Study: Brain suffers when fish oil falls short
Rating
Study: Brain suffers when fish oil falls short
Our Review Summary
The story didn’t include even a word about the limitations of the study, and it didn’t challenge many questionable claims about the benefits of DHA made by an expert source.
Why This Matters
When a story quotes an expert whose recommendations differ from those of major medical organizations, it owes readers an explanation as to why they should follow the advice. But in this story, an expert recommends that everyone get 1000 mg of DHA a day — which is far more than you would receive by following American Heart Association recommendations to eat two fish meals a week. And the only support the story offers are vague statements about how DHA “increases blood flow in the brain, reduces inflammation in the brain, heart and elsewhere, and reduces the toxic aggregation of amyloid in the brain.” Readers deserve better.
This story is about blood levels and surrogate markers of dementia (early changes in cognitive tests and MRI changes), not the ultimate health outcome of interest – dementia. The story should have pointed out the difference between supplements and dietary sources. We don’t know much definitively about supplements, but we do know more from observational studies of fish consumption.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The recommendations quoted in this story — get 1000 mg/d of DHA — are only achievable by taking supplements, so the story should have included a comment about how much these cost.
Not Satisfactory
The story includes many sketchy statements about DHA, citing benefits for “improving mood” and “reducing symptoms of depression.” The story made these as flat statements of fact, but this is far from established science.
It also failed to provide quantified benefits from the study in question. Where are the absolute risk reduction figures?
“They found people in the bottom 25% scored lower on such mental tests as problem solving, multi-tasking and abstract thinking…..The MRIs showed higher white matter hyperintensity volume, tiny lesions in the brain, raising the risk for death, stroke and dementia for the low omega-3 fatty acids group.”
Satisfactory
The story does mention that DHA has the potential to cause problems in people taking blood-thinning medication.
Not Satisfactory
There was no discussion of any possible limitations to this research. A basic discussion of the limitations of observational study data would have been useful. Not sure how to do that? Read this.
Satisfactory
There was no outright disease mongering, but the headline’s suggestion that your brain may “suffer” without sufficient DHA comes close.
Not Satisfactory
The story did consult an independent expert. However, this expert’s recommendations opened the door to a lot of questionable statements about the benefits of DHA. So this is a rare case where the story probably would have been better without this outside perspective.
Satisfactory
The story mentions alternative sources of omega-3 fatty acids and recommends the MyPlate government dietary guide. Other alternatives for dementia prevention such as exercise and mental stimulation could have been mentioned as well.
Not Applicable
The availability of fish and fish oil supplements is not in question.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not reference previous research suggesting a link between fish and cognitive function during aging.
Not Satisfactory
We’ll flag the story here for pulling a quote directly from an American Academy of Neurology press release without stating that was the case. Here is the quote in question, which is attributed to a researcher with the study: “People with lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids had lower brain volumes that were equivalent to about two years of brain aging.” The story does make it sound as though the reporter talked directly to the researcher, so it’s not clear exactly what happened. But it’s fishy.
Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like