3/3 TOP-Selling US Fish Oils Exceed Maximal Peroxide and Total Oxidation Levels - Levels Roughly 4000% Higher Than in Medical Grade N3 Supplements, Harvard Study Shows

The US' favorite fish oil supplements: Dirt cheap and still not worth the money. Better buy fish - fresh fish.

"I told you so!" That's how someone else in my position would probably start today's blogpost. In view of the fact that "smartassing" is not exactly an effective means of education, I will yet refuse from reminding you that I've been reporting about unwanted side effects of the gold-ish pills that claim to have "fish oil" in them on various occasions.

And guess what!? The publication of a recent study by scientists from the Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital at the venerable Harvard Medical School, gives me yet another reason to rant against the evermore popular fish oil supplements.

You can learn more about omega-3 & co at the SuppVersity

Fish Oil Makes You Rancid?

POPs in Fish Oils are Toxic!

N3/N6 Ratio Doesn't Matter

MUFA & Fish Oil Don't Match

Fish Oil Doesn't Help Lose Weight

Rancid Fish Bad 4 Health

In their study, the scientists analyzed 3 commonly available fish oil dietary supplements and found that (a) their level of omega-3 fatty acids varied significantly, that (b) they contained tons of other fats that you would ask to be paid for to consume if you knew about them and, that (c) the caps were so full of oxidized fats that they exceeded international standards and may (d) may harm, rather than help with your health.

No, we're not talking about cheap Chinese internet purchases, bro!

The Harvard scientists bought the "three top-selling fish oil DS [dietary supplements] in the United States and to examine the extent of oxidative damage in the DS as compared with chemically characterized standards with respect to purity and ability to prevent human sdLDL oxidation in vitro" (Mason. 2016). The commonly heard excuse that this is "just a problem with the cheap Chinese stuff" is thus as useless as it is ridiculous in view of the data from the study at hand.

Figure 1: The TOP3 US fish oil products are rancid... well, mostly (right hand side) and they have almost no ability to prevent human LDL particles from oxidation, as the results of the MDA test on the left indicates (Mason. 2016).

Compared to the medical grade control, the US top-sellers look as if they had been tainted with motor oil from a fishing cutter. Speaking of which: I would not guarantee that the 34%, 21% and 24% of "other oils" in this so-called dietary supplements do not include at least tiny amounts of mineral oils.

Your fish oil contains 4000% more oxidized fats than prescription fish oil! That's a huge problem, because many of the studies you're so fond of, because they seem to prove how healthy fish oil is, have been done with medicinal grade fish oils. Accordingly, the results of these studies have ZERO predictive power with respect to what your "machine oil" fish oil will do to your health. Speaking of "your" - it is not impossible that the oxidative damage occured during storage, which reminds me to remind you NEVER to use fish oil in a bottle that's constantly exposed to pro-oxidative oxygen, whence you've opened the bottle. Note: If stored in the fridge (4°C) the shelf life of the fish oil in fresh fish is, as Boran et al. show in their 2006 paper in Food Chemistry ~ 90 days.

In fact, the scientists measured not just primary oxidation products, as the highly elevated peroxide levels, an indicator of high levels of primary oxidation and hydroperoxides, confirm, but also secondary products of the decomposition of the primary oxidation products during continued exposure to oxidative conditions, as they ar detected in the p-anisidine test.

Figure 2: Indeed, there was also some "fish oil" in the caps - emphasis on "also" and "some" (Mason. 2016)!

The total oxidation levels in Figure 1 were then derived from the peroxide and anisidine values indicate without fail that "[a]ll three DS exceeded the recommended maxima for peroxide and total oxidation values (5 meq/kg and 26, respectively) when normalized to 1 g OM3FA (based on the number of capsules needed to achieve 1 g of OM3FA)" (Mason. 2016). The latter is particularly shocking in view of the fact that the prescription product of pure OM3FA did not contain significant levels of these oxidation products under identical test conditions. Any studies on the health effects of fish oil - mostly conducted with medical grade capsules - is thus meaningless for the average consumer who shies away from the exorbitant costs of LOVAZA and co. - a bad mistake, as it turns out, now, that the Harvard scientists' study shows that EPA and DHA containing oxidized trash fats from the dietary fish oil supplements have a >77% reduced ability to protect your LDL oxidation from (>90% protection for pure products, a meager 21 ± 4% for the "fish oil" you have probably been buying for years).

