Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid

Fundamental Contradiction in the Article !
In the introduction, Omega-3 fatty acid is described as playing "an important role in the human diet and in human physiology".

However, in the section "Health Effects", there appears to be negligible evidence for any proven benefits !

Have I missed something ?

Please would someone knowledgeable add an explanation for this ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Omega-3 fatty acids are very important for human health and physiology. The "Health effects of omega-3 supplementation" is talking about omega-3 supplements (fish oil) which have not been demonstrated to be beneficial so there is no contradiction. That section is about supplements not omega-3 foods. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33888689/ Atchoum (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That review was heavily industry funded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Coromega" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coromega&redirect=no Coromega] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Benefits of EPA only vs EPA+DHA treatment
I started noticing recent publications are talking about significant benefit of Omega-3 with EPA only, on various health measures. For example see here
 * Omega-3 FAs reduced cardiovascular mortality and improved cardiovascular outcomes. The cardiovascular risk reduction was more prominent with EPA monotherapy than with EPA+DHA.

Also see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002561962030985X

Any thoughts on this? Tal Galili (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with most of these papers is that they are not neutral, they are funded by Omega-3 supplement companies. For example, your second link check the bottom of the paper "Potential Competing Interests" and "Grant Support". The authors of the paper are selling supplements and it was funded by a company selling DHA and EPA supplements. This type of research is really no different than the recent flawed trials we have seen on red meat that were funded by the beef industry. Industry-sponsored studies are nearly always biased in favour of the sponsor's products. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a great point!
 * I've added a new notes section, and will try to add comments about conflict of interests for citated sources from now on.
 * I don't think a biased paper should be excluded at all times, but I do agree it should be easily available for people to know about it and decide for themselves.
 * WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)