understand the reason people can go very high carb and get healed of Diabetes. The first one is the most important for understanding it.

                  https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-insulin-resistance/

                  https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-spillover-effect-links-obesity-to-diabetes/

                  https://nutritionfacts.org/video/lipotoxicity-how-saturated-fat-raises-blood-sugar/

                2. newyorkguy,

                  There is ALSO a mechanism by which Keto CAN get people off their meds, but people get more insulin resistance on Keto. They just also don’t have blood sugar spikes because fat doesn’t spike blood sugar.

                  If they are prone to cheat, they are worse off because they have worse insulin resistance and will be more carb sensitive and that is where my friends have been.

                  Partly because of having their blood sugar shoot up sometimes even when they are just eating burgers and bacon with no buns and then they up their meds and have it drop so low that they need to eat sugar and then they go so high and so low.

                  My cousin is having the same problem. He ended up in the ER twice in a week – once from dangerously high blood sugar and once from dangerously low blood sugar.

                3. Ok Deb…  I’m glad you found something that works for you. I’m not diabetic, and don’t give people advice.
                  The fact that someone dies of a heart attack after losing weight doesn’t mean that their death wascaused by the lost weight. There is no causality there. They probably had heart disease and didn’t know it. That is why it is so important to have coronary calcium scans.  Being thin is not automatically protective of heart attacks. Thin people do drop deadof heart attacks all the time. I am very thin, but I don’t feel that that makes me invulnerable to heart attack or stroke.  You may be familiar with the diabetes doctor, Dr. Richard Bernstein, who wrote the book, TheDiabetes Solution. He is in his mid-eighties and has had type 1 diabetes since he was 12. Hetreats type 2 diabetes with carbohydrate restriction and says that if it is caught early enough, it isreversible. He is a more reliable source of information than Dr. Bernard and Dr. Greger combined.Here is a short video of his on type 2 diabetes.
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zVNKUwM98

                  1. New York guy,

                    People are getting healed of it after decades.

                    Dr Barnard discovered mechanisms which were never understood before.

                    He deserves respect for his contribution to the understanding of the science of this disease.

                    Don’t discount him without listening to him.

                    People are getting healed and having neuropathy and retinopathy reversed.

                    I no longer have neuropathy and my eye problems are gone.

                    1. Science is changing so fast.

                      I understand that you have closer to a Keto focus, but understanding the mechanisms of Whole Food Plant-Based and what the disease-reversing testimonials are shouldn’t be threatening.

                      I am learning it from both directions. It is confusing at first, but in the end the paradoxes begin to resolve.

                      The two diets work by opposite mechanisms.

                      There are ways of healing Type 2 Diabetes going very high carbs and very low fat.

                      It works by a different mechanism.

                      It doesn’t have to be a competition between doctors. You can learn how Dr Barnard heals people without it being a competition with another Doctor.

                  2. Dr Ornish reversed heart disease to the degree that someone was able to get off the heart transplant list with a high carb, low fat diet.

                    This video by Dr Greger showed what happened when 10 people in a study switched to a high fat diet mid-study. That group, by the end of the year had 40 to 50% more blocking of their arteries, where the group which went high carb low fat had 20% improvement of their arteries.

                    https://nutritionfacts.org/video/low-carb-diets-and-coronary-blood-flow/

                    He also has another video about how fat in the meals increases angina and paralyzes the endothelium.

                    The videos have pictures so you can see the changes to the flow-mediated dilation.

                    1. I am sorry, by the way, if I assumed keto when you said low carb.

                      You were talking high fat and high fat/low carb is usually keto or Atkins.

                    2. The long-lived communities around the world are high carb.

                      The Okinawans were 84% carb when they had the most healthy people living into their 100’s.

                      I am not trying to change your diet. I am trying to show you that if the healthiest, longest-lived populations in the world, with the lowest rates of Western diseases, like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and other common diseases eat very high carb diets, you don’t have to be afraid of carbs.

                    3. Refined carbs are bad. Whole carbs are exceptionally excellent, unless you are doing keto.

                      I don’t tell my Keto friends to eat carbs while they are on Keto.

                    4. I used to have a boom box and it could be powered by batteries or by electricity, but I found out the hard way that if you are going to plug it into your car lighter, take the batteries out or you are going to eventually have a big mess.

                      Whole Food Plant-Based is a different mechanism. It works differently and has different rules.

                      If I took two similar languages like Spanish and French, even though there are similarities, there are different rules and if you do ever want to learn how the high carb diet works, you need to be able to not look at it through high fat eyes.

                      In the end, translating back and forth are why things get confusing.

                    5. I’m skeptical. 10 people doesn’t prove anything. I would have to see the details of the study.What were they eating before and after? What kind of fats? How was heart artery blocking measured? What was it at the beginning and at the end? The difference in measurements could have been so tiny as to be statistically insignificant. If an uncontrolled 10 person study is all Dr. Greger has, he has nothing.
                      One Ornish patient doesn’t prove anything to me. Doesn’t sound like Dr. Greger has much proofthat eating fat is harmful to the endothelium. On the other hand, I referred you to two studieswith impeccable credentials, the Golestan Dairy Food Intake Study with 42,000 + subjects and the Harvard Physicians and Nurses Health Studies with far more subjects. Both found that eatingdairy reduced mortality and the Golestan study showed significant reductions in CVD mortality too.
                      I am not a vegetarian or vegan, though I eat as much vegetables as either one. I also eat omega 3fish and dark meat chicken, cheese and yogurt. I flirted with vegetarianism, but Dr. Greger convincedme that it was not a healthy approach to eating.  In a 2013 video on youtube, he says that he was researching studies to find proof to support his view that a veg. approach to eating was healthier than eating meat. What he found shocked him. He found that vegs. had the same mortality as meat eaters, the same amount of heart disease, despite lower cholesterol, the same amount of colon cancer and 300% of the Alzheimer’s. That was enough to scare me away from being a veg. You have to be so diligent to get enough B12 and other B vitamins, omega 3 fatty acids and minerals like zinc. There are healthier alternatives.

                    6. Well, I guess I watched my mother die at 53 and she ate fish or chicken with a glass of milk every night for dinner.

                      I did watch Dr. Greger’s video, but I will say that it was an anomaly study from London and you are right that they are a warning sign.

                      Vegan doesn’t mean Whole Food Plant-Based.

                      Whole Food Plant-Based cultures are the ones with Longevity and it is Whole Food Plant-Based cultures, which don’t have the Western diseases.

                      Vegan can mean anything at all and you are right that vegans often do not supplement B-12 or DHA and Homocysteine in vegans who do not supplement are higher than meat-eaters, but if they supplement, they have the lowest levels of Homocysteine.

                      It is when the diets are Whole Food Plant-Based that the studies reflect the changes.

                      You are talking food report studies and those have all sorts of confounding factors.

                      There are things like the fact that anorexics are drawn to veganism, but they aren’t healthy, for instance. There are vegans who eat a lot of processed food and junk food. There are vegans who do not supplement.

                      Taking one B-12 per week is not exactly a big deal and that is the supplement that it is dangerous not to take. Plus, back then, it was before people understood that vegetable oils were not healthy. Things have changed.

                      There are so many testimonials all over the internet. People get off all of their meds and reverse so many diseases.

                      You are free to make your own choices, but chicken workers – even just from handling chicken – are 9 times more likely to get cancer than the average American and the average American has a ridiculously poor diet.

                      My mother died of cancer at 53 and she was not heavy and was not a junk food eater. She bought the “eat fish” “eat chicken instead of beef” “drink your milk” logic and I lost her.

                4. In the link I sent you in my last comment, Dr. Bernstein says that when he puts type 2patients on a restricted carb diet, their pancreas’ start to produce new beta cells andthe result can last for a couple of years, even if the patients go off the carb restricteddiet. He doesn’t mention keto at all in the link I sent you.
                  BTW, have you reversed your diabetes with a wfpb diet? You don’t say. How would you knowif you did?

                  1. Dr Barnard found that lowering the fat in the diet enough, and lowering sugar and refined carbs that fat comes out of the pancreas and it turns out that the Beta cells simply function normally again. They were just plugged with fat.

                    1. In my family, I have a lot of people who have died in their 40’s and 50’s and early 60’s, similar to how Finland had such a big problem with people dying young when the culture shifted to high-fat dairy.

                      I also have a lot of relatives who are living into their 90’s.

                      In my experience, high fat kills people younger.

                      I don’t know of a Keto community anywhere in the world with longevity.

                      There might be one and if you can find one, I will listen. They used to say the Eskimos, but that was because of researchers who never examined the people.

                    2. But keto with low animal products and 10 servings of vegetables may still better than the Standard American Diet, but the Eskimo population is the only one where the people got healthier when they Westernized.

                  2. newyorkguy,

                    If it is Type 2 Diabetes, there is a good chance they don’t need new Beta Cells.

                    Get the fat out and the Beta Cells work.

                    That is the new science.

          2. That article provides a link to Malhotra’s obesity forum website which clearly states that it receives funding from the food and drug industries.

            Malhotra’s opinions on saturated fat and statins are pseudoscientific nonsense which are refuted by mountains of scientific evidence. No credible scientific/health authority anywhere in the world shares Malhotra’s beliefs. Yes, he is a cardiologist. Atkins was a cardiologist too. So what? The great majority of cardiologists concur that the evdence shows he is dead wrong. See for example the position of the American College of Cardiology
            https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/ten-points-to-remember/2017/06/26/11/39/aha-presidential-advisory-on-dietary-fats-and-cvd

            I am sure that it is possible to dredge up obscure confounded observational studies from remote places that appear to show that eg dairy is healthful. Compared to meat eating and processed foods it probably is ………. but that’s hardly the point is it?

            ‘For dairy lovers, the good news is that various foods including full-fat dairy milk, yogurt, butter, cheeses, and cream were not found to increase heart disease risk (compared to a background diet that typically contains high amounts of refined carbohydrates and sugars). However, it is important to note that these foods were not found to decrease risk either.

            What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.’
            https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

            if you want to know about saturated fat, don’t listen to quacks making sensatione headline-grabbing claims, instead consider reports by panels of leading scientists that have assessed all the evidence not just a few apparently anomalous studies

            http://who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequirements/fatsandfattyacids_humannutrition/en
            https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510
            https://ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/2015_dgac_scientific_report.pdf

  7. Maybe I dreamed it, but I think I may remember Dr. Furhman recommending algal EPA/DHA to help prevent Parkinson’s in later years. It seemed that he had seen at least anecdotal evidence of a possible association between Parkinson’s and a plant-based diet. I’ll look for this when I get time. And in case I’m totally wrong about this, I will apologize.

    1. I wonder if this video might have come out at this time because Dr Fuhrman has been criticized for bias towards supplementation, and possible denial of authorship from a study he had actually been a part of, that may have artificially and falsely inflated the requirements of vegans for DHA and EPA.

      Dr Greger seems to be trying to say that this can come from other sources, and is from scientific references other than Furhman’s, is one interpretation.

      1. Please do not believe those slanderous attacks against me. I had no role in the writing of that study and the researchers did not falsely anything. This idea that I would get researchers to fake data is preposterous. There is lots of hate and vindictiveness out there. You can read my responses on my blog.

    2. Scott,

      It is always nice to have you in our midst.

      I will have to look that up. I have been wondering if there is a hidden “males with Parkinson’s” community in the WFPB community.

      Men are more likely to get Parkinson’s and women are more likely to get Alzheimer’s and I suspect there would be a lot of people with Parkinson’s just from high Homocysteine when people don’t supplement B12.

      https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/homocysteine-and-parkinsons-disease-a-complex-relationship-2329-6895.1000107.php?aid=12261

      Plus, people do eat fish and take fish oil and because of pollution, Dr. Greger has already pointed out the connection

      Beta-carboline neurotoxins, which can be found in beef, chicken, pork, and fish, have been linked to cases of Parkinson’s disease, tremor, addiction, and cancer.

      BMAA, a neurotoxin that can be found in seafood and blue-green algae, may be linked to risk for Parkinson’s disease, ALS, and Alzheimer’s disease.

      A lot of people who are health-conscious use blue-green algae and spirulina, which Dr. Greger warns against.

      I will look up the DHA thing, but Homocysteine would be the first thing I think of. Of course, I am not a doctor.

      He is going to cause me to search for the Parkinson’s WFPB Vegan community.

      1. The part about not supplementing Omega 3 being the cause of it is something I am trying to understand.

        I found some of the potential mechanisms of Omega 3 and it improves inflammation, but it is hard to imagine a WFPB community with out-of-control inflammation. It improves insulin sensitivity, but I thought WFPB already did that. When it got to the lipid part, they were talking about cholesterol, and WFPB people may still have cholesterol issues, but often it is improved.

        “To our knowledge, this study is the first [to] report [beneficial] effects of omega-3 and vitamin E co-supplementation on gene expression related to inflammation, insulin and lipid in populations with PD,”

      2. This morning, I woke up and realized that I must be learning something.

        A few weeks ago, when Parkinson’s came up as a topic, I started looking for mechanisms and hypothesized that with so many vegans not supplementing that there should be a vegan community out there someplace with Parkinson’s.

        I am still handicapped by not knowing science but I feel like the quality of my internal hypotheses are getting stronger.

        Hearing Dr. Fuhrman’s story helps me.

        Internally, I am doing my own unified theory of disease (based on a sentence by Dr. Ornish) if the same diet reverses all of these diseases, then that should point backwards to the mechanisms of disease.

        1. As I understand it, Fuhrman’s statements about Parkinson’s and plant-based diets are founded on anecdotes. What is more, he specifically mentions people in the Natural Hygiene movement as developing Parkinson’s. Natural Hygienists have some very peculiar beliefs and practices. They should not really be confused with people eating WFPB duets for rational reasons.

          it ispossible for example, that since many of them eat a large proportion of raw foods, their intake of pesticides/herbicides is higher than average. This might explain any association with increased Parkinson’r risk. Also, some natural hygienists also drink raw milk and dairy is a well-established risk factor for Parkinson’s.

      1. Blair,

        Yes, those are two causes of Parkinson’s, but high levels of Homocysteine is a factor and Vegans who don’t supplement B12 have the highest levels of Homocysteine. (Vegans who do supplement B12 can test at the lowest level of Homocysteine.)

        They also tend to test lower than low in DHA and pretty low in Vitamin D.

        I don’t believe Parkinson’s is fully understood yet. Similar to Alzheimer’s.

        There is likely to be multiple causes.

        1. I was looking up estrogen and Alzheimer’s and estrogen lowers Homocysteine and Increases Omega 3 and decreases inflammation.

          I am trying to learn the mechanisms to even know what to look up because no matter how many searches I do I have found that if you aren’t very, very specific, you will never get more answers and to be specific enough, you have to guess.

          I just had a guess based on a sentence, which I didn’t understand about Methionine and estrogen and I figured that I was either going to be Googling Methionine-restriction and Alzheimer’s or the need for Methionine and Alzheimer’s and I decided Methionine-striction is already a fun topic and it turns out that it is still fun.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091216121456.htm

          1. For those who don’t want to click on so many links.

            Basically, when we eat too many foods with methionine, the methionine in our body reaches too high a level, our body tries to protect itself by transforming it into the amino acid homocysteine.”

            I didn’t even know that homocysteine was an amino acid.

          2. Okay, I just found the path from Methionine to Homocysteine to Glutamate to Calcium

            Glutamate-induced destabilization of intracellular calcium concentration homeostasis

            They said that one large glass of milk per day doubles the risk of Parkinson’s.

            Some of us were drinking way more milk than that, but I have too many causes of my brain problems already. I guess I am going to focus on lowering Homocysteine and Glutamate.

            https://aizenmanlab.neurobio.pitt.edu/aizenman_position_files/pdf/hoytmolpharm.pdf

            I was reading the concept: Reverse NA+ / CA2+ exchange contributes to intracellular CA2 concentration increases.

            While I was trying to understand the whole Reverse NA+ / CA2+ and how to reverse it, I found Taurine.

            It is protective.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16955229

            I mentally go back to whether it is okay to supplement with it or not?

    3. Scott,
      Why not go to the source for his current views?

      The Need for DHA by Vegans (and Near-Vegans)
      June 18, 2019 by Joel Fuhrman, MD
      https://www.drfuhrman.com/get-started/eat-to-live-blog/175/the-need-for-dha-by-vegans-and-near-vegans

      For those pressed for time, here’s the part on Parkinson’s:
      “DHA and Parkinson’s Disease

      Parkinson’s Disease is a common neurologic disease believed to be caused by deterioration of the brain cells that produce dopamine. The link between DHA deficiency and Parkinson’s is not established in the scientific literature, but I have observed a disproportionate number of very healthy-eating vegans and near vegans (and Natural Hygienists) who have developed Parkinson’s. This suspicion that DHA deficiency may increases one’s risk of Parkinson’s is supported by animal models which show that a deficiency of DHA increases sensitivity to the chemical toxins linked to Parkinson’s Disease. Mice fed a Parkinson-inducing toxin (MPTP) became resistant to the chemical when DHA adequacy was established, while control mice (the mice with no DHA given) lost their dopamine-producing cells. DHA protects neurons against the cytotoxicity of chemicals shown to damage dopaminergic cells. The DHA derivative neuroprotectin D1 protects the brain against oxidized proteins.44

      This is particularly relevant as well-known Natural Hygiene leaders and leaders of healthy eating communities such as Keki Sidhwa and Herbert Shelton died from Parkinson’s Disease. These were my mentors and close friends and I thought they would live healthfully to 100, but instead they suffered with Parkinson’s. I have also seen this happen with some of my otherwise super-healthy eating vegan and near-vegan patients. These people were shocked to have this problem when eating so healthfully for most of their lives and certainly, this was alarming to me. When I checked the blood level of DHA in some of them I found shockingly low levels.

      This fear of mine and precaution I take so my followers do not get Parkinson’s Disease may be an important discovery. Certainly, I am not going to risk this happening again in myself, my friends, family and clients following my advice. ”

      I recommend reading the entire article to get a complete picture of his views on vegans and DHA/EPA supplementation.

      Keep in mind his DHA/EPA recommendation is the same as Dr. Greger’s is or at least has been (250 mg/d).

      1. Thanks, Gengo, that is fabulously helpful.

        He gives a mechanism and reveals who got Parkinson’s that it became an issue for him and I LOVE THAT he shared it the way he did.

        Reading the article, I stopped at this, which gives a mechanism why too much DHA can be harmful

        These excessive doses can cause problems, as acknowledged by the Institute of Medicine: “high doses of DHA and/or EPA (900 mg/day of EPA plus 600 mg/day DHA or more for several weeks) might reduce immune function due to suppression of inflammatory responses.” The negative outcomes or lack of cardiovascular benefits from fish oil capsules10 demonstrate that fish oil has no benefit in populations already eating fish, and cannot mitigate the high risk of Standard American Diet (SAD) eating.

        1. The VITAL Study is an ongoing study (Brigham & Womens Hospital-Harvard) of fish oil and Vit. D with 27,871 subjects, men over 50, women over 55. It reported in Nov. 2018 that over 5 years, 1 gram/day of fish oil reduced heart attacks by 28%, fatal heart attacks by 50%, reduced heart attacks in African Americans by 77% and reduced heart attacks by 40% in people eating fish less than 1 1/2 times/week. There was also a lowering of death from cvd. It’s safe to take much more than 1 gram of fish oil and you can buy it with great purity.

            1. It’s all in the fish oil. -:)

              From the news release:

              Cardiovascular disease. A total of 396 major cardiovascular events—heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes—occurred among participants in the vitamin D group, as compared with 409 in the placebo group, a small but nonsignificant reduction. Supplemental vitamin D also did not reduce the occurrence of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death, considered individually, nor did it reduce the risk of death from any cause.

            2. Alan,

              First, I should have thanked you for your information. I genuinely appreciate every person who adds to the big picture.

              It is harder for me to analyze the studies which combine things with things like Vitamin D.

              I read an article which tested vegetarian children for Vitamin D and they were highly insufficient – only half of the lowest limit category and three-fold lower vitamin D than meat-eaters. I know that we have discussed that before, but it is something I put on the table because it is directly related to Parkinsons and endothelial problems and heart attacks and because it was given with Omega 3 in some studies, so understanding that it had mechanisms might be helpful, particularly because there is a part of the Whole Food Plant-Based community which campaigns against Vitamin D supplementation.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26343034

              Vegetarians and Vegans also test lower in Vitamin E, which is not something simple to understand regarding supplementation. Food is obviously better.

              There have been studies with positive results with Vitamin E supplementation, but there are ALSO studies where the Vitamin E supplementation didn’t help anything at all and, in fact, made some things worse.

              https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20050315/vitamin-e-harms-more-than-helps#1

              Fish oil itself has the same paradoxical study results and that obviously is why Algal oil is recommended.

              Vegans and vegetarians also often test low in calcium and zinc

              Calcium is another supplement, which has that increasing risk factors issue, but low calcium itself is in the Top 10 risk factors for global burden of disease.

              https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-attack/expert-answers/calcium-supplements/faq-20058352

              Zinc is a factor in Congestive Heart Failure and in an irregular heartbeat and overall heart health.

              https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/zinc-benefits-play-important-role-heart-health

              https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170418094238.htm

              1. The VITAL Study is ongoing, so I don’t know the methodology, however the positive result with fish oil could not have come from being combined with the Vit. D, because the results with each were contradictory. Vit. D had no effect on the heart, while fish oil produced significant beneficial results. They had to be tested separately to produce these results.

                1. Thanks, Alan,

                  The thing I will say though is that the Algae oil doesn’t have the toxicity. To me, there were enough toxins associated with both fish and fish oil that I would rather be safe.

                  I do like that there is an on-going study though. That will be helpful down the road.

                  1. Thank you too Deb. Nice to make your acquaintance here. I know nothing about algae oil,but I would want to make sure that I am getting a good amount of DHA and EPA.
                    The fact that this study reported these results before the study was even published tells youhow important they think these results are.

                    1. newyorkguy,

                      Getting enough DHA, in particular, seems like a good idea. Choosing the safest sources seems like a good idea, too.

                2. “fish oil produced significant beneficial results. They had to be tested separately to produce these results.”?

                  The media release says in black and white that there was no significant reduction cardiovascular events in the fish oil group.

                  1. Hi,
                    I switched to Algae DHA/ EPA, and try to buy it online, in bulk quantities from places like Walmart….
                    It was believed that fish was essential at one time, to prevent vitamin D deficiency, in northern climates…but thanks to D3 supplements, and brown mushrooms, I can get vitamin D in winter and still stay vegan

                  2. The VITAL Study did find that taking 1 gram/day of fish oil dramatically reduced heart attacksby 28%, by 77% among African Americans and by 19% in people who ate little fish. It found a50% reduction in non fatal heart attacks. These extraordinary results are on the VITAL Study web site and were reported in the media. See example below. I read about them in the WSJ in Feb. I called the VITAL Study and they confirmed that the results are as stated above. The fish oil also reduced the need for angioplasties by 22% From the VITAL Study web site: 

                    Omega-3 fatty acids

                    Cardiovascular disease. During the trial, 386 major cardiovascular disease events occurred among the 12,933 participants receiving omega-3 fatty acids, as compared with 419 such events among the 12,938 participants receiving placebo, an 8% reduction that was not significant. Upon closer examination, this result was due almost entirely to a reduction in heart attacks without a reduction in strokes. Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid intervention lowered the risk of heart attack by 28% and the risk of fatal heart attack by 50% but had no benefit on stroke or cardiovascular deaths not related to heart disease. Additionally, omega-3 fatty acids reduced the rate of angioplasty procedures by 22%.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-fish-taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-cut-heart-attack-risk-studies-find/

                    Eating more fish or taking omega-3 fish oil supplements can cut heart attack risk, studies find

                    Eating more fish or taking a fish oil supplement can reduce your risk of a heart attack, according to a pair of Harvard-led clinical trials.Heart benefits from omega-3 fatty acids were found both in healthy people and in people with conditions that put them at increased risk of heart attack, stroke or heart disease, the two studies found.The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) found that healthy people who took a fish oil supplement suffered fewer heart attacks, particularly if they were black or did not regularly eat fish. Dr. Satjit Bhusri is a cardiologist with Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “This is a very important and impressive trial. Its results will have a lasting change in the prevention of heart disease,” said Bhusri, who was not involved with the studies. “A reduction in heart attacks this profound has not seen been since in primary prevention since the early trials of aspirin therapy.”See link for rest of story.

      2. Yet McCarty has observed

        ‘Three recent case-control studies conclude that diets high in animal fat or cholesterol are associated with a substantial increase in risk for ParkinsonÕs disease (PD); in contrast, fat of plant origin does not appear to increase risk. Whereas reported age-adjusted prevalence rates of PD tend to be relatively uniform throughout Europe and the Americas, sub-Saharan black Africans, rural Chinese, and Japanese, groups whose diets tend to be vegan or quasi-vegan, appear to enjoy substantially lower rates. Since current PD prevalence in African-Americans is little different from that in whites, environmental factors are likely to be responsible for the low PD risk in black Africans. In aggregate, these findings suggest that vegan diets may be notably protective with respect to PD.’
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987700913215?via%3Dihub

        1. Interesting. Too bad the article is behind a pay wall. As you said in another comment, no one knows what causes PD, and it could well be multi-factorial. However, I don’t think it’s inconsistent with Dr.
          Fuhrman’s observations and conclusions since vegans who are good converters could be exceptionally well protected but the others, quite the opposite.
          To me, the bottom line is, how good a converter is a particular vegan, given her/his diet?

          1. Yes, true. Also as i said in an earlier comment, Fuhrman’s anecdotes most relate to Natural Hygienists who, among other things, tend to eat more raw foods including in some cases raw milk. Cooking gets rid of a lot of pesticide/herbicide residues I believe so Natural Hygienists may have higher intakes of pesticides/herbicides than average Both pesticide exposure and dairy consumption are accepted risk factors for Parkinson’s.

            However, as you commented previously, it is all moot since most of us take an omega 3 supplement anyway for brain health.

  8. Is there a single source that lists all of Dr. Greger’s recommendations for supplements or foods, whether daily or weekly, such as a tablespoon of flax daily? Im familiar with the Daily Dozen but he often mentions many other considerations. Is is correct to assume he covers ALL of his recommendations on the DD list?

  9. I am a pesca-vegerarian. My dietary guidelines are as follows: 1.) I eat the most nutrition consuming the fewest calories; 2.) I eat the plant-based part of my diet consuming foods that have an average total carb to total fiber average not greater than 5 to 1. This means no processed foods (e.g. whole-grain bread), no rice or potatoes, no pasta, even whole wheat pasta, and 3.) consume a mix of foods such that when tested my blood profile of n-6 to n-3 PUFAs are no higher than 4 to 1. At 79, my mind is sharp as a tack. I’ve had my biological age tested in terms of stamina, strength, flexibility, how high I can jump and it is 20 years younger than my chronological age. I have 11% body fat and a 33 inch waist. I am in the gym 5 days a week for 2 to 3 hours doing interval training and weight lifting. When I finish my interval training, I have to change my shirt because it is so wet from sweat that I get cold. I’ve been doing this exercise routine for over 25 years, althought when I learned about the benefits of interval training, I reduced my cardio by 30 minutes to 30 minutes. I only eat wild, Alaskan salmon (sockeye), and wild caught sardines. I bake the salmon in EVOO and lemon juice, spreading minced fresh turmeric, black pepper and dried Italian herbs on the flesh side up, in an oven set at 375 degrees F for 15 minutes. The smoke point of olive oil is 375 degrees F. The sardines I purchase are packed in water. I remove the water, put the sardines in a dish with EVOO and lemon juice. On both the salmon, after cooking, and sardines I spread minced fresh garlic. I will eat no fish that is farmed. The DHA and EPA are really great for both brain and heart health. I also use ground flax and chia seeds in my cranberry smoothy, and take a few swigs of unfiltered flax seed oil with lignin’s each day before taking certain supplements that are absorbed best in the presence of fats. This link will take you to a table prepared by the EPA setting forth the best and worse fish for human consumption https://www.epa.gov/fish-tech/epa-fda-fish-advice-technical-information.

    1. Ronald,

      Congratulations on your good health. That is good news for you.

      Unfortunately, the oceans have been becoming more and more polluted and fish have things like Microplastics in their flesh, on top of the contamination.

      Over time, it will become even worse and people need to understand that part.

    2. HI Ronald,

      I also eat foods with the 5:1 carb: fiber ratio.
      I love the tolerant brand red lentil pasta….it qualifies, just under 5, and is delicious!
      Organic Red Lentil Pasta, Penne
      oz (85g )
      Calories from Fat 9. Calories 300.
      2% Total Fat 1g.
      0% Saturated Fat 0g.
      0% Cholesterol 0mg.
      1% Sodium 15mg.
      18% Total Carbohydrates 53g.
      44% Dietary Fiber 11g.

  10. Does anyone know if getting plenty of DHA (22:6) obviates the necessity of taking EPA (20:5)? In other words, are there efficient metabolic pathways for converting DHA to EPA?

    1. Plant_This_Thought,

      This is the most complete article I am aware of on the topic of EFAs, complete with references.

      https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/other-nutrients/essential-fatty-acids

      “Finally, DHA can be retro-converted to EPA and DPA at a low basal rate and following supplementation (Figure 3) (12). After supplementing omnivores (n=8) and vegetarians (n=12) for six weeks with an EPA-free preparation of DHA (1.62 g/day), EPA, DPA, and DHA concentrations increased in serum and platelet phospholipids (13). Based on the measured changes, the estimated percent retroconversion of DHA to EPA was 7.4%-11.4% (based on serum phospholipid data) and 12.3%-13.8% (based on platelet phospholipid data), with no significant difference between omnivores and vegetarians. Due to this nontrivial retroconversion efficiency, DHA supplementation may represent an alternative to fish oil to increase blood and tissue concentrations of EPA, DPA, and DHA”

      Another part to pay attention to is the following:

      “Studies of ALA metabolism in healthy young men indicated that approximately 8% of dietary ALA was converted to EPA and 0%-4% was converted to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (6). In healthy young women, approximately 21% of dietary ALA was converted to EPA and 9% was converted to DHA (7). The better capacity to generate long-chain PUFA from ALA in young women compared to men is related to the effects of estrogen (8, 9). Although only the essentiality of ALA is recognized because it cannot be synthesized de novo by humans, the relatively low rate of ALA conversion into EPA and DHA suggests that these long-chain omega-3 PUFA may be considered conditionally essential nutrients.

      1. Thanks, Gengo, that is great information.

        Dr. Fuhrman wrote about having vegans test insufficient for DHA and some didn’t have levels high enough to register on the test and that ALA conversion probably explains it.

        I have been wondering the same thing since I could buy either DHA or both.

        1. Tom, that was interesting.

          I am trying to understand the women sentences in it.

          The estimated precursor-product ratio was greater in women than in men and greater in non-fish-eaters than in fish-eaters.

          In our study, the calculated LC n–3 PUFA:DALA ratio was higher in women than in men, which indicated a greater estimated conversion from dietary ALA and reflected results of previous metabolic and animal studies, possibly because of the effects of estrogen on mRNA expression of the Δ5- and Δ6-desaturase genes (9, 11, 24, 44–46).

          Some of us are post-menopausal and I already have trouble understanding the precursor-product ratio before figuring out what estrogen did and what post-menopause is doing.

          Does that mean I need more?

          1. Okay, maybe it will help to break it down.

            LC n–3 PUFA:DALA ratio

            Long Chain (?) Omega 3 PUFA to Dietary (?) ALA

            Does a higher ratio mean that women need less to make more as long as estrogen is in play?

            Okay, I remember now, back from the Parkinson’s video…..

            Estrogen is protective against Alzheimer’s, so if women were pregnant more often or were older when they lost their period, it was a good thing for Alzheimer’s. Okay, so maybe because of women’s ratio being higher? That is my hypothesis to look for.

            1. Okay, I have to mentally bookmark to look for the mechanisms by which estrogen could be protective.

              Causing women to have a higher omega 3 ratio is one.

              I am on my way out, but I will mark my place and know that estrogen could do something else, but Omega 3 being higher is one mechanism.

              I also have to look up and see if any of these omega 3 and brain function studies have good results for women.

              Or is it that women convert so much higher that it is harder to be deficient, so maybe it won’t show up in studies?

              Or is it that women no longer have the advantage in the years when people get Alzheimer’s so it is just a delay tactic?

              1. These researchers think it is protective because it lowers glutamate (If I remember properly from the glutamate storm concept, turmeric and blueberries, and Bergamot essential oil and lowering Homocysteine all also lower glutamate) I feel like I am understanding why the researchers chose the research they chose.

                https://academic.oup.com/biolreprod/article/84/3/581/2530346

                Okay, too much Methionine raises Homocysteine and that also raises Glutamate.

                My question after that is what about the whole calcium thing?

        2. Thanks, FF. I know you’ve posted this before but it’s good to see it again. Although encouraging, the few number of vegans in the study and the great variation in results for DHA and EPA seem to me to warrant caution. As the study concluded:

          “The implications of this study are that, IF conversion of plant-based sources of n–3 PUFAs were found to occur in intervention studies, and were sufficient to maintain health, it could have significant consequences for public health recommendations and for preservation of the wild fish supply.”

          If you happen to know you are a good converter, then great. But the downside, if you are not, could be dramatic over a long period of time. I happen to have had my Omega 3 Index calculated, including DHA, EPA, ALA, LA, and on 500 mg of DHA/EPA per day, my results were right where I would want them to be, according to some opinions.

          However, it is clear this is yet another important area where the science is not settled.

          1. By the way, here’s a 2005 study that found conversion rates among vegetarians and vegans does not depend on short vs long term adherence to the respective diets.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975
            “CONCLUSIONS:
            The proportions of plasma long-chain n-3 fatty acids were not significantly affected by the duration of adherence to a vegetarian or vegan diet. This finding suggests that when animal foods are wholly excluded from the diet, the endogenous production of EPA and DHA results in low but stable plasma concentrations of these fatty acids.”

            Notice the reference to “low but stable plasma concentrations”.

            1. Yes, thanks. Interesting. I thought that this section from the article was worth bearing in mind

              ‘The importance of the lower plasma concentrations of DHA seen in vegetarians and in vegans than in omnivores is not known, and plasma concentrations do not necessarily reflect tissue concentrations. Low intakes or low plasma concentrations of n−3 fatty acids have been associated with cardiovascular disease, inflammatory diseases, and neurologic disorders such as schizophrenia and Alzheimer disease (9). However, overall mortality in vegetarians is low compared with that in the general population and is similar to that of health-conscious meat-eaters (36). Indeed, mortality from ischemic heart disease has been shown to be lower in vegetarians than in omnivores (37). This may be explained by favorable differences in several risk factors for ischemic heart disease; for example, plasma LDL-cholesterol concentrations were shown to be lower in vegetarians than in omnivores (38, 39). No differences in platelet function have been found between vegans and omnivores (40), but the concentrations of several clotting factors, notably factor VII, have been found to be lower in vegetarians than in omnivores (39). Few data are available on whether inflammatory or neurologic diseases are more common in vegetarians and in vegans. The importance of long-chain n−3 fatty acids in the diet needs further investigation.’
              https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/2/327/4862944

    2. Hi, plant_this_thought! Most omega-3 sources include both EPA and DHA, and our bodies can convert them. Conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA appears to vary widely, and may be partly based on need, as is the case with many nutrients. Our bodies are often able to increase absorption and conversion of nutrients when need is high, and decrease when supply is plentiful. You can find everything on this site related to omega-3 fatty acids here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/omega-3-fatty-acids/ I hope that helps!

  11. Perilla oil?
    Does anyone know of, or use perilla oil? Apparently it has a very high omega-3 fatty acid content (more than 50 percent fatty acid) compared to most other plant oils. I came across this reference; but before I give it a go I’d really value from any insights/feedback – Thanks!
    “…the [perilla] seed oil contains the omega 3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). In comparing to other plant oils, perilla seed oil consistently contains the one of the highest proportion of omega-3 (ALA) fatty acids, at 54–64%. The omega-6 (linoleic acid) component is usually around 14% and omega-9 (Oleic acid) is also present in perilla oil. These polyunsaturated fatty acids are most beneficial to human health and in prevention of different diseases like cardiovascular disorders, cancer, inflammatory, rheumatoid arthritis etc.” (Cited in Oriental Pharmacy Experimental Medicine. 2011 Mar; 11(1): 51–59. Published online 2011 Mar 4. doi: 10.1007/s13596-011-0002-x)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167467/

    1. Hi Jessica, thanks for your question. Yes, Perilla oil that comes from Perilla seed is a good source of omega three. It is used in Korean cuisines also China, India, Japan, Thailand, other East Asian countries. The herb is about 1 m high with small flowers, a gray-brown fruit, and glossy, downy-haired leaves. Cultivation of the crop is grown from seed and sown in May. that is made by extracting the oil from perilla seeds.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167467/

  12. Minami oils go through rigorous in-house and third-party testing and have remarkably low levels of oxidation as well as undetectable levels of dioxins, pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury. Minami is committed to the advancement of scientific support for omega-3 nutrition and has participated in 11 human clinical studies. Minami uses the latest omega-3 research to formulate specific ratios of EPA and DHA to support the body and its systems, obtains fish from sustainably managed waters and is the only fish oil in the world to receive EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) status—a highly stringent European standard.

  13. I have 2 questions, would love a response!

    Dr. Greger has mentioned that roasted nut butters contain glycotoxins, and thus should ideally be avoided. But let’s say that I want to make cookies, and I can either use oil or roasted nut butter. Which is worse?

    Also, if I mix raw almond butter with other ingredients like dates, flour, etc. before baking, will glycotoxins still form?

    Thanks

    1. That is one of those very specific questions.

      I am not sure anyone can answer that for you.

      They do have “raw” and “lightly baked” versions of cookies on-line.

    2. Hi Om – Thanks for your questions! To avoid using both oils and roasted nut butters in cooking, the best option is to blend up whole nuts to make your own nut butter. Simply put nuts into a blender or food processor, turn it on high, and blend for about 4-5 minutes until the nuts have turned into a smooth paste. This takes one additional step in your baking process but it can be done ahead of time to have the nut butter already on hand!

      During the baking process, a small amount of glycotoxins may still form due to the high temperature that the fats in the nuts are exposed to. However, it is a small amount overall and an even smaller amount that is consumed at a time when eating each cookie. Baking your cookies at a lower temperature for a longer period of time helps to cut down on glycotoxin formation.

      Enjoy your next batch of cookies and I hope this helps!
      -Janelle (Registered Dietitian & NutritionFacts.org Health Support Volunteer)

  14. I think the VITAL Study, which is ongoing is the largest omega-3 fish oil study, (Brigham & Womens Hospital-Harvard) with 27,871 subjects, men over 50, women over 55. It reported in Nov. 2018 that over 5 years, 1 gram/day of fish oil/day reduced heart attacks by 28%, fatal heart attacks by 50%, reduced heart attacks in African Americans by 77% and reduced heart attacks by 40% in people eating fish less than 1 1/2 times/week. It reduced death from cvd and the need for angioplasties by 22%. There was also a lowering of death from cvd. It’s safe to take much more than 1 gram of fish oil and you can buy it with great purity.

      1. Your just cherry picking which is dishonest.There was a huge reduction in heart attacks. It’s on the VITAL Study web site and I called them and they confirmed.
        It was picked up in the media and there are probably many articles about it, including the Wall St. Journal and CBS News Online.
        Another person, Barb, read the whole VITAL Study statement concerning the reduction in heart attacks and confirmed the heart attack reduction benefit in her comment.

        The CBS online article also mentions another Harvard study with a prescription form of EPA that found huge reductions
        in heart attack and stroke.

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-fish-taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-cut-heart-attack-risk-studies-find/

  15. For the first time I’m totally confused by this video including the discussion which doesn’t clear it up.
    I have been wfpb for 4 years and appear to be in good health despite previous cardiovascular surgery.

    I have been eating 2 tablespoons of ground flax every day. It now appears that since I’m 80 that I may not be converting to adequate amount of proper fat according to this video. Today I will start eating Salmon regularly for the first time ever unless someone can help me understand which supplement I should be taking. The How Not To Die Book led to my belief and practice of getting this nutrient from flax. I hope someone can help by telling me to just go to the store and get the dam fish oil capsules. I really must start the salmon otherwise .

    Now I’m thinking I should eat an occasional chicken breast in a restaurant to avoid bringing home Salmonella. I’m thinking now there might be some important ingredient in meat my body might be missing just like the salmon confusion.

    The risk from Salmon poisoning seems less than my risk of future cardiovascular disease from not getting the essential fatty oils.

    Can anyone help me with this. I’m hungry and ready to go out for Salmon now.

    1. Chicken is not a good source of any fats. The video also mentions the many easy to find EFA supplements made from algae.

      It sounds like you are having little more than a meat craving and are looking for others to justify it.

      1. Thanks for your help Jimbo, but I haven’t eaten or craved meat since I became aware of WFPB, about 5 years. My craving is for health.

        Nowhere in that video did I see a clear path to absolutely non contaminated algae supplements and how to find them, or even a clear direction for their use.

        But please standby in case I need some more amateur psychoanalysis for some other problem.

        1. Have you bothered to use any search engine? I can easily find information on algal EFA production and they could not BE more clear.

          1. I would first like to understand why I remained ignorant of the fact that flax meal requires a supplement to remain healthy on a WFPB diet. I’m wondering if I’m the only one that didn’t understand that flax needs a supplement after the age of XX to replace fish oil. Is that something that everyone but me understands?

            1. Larry Burnett, I stand in similar shoes to yours. It’s easy for people to advise this or that when their life is not on the line. I have been reading Dr Murkin’s short to the point articles. He is boarded in four specialties… quite a guy. I eat flax daily, a walnut daily, lots of greens etc, an occasional omega 3 capsule, and if I am offered fish on oaccasion, I will accept it.
              https://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9360.html
              https://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition

              1. Barb, thanks for the encouraging note. I went out and got some fish oil capsules today which I will take occasionally instead of Salmon. I hope that will get me where I need to be. Of course I will continue to eat 2 tablespoons of ground flax seeds each day.

        2. Consumer lab has tested 2 brands of algal DHA/EPA: Ovega 3 DHA/EPA and Deva DHA. Both passed although the DEVA product contains an ingredient that interferes with freshness testing (a common issue with many brands).
          I used to use Ovega 3 (135 mg EPA, 270 m DHA per cap). I stopped because it has carrageenan (an emulsifier generally recognized as safe), which I prefer not to take although the product undoubtedly contains very small amounts.

          These days I take DEVA DHA/EPA (DHA 120-140 mg; EPA 60-80 per cap).
          Unfortunately consumer lab did not test this specific DEVA product. It has no objectionable ingredients, as far as I am concerned.

          At one point I took Dr. Fuhrman’s product. Seemed like a high quality product. It comes in a glass bottle as a liquid and is refrigerated until shipped. It also has nothing suspect in it. It has 175 mg DHA, 88 m g EPA per cap. Unfortunately it is quite pricey. Since I wanted to take a higher dose, I switched to the DEVA DHA/EPA.

          It occurred to me you might be under a misapprehension concerning algae-based DHA/EPA products. They are not made from algae grown or taken from the oceans. Rather they are grown in sterile vats.

              1. Omg Gengo, so very sorry, I had read so many comments and deleted after I responded or before I checked the name. I went back to look to make sure I had the name right but the comment was gone from my email.

                End

          1. Gengo,

            You are the one on-point with this topic and I really appreciate it.

            How much was Dr. Fuhrman’s product?

            I have switched between Ovega and IWI.

            Larry Burnett,

            Dr. Greger does have a lot of videos about toxins found in fish and fish oil.

            The Algal oil is not harvested from the ocean and is considered safer.

          2. Hi Gengo, thanks for the message. I’m afraid I took the easy but sure way-out and went and got some fish oil capsules today. But I won’t take one every day.

    2. Get the wild Alaska red or red sockeye salmon. Two important Harvard studies on the benefits of taking fish oil have been publishes in the recent past. Here is a link which tells you about them. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-fish-taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-cut-heart-attack-risk-studies-find/

      Here is additional information from the web site of one of the studies, the VITAL Study:

      Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid intervention lowered the risk of heart attack by 28% and the risk of fatal heart attack by 50% but had no benefit on stroke or cardiovascular deaths not related to heart disease. Additionally, omega-3 fatty acids reduced the rate of angioplasty procedures by 22%.

      If you take fish oil, make sure it a very pure brand and discuss with your doctor. I don’t know if you are on any blood thinning medications. You don’t want to thin the blood too much.

    3. Hi, Larry Burnett! I am sorry that you are feeling confused. The evidence regarding benefits of omega-3 fatty acids for cardiovascular disease is mixed, and much less convincing than the evidence for brain health. I am not sure what in this video would make you think you need to eat chicken or fish, and I disagree that the risk is less than the benefit of doing so. The body can convert ALA to EPA and DHA, and can interconvert between EPA and DHA, and the efficiency of that process appears to vary depending on many factors, including age and need. The safest way to get EPA and DHA, if you feel the need, is to take an algae-derived supplement. You can find everything on this site about omega-3 fatty acids here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/omega-3-fatty-acids/
      While you’re at it, more information about chicken and fish may found through the links below:
      https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/chicken/
      https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/
      I hope that helps!

  16. I still remember going to a seminar on essential fatty acids and the Japanese researcher coming out, whacking the dry-erase board with a stick and exclaiming,”If you do not consume essential fatty acids, YOU ARE DUMB. Your brain is starving for the fats it is made from and you are doing that to yourself.”.

    1. Jimbo,

      Yes, insults can sometimes offend people out of the behavior, but insults can sometimes drive the information deeper into the brain.

    2. Jimbo, I would be interested to know what you yourself take re supplements these days. I believe you mentioned you worked in the health store business which gives you a unique perspective. I dislike taking supplements except for magnesium… it’s the only one I feel much better for taking it . Odd, since you’d think a vegan would consume lots of magesium in the diet.

      1. Barb,

        You don’t believe in taking B-12?

        Do you have a source of Iodine?

        What I will tell you is that at one point of this process, out of how expensive the supplements were and out of taking care of my dog, I stopped supplementing and I went back briefly into hallucinations and night terrors and had tiny lesions and went back to having neuropathy and skin problems and I can’t remember all of the symptoms. The symptoms went away when I went back to supplementing.

        Hallucinations and night terrors were enough to cause me to go back.

        I am still not perfect at it.

        I probably miss 3 or 4 days per week, but I take enough to not be symptomatic.

        It bothered me greatly that Jeff Nelson said that it was okay to be symptomatically deficient and used anecdotal evidence for that.

          1. And, Barb, I am not trying to say that in an inflammatory way.

            Maybe I should say, “I am afraid of Homocysteine.”

            You are afraid of something else.

  17. While I was researching, I found the concept of Lysosomal Storage and Alzheimer’s.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812144930.htm

    I was reading it and it was about the breakdown of proteins and lipids.

    They talked about something called long-lived proteins and I am guessing that is the whole triangle-shaped makes a good pyramid – animal proteins – versus the square makes tears roll down the little child’s eyes vegetable proteins?

    1. Jeff Nelson still makes his money from the meat industry as the inheritor of Armour foods and has zero medical credentials to be teaching other people about health. He may be vegan by choice but is no better a source of information than anonymous profiles on the internet.

      1. Jimbo, thank you for your reply. I agree with you and I take credentials very seriously. But what does having a connection to the meat industry have to do with his claim that vegans do not need DHA or omega3? He isn’t suggesting vegans to eat meat. Just trying to understand where and why you question his stance. Thank you again—please understand I’m genuinely curious and interested.

        1. JNN,

          He is against supplementation even when people test deficient and have symptoms.

          He doesn’t show the studies, which are contrary to that position.

          That is his bigger position.

          Jimbo, I didn’t know about that.

          Thanks for sharing.

    1. JNN,

      Here is Dr. Fuhrman’s response and as Gengo shared further up on this page, Dr. Fuhrman watched friends and mentors get Parkinson’s and die young and those people were eating Vegan and near Vegan diets. He said that he tested the Omega 3 on one of them and their level of DHA was nearly undetectable. Vegans and Vegetarians test low in Omega 3 and the jury may still be out because there is indeed a risk-benefit analysis that people need to do. The body doesn’t convert the ALA to DHA is one of the issues. Also, some people are genetically worse at converting ALA to DHA.

      https://www.drfuhrman.com/get-started/eat-to-live-blog/175/the-need-for-dha-by-vegans-and-near-vegans

      Dr. Greger has done a video on a study where vegans died even from heart attacks at the same rate as people who eat animal products and they were also dying of brain problems like Alzheimer’s. Dr. Fuhrman, in the link I posted spoke about the higher amount of the Omega 3 supplements being linked to the bad outcomes, but so are having low levels and he and Dr. Greger have narrowed to a low “safer” dose based on the research.

      The problem is that if you are wrong and avoid Omega 3, eventually, it can be “too late” with your brain. Yes, men should have their PSA taken to make sure they are not having troubles with it, but I don’t believe that there are any studies showing Whole Food Plant Based males having an increased cancer risk from supplementing algal oil. I say that because there are studies of reversing it by Dr. Ornish and he had people taking fish oil back then.

      1. I think my main points would be:

        Dr. Ornish reversed prostate cancer while having people take fish oil, so I don’t see that as important for the Whole Food Plant-Based community.

        Vegans and Vegetarians can test so low in it and there is a genuine risk with how low they test.

        So maybe, if you are uncomfortable taking the low dose supplement, get tested.

        1. Dr. Ornish ALSO reversed heart disease while supplementing Omega 3.

          If that is all Jeff Nelson has, he doesn’t have enough for me because I am trying to reverse brain problems.

          1. Dr. Dale Bredesen at UCLA has a program for treating people with mild cognitive impairment to mild Alzheimer’s. Has had success with it.

            Dr. Mary Newport treated her husband with Alzheimer’s with coconut oil and achieved a significant reversal.

            1. Based on anecdotal/case reports only …….. and both individuals have made a lot of money from sales of books touting their claims

              Caveat emptor.

      2. The thing that is disconcerting was that Mr J. Nelson found a handful of evidence to accuse Dr Fuhrman of scientific misconduct. I know that accusation of one thing does not invalidate something else, but this accusation is related to Dr Fuhrman’s research, claims and his own DHA supplements.

        Here Mr Nelson lists the many bits of evidence:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIF0ZB6g6tg

        I do not feel entitled to explanations by anyone here nor do I presume anyone here ha the time (or willingness) to devote to analyzing the video. But if you are already familiar and informed with both sides of the disagreement between Mr Jeff Nelson and Dr Fuhrman, and have opinions you wish to share, I’d be grateful.

        [Also, I hope folks don’t merely reply with a wholesale statement like “that guy is to be ignored” without at least a rational explanation.]

        1. I seem to recasll that we went through all this a few months ago.

          Unfortunately, I can’t remember the details. However, the general conclusion was that Nelson misrepresented the facts. Hence a previous poster’s comment “that guy is to be ignored”.

          Sorry I don’t have anything more.

          1. Laughing.

            WFPB Soap update.

            My coworker listens to a sports talk radio program and they have a sound byte saying, “He’s that guy.”

            Yes, he misrepresented what Dr. Greger said about a few things and then, he said that he didn’t have Dr. Fuhrman even on his radar, after posting images of Dr. Furhman and Dr. Greger together.

            I hadn’t understood back then that it all went back to Colin talking about not trusting Dr. Fuhrman on Dr. McDougall’s site.

            Colin is someone I do understand in the process. He was willing to lose his university job to follow what the science said, even if it meant living out of a trailer is what he communicated and then, suddenly, due to the errors in the process with the study associated with Dr. Fuhrman, suddenly Colin’s name is on a study, which Colin thinks was an attempt at deception. Dr. Fuhrman said that the researcher and the statistician used the wrong data set and made mistakes and the researcher owned up to it, but Colin hung up without listening and ended the relationship with Dr. Fuhrman and the whole incident also caused Dr. Fuhrman to not be in friendship with most of the WFPB men.

            From Dr. Fuhrman’s perspective, he corrected the study, and now has better organization to make sure it doesn’t happen again and if you look at his website, his diet now has lots of people on his site, whose weight loss and health benefits DO match the data from that controversial study.

            Jeff Nelson is seriously against nuts and any type of supplement and that is when he misrepresents people and he is an unfair fighter, but he does seem sincere in wanting WFPB.

            He believes that people shouldn’t supplement even if they are symptomatically deficient and has some other odd things.

            He believes that the Adventist study shouldn’t be considered and doesn’t talk about the Global Disease Burden Risk Study, both of which had nuts and Omega 3’s as important and not taking them as risk factors for disease.

            Dr Fuhrman says that he believes in the Omega 3 and Nuts based on studies and based on mentors and friends who developed Parkinson’s even though they were WFPB. He tested the DHA of one of his friends who had Parkinson’s and his levels were so low that he felt that it might be a factor. There are mechanisms and studies, which he uses and it seems to be a legitimate process that he is doing with those studies and people like Dr. Greger agree with him about the nuts and Vegan Omega 3 – based on the same studies.

            The thing is, Dr. McDougall and Dr. Esselstyn are more suspicious of nuts and supplements, and they also do a legitimate process.

            The positions of each of these men should be weighed against the studies at this point.

            To me, Dr. Ornish using the Omega 3’s while he did his studies is the tie breaker, but that is just my position.

            1. Deb, thank you. If I could find the thread discussing the disagreement on this DHA topic, I’d refer to that first, but I wouldn’t even know where to begin looking, so I had hope the conversation could continue here; I know that, if I have questions about this disagreement, others do also and may not know where to look for old discussions.

              In any case, thank you for your time and thoughtful replies. They do help.

              1. JNN,

                Dr. Fuhrman answers him point by point on the blog on Dr. Fuhrman’s site.

                I think most of us got upset with how Jeff has treated information from videos Dr. Greger put out more than anything.

                He also just doesn’t even believe in the work being done by the Sherzai’s with the Adventist population and other research.

                I know that the Dr. Fuhrman situation is dramatic and that it is something which was dealt with years ago and I am interacting with people who have succeeded wildly on his program.

                Jeff made accusations as if Dr. Greger would have known that the anonymous person died during the survey process Dr. Greger was part of. He tried to make it as if Dr. Greger was corrupt somehow. In truth, I have had people I went to High School die and if you miss the obituary that day, you don’t know it. I had someone I was genuinely close to in high school die of sepsis and all of us friends found out two years later.

                The concept that Dr. Greger would have known “anonymous’s death date” is how he processes information.

                Plus, the woman had gone onto Nutritarian with cancer and after serious heart problems and Jeff used her dying 15 years later at 65 evidence that Nutritarian is worse than the Standard American Diet.

                He does those kinds of leaps.

                He claimed that a man proved that nuts harm the endothelials, but Dr. Greger answering the question in an interview said that Jeff just doesn’t understand the test at all and that any food at all would have caused those results on the machine, which was used.

                I can’t think of all of the examples like that yet, but mostly he is rabidly anti-supplement and uses logic that it is okay to be symptomatically deficient, not based on study results, but based on anecdotal evidence.

                I will tell you that I came to Whole Food Plant-Based after a serious, serious, serious brain break down and I was so out of touch with reality that I can’t even explain it to you. Not just hallucinations and night terrors, but serious cognitive deficits. I already had cognitive deficits like not being able to recognize faces, but I was so far off on keeping track of time that my calendar was a year and a quarter off and I would forget where I was and what I was doing and my eyes were out of control. I tested my brain on something called a brain gauge and I tested 5% in my frontal lobe and nearly as low in other areas.

                I am saying all of that, but years ago, before my brain broke down, I used to test perfect in logic, no matter what type of logic test I took. I took the MENSA test and that turned out to just be a great big logic test.

                The thing is Jeff Nelson jumps over logic and I am not fully back mentally to process it, but the gaps are so evident at times.

                1. I can use the Adventists as an example.

                  They have a big vegan group and Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Greger’s logic is that not eating nuts was the most important risk factor, even within the vegan group.

                  Jeff thinks they lied about how many nuts they ate or were bought off by big nut company.

                  Dr. Greger and Dr. Fuhrman then also go to the Global Burden of Disease Risk factors and eating nuts is in the top 4 risk factors for all diseases.

                  Dr. Greger and Dr. Fuhrman add in the improvement to the Mediterranean diet when oil was replaced by nuts.

                  There are other studies, but Jeff is doing a hypothetical study-to-be, which has not happened yet and that is how he started his series.

                  Throwing great big darts at Dr. Greger and using anecdotal studies which may or may not ever happen in the future.

                  For evidence that it is okay not to supplement, he used the Okinawans and said that even if they had mouth cracks from deficiency, they lived a long time so deficiency doesn’t matter.

                  That is both hypothetical and not tested. There was no study saying it is okay to be symptomatically deficient.

                  He used the Okinawans and rejected the Adventists entirely and claimed that Dr. Greger was being irresponsible saying that people might be able to eat 4 brazil nuts per month and see if they get the results of a small study and Dr. Greger warned people to not eat too many Brazil nuts because of selenium toxicity, but Jeff acted like Dr. Greger never mentioned that.

                  The list of things which were false accusations was long. I remember that part.

                  He is sincere about WFPB, I believe, but he twists information about people like Dr. Greger and him acting as if Dr. Greger didn’t know the difference between a survey and a study, for instance, as if he didn’t listen to Dr. Greger’s videos and I have listened to Dr. Greger’s videos and him twisting so many things was frustrating.

                  1. Plus, Jeff did things like fabricating a journal to have better visuals for his piece.

                    And, he didn’t allow Dr. Fuhrman to post his response.

                    He didn’t allow people to see that Dr. Fuhrman was trying to respond.

                    All of that is what I look at with Jeff, but even after that series, there have been nut studies showing cognitive benefits with 1/3 ounce of nuts, which we have talked about in the comments and it is the doctors which I follow their logic.

                    I can’t claim to know what happened with that study back then, but Dr. Fuhrman said that he was doing clinical work and was not part of it other than handing charts to a researcher, who would work with a statistician. Dr. Fuhrman said that his understanding of statistics was not strong enough then to understand at a glance that they used the wrong data set, and that is plausible, since Dr. Greger did a video where 90%+ doctors do not know statistics well enough to understand the statistics for their own field.

                    That is plausible enough that I can give him the benefit of doubt because he has 1000 success stories and I have watched so many testimonials from the Eat To Live / Nutritarian lifestyle and I do believe they are genuine.

                    Some of my favorite bloggers are Nutritarians who lost over 100 pounds in a year.

                    The concept of Jeff trying to make it sound as if Nutritarian was even worse than Standard American Diet is ridiculous.

                    The thing is, I also highly respect Colin and I don’t want to be any part of that process anymore.

                    I did analyze it from both sides. I went mentally to is Whole Food Plant Based a big fat scam? Do any of the diets do anything at all? Is it all phony? Well, the fact that I reversed so many symptoms made it harder to just throw Whole Food Plant-Based out.

                    If you go to Dr. McDougall’s site, you will see testimonials.

                    If you go to Dr. Fuhrman’s site, you will see testimonials.

                    The diet itself is what I believe in.

        2. We did do the whole topic from both sides when it was posted.

          I think it is better that you read both sides and make your own mind up then us dredging it up again.

    2. JNN, it raises a good point though, and that is to not take nutritional advice from someone who is selling supplements. Dr Fuhrman sells omega 3 supplements and is also an active supporter of this (NF) website.

      Just as an aside, I find it interesting that people on a wfpb web forum get so excited about supplements. It would seem to me that eating actual plants or fish would be preferable…

      1. Barb,

        Dr. Greger has many videos on the toxins and microplastics in fish and that fish oil also tests for those.

        The Algal oil is safer because it isn’t being harvested from the sea.

        People are not pro-supplements, in general.

        But vegans are dying from Alzheimer’s and that makes whether to supplement or risk it an important thing to consider.

        For instance, people who eat fish are more likely to commit suicide or something like that. There is a video. I haven’t seen it in a long time.

        For some of us, risking things like that is such a big price. I used to be suicidal and know that I am not and keeping away from toxins is so critical. I used to have hallucinations and night terrors and I had such a big mental breakdown and did fail the Alzheimer’s left nostril test.

        Once the brain is gone past a certain point, they aren’t able to correct it and levels of DHA may be critical in that.

        Anyway, that is why we look at the issue from both sides.

        I take B-12, too and Vitamin D3 because it was too cold all winter, rained every day through June 21st and has been in a hot, humid heatwave and I got maybe 10 minutes of sun this year. Jeff Nelson thinks it is okay to be deficient in Vitamin D but there are 50+ studies where having enough Vitamin D improved mortality. Plus, there were Alzheimer’s studies with supplements and Vitamin D. I also take Algal oil. I don’t consider algae to be synthetic.

        Am I wrong? Nobody knows for sure, but my brain is getting better and better and I was totally out of my mind 7 years ago.

        Those are the personal things we weigh.

    1. JNN,

      Yes, digest it.

      Weigh the risks and benefits.

      I will tell you that all of these doctors have been weighing that and they all have legitimate positions, even if there are gaps in understanding, and even if there are riddles which science hasn’t solved yet.

      Dr. Greger has many videos on it weighing it from multiple directions.

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-prostate-cancer-and-atrial-fibrillation/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/algae-based-dha-vs-flax-2/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-dha-supplements-to-boost-brain-function/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/Omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fish-tale/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4LvCZ0KnKc&feature=share

  18. Dr. Greger, would you please do a video answering the question of whether or not you recommend eating peanut butter? If you have, I didn’t find it using the search function.

  19. i accept that there is no good scientific evidence that fish oil/omega 3 oil reduces total cardiovascular events despite what keto enthusiasts and saturated fat apologists posting here may assert.
    https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000482

    However, there are good reasons for taking algal omega 3 oils …… especially for those of us who choose not to eat fish for ethical and/or environmental reasons. Dr Greger’s video on omega 3 supplements for brain health is one.

    This meta analysis of observational studies may be another (although observational studies are notoriously subject to confounding):

    Prospective observational studies have shown inconsistent associations of dietary or circulating n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) with risk of all-cause mortality. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the associations. Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases. The summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. Eleven prospective studies involving 371 965 participants from general populations and 31 185 death events were included. The summary RR of all-cause mortality for high-versus-low n-3 LCPUFA intake was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84–0.98). The summary RR for eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75–0.92) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.74–0.95), respectively. In the dose-response analysis, each 0.3 g/d increment in n-3 LCPUFA intake was associated with 6% lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89–0.99); and each 1% increment in the proportions of circulating EPA and DHA in total fatty acids in blood was associated with 20% (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65–0.98) and 21% (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.99) decreased risk of all-cause mortality, respectively. Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed across our anlayses. Our findings suggest that both dietary and circulating LCPUFA are inversely associated with all-cause mortality.’
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910132/

    1. Two major recent Harvard fish oil studies show the benefits of fish oil.
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-fish-taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-cut-heart-attack-risk-studies-find/

      “The two studies provide firm evidence that the omega 3 fatty acids found in fish like salmon, sardines or tuna can have a beneficial effect on heart health, said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and lead researcher for the VITAL trial.”

      Dr. Satjit Bhusri is a cardiologist with Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “This is a very important and impressive trial. Its results will have a lasting change in the prevention of heart disease,” said Bhusri, who was not involved with the studies. “A reduction in heart attacks this profound has not seen been since in primary prevention since the early trials of aspirin therapy.”

      About the second trial.

      REDUCE-IT included more than 8,000 patients taking statins to lower their cholesterol and prevent either a first or repeat heart attack or stroke. About 7 in 10 patients in the study had hardened arteries, while the rest had diabetes and at least one other heart risk factor.

      People taking icosapent ethyl (prescription form of EPA) had a 20 percent reduction in their risk of heart-related death, a 31 percent reduction in heart attack and a 28 percent reduction in stroke, compared to those given a placebo, researchers found.
      “The REDUCE-IT trial sets a new standard of care for patients who have elevated triglycerides and are at increased cardiovascular risk despite statin therapy,” lead researcher Dr. Deepak Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in hospital news release. “This may be the biggest development in cardiovascular prevention since statins.”

      There are many ways that omega-3 fatty acids could help heart health, Manson said. They are known to lower triglyceride levels, reduce inflammation, decrease blood clotting and help stabilize heart rhythm.

      Despite your dishonesty, the truth will prevail.

    2. Actually, dairy intake, with its saturated fat has been associated in major studies with lower all cause mortality and lower cardiovascular disease mortality. See the Golestan Study and the 5 continent PURE Study. The Golestan Study was reported in the J. of Epidemiology in 2017. It was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the NIH, several universities, including Harvard and an international cancer research organization. It was not funded by the dairy industry. It followed more than 42,000 people in a province in Iran for 11 years, beginning in 2004. It found that dairy eaters had a significant lower all cause mortality and a 28% lower mortality from cardiovascular disease. Cheese and yogurt were found to have significant benefits in terms of lower mortality.
      A Harvard study based on data from the huge Physicians and Nurses Health Studies also found significantly lower all cause mortality from eating dairy.

    1. Matthew, because the standard treatment for eclampsia is magnesium, some doctors monitor levels. Especially in first pregnancies, and in women who have higher than normal blood pressure.
      Magnesium can be supplemented as a taurate, malate or citrate form. Magnesium oxide is useless and will cause stomach upset.
      Epson salt baths are another way to raise magnesium levels. Need to soak for at least 20 minutes.

      Another factor watched is folate. Be aware folic acid used in many packaged foods such as bread, and standard vitamins is not the same as the folate in food. And people with certain genetics do not absorb/ convert to the biological form.
      If you are going to supplement with a B complex vitamin, use either one totally derived from food, or using the biological form of folate which is labeled folate specifically, metafolin or L-methylfolate. Of course, the best way to get folate is to eat a lot of leafy greens. I recommend about 3 ounces, (100grams) a day by weight.
      Make sure the pregnant woman has enough of these essential nutrients by eating lots of organic vegetables and fruits.
      Hope this helps.

  20. I found one where milk is correlated with the risk of Alzheimer’s and one where 3 glasses of milk seems protective

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188477/#!po=0.961538

    It doesn’t make sense.

    Finland still is high in dairy even if they switched to low fat.

    Is milk specifically why they are leading AD rates? They said that it was milk, not cheese or other dairy.

    Those would have the link through fats, cholesterol, and aluminum but they lowered fats and are still #1 in Alzheimer’s

    I don’t understand why milk

      1. Milk viruses?

        I found articles on viruses and Alzheimer’s.

        But I just remembered the lake and humidity.

        Oh well, by next year, I will understand all of it better.

    1. Perghaps because milk is high in saturated fat and ‘Of all the different types of fatty acids, the findings are most consistent for an increased risk of cognitive decline with a higher intake of saturated fatty acids.’
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107296/

      Perhaps we also should consider a possible lag effect in Finland’s case – elderly people’s diet 20 or 30 years previously may be more important than their diet today in explaining dementia risk. But I wouldm’t get too bound up in the findings on international associational studies. The scope for them to have been skewed by uncontrolled variables is huge.

      1. Tom,

        I will think about those things.

        I like contemplating things like Finland because the studies in things like dairy are so confusing that it sometimes helps me to have a great, big anecdotal evidence even with confounding factors. There are studies claiming milk protects against heart attacks but I can mentally go back to Finland and not trust studies quickly.

        It occurs to me that I read about Methionine for increasing milk yield and I was reading more about estrogen. When women lose estrogen the vasculature in the brain changes. They lose blood flow to the brain.

        If Alzheimer’s is disproportionately a female issue, maybe Methionine, saturated fats and hormones in milk could be the answer.

        They said that estrogen by itself can help right away, but after the brain adapts, estrogen makes it worse, so maybe cow’s hormones makes it worse?

        1. Tom,

          Thank you for being so helpful. I highly respect you. I know that I am starting with baby understanding of science and you have truly been so helpful!

    2. The authors of the study you cite about an inverse association between milk consumption and cognitive problems, discuss a range of problems with this result including

      ‘Third, because this is a meta-analysis based on observational studies, it is possible that the observed association is affected by unmeasured or residual confounding. For instance, two included studies only adjusted for a socio-demographic variable. A higher intake of milk may be linked with other healthy behaviors, such as regular physical exercise, a lower consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, and a lower intake of sugar and processed meat. All of the above behaviors were protective factors of cognitive disorders, but several included studies did not adjust for these possible confounding factors. Moreover, because of the nature of the cross-sectional design in most of the included studies, recall bias and selection bias cannot be avoided. Fourth, only two included studies used FFQ to measure the milk intake, and none of the studies corrected for measurement error.’
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188477/#!po=0.961538

  21. Minami oils go through rigorous in-house and third-party testing and have remarkably low levels of oxidation as well as undetectable levels of dioxins, pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury. Minami is committed to the advancement of scientific support for omega-3 nutrition and has participated in 11 human clinical studies. Minami uses the latest omega-3 research to formulate specific ratios of EPA and DHA to support the body and its systems, obtains fish from sustainably managed waters and is the only fish oil in the world to receive EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) status—a highly stringent European standard. Anchovy, sardine and mackerel.

  22. Also being vegan I’d never eat fish. The fish eat the algae and that is how they get the omega. Better to eat the plants itself. Let the fish live. Between chia, hemp, flax, walnuts and purslane I’m set. Plus I do have vegan omega zen for the occasional. Let the fish swim. Better karma for you and like us they have mothers, and fathers. Please live and let live. Go vegan!! Create peace by not eating anyone.

  23. Just read that ground flaxseeds can produce cyanide as it is broken down and could be dangerous to eat. Article stated that Swedish government has now recommended that ground flax NOT be consumed at all! Please let me know how much, if any, is safe now that new research has come out. Article was dated August 17, 2019 from dailymail.co.uk

    1. Nancy, Dr Greger has addressed the cyanide in flax seeds issue. That news is not new. I have linked below two videos on the topic, and be sure to check out the reader’s comment section too for more info and suggestions. (heat destroys cyanide, so I add 1 tbsp flax to my oats before cooking. ) Hopefully the video clears up your concerns.

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-be-concerned-about-the-cyanide-from-flaxseed/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-well-does-cooking-destroy-the-cyanide-in-flaxseeds/

  24. I just had a thought.

    Finland is not number 1 in Parkinson’s. It is 16th in Parkinson’s. That is still not low, but they are half of the rate of Parkinson’s in the USA.

    We are back to the male / female thing.

    I have to look up everything again. When I went to the mechanisms, there was one. Shoot, my memory is not good yet.

    It was something like Tumor Necrosis Factor 2 maybe.

    If their men are getting it, that might point to the lake.

    If the women are getting it and the men are getting Parkinson’s at a lower level, that might mean hormones in milk or something affecting women.

    Yes, it is 3 in the morning and I am not sure this is such a profound thought or not.

    I just wanted to see if they were also #1 in Parkinson’s and they aren’t.

    1. We also need to remember that genetics are thought to be a factor in who gets Parkinson’s and who doesn’t.

      Genetic differences between the populations of various countries might therefore partly explain the variation between US and Finnish rates. As might pesticide etc exposure.

      ‘Many researchers now believe that Parkinson’s disease results from a combination of genetic factors and environmental factors such as exposure to toxins.’
      https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/parkinsons-disease

  25. https://www.vitalstudy.org/findings.html This is one of two Harvard studies in the past 9 months that found significant cardiovascular benefits to taking fish oil. This study, the VITAL Study, found a 28% reduction in heart attacks among participants over a 5 year period, a 77% reduction in heart attacks for African Americans and a 19% reduction for people eating fish less than 1 1/2 times/week. There was also a 50% reduction in fatal heart attacks and a 22% decrease in the need for angioplasties.

    1. Need to correct my comment above. I said the Vital Study found a 19% decrease in heart attacks in participants who ate fish less than 1 1/2 times/week. It was actually a 40% reduction.

  26. The REDUCE-IT Study was the second Harvard study from last Nov. showing incredible benefits for the 8,000 + study participants, 70% of whom had hardening of the arteries. I think all were on statins. The study found a 31 reduction in heart attacks, 28% reduction in strokes and a 20% reduction in death from cardiovascular events. The fish oil used was a prescription form of EPA for people with high triglycerides.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-fish-taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-cut-heart-attack-risk-studies-find/

  27. Why hasn’t Dr. Greger mentioned the 2 large Harvard studies from Nov. 2018 that reported huge benefits in taking fish oil for heart attack and fatal heart attack reduction in one study, and heart attack and stroke reduction in the other. The first study had 25,871 participants, the second more than 8,000. I’m not interested in winning arguments. This is a matter of life and death. These two studies are probably now the gold standard studies for the benefits of taking fish oil. Is Dr. Greger withholding this information, because he doesn’t want you to know about it?

      1. I would have to look at each individual study and assess how large, how long, how well-designed,how much fish oil was used and how reliable. Many could probably be eliminated on these grounds. Quality is more important than quantity.
        The VITAL Study may supercede all of the others, with almost 26,000 participants studied for 5.3 years. I find it odd that you would not even mention a well-designed Harvard study of this size, of this duration, and with these results, unless you have a bias in favor of not recommending fish oil. Cardiologists are excited about this study.  Aspirin has been shown to have minimal benefit for primary prevention of heart attacks and unacceptably high risks of bleeding. Each individual has to assess whether or not to takefish oil and/or eat omega-3 fish. I think that the prestige of a huge, lengthy Harvard study with thesefantastic outcomes is going to sway people a lot more than a bunch of smaller, mostly shorter-in-duration studies.
        The REDUCE-IT Study, which I have just learned about may be a unique study, because it useda prescription form of EPA. Again, the benefits were extraordinary and individuals with heartdisease and high triglycerides would be well-advised to talk to their doctors about taking this prescription form of EPA.

  28. Hello! I was wondering which brand and type of dha/epa supplement should I buy? Preferably from amazon? The one I bought before is vegan but has beta carotene. Being a cancer survivor, I’m a bit cautios about beta carotene as I read in sme articles that bets carotene supplementation may induce cancer. I bought the brand Omega-3 (plant based omega-3) 500mg

  29. Notice that when Dr. G makes a statement about evidence or research, he cites a study…he doesn’t say “go look it up”. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and “went and looked it up”. What I found is that Udo sells supplements which is a MAJOR RED FLAG since no supplements have EVER been proven to benefit anyone (except Udo’s bank account) unless one is actually deficient. Also, all the clinical research on oils, including “healthy” oils, shows that there is no such thing. Using Flow Mediated Dilation, we clearly see that eating free oils inhibits proper artery function which correlates with premature death. That’s not something I’ll be playing around with. Oh, Udo’s actual research? Well, I went to Pubmed and put his name in. Nothing came up except 3 studies from 1967-1971 on a cancer drug and some genetics, which has nothing to do with what he’s talking about these days. So as far as I can see, he’s never actually done any published peer-reviewed research at all on the subjects he’s talking about these day…but then again research doesn’t pay anything. But selling bogus supplements does, and that’s what Udo does.

  30. Why has plant based omega 3, replaced Vitamin D on the updated daily Dozon app?
    Flax seeds is still on the list so wouldn’t that have the omega 3 covered?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This