What We Think We Know For Sure

A few weeks ago my niece was in the mall talking on her phone to her mom, my sister. In the middle of the conversation, a man working there walked up and interrupted to tell her that it was a proven scientific fact that holding a cellular phone next to her head would cause brain cancer. She politely thanked him and continued her conversation.

In point of fact, there is no such proven science, and this has been known for many years. This government website states: “The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating…Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy.” They go on to cite findings from several organizations including the American Cancer Society, the FDA and the CDC. Those groups’ conclusions vary slightly between evidence not strong enough, no conclusive evidence and no relationship.

But people get these ideas stuck in their heads and swear by them. Even if you can quote the findings, backing them up with links and references, they will likely not change their minds. A couple of similar examples come from omega-3 fatty acids and dairy fat from milk and butter. Many believe the former is good for your heart, so gulp down the fish oil pills, and the latter causes heart problems. New research puts both these ideas in doubt.

From a recent Medical News Today article: “Studies have shown that those who consume fish regularly as part of a healthful, balanced diet are at a lower risk of heart problems. But the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explain that research is unclear as to whether these benefits come from fish or omega-3 in particular.” So no one knows if omega-3 itself has a positive effect, yet 20 million Americans buy supplements believing that they are doing the heart-healthy thing.

The HIH study reviewed 79 randomized trials with a total of over 112,000 subjects, which looked at the cardiovascular effects of taking omega-3 supplements. The supplements had "little or no effect" on death risk from any causes or on the risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, or irregular heartbeat. Eating walnuts or fortified products such as margarine "probably makes little or no difference.” Their overall conclusion – “Diet may help, but supplements do not.”

Of course advertisers take advantage of any misconception. They keep posting contains omega-3 on packages. If enough people believed in it and were influenced to buy, companies would add any substance endorsed by the current craze. (At least the superstitious American health enthusiasts don’t endanger elephants and rhinos like their Asian counterparts do.)

On the opposite side of the fence is the dairy industry. We have been misinformed for the last 60 years about the harmful effects of fat, told to avoid whole milk and butter. The theory was that fat eaten was absorbed into the blood and distributed around the body – wrong. The problem is sugar, but the fat-banners won the battle for the hearts and minds of the public and the politicians. 

Hence, average per capita annual milk consumption in America has dropped from 30 gallons in 1970s to 18 gallons today. This report tells of a new study of 2,907 adults that found “people with higher and lower levels of dairy fats in their blood had the same rate of death during a 22-year period.” They describe it as part of an “ongoing vindication process for saturated fats” like those found in milk, cheese, and butter. (Even 15 years ago the evidence was coming to light.) “The researchers concluded that dairy-fat consumption later in life does not significantly influence total mortality.’”

What do advertisers and food companies do in light of the facts that have been emerging over the last ten years? They play to the misinformed and to the conventional wisdom by developing (more expensive) milk from almonds, soybeans, cashews, hemp, rice, etc. to save the health-conscious from the dreaded “moo-juice.” They prominently display omega-3 (and other hyped-up additives) on their labels to give the impression of putting our health ahead of profits. It's left to the consumer to sort it out. Be skeptical, not gullible.

The Lure of Supplements

A young man out walking was involved in a serious hit-and-run accident and ended up in the hospital in a coma.  The doctors told his parents that the best course of action was to wait and see how, and whether, his brain healed.  They were very distressed and did not want to accept this passive approach; they wanted to do something.  After multiple surgeries and time on a ventilator, they began secretly administering high doses of omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, through his feeding tube based on the advice of a friend.  “Fish oil is what the family believes ultimately -- dramatically -- altered his life course, and healed his brain.”  This is a wonderful story of a miraculous recovery.  After hearing it, it may be tempting to start taking high doses of fish oil hoping to enhance our already healthy brains, but this would be a mistake.

The CNN article reports that there is some science behind it and seven published instances where using fish oil helped heal damaged brains.  The treatment has advocates but the article warns:  “there are other cases -- likely many more than have been successful -- when fish oil was tried and did not work.  And there is a concern among doctors that high doses of fish oil could cause excessive bleeding.”  There is really no way of knowing if the family was right to do what they did or correct in their conclusions.  Remember, they were acting out of desperation.

Fish oil, like all nutritional supplements, is not generally tested or regulated and should be handled with care, if at all.  A renewed warning comes from Johns Hopkins about this lack of testing:  “That leaves the effectiveness, quality and safety of herbal supplements questionable.”  They go on to list eight bullet points to consider before taking them.  The FDA continues to investigate safety concerns by urging doctors and manufacturers to report adverse reactions.

It can be dangerous to be lured by wonderful stories, the recommendations or even news reports in the media.

Guess What's Bad for You Now

The latest news tells us that the Omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil have been linked to a higher risk of prostate cancer. An NBC news item gives a pretty good description of the research leading to this conclusion including the sample size and methods.  It goes on to say how shocking this news will be to many Americans.  My regular readers, however, will know how to handle this news and not be shocked at all.

In summary, researchers tested over 2000 men to determine the level of certain Omega-3 acids in their blood.  “Those with the highest blood levels had a 71 percent higher risk of high-grade prostate cancer, compared to those with the lowest levels. Overall, their risk of any kind of prostate cancer was 44 percent higher.  This is bad news for men who take fish oil supplements or eat large amounts of fish regularly.  Once again something we thought was good for us, has now revealed a downside.  So is it time to be shocked or panic?

First, as my readers know, correlation is not causation.  If A has been linked to B, for example, A may cause B; or A and B may both be caused by some distinct third factor; or A and B may be totally unrelated and any correlation is merely a coincidence.

Second we know that supplements are not generally recommended.  Except in special circumstances, it is preferable, healthier, to get our nutrients from the food we eat.  Further along in the article we learn that “recent studies have shown taking extra omega-3 has little effect on heart disease,” contrary to the current American Heart Association recommendations regarding the possible need for fish oil capsules, i.e., supplements.

Finally, from a perspective standpoint, we know to practice moderation.  More of a good thing is not necessarily better.  In fact, it is often the case that a little may be good, but a lot can be dangerous.  Another aspect of perspective reminds us that we can’t spend our time worrying about or being afraid of everything.  It’s not a good use of our time and energy to readjust our lives after each piece of scary or shocking news.

So relax.  The answer once again is correct behavior according to the model presented (and defended) in these short essays.