Limited Time: Grab your FREE Box of Dark Chocolate Almond Bars Get Yours>>Close
Open
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Fish oil supplementation during pregnancy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    middle earth
    Posts
    24

    Fish oil supplementation during pregnancy

    Shop Now
    Some info at

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/103/1/1.full and articles cited therein. Some key points:

    Main takeaway -- likely no benefit to infants from fish oil supplementation during pregnancy -- at best, perhaps less chance for allergic sensitivities.

    "The 3 articles on fish oil (FO) supplementation published in this edition of the Journal contribute to the controversy by providing evidence that the developing fetal and preterm brain does not benefit from DHA supplementation of healthy pregnant and breastfeeding women in Western countries. Detailed assessment of the attention and visual systems, the functions most commonly proposed to be vulnerable to DHA depletion, appear to be unaffected by FO supplementation. Dietary supply and metabolism of fatty acids during pregnancy and lactation appear adequate for neurodevelopment of offspring. There is no need to supplement healthy pregnant women with FO/DHA to improve the neurodevelopment of their infants."

    However, "there may be a benefit for immune or inflammatory outcomes. The meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and RCTs by Best and colleagues (8) in this issue of the Journal suggests a benefit of FO supplementation during the last 1020 wk of pregnancy on the incidence of allergic disease in offspring. There are plausible data to support modulation of fetal immune development with FO/n3 LCPUFA supplements. The review includes 10 observational studies and 5 RCTs (9003700 mg n3 LCPUFAs). Eight of 13 publications from observational studies found a protective relation between high fish or n3 LCPUFA intake and allergic outcomes. Five of 7 publications from RCTs found a protective effect on allergy or sensitization at one or more assessment times."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Euless, TX
    Posts
    2,354
    Fish oil supplements are not recommended for anyone, pregnant or not. However, omega 3 from whole food, real seafood sources preferably, is beneficial for neuro generation in the unborn.
    Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
    Old Paths ... New Journeys

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton View Post
    Fish oil supplements are not recommended for anyone, pregnant or not. However, omega 3 from whole food, real seafood sources preferably, is beneficial for neuro generation in the unborn.
    Can you prove this?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Euless, TX
    Posts
    2,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Elliot View Post
    Can you prove this?
    After I prove the sun rose today.
    Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
    Old Paths ... New Journeys

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Euless, TX
    Posts
    2,354
    Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and
    neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood
    (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study


    Summary
    Background
    Seafood is the predominant source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential for optimum neural
    development. However, in the USA, women are advised to limit their seafood intake during pregnancy to 340 g per
    week. We used the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) to assess the possible benefi ts and
    hazards to a childs development of different levels of maternal seafood intake during pregnancy.

    Findings After adjustment, maternal seafood intake during pregnancy of less than 340 g per week was associated with
    increased risk of their children being in the lowest quartile for verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) (no seafood consumption,
    odds ratio [OR] 148, 95% CI 116190; some, 109, 092129; overall trend, p=0004), compared with mothers who
    consumed more than 340 g per week. Low maternal seafood intake was also associated with increased risk of suboptimum
    outcomes for prosocial behaviour, fine motor, communication, and social development scores. For each outcome
    measure, the lower the intake of seafood during pregnancy, the higher the risk of suboptimum developmental outcome.

    http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/seafoo...%20Hibbeln.pdf
    Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
    Old Paths ... New Journeys

