[Yariko]

Пожалуйста, не выдергивайте отдельные факты. Это похоже на притчу про слона и слепцов. SELECT - это одно кейс-контроль исследование, к тому же с кучей претензий к дизайну (см ниже), опираться нужно не на одно исследование, а на мета-анализы исследований, 3 из которых приведены в статье и которые не консистентны. Кроме того, нужно четко разделять 3 вещи: омега-3 ЖК в пище, рецептурные омега-3 ЖК (то есть лекарства) и омега-3 ЖК (биодобавки). Если говорить про конкретное исследование, критику данного исследования можете прочитать [Ссылки доступны только зарегистрированным пользователям ]

Taken at face value, these results sound ominous. However, a closer look at the paper raises several critical concerns regarding study design and data interpretation. The risk associated with O3FA levels seems quite overstated. First of all, the absolute overall risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer was less than 5%. Most men in the study were diagnosed based on an abnormal PSA test result, which is known to markedly increase the risk of overdiagnosis of prostate cancer–that is, finding cancers that would never cause harm during a man’s lifetime. Overall, only 156 (18.7%) of cancers were high-grade (potentially aggressive). Furthermore, there were just 17 more high-grade cancers among men in the highest quartile of O3FA levels compared to the lowest quartile. Even then, essentially all of these high-grade cancers were early-stage, meaning that men could still be candidates for curative therapy

Analyzing prostate cancer risk based on relative proportions of fatty acids measured in phospholipids isolated from stored serum is also problematic. Since the measurements were obtained at baseline and could have been affected by recent meals or supplements (and the study did not attempt to distinguish the sources of O3FAs), they do not represent long-term intake before the study began–when carcinogenesis was likely occurring. The study did not measure dietary patterns or supplement use during follow-up. The absolute difference in DHA levels between cases and controls was only 3%, raising the question of whether such a small difference, even if statistically significant, could be biologically important—or plausible. Indeed, ecologic data suggest a different story–populations with high dietary intake of O3FAs, particularly Alaska Natives and the Japanese, actually have very low rates of prostate cancer.

Given these important limitations, the authors’ conclusion that their findings “strongly suggest that long-chain [O3FAs] do play a role in enhancing prostate tumorigenesis” are not supported by the data. Readers should also recognize the potential ethical and economic implications of alarming conclusions based on small statistically significant differences of dubious biological relevance.