Recommended Daily Dose for Omega-3 May Be on the Way

A new analysis may pave the way for greater acceptance of the fish oil nutrient.

ByABC News
August 3, 2009, 2:34 PM

Aug. 4, 2009— -- A new analysis could lead to heated debate among heart dictors over whether omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids deserves its own recommended daily intake levels.

Fish oil -- a centuries-old pharmacy shelf fixture -- has recently been the subject of much research to determine its heart-protecting properties. Now, some cardiologists say it is time for omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids to join others nutrients for which a daily recommended intake has been established.

Dr. Carl Lavie, medical director of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Prevention at the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, is one such cardiologist. He says that healthy people should consume at least 500 mg per day of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in order to meet their daily needs for the nutrient.

Lavie and his colleagues made the recommendations in a paper released Monday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Those with known cardiovascular disease, the researchers added, should consume 800 to 1,000 mg per day of the nutrient.

Such recommendations, if widely established, could solidify omega-3's place in the pantheon of nutrients that diet experts recommend.

But other cardiologists were more measured in their assessment and at least one -- the oft-quoted contrarian Dr. Steven Nissen, director of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic -- said Lavie's conclusions are premature.

"I don't find the evidence for widespread usage of omega-3 particularly compelling," Nissen said.

Others, including Dr. Robert Bonow, past president of the American Heart Association and co-director of the Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute at Northwestern University in Chicago, attempted to temper the enthusiasm by pointing out that while advising patients to increase consumption of fish oil may be "good advice," it should be tempered by adding the caveat that the data are "strongest in those with established heart disease ... with the principal benefit being a reduction in serious rhythm problems.

"The other benefits do appear to be real, but there is less evidence -- and in some cases no evidence -- that these lead to better patient outcomes," Bonow added.

Lavie based his recommendation on a review of findings from four studies that, in total, looked at about 40,000 study participants -- ranging from healthy individuals to those who had experienced a heart attack or other cardiac problem.