Tuesday, March 11, 2014

What’s Wrong with Artificial Sweeteners? Actually, Nothing is Wrong with Them!

Some time ago on my Facebook page I made a post regarding the ‘non-issue’ of the use of artificial sweeteners. The attack dogs came out in full force. One of the comments was that I was clearly not up on the research. That one made me laugh out loud. Anyone who knows me knows I am entrenched in the research and always have been. In fact, I have proven I am often in front of the research as well. But it's real research that matters and I will get to that in a minute. There are certain things that define real research, such as research must be peer-reviewed and it must be able to be duplicated. Anything less than these two things we refer to mostly as “junk science.” And the Fitness Industry loves its junk science. Why: Because people in this industry think of research as religion. Research is supposed to be an objective search for truth or an objective sense of findings. But people mostly use research in this industry to back up what they already believe or want to believe – even if it’s the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus.

With the objectivity taken out of research in this industry it’s hard to argue with people who have an agenda. In fact it’s hard to even ‘want to’ argue with them. The most ironic thing about research in the Fitness and Supplement Industry is how often it gets reduced to this notion of a grand political conspiracy on behalf of Big Pharma to manipulate people or keep supplement producers down. What a croc. The real irony in that scenario is that since the DSHEA –Dietary Supplement Health Education Act of 1994 – It is actually the health food and supplements industries who are in a conspiracy to manipulate consumers and buy off politicians (see for instance Dan Hurley’s book Natural Causes: Death, Lies and Politics in America’s Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry). But I digress. Let’s get to the issue of artificial sweeteners shall we. For the record, I use them – You could even say I use a lot of them. And I consider myself a very healthy person who takes good care of my body. But instead of just quoting a bunch of research only to have people bark back at me with other research, usually junk science – I decided to seek out the real experts and get their opinions. This is what they had to say – mixed in with my own commentary as well. And for the record, I don’t consider Dr. Oz, a “real expert” on anything diet, or nutrition, or alternative therapy. The man lives for junk science in order to manipulate his audience.
The Usual Fear-Mongering Hype

The best way to sell a product is to make people afraid of its alternatives. And while one study gave rats 400 X’s the amount of sweetener than any human would likely ingest, (when adjusted for size and bodyweight) and the animals had no real side effects, no one hears or reads about such studies. In regards to artificial sweeteners, we hear everything from cancer to Alzheimer’s to blood sugar issues, brain impairment and everything in-between as far as ‘dangers’ correlated with their use. But in truth, the real research of a link between artificial sweeteners and disease or health risk – just isn’t there!
Dr. Joe Schwarcz, director of the McGill University Center for Science and Society has been studying sweeteners and their supposed risks for years. And he is also fully aware of the junk science involved in creating these false fears. He’s quite emphatic that the human data simply do not show a link between ill-health and sweeteners. Here’s what he had to say:
Of course you can find the odd study that raises an eyebrow. But this is often because of what is known as a “positive finding bias.” In other words, a study that shows or even hints at a link between sweeteners and ill-health – these studies get all the press. But what the public doesn’t realize is that these findings aren’t duplicated in other studies – and being able to duplicate findings is one of the cornerstones of real and true scientific research.”
You see, in this fast-paced digital world of news and the media competing for consumer attention, fear-raising “warning” stories make good news. And these kinds of studies make the rounds on newsfeeds and websites often before they are even verified or confirmed. For instance, even reputable health-care organizations sometimes get it wrong in their rush to want to be first. In the fall of 2012 esteemed and revered Brigham and Brigham’s Women’s Hospital Boston stood behind a study suggesting that artificial sweeteners like aspartame raise the risk of leukemia and lymphoma. This initial endorsement by such a prestigious establishment lent significant weight to the anti-sweetener propaganda machine. HOWEVER – merely a week later – the Brigham Institution backpedalled and recanted this endorsement stating that it had been “premature in promoting this evidence.” But of course it was too late as the internet and marketing forces had already latched on to the endorsement and the political agenda anti-sweetener machine had itself another round of ammunition – even if these bullets were blanks.