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,214
    That is an observational study, which cannot prove causation. Here is a meta-analysis of randomized trials, which can prove causation:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364006
    Eleven RCTs involving 5272 participants were included in the review. Most trials had methodologic limitations. No differences in standardized psychometric test scores for cognitive, language, or motor development were observed between the LCPUFA-supplemented and control groups, except for cognitive scores in 2-5-y-old children, in whom supplementation resulted in higher Developmental Standard Scores (mean difference: 3.92; 95% CI: 0.77, 7.08; n = 156; P = 0.01). However, this effect was from 2 trials with a high risk of bias. Because of the variety of visual assessments and age ranges, it was not possible to combine studies with visual outcomes in a meta-analysis, although 6 of the 8 assessments in 5 trials reported no difference between the supplemented and control groups.
    EDIT:
    Here's one that's newer than that meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26262896
    Intent-to-treat differences (DHA-control) were: Psychomotor Developmental Index -0.90 (95% CI: -2.35, 0.56), Mental Developmental Index -0.26 (95% CI: -1.63, 1.10) and Behavior Rating Scale -0.01 (95% CI: -0.95, 0.94). Prenatal DHA intake attenuated the positive association between home environment and psychomotor development index observed in the control group (p for interaction = 0.03) suggesting potential benefits for children living in home environments characterized by reduced caregiver interactions and opportunities for early childhood stimulation.
    Note that their special conclusion is somewhat silly. The children with worse home scores appeared to do better with DHA, while the children with better home scores appeared to do worse.

    SECOND EDIT:
    Here's another one:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22348468
    The results suggest that improved postnatal n-3 LC-PUFA intake in the first 6 months of life using high-dose infant FO supplementation was not beneficial to global infant neurodevelopment. However, some indication of benefits to early communicative development was observed.
    This one is by the same group that produced the study, mentioned in the meta-analysis, that showed some benefit at 2-5 years, but was at risk of bias.

    THIRD EDIT:
    Here's a follow-up of the biased study that supposedly showed benefit:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25803546
    Our data indicate that fish oil supplementation during pregnancy does not influence the cognition, language or fine motor skills of children in late primary school (12 years of age).
    Last edited by Elliot; 01-14-2016 at 08:30 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Euless, TX
    Posts
    2,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Elliot View Post
    That is an observational study, which cannot prove causation.
    Darn, I had that same problem trying to prove the sun rose yesterday. It was only an observation.

    Your links only confirm the OP'S link. Supplemental DHA probably isn't beneficial. I agree.

    Seafood sources appear to be beneficial, however. Is it the DHA, the iodine, the combination or neither? Is causation absolutely necessary when the whole food benefit is as observable as the sunrise.

    Controlled studies, the only kind you give credence, arent so easy with human subjects. Would a researcher actually withhold DHA from a control fetus and sacrifice it to a life of underdevelopment? Human sacrifice, in the name of science, is frowned upon, I think.
    Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
    Old Paths ... New Journeys

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton View Post
    Darn, I had that same problem trying to prove the sun rose yesterday. It was only an observation.
    An observational study to prove the sun rose is fine, because it does not need to show causation. If you wanted to prove what was causing the sun to rise, you would need to conduct a controlled experiment.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton
    Your links only confirm the OP'S link. Supplemental DHA probably isn't beneficial. I agree.

    Seafood sources appear to be beneficial, however.
    Based on what? Meaningless observational studies? If you like those, I can easily show you observational studies showing grains to be associated with health, or showing a low-carb diet to be associated with illness. Observational studies show whatever you want, because they're meaningless.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton
    Is it the DHA, the iodine, the combination or neither? Is causation absolutely necessary when the whole food benefit is as observable as the sunrise.
    Not really. The sunrise is not a causal relationship.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton
    Controlled studies, the only kind you give credence, arent so easy with human subjects. Would a researcher actually withhold DHA from a control fetus and sacrifice it to a life of underdevelopment?
    Such a leading question!
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton
    Human sacrifice, in the name of science, is frowned upon, I think.
    Or we could do what you're suggesting: push fatty fish on women and sacrifice their children in the name of epidemiology.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Euless, TX
    Posts
    2,354
    So, Elliot, what do your controlled studies say regarding the best diet for mothers wanting to insure optimal neurogenesis in their developing child?
    Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
    Old Paths ... New Journeys

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,214
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caton View Post
    So, Elliot, what do your controlled studies say regarding the best diet for mothers wanting to insure optimal neurogenesis in their developing child?
    They show that supplementing them with omega-3 fatty acids has no significant effect.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •