Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Medicine High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Mid‑importance

	Omega-3 fatty acid is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fundamental Contradiction in the Article !

In the introduction, Omega-3 fatty acid is described as playing "an important role in the human diet and in human physiology".

However, in the section "Health Effects", there appears to be negligible evidence for any proven benefits !

Have I missed something ?

Please would someone knowledgeable add an explanation for this ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Omega-3 fatty acids are very important for human health and physiology. The "Health effects of omega-3 supplementation" is talking about omega-3 supplements (fish oil) which have not been demonstrated to be beneficial so there is no contradiction. That section is about supplements not omega-3 foods. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33888689/ Atchoum (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That review was heavily industry funded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Coromega" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Coromega has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § Coromega until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Benefits of EPA only vs EPA+DHA treatment

I started noticing recent publications are talking about significant benefit of Omega-3 with EPA only, on various health measures. For example see here

Omega-3 FAs reduced cardiovascular mortality and improved cardiovascular outcomes. The cardiovascular risk reduction was more prominent with EPA monotherapy than with EPA+DHA.

Also see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002561962030985X

Any thoughts on this? Tal Galili (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with most of these papers is that they are not neutral, they are funded by Omega-3 supplement companies. For example, your second link check the bottom of the paper "Potential Competing Interests" and "Grant Support". The authors of the paper are selling supplements and it was funded by a company selling DHA and EPA supplements. This type of research is really no different than the recent flawed trials we have seen on red meat that were funded by the beef industry. Industry-sponsored studies are nearly always biased in favour of the sponsor's products. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a great point!

I've added a new notes section, and will try to add comments about conflict of interests for citated sources from now on.

I don't think a biased paper should be excluded at all times, but I do agree it should be easily available for people to know about it and decide for themselves.

WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)