I find this article odd. The title makes a strong assertion, but in the contents, that assertion is only backed up by a weak study that at most can only show correlation, as the article itself...
I find this article odd. The title makes a strong assertion, but in the contents, that assertion is only backed up by a weak study that at most can only show correlation, as the article itself describes
Since the study was conducted as an observational analysis, and not as a randomized controlled trial in which people were assigned to specific doses of fish oil supplements and monitored closely, the researchers could not control or adjust for a number of different factors in their study population, including the reasons why people were taking fish oil and their underlying health at the start of the trial.
Then immediately after, they bring up another study, which was a randomly controlled experiment, and directly contradicts it
In the largest randomized control trial of fish oil in an otherwise healthy population without known heart problems, reported in 2018, fish oil supplements were linked to a 28% lower risk of heart attacks and an overall 17% reduced risk of all heart disease events. In that study, the supplements were not associated with a lower risk of stroke, however. Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Harvard Medical School and physician at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital who co-led the trial, says those results are likely more indicative of how fish oil affects the heart, since the study used quality-controlled sources of supplements and carefully monitored the participants’ dosage.
Uh, so...? Am I supposed to learn why fish oil supplements can be dangerous for the heart? Because I didn't, like, at all - I learned there was one study that showed possible correlation, and another study which showed the opposite causation. There was no investigation into "why" at all.
The conclusion to the article was
“Correlation does not prove causation,” says Manson about the study results. “I don’t think the public should be alarmed about this study because most organizations currently do not recommend omega-3 supplements for primary prevention of heart disease. They currently recommend one to two servings of fish a week.”
I feel like the better title would've been "Fish oil supplements probably aren't dangerous for the heart"?
I find this article odd. The title makes a strong assertion, but in the contents, that assertion is only backed up by a weak study that at most can only show correlation, as the article itself describes
Then immediately after, they bring up another study, which was a randomly controlled experiment, and directly contradicts it
Uh, so...? Am I supposed to learn why fish oil supplements can be dangerous for the heart? Because I didn't, like, at all - I learned there was one study that showed possible correlation, and another study which showed the opposite causation. There was no investigation into "why" at all.
The conclusion to the article was
I feel like the better title would've been "Fish oil supplements probably aren't dangerous for the heart"?
That wouldn’t get clicks though. These guys knew what they were doing.
A bit of a meta question but is this the type of clickbait titles that should be edited in Tildes?
I think it should. The article itself is interesting but the title is garbage. It's just plain wrong.