Around the same time a U.S. population study linked a diet soft drink habit to an increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiac death, and the immediate leap was made that sweeteners were the culprit. But University of Ottawa obesity specialist Dr. Yoni Freedhoff – himself as tired as I am of all the junk science passed off as legitimate information – said of this study, “This study is worthless and shows a glaring failure of peer review.” And once again I remind you another difference between real science and junk science is peer-reviewed attention. But no one seeks out experts like Dr. Freedhoff when these findings come out. They simply put them in the newsfeed and present them to the public as “truth.” And once again the public ‘is led to believe’ things that just are not true, and certainly are not ‘proven.’
And as a recognized expert in obesity and weight-control Dr. Freedhoff also offered this: “If the choice is between sugar and sweetener in patients trying to manage their weight for health-reasons, there is no doubt, and no question that the current state of the evidence would be in favor of using the sweeteners, of course.

And as far as this new claim that aspartame interferes with brain function – this claim has been at best wishy washy and “theoretical.” Dr. Ronnie Aronson – who is merely the medical director of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology in Toronto – said this about the risks of aspartame interfering with brain function: “A large body of literature for both children and adults has found no cause for concern about these sweeteners” (excluding people of course who have PKU, which is a genetic disorder to do with the intake of the amino acid phenylalanine). Dr. Aronson continued, “In one such study, military pilots exposed to high levels of aspartame were given a series of complex cognitive tests, which showed no ill effects, whatsoever.

The Stevia Nonsense
And then there are those “tree-hugger” types who will look kindly on sweetener if it comes from a natural source, because anything man-made must be dangerous, right? But Dr. Joe Schwarcz finds this line of reasoning illogical as I do. His comment was, “Whether something is safe to consume or not, or is healthy or not, has nothing to do with whether it comes from a lab or a bush. You must beware of the common fallacy of equating natural to good, and artificial to bad.” This is a myopic view at best.

When coaching clients present me with this line of reasoning I always reply to them, that nature is full of all kinds of plants that are poisonous to humans! Moreover, the argument that natural sources are better falls apart when you consider the following: Sugar cane is a natural plant. It has to go to the factory to be processed into table sugar. Maple syrup, is very natural coming from the sap of the maple tree. It too must usually go to the factory to be processed into maple syrup to be found on grocery store shelves. But these are still “sugars” that most people try to avoid, for good reason I might add. So then “stevia” – still has to be harvested and also sent to the factory where it too must be “processed” in order to be available on store shelves. It is not much different as a processed food condiment than is any other prepared artificial sweetener out there. To think so just feeds some prideful “I’m healthier than you” type of thinking, which just isn’t true. And in terms of researching stevia itself – after looking into it, I’ll stick to man-made sweeteners, thank you very much!

And then there are those who kid themselves that because they are using “sweetener” over here, then it frees up calories for other food, over there.” This is known as “compensatory behavior” and it almost always works out as a faulty proposition. Yes using sweeteners can save you calories – but it saves you “extra” calories, that you didn’t need anyway – it doesn’t mean you need to go get more calories from other sources. This is just wishful thinking on the part of people trapped in the diet-mentality and trapped in the idea of calories and grams. This is why people who think this way will never solve their weight-issues.
After studying the biology of weight-control for well over a decade now, and studying metabolism as well – I don’t use sweeteners so much as a calories savings – I simply don’t think that way anymore. I use sweeteners because I don’t want the metabolic effects of what “sugar” would do in my body if I consumed it unconsciously. And since I have always had a sweet tooth, there is no dilemma for me to solve in using the sweetener alternative. Studying the issue, clearly shows artificial sweeteners do not have the same deleterious nutrient-partitioning effects and metabolic consequences that sugar and its variations does. So I agree with Dr. Freedhoff’s claim that given the state of evidence of “real” science – if it’s a choice between sugar and sweeteners for my everyday nutritional fare – I choose sweeteners.

So, again I pose the question, “What is wrong with artificial sweeteners?” – and the real unbiased answer is “absolutely nothing!”

Some of you will get it
Some of you will not

Some of you, won’t want to!

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Food/Eating and Weight Issues as Emotional Fitness Issues

The following is taken from my 3-book series "Food Issues and You: Finally Facing Your Phantom Menace." Ladies experience being emotionally disconnected from themselves in different ways and therefore their food/eating issues can be different as well. This is why there is no one single path – no one single recipe for resolution.  But there is one truth - "DIETS" are NEVER the answer to food and eating issues. And as you likely know from experience - diets tend to fuel these issues, not extinguish them.
I will give a couple of examples of common disconnection here. See if either example fits your own situation:

Damaging Mindset #1 

Not all food issues of disconnection become forms of eating indulgence – but they may become forms of food and eating obsession. There are those of you who follow your mindset of self-deprivation with a behavioural self-deprivation as well.  For ladies who fit this description – instead of impulse eating, binge-eating, over-eating, mindless snacking etc. – you instead deny yourselves the comfort and enjoyment of food. This “sense” of deprivation feeds a need for a “feeling” of control.  And you confuse the former with the latter. In other words, The emotional mindset behind this is that self-deprivation is subconsciously perceived by you as a way of ‘depriving’ pain and suffering – and if you are not careful this becomes how you try to control your life. This can become an obsession over behavioural control and at the extreme – this is how anorexia becomes a sense of control through physical deprivation, coupled with an immense fear or anxiety against body fat. Therefore not all food related issues of disconnecting from yourself lead to eating “indulgences.” Those of you who fit this category are also those to whom the whole idea of competing in the physique industry takes on an alluring appeal.  – Especially since it is also based on control by rigid and regimented deprivation dieting.
The rest of the world could fall apart but if you can control yourself by ‘sticking to’ a deprivation diet, for example, like competition dieting – then the illusion of control is maintained – even though the “feelings” of anxiety increase.
Moreover, for you there is exists this faulty notion that -> being thin and being “ideal” is equated emotionally with being accepted, and with accomplishment etc. To those of you who act out of self-deprivation and suffering, the actual physical suffering and deprivation distorts reality and “feels” like suffering and deprivation deliver both emotional comfort and emotional relief. – Even though this is a falsehood of well-being, it can have tremendous psychic power over you.

Here's what to look out for:  For ladies who respond to self-denial and emotional disconnection this way – you love rules. The first thing you want to know in a diet is what the restrictions are. You feed yourself emotionally not so much on what foods are allowed, but what foods are not allowed. In order to maintain your illusion of control you need to be told to cut out total food groups, avoid or give up this or that food etc. The more you can weigh and measure your own self-deprivation, the more control you “sense” you are exercising. But this is of course maladaptive behavior and an unhealthy mindset regarding food and food awareness. Eventually this mindset sabotages true and healthy emotional fitness - because the mindset behind it is based in fear and anxiety, which will always seek emotional relief.

And yet, in all of this - it is “feeling” that you really seek. And while this ‘denial and deprivation’ practice only deepens your food/eating issues; it replaces what is actually ‘out of control’ – with a faulty perception of ‘short term control.’ It is in fact a distortion of perception and perspective channelled and filtered via food. The connection to what is actual and real “feeling” is sacrificed for the mental realm’s sense of false control exercised through rigid rules around food and diet.

Eventually when you practice this form of ‘behavioural denial’ you will suffer for this form of self-disconnection. But the suffering just caters to and reinforces the self-destructive mindset. You convince yourself that suffering is honourable. Whole websites are built around this false-consciousness and false identity. People who adapt to this unhealthy mindset are told – and completely buy into the idea that “this is what champions do.” But this is NOT what champions do! Champions live in the realm of positive self-expression. They focus on what they want and who they are. They do not focus on what they cannot have and define themselves through that feeling of denial and deprivation. Suffering and sacrifice are qualitatively different emotional states.  


Damaging Mindset #2 

And as much as many of you may identify yourself in the above persona of the behavioural self-denial-ist and behavioural self-deprivation-ist – there is a sub group with food related issues who are behavioural indulgers instead.  Whereas the self-denial person is overly vigilant about food rules and restrictions – you food indulgers are willing to let your guards down. Chances are high that more of you identify with this group. Instead of trying to always be “in control” like those who operate in the behavioural denial mindset – you behavioural-indulgers will merge with what you consider to be beyond your control or out of control - or you will rebel or numb away from any emotion that is just too intense (anxiety and boredom are common triggers.) If you identify with this type of mindset you don’t avoid social gatherings or parties. You show up but you respond to all the food cues around you by over-indulging in them. – Meaning you respond to the “cues” that is, not necessarily the food. This leads to a need for short term gratification of the intensity of the food-cue indulgence. So you end up eating indulgent food, if not right there at the social occasion then later on when you can do so in private. The intimacy of the privacy of eating, is also meeting a need for real emotional intimacy you also crave. If you identify with this type of mindset you know you tend to numb out the immediate emotional pressure of food rules – rather than to try to over-control them. Ladies with this mindset often eat in a frenzy. It’s like you think you will turn into a pumpkin at a certain time so you must eat fast and intensely while your mental/emotional guard is down. This represents the constant battle of the mental realm and its desire for ‘control’ with the emotional realm, and its desire of ‘want.’


What both above broad group categories are denying is the influence of perception of a need for “control” in your lives. Both groups are actually disconnected from your true inner self-control, both emotionally and conceptually. Therefore you try to “attach” to external forms of self-restraint – something you can measure yourselves against. And food is an easy object for that deflection.

However, in reality this does not have very much to do with “food.” It only plays itself out in food and diet regulation and then the absolute opposite of indulgence.

Lesson: So, the self-deniers “control” while the self-indulgers “numb.” And it’s possible to go through periods of being both types of emotionally disconnected personalities. These need not be mutually exclusive mindsets. But moving from one of these mindsets to the other is NOT ever progress. And this represents the absence of emotional fitness.  

Even this short description of two common types of mindsets for food/eating issues can give you some solid ground to go on – where you can at least put yourself, identity-wise. And this is a good thing. The less “lost” you feel in this element of the inevitable question you ask yourself -> “why do I do this?” the greater is the likelihood that you can build strength and emotional fitness enough to then change and alter your faulty perception and perspectives. – The faulty perceptions and perspectives that are in fact fuelling your food or eating issues.  

So the quick lesson here is one of attention. 

When you want to discover who you really are, pay attention to how you act. Pay attention to what you do when things are going the way you want them to or expect them to. What are your emotions in these situations or circumstances? (e.g. calm, accepting, fluid, balanced etc) Furthermore, pay attention to what you value. Pay attention to how you spend your time and what you spend your time on. Ask yourself, “Do I take the time to pay attention?” - Because the word “pay” is used here in the very literal sense. These questions help you to find yourself. The goal is to become more self-aware of your perceptions and perspectives and how you are shaping them or allowing them to be shaped by outside forces. Then you will know and be more self-aware regarding paying attention to what and how you eat as well. Because these food/eating and weight issues are only an external reflection of your inner self-awareness issue to begin with.  

Remember, all food/eating issues are awareness issues, not diet issues. You must discover whether you react to life, or whether you design your life. – and almost always anyone with food/eating issues is someone who ‘reacts’ to life, rather than being a person who self-‘enacts’ their life. (react vs. enact) You discover whether you seek to distract yourself or engage yourself. You discover if you seek escape or if you seek resistance by having your food issues. Most importantly you discover if you “feel” the world is better than you – and separate from you – or whether you are fully engaged in the world. 

And then finally you will discover how your relationship with food reflects every single one of these things as well. You will know that your food/eating issues are mere reflections of inner issues taking on external form. Therefore you will also learn and know and truly absorb once and for all that the answer lies beyond body weight and body image. Answer the questions, “Where do I want to be?” But answer it separate from anything to do with food and body weight.  Can you answer this question without mental or emotion reference to your food/eating issue or body image? The answer you write down will show you where you are at; and if the struggle has just become a comfortable place to live in your own mind, which in itself is a scary thought. Remember you can never truly be stuck if you are not really trying to get anywhere. Constantly asking yourself this question will mentally focus you away from the food issues and toward something more positive.

So, imagine a life free from these food/eating or body image issues and ask yourself where you want to be? That is the question to ask. The sad truth for some of you is that this question will be unchartered mental territory for you. And this shows you how enmeshed you are with your own food/eating and weight issues. As I always say - 'You don't have a food/eating or weight issue - you have a thinking and feeling issue about these things."

If any of the above resonates with you - I suggest you read my 3-book series: "Food Issues and You: Finally Facing Your Phantom Menace"

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Seems There’s Something “Fishy” about the Benefits of “Fish Oil Supplements”

You know, I am now four decades into my career in the Fitness Industry. I have coached those who want very little to do with the industry, I've coached those just getting into the game, and I've coached those who are at the very top. And I can honestly say that most of what makes this industry “function” is built on pretense: Sad but true. And nowhere do lies and pretense rule more in this industry than in the area of research. Many fitness experts claim to be ‘true’ researchers and to be guided by their research, when this just isn’t true. You see, real research is about a search for the truth. And when real research leads to conclusions that counter or go against what you believe to be true – then a true researcher who searches for the “truth” would question what he believes to be true.

But what we witness in this industry time and again is the lie of the search for the truth. What I have found is that those experts and wannabe experts who claim to be guided by research – when confronted with research that goes against what they believe to be true, what do they do? Do they change what they believe to be true? No – in this industry what is standard practice is that if the research disagrees with what you believe – then you attack the research – or worse and more insulting – you attack the integrity of the researchers. And yet ironically enough, these tactics are things you never do to research that agrees with what you believe.

So let me reiterate then - real research is about a search for objective truth; not a search to bolster what you believe and further your agenda. People call me “anti-supplement” which shows where their minds are at. The truth is that I am not “anti” anything. What I am is “pro” truth – first, last, and always. And I’m tired of industry idiots attacking people who have devoted their lives to pure academic real research looking for the objective truth! It’s just so cliché in this industry that if you don’t like the message – then you question and attack the messenger. I am beyond that. I know the difference between true research and agenda. Most people in the fitness industry don’t have a clue about real research and the meaning of the term “a preponderance of the evidence.” And the most kindergarten response in the fitness industry is that any research that goes against your belief in supplements “must, of course” be funded by the evil medical or pharmaceutical industries who just want to keep people sick. Really folks? I mean, REALLY??? Are you all really that incredibly naïve?  Because, if there is a truth here about who is manipulating research for their own ends, it is ALWAYS the supplement and diet and ‘holistic’ pushers of pills and potions. And now that that rant is out of the way, well what does the real research have to say about the ‘benefits’ of your fish oil supplements and the supplements DHA, and EPA, that the supplement industry has pushed since the 90’s as a basic cure all for pretty much anything and everything – and a “must have” supplement for overall health and wellness. What does the real research say?   
Since the 90’s I have heard it all about the benefits of fish oils and fish oils supplements. Let’s see, I’ve had ‘research’ and ‘advice’ sent to me since the 90s that shows fish oils have beneficial effects on heart health, on arthritis, on inflammation issues, on high blood pressure, on weight-loss, on insulin resistance, on diabetes, on brain health and memory, on cancer prevention, and even on athletic performance. (I’m sure I’ve forgot to mention some as well.) If all this is true this must be pretty magical stuff. And of course this begs the question that if these claims are true, then why wouldn’t an industry expert like myself, just bottle it and put my own brand label on it and make some money by promoting a product sure to enhance the health and wellness of my clients? Am I against making money? Well no, but I am against using my position to separate clients from their wallets for something I know offers little more than a placebo effect – as is true of most supplements. I began doing my homework and not just looking at industry generated research. I started looking at what the academic and scientific consensus is toward all supplements – and in the case of this article, toward the purported “benefits” of fish oils and fish oil supplements as well. For those of you who drink the koolaid of the supplement industry, get your daggers ready – for those of you who seek “objective truth” I urge you to read on.

The Preponderance of the Evidence
Once again what is disappointing about being someone who respects “real” research, is that you realize how little impact it has on “pop culture” belief systems. The real research on the benefits of fish oils has still failed to impact what you are taught in the fitness and health industries, even at some Universities – and this is unfortunate to say the least, and frustrating for someone like myself – who spends hours and hours doing real research only to be attacked for presenting the objective results of that research: And the truth about the benefits of fish oils and fish oils supplements is that not only do they offer NO benefit to cardiac health or so many of the other claims made about them – but just like with other supplements, using fish oils supplements may be a step in the wrong direction when seeking health and wellness.

The real truth about what the “preponderance of the evidence” says about fish oils is actually not that hard to find once you look at real academia and get out of industry-generated-agenda. And the real truth about fish oils and fish oils supplements is far different than what you’ve been led to believe – so here are a few studies and their truly objective findings: Note that what you see below represents a cross-section of studies from all kinds of various fields. I’ve included studies from nutritional reviews, cardiac research, cancer research, diabetes research, overall health research etc. It’s hard to claim “bias” when cross-research from varying fields come up with the same conclusions about the uselessness of a given protocol – in spited of its claims!
  • As a sociologist at heart, my favorite kind of research assertions is meta-reviews, because they review the conclusions of hundreds and sometimes thousands of other studies. In this particular case, a meta review of a whopping 15,159 articles including 48 randomized controlled trials involving 36,913 participants taking fish oil supplements, or eating only fish – this meta review came to the following “Long chain omega-3 fats and shorter chain omega-3 fats do NOT have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer prevention. (Hooper, L. et al, “Risks and Benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a systematic review” British Medical Journal, 2006)
  • Fish Consumption also directly causes increases in blood cholesterol in ways similar to beef or pork. (Davidson, MH et al, “Comparison of the effects of lean red meat vs, lean white meat on serum lipid levels among free-living persons with hypercholesterolemia: a long-term, randomized clinical trial” Archives of Internal Medicine, 1999)
  • “The data supporting the inverse correlation of fish or omega-3 fatty acid consumption and coronary heart disease are inconclusive and may be confounded by other dietary and lifestyle factors.” These lifestyle factors include exercise, not smoking, and avoiding saturated fats and fast food – things that people who choose to eat fish for health reasons, are also likely to do as well. Therefore its not the fish oil that is effecting good-health, but the lifestyle that those who choose to eat fish are likely to engage in anyway. (Cundiff DK et al, Relations of Omega-3 fatty acid intake to other dietary factors known to reduce coronary heart disease” American Journal of Cardiology, 2007)
Like most supplements, some studies actually suggest higher ill-health from supplemental intake. 
  • The DART-2 trial of 3,114 men under the age of 70 with angina advised one group of men to eat two portions of oily fish per week or take three daily fish oil capsules. The others were not given that advice. Interestingly enough, the men advised to eat the oily fish, and PARTICULARLY those men supplied with the fish oil capsules, had HIGHER RISKS for cardiac death compared to those not given such advice! (Burr, ML et al, “Lack of Benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of controlled trial” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003)
  • Findings: “The blood thinning properties of omega-3 fats that may help prevent the formation of clots also INCREASE THE CHANCE OF BLEEDING COMPLICATIONS" (Dyerberg, J et al, “Haemostatic function and platelet polyunsaturated fatty acids in Eskimos” Lancet, 1979)
  • Findings: "The anti-inflammatory properties of 'good fats' can suppress the immune system, increasing the risk for cancer, infection, and illness” (Meydani SN, et al, “Immunologic effects of national cholesterol education panel: step-2 diets with and without fish-derived N-3 fatty acid enrichment” Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1993)
  • Findings: “Fish Intake is positively associated with breast cancer incidence rate” Journal of Nutrition, 2003 and also the conclusion in the journal Cancer Research, 1998)
  • A double-blind, placebo controlled trial of 4,837 patients who had a heart attack found NO reduction in the rate of major cardiovascular events after treatment with a supplement of EPA and DHA over the course of 40 months. (Kromhout, D. et al, “Omega-3 Trial Group: N-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction” New England Journal of Medicine, 2010)
  • A randomized placebo-controlled trial of over 2,500 patients with a history of myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or stroke – found that daily Omega-3 supplementation resulted in NO REDUCTION in cardiovascular disease over nearly 5 YEARS OF TREATMENT! (Galan, P. et al, “Effects of B Vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular disease; a randomized placebo controlled trial” British Medical Journal, 2010)
  • Here’s another game-changing conclusion about fish oils. Findings: “Omega-3 fats INHIBIT the performance of insulin, increasing blood sugar levels and aggravating and compounding diabetic issues.” This is the exact opposite of what you hear in the fitness industry on the so-called “beneficial effects” of Omega-3’s on insulin-sensitivity -> once again refuted by real research! (Hendra, TJ et al, “Effects of fish oil supplements in Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes subjects: Controlled Study” Diabetes Care, 1990 – and if you want something more recent – Djouss A.L., et al, “Dietary omega-3 fatty acids and fish consumption and risk of Type 2 diabetes” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2011)
  • A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 663 patients at high risk for developing atrial fibrillation treated them with fish oil supplements. The results were NO BENEFITS at all, over the course of 6 months of treatment. (Kowey, PR et al, “Efficacy and Safety of prescription omega-3 fatty acids for the prevention of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 2010)
These research articles represent but a few of the articles which clearly show that the purported benefits of fish oil supplementation do not live up to the claims made by those who profit from making such claims - as is the case with most supplements.