Skip to main content

Regular weekly portion of fatty fish can halve rheumatoid arthritis risk

A study published online today in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases indicates that a regular weekly portion of fatty fish, such as salmon, or four servings of lean fish, such as cod, can halve the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis.

The benefits of a fishy diet, which needs to be kept up for at least a decade, are largely attributable to its long chain omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content, confirm the researchers.

They collected information on the dietary habits of more than 32,000 women born between 1914 and 1948, whose health was tracked between 2003 and 2010 as part of the Swedish Mammography Cohort population based study.

The researchers were particularly keen to assess dietary intake of omega 3 PUFAs as previous evidence shows that they have anti-inflammatory properties.

The women, all of whom lived in two counties of Sweden, completed a questionnaire on dietary intake, height, weight, motherhood and educational attainment between 1987 and 1990.

In 1997, the 56,000 who were still alive were sent a similar questionnaire, requesting further information on smoking, exercise, use of dietary supplements and aspirin.

As part of the dietary information requested, the women completed food frequency questionnaires, in which they detailed how often and how much they ate any of 67 (1987) and 96 (1997) foods. This included a range of fatty and lean fish.

During the monitoring period, 205 women were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Across the entire group, there was a fourfold difference in omega 3 PUFA consumption between the 20% eating the most and the 20% eating the least.

Women who consumed the least included the highest proportion of smokers and the lowest proportion of alcohol drinkers and aspirin takers. Smoking is a risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis while moderate alcohol and aspirin are protective.

Among those who developed the condition, more than one in four (27%) had a dietary omega 3 PUFA intake of less than 0.21g a day, compared with one in five women across the entire group who consumed this amount.

Some 61% of the women consumed the same amount of omega 3 PUFAs and 64% the same amount of fish at both time points.

Those whose intake of omega 3 PUFAs exceeded 0.21g a day, equivalent to at least one serving of fatty fish or four servings of lean fish a week, in both 1987 and 1997, had half the risk (52% lower) of rheumatoid arthritis of women who consumed less in both years.

And regularly eating one or more servings of all types of fish every week for at least 10 years was linked to an overall 29% reduced risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis compared with eating less than one portion a week.

“The inverse association between fish consumption and [rheumatoid arthritis] can be attributed mainly to its content of long chain [omega] 3 PUFAs,” conclude the authors, who add that their findings indicate a potentially important role for these substances in the development of the disease.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As