Beth
#33
EXCELLENT!!! I’m going to switch to that one, and then I’ll test. Thanks again for providing so much clarity on this topic.
3 Likes
PBJ
#34
No problem, you are welcome. Good luck on your journey.
2 Likes
Nick1
#35
Since i dont eat Fish, its been a challenge for me to move the needle despite taking fishoil supplement. Havent looked into algae oil.
I just did omega check…for first time Quest is now measuring DPA as well.
Mine needs to get better for sure!
Will look into Viva Naturals and see what BJ takes since he is mostly vegan.
3 Likes
PBJ
#36
I still take the Viva brand, and OmegaVia has been good. One new tip I discovered is freezing the fish oil capsules. Besides ensuring freshness, it also ensures you experience no fish taste.
2 Likes
Beth
#37
Incase it’s helpful, I have used various brands of algae oil, but Brain MD is my current choice because the EPA to DHA ratio more closely resembles fish oil. (More epa to dha)
1 Like
adssx
#38
Q: “How much omega-3 do you need?”
A: Zero DHA (detrimental) and maybe some EPA. Reasoning: Vitamin O (Omega 3) for athletes - #4 by adssx
4 Likes
I think you are jumping to conclusions here. There is a lot of science showing benefit from fish and fish oil. You are pointing to studies that show no benefit (and “possible” detriment). That doesn’t outweigh everything published in the last 30 years.
Even certain omega 6’s have been shown to be important for health.
For my own protocol, I’m going to stay the course. I’ve been eating fish 5-6 days a week for 25 years. I’m confident that’s a good addition to an otherwise plant heavy diet.
6 Likes
adssx
#40
Of course it outweighs everything else. The “science” showing benefit from DHA was association studies and some dubious mechanistic explanations.
Since then:
- Animal studies showed no benefits (especially the ITP with fish oil in 2016, trending towards detrimental if I reckon correctly)
- Mendelian randomization studies didn’t exist 30 years ago. They’ve become popular over the past 5 years and all showed no benefits for DHA (or even detrimental effects).
- Large high-quality trials were started, based on these 30 years of science hypothesizing that omega 3 might be beneficial. And we’re now getting the results of these RCTs: they’re negative!
- Mechanistic understanding that DHA supplementation blunts the benefits of EPA
So, either what you’re doing is based on science from 30 years ago and indeed you should take fish oil. Or you’re following the latest evidence and you should stop supplementing with DHA. EPA still seems to have benefits for depression (RCT + association studies + Mendelian) and CVD (RCT + association).
As of 2025, anyone supplementing with DHA is ignorant. Prove me wrong!
6 Likes
adssx
#41
Just to be clear: I said nothing about fish. I commented on DHA supplementation. Eating fish is probably good. Supplementing with DHA seems useless (or maybe even detrimental).
7 Likes
adssx
#42
3 Likes
Bicep
#43
A small percentage of EPA gets converted to DHA in the liver, like 20%. Maybe that’s enough but we wouldn’t be doing that if there was no reason. The brain is made of DHA, sperm are made of DHA. You’re not saying it’s unnecessary, just that we have plenty and supplementation doesn’t always help. Probably right in most cases.
2 Likes
adssx
#44
I say that DHA supplementation is detrimental as it seems to cause lung cancer, colorectal cancer, depression, atrial fibrillation, and cardiovascular disease, while it does not prevent dementia.
Of course, DHA is necessary for the body. Just that, unfortunately, supplementation doesn’t work.
3 Likes
adssx
#45
Just checked the DrugAge database: fish oil led to a shorter median and max lifespan in mice (I guess that’s the ITP data?): Fish oil and its possible anti-ageing properties
3 Likes
You can cherry pick your studies all day long if you choose to. I’ll just keep working on my omega index to take advantage of whatever benefits omega 3’s bring to my body.
You do you.
But for those people here who are being swayed by oddly extreme opinions, here is the 17 study paper (again) covering 40,000 people followed for 5-32 years that associated higher omega 3 index (EPA / DHA) with lower all cause mortality as well as lower rates of death from CVD and cancer and everything else combined. It seems pretty clear to me that I want a higher omega index.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22370-2
It is always better to get nutrients from food rather than supplements. I’m the last person to disagree with that. But a higher omega index is the key even if supplements are the way to get there.
2 Likes
adssx
#47
Yes, higher serum EPA and DHA is associated with a lower risk of many things. However, in the case of DHA, Mendelian randomization studies and RCTs found that this association was not causal. Worse, high-dose DHA supplementation seems detrimental for depression, some cancers, and maybe CVD.
This is not an “oddly extreme opinion”. It’s backed by all the latest research from the best research institutions in the world: Vitamin O (Omega 3) for athletes - #4 by adssx
So, if you aim for a high omega-3 index and cannot achieve it with food, then supplement with EPA only, not DHA. That’s it.
5 Likes
adssx
#48
Harvard paper, just published, that cites the paper you mentioned: Non-Esterified Fatty Acid Profiles and Cause-Specific Mortality: The Cardiovascular Health Study 2025
The final population included 1996 participants with a mean age of 78 years. 60.5% were female. Over a median 11-year follow-up period, 1678 participants died. Total fasting NEFA was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (aHR per standard deviation: 1.17, 95% CI [1.10–1.23]). Total post-load NEFA was not associated with mortality. Among subclasses, only monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) was associated with total mortality (aHR 1.24, 95% CI [1.09–1.41]). For individual NEFAs, nervonic acid (aHR 1.06, 95% CI [1.01–1.12]), petroselaidic acid (aHR 1.21, 95% CI [1.03–1.42]) and eicosapentaenoic acid (aHR 0.90, 95% CI [0.82–0.99]) were associated with all-cause mortality.
Here as well, association with all-cause mortality for EPA, not DHA.
2 Likes
@adssx People on this forum respect you and listen to you so what you say matters. You are choosing to broadcast a very strong opinion about DHA (and fish oil to a lesser degree) based on a fraction of the deep scientific study over the last 40 years. Many of the studies you are highlighting were of people with advanced CVD. Do these results apply to healthy people? And don’t throw “Mendelian randomization” around like quotes from the Bible…a study is only as good as the design. This is why the body of work matters. Omega 3’s are one of the most research areas in nutritional science.
Omega 3’s are a nutrient. ALA is an “essential” nutrient. EPA and DHA are always found together in nature. EPA and DHA are only not considered “essential” (die without them) because the body can make a small amount from ALA. But the body will put more EPA and DHA into cells if added to the diet. Adding more is associated with lower all cause mortality. And lower inflammation. And faster recovery from exercise. And better immune function. And why wouldn’t we expect benefits from better functioning cells…
I agree that no one should supplement only DHA but I see no reason to fear DHA. Get it by eating fish first or take fish oil that comes with EPA and DHA together as is found in fish. Algae sources can also work if fish is objectionable.
4 Likes
adssx
#50
OK so disclaimer to our silent readers: I’m just a human being, and I often say dumb things, so I might be wrong on this! I actually hope I’m wrong because I supplemented with DHA for a long time (as I followed blindly the advice of some “influencers” without taking the time to properly look at the evidence, and also because the picture is getting worse and worse when you look at the latest evidence) and because I wish DHA could help. So if anyone has strong evidence against what I say: please post it!
Just based on all the latest research. Small low-quality trials or association studies from decades ago have no value when we have larger high-quality RCT (e.g., VITAL-DEP and PreventE4), high quality Mendelian randomization (didn’t exist until a few years ago), and higher quality association studies (adjusted for socio-economic status and comorbidities, with dose–response analysis, etc.).
Not at all. Please read the list again: Vitamin O (Omega 3) for athletes - #4 by adssx
- PreventE4 was “365 cognitively unimpaired individuals between 55 and 80 (mean age 66)”.
- VITAL was “20,000 U.S. men and women without cancer or CVD at baseline”. The mechanistic study is in all human being.
- The Stanford + UCSD paper indeed looked at people “who underwent coronary angiography” so unhealthy. Still, if DHA is detrimental in these people, why would it be beneficial in healthy people? (it might be, but please prove it!)
- Mendelian randomization studies apply to all people as well
- The plasma study was done in “289 participants (103 AD patients, 92 MCI patients, and 94 controls)”, so not at all “people with advanced CVD”.
- Same for the animal studies listed.
Yes, @Neo made good objections about MR studies here: Predicting Alzheimers & Dementia (and minimizing risk) - #623 by Neo
After checking, it seems that these MR studies were well done and that the results are sound (especially when an association, whether positive or negative, was found):
Yes, that’s why in my message I included various types of studies, all showing the null or detrimental effects of DHA supplementation: Vitamin O (Omega 3) for athletes - #4 by adssx
- Randomized control trials
- Meta-review of RCTs
- Mendelian randomization studies
- Association studies
- Animal studies
- Mechanistic studies on humans
Yes, and science moves forward. We should update our practice based on science.
I think one should fear DHA supplementation (dietary is OK, the amount are smaller) and supplement with EPA only if they want to supplement.
3 Likes
Are any of these studies involving DHA only supplementation? I’m not aware of any studies of DHA supplementation. I’ve only seen separate studies EPA compared to studies of EPA plus DHA, with inferences drawn about DHA. How many other differences were in the studies that could confound the possible “DHA offsets EPA benefits somewhat” hypothesis? It is far from clear.
EPA and DHA are found together in nature and the longest lived people have been eating it that way forever. Supplements are not ideal but better than nothing. That said I see no reason to take DHA only supplements or EPA only supplements. I eat fish. I also take fish oil to get a high omega index. That is what I think the science supports.
I have no idea about brain health effects from omega 3’s but lower chronic inflammation cannot be a bad thing for brain function. Omega 3’s are not a silver bullet to cure whatever is wrong with a person. Omega 3’s are a nutrient that the body expects and will use to function better. A high amount of EPA and DHA in RBC membranes has been shown to be associated with better health and longer life in humans. It s true that no one knows if it is causal but you got do what you can with what you have.
1 Like
adssx
#52
