9

Page 28 of the February 2018 edition of Which? magazine says,

(You don't need...)
Fish oils such as Omega 3 capsules
Unless you are advised to take these, you don't need to. Studies show that fish oil's positive benefits are gained though eating oily fish, not supplements.

Is this true? What are these studies? Assuming eating oily fish has positive benefits, to what extent is it true that benefits are not gained through supplements (fish oil capsules)?

Is this lack of benefit equally true for diets which are already e.g. mostly-vegan, which don't need to eat fish in order to "eat less red meat etc." (or whatever other beneficial side-effects of eating fish might be)?

In case it matters I'm especially interested in "fish oils" as a source of DHA, more than omega-3.

  • That's all it says about fish oil. It's in a section titled "supplements you need ... and those you don't", within an article titled "Live longer. Stay healthy." whose byline or subhead says "Olivia Howes quizzes the experts to uncover the secrets of holding back time by staying mentally and physically fit." Who knows if it''s online; I have a published (paper) copy. – ChrisW Jan 28 '18 at 17:32
  • @LangLangC The paper's domain name is which.co.uk. Within the article, the section titled "What to eat to stay healthy" is attributed to "Catherine Collins: registered dietitian" and "Azmina Govindji: spokesperson for British Dietetic Association and dietitian (Azmina Nutrition)". – ChrisW Jan 28 '18 at 18:37
  • @LangLangC Oh, one supplement which it says you do need is Vitamin D (assuming your skin not very exposed to sunlight); and another supplement which it says is not proven effective is chondroitin and glucosamine. It didn't reference specific studies. Plus it was recommending a generally "mediterranean" diet. – ChrisW Jan 29 '18 at 8:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .