In 2006, Equazen, a company that sells fish oil supplements donated to Durham city council enough pills to feed 3000 children for one year. Their aim was to assess if the supplements would enhance the performance of students and make a difference to the their GCSE scores. In the Guardian, Ben Goldacre pointed out that from the limited number of studies done on the efficacy of these pills, it was not clear whether the supplements are beneficial, have no effect or cause harm. He also suggested that, if the company is carrying out research on such a large scale, it might as well conduct it in a way that allows it to be considered as a proper ‘trial’ by having an equal number of students who were not given the pill (control group). The company paid no heed and nor did the city council persuade them. They went ahead with their plans and gave the children enough pills for the academic year 2007-08. A year later, the GCSE results were announced and instead of a better performance by the students, a decline in GCSE scores was observed (growth in the number of students gaining A* – C grades in 2006-07 was 5.5% and in 2007-08 it was only 3.5%). Eventually, the company made some dubious statements that received a lot of attention from the press and thus achieved their aim of advertising their product. Even then, Goldacre defended his case and stuck to his claims. Now in 2010, a double-blind study has been published in the journal, Review in Developmental Disabilities that investigates the efficacy of these supplements on normal school students.
It is well known that Omega-3 & Omega-6 fatty acids are essential for human health and because they cannot be made by the body, they have to be obtained from the diet. Here ‘essential’ implies that a certain amount is necessary for normal growth but not that more will only be beneficial. Yet, the industry markets this product as something that will increase ‘brain power’. Is that really the case?
The problem with answering this question is that there cannot be one certain answer for all human population. These supplements have different effects on people in different age groups or on people with or without mental disorders. Their role in cognition and development has been investigated in a number of studies. A prevalence of fatty acid deficiency symptoms was seen in children exhibiting hyperactive behaviour, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. In another study, it was shown that cognitive development of infants improved significantly when mothers were taking these supplements during pregnancy and lactation. Despite some positive results, their role in learning and behaviour still remains unclear as most studies lead to mixed or inconclusive results.
Yet, from previous studies we can be fairly sure that it is likely that the effect of these supplements is more pronounced in children with developmental disorders and therefore, their results may not be applicable to mainstream school children. The 2010 study set out to answer exactly this question. The 16-week long study was done in 450 school children aged 8-9 years. Eligibility criteria included having an IQ > 70. The thorough study included a number of cognitive tests that measured working memory, reading and spelling ability, and behaviour ratings that were obtained from feedback given by parents and teachers.
Results indicated a significant increase in the fatty acid concentration in the blood after the 16 week period in the active group compared to the placebo group. But cognitive tests and behaviour ratings showed no significant differences. The study concluded that even though this study has shown no benefits to students, it may not mean that there are no benefits at all. More work is necessary to further our understanding of the effects of these fatty acids in combination with vitamins and other micro-nutrients.
Most importantly though it goes on to show that Goldacre was right in being skeptical. Equazen could have saved the million pounds it spent on the pills for the students in Durham as it led to no benefits, and now we have proof.
Kirby, A., Woodward, A., Jackson, S., Wang, Y., & Crawford, M. (2010). A double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigating the effects of omega-3 supplementation in children aged 8–10 years from a mainstream school population Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31 (3), 718-730 DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.01.014
Akshat Rathi 
[…] improve cognitive function (“brain power”) in school children. Blogger akshatrathi294 presents a short report of the findings of the research […]
Pardon, but who on earth would expect a significant effect
on academic performance after only 16 weeks? I mean, of a fatty
acid that takes TIME to accumulate in the brain? (Changing the
lipid content of the brain is not a casual, few-weeks deal — and a
damn good thing!) Now, one could HOPE to see an effect that
quickly, and it is remotely possible that such an effect COULD
happen that quickly. But it would be idiotic to EXPECT it to
happen that quickly — and no surprise at all that it didn’t. What
were these researchers smoking, anyway? I want some!
meanwhile…..
http://www.physorg.com/news155810958.html
Teenage boys who eat fish at least once a week achieve higher
intelligence scores
March 9th, 2009 in Medicine & Health / Health
Fifteen-year-old males who ate fish at least once a week
displayed higher cognitive skills at the age of 18 than those
who it ate it less frequently, according to a study of nearly
4,000 teenagers published in the March issue of Acta
Paediatrica.
Eating fish once a week was enough to increase combined,
verbal and visuospatial intelligence scores by an average of
six per cent, while eating fish more than once a week
increased them by just under 11 per cent.
Swedish researchers compared the responses of 3,972 males who
took part in the survey with the cognitive scores recorded in
their Swedish Military Conscription records three years later.
[snip]
I agree with Alan that 16 weeks just isn’t long enough to see any significant results. However, I feel that taking a fish oil supplement that has had mercury removed is a better alternative than fresh fish, even though fresh fish can taste a whole lot better.
Nice & Great article . I wish I had something more insightful to see but you have pretty much covered it all here. ThanX
After read this post I think that we have to consult children specialist for it because I think that it is not good that we gave children this fish oil.
I found this blog while searching for fish oil in pregnancy today. Interesting.
I agree with Alan. People have to realize that expecting a noticeable difference after 16 weeks is not the case. It all depends on the fatty acid deficiencies of children’s brains. There should be more complex studies carried (targeting different groups of children) to provide substantive proof to defend the thesis that fish oil supplements are good for school children. I have no doubt about it, but the evidence is necessary for common approval. Good quality supplements, containing purified ingredients will not harm kids, but may only make them better. Why not to try them? If there was an easy way to convince the health authorities about the necessity of carring the trials (with different supplements), there would be more positive opinions about fatty acids and their influence on our bodies. Meanwhile my advice is to keep a common sense. You do not need to follow others just because they think something works (or doesn’t). Maybe trying fish oils will make you feel wonderful (and your kids as well)? If not, you will not lose anything – maybe some money. Isn’t it worth trying then? You can loose a little, but gain a lot. If you haven’t chosen a good supplement yet, I advise to spend some time comparing brands (you should only consider good ones, providing high concentration of EPA). My personal choice is Vegepa. What’s yours?