Speaking of "for years": Is it possible that you've done more harm than good in the past years of consuming copious amounts of fish oil to your health? Yes, it is, but in view of the fact that even the "motor oil" version of fish oil in the average US dietary fish oil supplement (the brand names are obviously undisclosed = not mentioned in the paper) was still anti- and not pro-oxidative, it's more likely that you have only wasted time and money.

Only three brands, but unfortunately in line with previous research: The scientists make no secret of the fact that a major limitation of their study "is that, although [they] evaluated the top-selling DS in the United States, [they] only assessed three products given the scope of this initial investigation" (Mason. 2016). Bad luck for fish oil fans: e results of this study are consistent with previously published analyses of DS with respect to content and oxidative damage" (ibid.) - studies that didn't just find oxidized fatty acids, but also heavymetals and cholesterol in the pills.

So what do we make of these results? Well, I guess it depends on how indoctrinated you've already been about fish oil being an essential supplement (the word "supplement" already implies that it cannot be essential). If you actually believe in the magic of fish oil (imho bogus for healthy individuals), you should go and buy pharma grade fish oil spending your whole monthly supplement budged on fish. If, on the other hand, you've any sanity left, you simply do what I've been recommending for years: eat your fatty fish once or twice per week (doesn't have to be wild-caught | Farmed Fish is Less Poluted and Has More Omega-3) | Comment!

References:

• Boran, Gökhan, Hikmet Karaçam, and Muhammet Boran. "Changes in the quality of fish oils due to storage temperature and time." Food chemistry 98.4 (2006): 693-698.
• Mason, PR and Sherrat SCR. "Omega-3 fatty acid fish oil dietary supplements contain saturated fats and oxidized lipids that may interfere with their intended biological benefits." Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications - Available online 21 December 2016 | In Press, Corrected Proof

Some Things Fishy: Oxidized Fish Oil Totally Benign!?Plus: The Inflammatory Side of EPA and Peroxide & Alkenal Levels in Commercial Fish and Vegetable Oils.

Image 1: Surströmming, a Swedish delicates is essentially rancid fish and it stinks exactly like that. Now, the results of a recent study show that the rancidity does probably not compromise the health benefits of the fish... so if you like it, go for it!

You know that whenever something is so (over-)hyped like fish oil or vitamin D that rings an alarm with me and when I hear "experts" on popular podcast say things along the lines of "as long as you take your fish oil that can compensate for a whacky diet", this is totally burning me up. Yes, there is conclusive evidence that for someone who has damaged his/her body by years and years of omega-6 over-consumption the inclusion of even "high" dose (I consider 5-6g high!) fish oil supplements can make sense, but NO, it will neither allow you to keep eating the same crap that has brought you to where you are at now, nor (and I think this is even more important for most of the SuppVersity readers) is there conclusive evidence that a healthy, active and lean human being is not way better off by limiting his total PUFA intake instead of popping grams of highly oxidizable n-3 fatty acids from fish oil caps.

Highly oxidizable? Yes! Dangerous? Surprisingly not!

A pros pos "highly oxidizable", the argument that polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are readily oxidized not only in your body, but even at the shelves of your nutrition store, is one of the few possible caveats of fish oils supplementation even fish oil enthusiasts will acknowledge. After all previous animal studies have shown that diets rich (5%) in rancid (=oxidized) fish oils lead to increases in thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) levels and elevate liver specific transaminases, as well as the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels in the plasma of rats (detrimental effects which can by the way be ameliorated by taurine supplementation, cf. Hwang. 2000). The results of a recent study by Inger Ottestad and colleagues from Norway may thusly surprise the "pro-fish oil"-faction about as much as they surprised me (Ottestad. 2011): The ingestion of 8g of oxidized (peroxide value: 18mEq/kg; ansidine value: 9) fish oil (1.6g EPA+DHA) did not have any unfavorable short term-effects in previously healthy individuals.

Figure 1: Serum (left, 8-iso on secondary axes was measured in urine) and erythrocyte (right, GPx on secondary axes) markers of oxidative stress in 68 healthy subjects who were randomly assigned to ingest 8g of "fresh" fish oil, oxidized fish oil or high oleic-acid sunflower oil per day for before (pre) and after (post) the 7 week intervention (data adapted from Ottestad. 2011)

If you take a closer look at the measured levels of serum (4-hydroxy-2-hexenal: 4-HHE, 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal: 4-HNE, alpha-tocopherol,  high-sensitive C-reactive protein: hsCRP and 8-iso-PFG2a, the latter in urine) as well as erythrocyte (total GSH, 4-hydroxy-2-nonena: GR, CAT and glutathione peroxidase: GPx) markers of oxidation before and after the 7-week intervention (cf. figure 1), it is quite obvious that there were no statistically significant oxidation-related changes in the concentrations of the measured markers of oxidative stress, of which the scientists state that they are the current, yet debatable, "gold standard" for in vivo studies.

Figure 2: Changes in n-3 and n-6 levels and the n-6/n-3 ratio (small graph) in the course of the study period (data calculated based on Ottestad. 2011)

It is thus not really surprising that both fish oil groups experienced virtually identical (and highly favorable) -50% reductions in the ratio of omega-6 (n-6) to omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids. Moreover, ...

[a]fter 3 and 7 weeks of intervention, the plasma level of EPA, docosapentaenoic acid and DHA were significantly increased in both fish oil groups compared to the HOSO group, but no significant difference in EPA, doc-osapentaenoic acid and DHA between the FO and oxFO groups was observed.

The scientists are thusly right to conclude that their results do not support the often-heard hypothesis that higher intakes n-3 long-chain fatty acids could increase in vivo lipid peroxidation and more importantly, that ...

[...] the content of hydroperoxides in fish oil supplements, even with a PV that exceeds the European Pharmacopeia for marine n-3 oils, does not apparently influence the plasma level of n-3 FA.

With regards to the obvious differences to previous animal studies, the scientists state that secondary oxidation of hydroperoxides, which are then absorbed in the intestine has until now been observed in animal and cell studies. In view of the relative short duration of the study and the reliance on healthy subjects, it is also questionable whether identical results would have been achieved, when sick patients (the usual customer group at least for the pharma-grade n-3 supplements) had been treated with the same product for years.

Oxidized fats in fish oil and beyond

It is also worth mentioning that Ottestad et al. are not sure, whether their "aritifically oxidized" fish oil (oxidation was achieved by sparkling pure oxygen through the oil for 20 min twice a day for 21 d) was an appropriate model for commercially available (oxidized) fish oils. After all, there could be major differences in the composition of the oxidation products, when the oils go rancid over months or get damaged by heat etc. While I obviously cannot answer this question without setting up my own lab, I can however tell you that another recent study by Halvorsen et al. who examined the peroxide and alkenal (one of the major products of secondary oxidation) content of fish and vegetable oils, found average peroxide levels in 33 commercially available fish oil products (mean PV: 3.61mEq/kg) that were ~500% below the ones of the oxidized fish oil (18mEq/kg) in the Ottestad study.

Figure 3: Mean peroxide and alkenal values of 33 commercially available fish and 35 vegetable oils (Halvorsen. 2011).

In this regards, fresh vegetable oils, obviously are way in front, as the data from a study by Bente Lise Halvorsen and Rune Blomhoff clearly shows, that they have lower peroxide and much lower alkenal levels than fish oils (cf. figure 3). Interestingly, vegetable oils are also less prone to being oxidized during storage, something Halvorsen and Blomhoff conclude based on the absence of the "negative correlation (r=−0.557, p<0.001) [...] between the number of days until expiry and the PV [peroxide value]" they observed in the marine omega-3 oils.

Figure 4: Peroxide (PV in mEq/kg) and alkenal (in nM/ml) levels in fresh vegetable oils and after being heated for 25 minutes at 225°C in an oven (data adapted from Halvorsen. 2011); solid red line - maximal peroxide value for olive oils, dotted red line - maximal peroxide values for fish oils as suggested by Turner et al. (Turner. 2006)

Contrary to fish oils, which are usually taken "fresh" and in a capped form, the main fate of vegetable is however to be (ab-)used as cooking / frying oils. During the heating process, the amount of secondary lipid oxidation products, the alkenals, doubles or quadruples depending on the type of oil (cf. figure 4). In that, it may at first seem counterintuitive that, when the scientists heated the samples for 25 minutes at 225°C in an oven, the amount of primary oxidation products was slightly reduced in most, but not all (e.g. soy bean oil) of the 11 vegetable oils. If you do yet take into consideration that the latter are the "raw material" for the secondary oxidation products, it becomes quite clear that this is not a desirable process ;-)

Image 3: Extra virgin olive oils (EVOOs) have generally higher peroxide values than the cheap refined stuff, and yet, EVOOs and not refined oils have been shown to exhibit numerous health benefits.

Putting peroxide values (PV) into perspective: All potential health hazards aside, it may be interesting to know that the general "rule of thumb" says that a fat is rancid when the PV is about 10 meq/kg (the fish oil in the study with PV=18 was thusly "rancid"). A fresh and refined product on the other hand should have PV below 1 meq/kg (Gunstone. 1996). That being said, it may surprise you that for high quality extra virgin olive oils, the PV limit is 20meq/kg, while for "regular" olive oil it is only 10 meq/kg. If you know look at studies related to the health benefits of refined vs. extra virgin olive oil, you will have to admit that - quite obviously - fish oil apparently is not the only oil, where increased peroxide levels do not negate the beneficial health effects of the oil.

So, if pure vegetable oils are generally "fresher" than fish oils does that mean that as long as you do not heat them, they are the better choice? No, they are not! I mean, look at the research that is out there... the abundance of n-6 fatty acids in the "healthy" vegetable oils that are getting pimped especially by the US government, is at the heart of an epidemic of which the authorities still claim that it was caused by high cholesterol levels. Instead banning all saturated fats from YourPlate (which should never look like the governments MyPlate ;-), you should rather incorporate more coconut oil and saturated fats from butter, beef etc. into your diet. Select (vegetable) oils that are relatively high in mono-unsaturated fatty acids, like extra virgin olive oil (don't care about its high peroxide value, cf. red box above) and try to reduce the amount of n-6 fats you ingest - you will get more than enough even from grass-fed meats, olive and other oils and any processed foods that may still be part of your diet, anyway.

Image 4: Not all Omega-3 are created equal. We know for some time that DHA (not EPA) is what your brain needs and a recent study from Norway suggest that eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is actually pro- not anti-inflammatory at a cellular level. It may yet well be that this in turn triggers a beneficial hormetic response which would support my "fish oil = exercise in a pill hypothesis"

Although this is not directly related to the topic of oxidation I still want to add that another study appears to confirms my long-cherished skepticism towards EPA (most fish oils have a 2:1 EPA to DHA ratio), which, as a recent study from Norwegian scientists shows (Myhrstad. 2011), is not really "beneficial super-antioxidant" people are led to believe. In their trial the scientists fed 14 healthy female volunteers test meals. The cakes the participants ate were enriched with either flaxseed, cod liver or coconut oil and the intention of the study was to elucidate differential effects of meal fatty acid composition on inflammatory markers. Not to my, but probably to the scientists surprise the "evil" saturated fat from the coconut oil turned out to be similarly benign as the flaxseed cake. Only the EPA-laden cod liver oil cake produced a statistically significant increase in IL-8 mRNA levels 6h post ingestion. Similarly, incubation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with EPA, yet not ALA lead to >3x increase in IL-8 and >2x increases in IL-6 mRNA expression.

While I am not quite sure what to make of these observations, these results stand in line with previous studies reporting differential effects of EPA vs. DHA rich fish-oils, where across the board, the DHA appeared to be the major driving force of the beneficial health effects people hope to be getting from their fish oil caps (e.g. brain health, Engström. 2009).

Fish oil caps can be a good addition to this regimen specifically for those who are just about to start out on a low omega-6 diet to offset the skewed n-6 to n-3 ratio (something that takes its time). They are yet by no means obligatory for someone who eats fish on a regular basis and invests the extra bucks into grass-fed beef and eggs from pastured chicken. If you thusly satisfy your (anyway low) dietary DHA requirements... and most importantly, taking fish oil will not compensate for eating shitloads of processed foods and lack of exercise, even if the aforementioned pro-inflammatory effects of EPA support my previously uttered hypothesis that fish oil has some resemblance to "exercise in a pill".