text_1: New study finds EPA and DHA omega-3s lower risk of coronary heart disease
text_2: This news release summarizes a recent paper published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that evaluated the effect two types of omega-3 fatty acids — eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) — had on reducing risk of coronary heart disease. The report was a meta-analysis, meaning researchers evaluated the findings of multiple published studies. Specifically, the meta-analysis looked at 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective cohort studies. RCTs are designed to measure the effect of a specific intervention under clearly-defined, experimental conditions. This means that researchers aim to determine, with some degree of certainty, whether a specific intervention is causing a specific outcome. Prospective cohort studies follow large groups of people over extended periods of time, allowing researchers to determine what characteristics or behaviors may be associated with specific outcomes. Because of the nature of these cohort studies, they can only tell researchers if a behavior or practice is correlated with an outcome — but not whether the behavior is causing the outcome. These sorts of meta-analyses can be extremely valuable tools for assessing a broad body of work on a given subject. However, this news release is problematic. It is written in a way that is confusing, if not misleading, and fails to make clear that the scientific-sounding organization that funded the study (and wrote the release) is an industry group that was created to promote the global use of omega-3 supplements or foods that are high in omega-3s. According to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, approximately 370,000 people die of coronary heart disease each year in the United States. Many adults make decisions about their diet, activities and lifestyle based on how those decisions may affect their heart health. Research on subjects such as how omega-3 fatty acids affect heart disease risk play an important role here. According to a 2015 Washington Post article, people in the U.S. spend $1.2 billion each year on fish oil supplements, largely because they contain omega-3s that consumers think will reduce their risk of heart disease. But increasingly consistent evidence shows that fish oil does not, in fact, protect against heart disease. If people are going to make informed decisions about their personal health — and how they spend their money — they need to have good information that they can actually understand. News releases like this one make it hard for most consumers to understand exactly what the research says.