How much omega-3s are enough?

The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids.

1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule.

But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better?

The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil.

Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA.

The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use Omacor only when high doses of EPA+DHA are required, most because of its outrageous cost. Two capsules per day costs around $120 per month; three capsules per day to provide 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA costs $180 per month. I think this is outrageous and so we use it only when absolutely necessary.)

You might even argue that a higher dose of 1800 mg EPA+DHA, or 6000 mg of a standard capsule, might be preferable for more assured reduction of heart attack risk--even when triglycerides and IDL are perfectly under control. I wouldn't argue with you. But you won't observe any measurable feedback that tells you that a heightened effect is being obtained. I take that dose myself, in fact, despite the fact that elimination of wheat products and weight loss was sufficient to drop my triglycerides to the target level. I figure it's a small additional effort for added peace of mind.

Comments (7) -

  • Anonymous

    5/8/2007 7:46:00 PM |

    I have just joined the Track Your Placque Site.  I take fish oil daily, 3200 EPA/1600 DHA.  At this dose my AA/EPA score is 2.14.  When I had LDL electrophoesis done, my pattern was A pattern and I was not on the fish oil at that time.  I am wondering whether it would be better to have an NMR test or a VAP test, or both?

  • Dr. Davis

    5/9/2007 1:57:00 AM |

    Hi,
    In general, I prefer the NMR. However, the electrophoretic test you already had should provide more information than just breaking your LDL pattern down into types "A" or "B". The real numbers to pay attention to are the LDL subclasses III and IV. Add up those numbers to determine how much small LDL you really have (in percent). Anything more than 10% we regard as sigificant.

  • Mike

    5/9/2007 8:00:00 PM |

    Is there any reduction in triglycerides from taking flax seed or other non-EPA/DHA sources of omega-3s?

  • Anonymous

    5/10/2007 12:18:00 AM |

    Thank you.  The report is broken down into the various LDL subclasses.  This information is helpful.

  • Dr. Davis

    5/10/2007 12:28:00 AM |

    Mike-
    No, unfortunately not. Only fish oil exerts the sort of triglyceride and lipoprotein correcting effects that we need.

  • Anonymous

    5/12/2007 10:12:00 PM |

    Dr., what do you think of Krill oil? Is it better than "regular" fish oil?

  • Dr. Davis

    5/13/2007 3:25:00 AM |

    We've actually had a fairly extensive conversation on this question on the Track Your Plaque Forum. Fish oil is tried and true, and the advantages of krill oil--purportedly containing less pesticide residues (no less mercury since fish oil does not contain mercury) and virtually pure DHA--are not fully worked out. However, if you choose to give it a try, let us know what kind of results you get.

Loading
Are you the exception?

Are you the exception?


I read about 40 heart scans this morning. In the stack was a 41-year old man with a heart scan score of 841.

That's terribly high for anyone, let alone a 41-year old person. He's lucky to find out about this before catastrophe strikes.

People like this worry me. In general, we advise men to consider a heart scan age 40 and older; women 50 and older. If there's anything exceptional about your family history or your own history, then you might notch these numbers down another 5-10 years. For instance, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 43, you might consider a scan at age 35. Or, if you've had diabetes for several years and you're a 42-year old woman, you might think about a scan. (Men tend to develop measurable plaque by heart scans 10 years before women.)

There are no hard and fast rules. It's unusual for a male to have a score >0 before age 40. Likewise, it's very uncommon for a woman to have a score >0 before age 50. But there are occasional exceptions--but they can be very important exceptions.

Our 41-year old man with the score of 841, for instance, probably had a high score since his mid-30s. I've seen several women without any obvious risk factors with scores in the several hundred range in their early 40s.

My rule: When in doubt, opt for safety. Every day, I still read about people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s dying of heart attacks. It shouldn't happen.

When in doubt, get the heart scan. The most you'll lose is the cost of the scan and a modest exposure to radiation. If your score is zero, you know you're safe for the next 5 or more years. But if you have an exceptional score at a young age, take preventive action.
Loading