Rx For Fish

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Should you eat more fish or not? That depends on your age. A report last week warned that women of child-bearing age should avoid eating certain large fish, including swordfish and shark, because the amounts of mercury they contain, though safe for adults, could readily harm children and the unborn. But if you are older, it's a different fish story. A paper published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association advises that middle-aged women should eat more fish to offset the risk of thrombotic stroke. Such strokes are caused by a clot built up on the wall of a brain artery. ¿We observed a significant inverse association between fish intake and risk of stroke, primarily thrombotic stroke, after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and selected dietary variables,¿ the authors write. ¿Compared with women who ate fish less than once per month, those with higher intakes of fish had a lower risk of total stroke.¿

Hiroyasu Iso of Brigham and Women¿s Hospital and Harvard Medical School and colleagues base their recommendation on a study that followed 79,839 women from 1980 to 1994. The women, who ranged in age from 34 to 59 years old at the beginning of the 14-year study, were all enrolled in the Nurses¿ Health Study. After adjusting for age, smoking and other cardiovascular risk factors, the scientists found that women who ate fish one to three times per month had a 7 percent lower risk of stroke than those who ate fish less than once a month. Women who ate fish once a week had a 22 percent risk reduction; those who ate fish two to four times a week had a 27 percent lower risk; and those who ate fish five or more times per week had a 52 percent lower risk.

The benefits were particularly dramatic in women who did not regularly take aspirin, which itself has been credited with lowering the risk of stroke. And not surprisingly, the researchers found no link between fish consumption and the likelihood of suffering a hemorrhagic stroke¿which is caused not by a clot but instead when a blood vessel in or near the brain ruptures. The authors believe the lowered stroke risk comes from n3 fatty acids in the fish that can reduce the aggregation of blood components called platelets. ¿High-dose supplementation of n3 fatty acids also lowers blood pressure levels in hypertensive persons, and reduces plasma fibrinogen concentrations in healthy volunteers,¿ they write. ¿These effects may contribute to the prevention of atherosclerotic development and the thrombotic process.¿

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe