Recent articles have tied omega 3 intake to increased risk of prostate cancer. Got a lot of press last year. I took Omega 3 for the last 14 years. Spent thousands buying Nordic Naturals from Whole Foods at $25/bottle. Whenever I'd stop taking it, I felt a decline in mood so thought it had good systemic benefits. When I went off it this time, I felt zero change before or after (haven't taken since last summer).
This study was the last straw. I'd already given up supplements and even a daily multivitamin as studies indicate no positive effect and possible harm. Now I take no supplements. The more I read the more I'm convinced it's faulty science and marketing. A healthy, varied diet of mainly plant based foods should provide all that most people need. If you look at links to omega 3 studies on Wikipedia I don't recall there being conclusive positive evidence, but maybe I'm wrong. Couple of links on prostate cancer study and whether it's accurate or not:
There are problems with taking high doses of Vitamin D3 that may be an allergic reaction or genetic, and controversy that the amount of non-supplement D3 consumed by people on average may be a lot higher than we think.
Examine.com is a great website. In general, I would consider Vitamin D and Magnesium to be the most beneficial for a layperson without any specific health issues.
It would be so fantastic if we could just have a chip implanted to continuously measure this stuff, then download it and analyze on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. There's so much cool science to be done here, especially if this is done on a global scale.
Yes. There are common panels available at Quest/Labcorp that will measure critical nutrients such as Vitamin D or Vitamin B12. In addition, there is a more comprehensive test called ION available from Metametrix.
There were some well-reported flaws in that multivitamin study. One I remember off the top of my head from the study done with cardiovascular patients was that the "high levels" of vitamin D3 given to the participants was 100 IU.
Your link to the Herald Tribune and Mercola both recommend DHA (and omega-3). It is seriously one of the greatest things you can take, hands down. Nordic Natural is an expensive brand, and buying at Whole Foods is even more expensive (try Amazon, and a cheaper, but quality brand is Carlson's). It is hard to tell sometimes when you go off a supplement the true effects because your high DHA levels can take a while to be used up, and even then the body has processes to try and scavenge or breakdown molecules in other areas to make up for it. It is much more efficient and beneficial to provide the needed stuff in a useable form.
Why? I'd certainly take everything he says cum grano salis, but it's still better than pretty much any other general health information site on the web.
This study was the last straw. I'd already given up supplements and even a daily multivitamin as studies indicate no positive effect and possible harm. Now I take no supplements. The more I read the more I'm convinced it's faulty science and marketing. A healthy, varied diet of mainly plant based foods should provide all that most people need. If you look at links to omega 3 studies on Wikipedia I don't recall there being conclusive positive evidence, but maybe I'm wrong. Couple of links on prostate cancer study and whether it's accurate or not:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/omega-3-fatty-acids-linked...
http://health.heraldtribune.com/2013/08/26/dr-oz-omega-3-can...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/3...