This meeting presents the unique opportunity to learn from the scientists who are conducting leading-edge research in nutrition and fatty acids.  New findings in omega-3 nutrition and other nutritional fats will be presented.

The program includes new discoveries and evidence on the relationship between fatty acids in chronic disease, as well as findings in metabolism, analytical methods, novel food sources and more. Emerging ideas and current controversies will be discussed.  For more information, see the program on the website.

Register now for this special opportunity taking place in our part of the world, in beautiful Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Program website: http://www.issfal2012.com/index.html

This article in the Washington Post (link below) is a nice discussion of the considerations around eating fish. After weighing the nutritional benefits, current consumption and the potential, theoretical concern for contamination, the conclusion remains the same:  ”As long as you’re not a pregnant woman, the evidence suggests that the balance is always toward net benefit,” states Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health and a member of the FAO/WHO panel*.

Pregnant women need to be consuming long-chain omega-3s, as found in fish and seafood, for themselves and for their growing infant.   It simply behooves them to pay closer attention to the source. Wild, Alaskan salmon is not restricted, even by the  Environmental Defense Fund. The nutritional need during pregnancy is there, of that we are certain.  In fact, the developing infant is priority #1 for the long-chain omega-3s.

Article in the Washington Post, dated April 2, 2012 is here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/eat-more-fish-risks-overstated/2012/04/02/gIQARwPNrS_story.html

*The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations working with the World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). In 2010 they convened panels of nutritional, toxicological and epidemiological experts to review this topic.

Read and learn:

http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/011012p22.shtml

This just published analysis and report from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is a positive step in the right direction.

Part of the barrier toward setting intake recommendations has rested in the uncertainty about human metabolism and conversion between the different forms of omega-3s.  What we’ve learned in recent years is that the shorter form of omega-3 (derived from plants) is inadequate to support healthy blood levels of the longer chain omega-3s EPA and DHA (naturally occurring in fish and marine animals).  My reference here to “healthy blood levels” is an amount sufficient to meaningfully reduce the risk of someone dropping dead from a heart attack.  Truth is, about half the people who die from a heart attack have not been diagnosed with heart disease.

Here, with these findings, we can move together as a country toward consuming minimal levels of EPA and DHA omega-3.  It will do us all good.

A side note: Research and the study of other healthy populations has shown us that more than 200 mg EPA and DHA is clearly beneficial.  For now, to improve mortality, we can start with the basic minimum.

February 2012

Background: Eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) intake may protect from cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.

Objective: To synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large prospective cohorts on the effects of EPA and DHA on cardiac, cardiovascular, or all-cause mortality.

Design: We conducted a systematic review with random effects meta-analysis and mixed effects dose-response meta-regression. Included were RCTs of EPA and DHA supplementation (>4 weeks of intervention, <6 grams per day) and large prospective cohorts (>1000 people, >3 years of followup) quantifying DHA or EPA intake.

Results: In RCTs, the summary relative risks for all-cause mortality (17 trials, 51,264 patients) and cardiovascular mortality (14 trials, 48,500 patients) were 0.95 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.89, 1.01) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83, 0.96), respectively, with no evidence for heterogeneity. The effect of DHA and EPA was not significantly associated with population or study characteristics or supplement dose. In dose-response meta-regressions, mean EPA and DHA intake up to 0.20 grams daily was associated with decreased risk of cardiac, cardiovascular, or sudden cardiac death (odds ratio 0.64 per 0.20 grams average daily intake, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89—data from 7 cohorts, 123,122 participants), with no significant change in risk (positive or negative) at higher mean intakes. Dose-response analyses were not statistically significant for other intake thresholds or alternative mortality definitions.

Conclusions: The maximal positive effect of EPA and DHA appears to plateau at a mean daily intake of 0.20 grams. There is no evidence that the effect of EPA and DHA on mortality phenotypes differs across populations and settings.

Link to AHRQ webpage and announcement: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/nutritn4tp.htm

Link to full report: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/nutrition/nutrtp4.pdf

Abstract

Fish consumption has shown its benefits for cognitive functioning in the elderly or children with disorders (e.g., autism, ADHD), but has rarely been investigated in relation to cognitive performance and school performance of healthy adolescents.

We executed an observational study in 700 Dutch high school students aged 12–18 years. Fish consumption data, end term grades, scores on the Amsterdam Vocabulary Test, and scores on the Youth Self-Report were collected. Results revealed that 13.6% of the Dutch adolescents never ate fish, 6.4% met national guidelines, 16.9% reached half of the norm, and 63.1% did eat fish but too little to meet at least half of the norm. Analysis of variance, controlled for relevant covariates, showed significant differences between the four fish consumption groups in vocabulary (p=.05). A trend for significance was found for end term grades (p=.07). Contrast analyses demonstrated significant quadratic associations between fish consumption and vocabulary (p=.01) and end term grades (p=.01). Thus higher fish intake was associated with more advanced vocabulary and higher end term grades. However, eating more fish than the described norm seemed no longer beneficial.

This year, I had the honor of being a judge on the tasting panel.  There are 3 food categories.

The Winners Are…….

Smoked foods: Kylee’s Alaskan Salmon Bacon (this was one of my favorites; nice color, texture, taste and nutrient profile)

Retail:  AquaCuisine Naturally Smoked Salmon Frank

Foodservice:  Sweet Potato Crunch Alaska Pollock Sticks

Other products of note were a fish patty wrapped in whole brown rice by Louvier’s and the pickled salmon and cod by Pickled Willy’s are perfect to eat for a healthy (high protein, low fat) snack on a cracker, perhaps with some cheese or celery. Pickled Willy’s products come in a jar; keep them in the fridge to serve as an impromptu appetizer for those guests who drop by…..

I am looking forward to the salmon bacon on a BLT!

Read more:  http://www.perishablenews.com/index.php?article=0020364

This year, there are focused conference tracks on Healthy Aging, Beverage Innovation, Food-Supplement-Drug convergence and Omega-3s.  Within the tracks, threads of ingredient advancement, research and science, product development, and marketing are weaved so attendees can follow each thread or each conference/subject track.

See the agenda and registration information here: http://www.nutraconference.com/nutracon12/public/enter.aspx

When you come, find me in the Healthy Aging track and say hello!

Gretchen

Results showed some benefits among those taking fish oil. Not surprising. I post this article for its newsworthiness, but also to clarify some statements made at the end of the article.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-fish-oiltre80g2ap-20120117,0,5713146.story

1. From the article:  ”And while fish oil is generally considered safe at recommended doses, it can have side effects; the more common side effects include bad breath, heartburn, nausea and loose stools.”           My comment: these side effects usually have more to do with digestion of any fat (e.g. potato chips, butter) and not fish oil per se.
2. From the article  ”At higher doses — more than 3 grams per day — fish oil might interfere with blood clotting and raise the risk of internal bleeding, according to the National Institutes of Health.”                            My comment: the ’3 grams per day’ refers to the total amount of EPA and DHA omega-3, not total amount of fish oil.  In this study, the subjects taking fish oil took less than 800 mg per day, far less than 3 grams (3000 mg).  For reference, 800 mg can be consumed by eating about 9 ounces of oily fish, such as salmon or tuna a week; that could be 3 – 3 ounce fish servings or 2 larger servings, or from supplements.
3. From the article  ”People using medications — as most older adults are — should also check with their doctor about possible interactions. Fish oil can, for example, boost the effects of blood pressure drugs, which could send your blood pressure too low.”                                                              My comment: Moderate amounts of fish oil have not been shown to send your blood pressure too low.  We do know that people who eat fish tend to, overall, have healthier blood pressure levels.  Fish oil supplementation has been shown to normalize blood pressure.  It is true, that interactions are possible; it is also plausible that one could lower their need for prescription medication when they are getting healthful amount of long-chain omega-3s in their diet.  For many, this could have multiple benefits (better nutritional status, less need for Rx and lower healthcare cost) and be worth looking into.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Oily-fish-during-pregnancy-shows-immune-boosting-potential-for-infants

http://newhope360.com/recipes/6-superfoods-and-how-eat-them-every-day?cid=nl_360_daily