13 ms·
Study links omega-3s to improved brain structure, cognition at midlife
- civilized 4y agoMy hobby: arguing the arrow of causation goes in the opposite direction as the study authors want to suggest. Allow me to demonstrate. In this case, obviously, omega-3s are merely a sign of eating expensive fish, which is a sign of affluence, which is a sign of genetically driven higher mental acuity.
- pengaru 4y ago> In this case, obviously, omega-3s are merely a sign of eating expensive fish, which is a sign of affluence, which is a sign of genetically driven higher mental acuity. Except it's the cheaper low-brow canned fish like Sardines that contain more Omega-3s AFAIK.
- PaulHoule 4y agoSalmon is expensive and has more omega-3 than some other fish but they make the fish oil pills by grinding up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menhaden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menhaden which people can't stand to eat.
- hericium 4y agoS.M.A.S.H. (sardines, mackerel, anchovies, salmon, herring) are rich in Omegas 3 and naturally have low levels of toxins and mercury.
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y agoI wanna say I'm gonna be able to remember that acronym at the next social event but its going to be more fun getting everyone to fill in the blanks.
- mrtree 4y ago
- mythrwy 4y agoArguably, eating fish is only a sign of affluence in areas where fish is not plentiful and cheap. But I like your hobby!
- PaulHoule 4y agoI was just talking to my wife about it. Her opinion is that fish in the US is more expensive than chicken and more comparable to beef in that cheap fish is similar in price to cheap beef and expensive fish like expensive beef.
- adrian_b 4y agoWhen comparing fish with the meat of terrestrial vertebrates it must always be taken into account that the water content of raw fish meat is much higher, so one pound of raw fish does not have the same nutritional value as one pound of raw chicken meat or beef meat. If the fish is bought frozen, even more of the paid weight is water, so the water content would have to be accounted when comparing prices. Fish may be much more expensive than it seems when just looking at the price tag, even 50% more expensive per protein content (raw poultry meat has about 25% protein content, while raw fish fillet has between 15% and 20% protein content).
- makeitdouble 4y agoI wonder if fish is that cheap even in area where fishing is a big industry. Compared to meat, growing and processing fish looks more finicky and expensive, and in particular fresh fish with vitamins and nutriments still intact looks to be pretty big logistics challenge driving prices up. For instance in Japan fish isn't cheap by any measure compared to chicken or pork for instance.
- inglor_cz 4y agoI just visited Riga, Latvia, and fish seemed to be fairly affordable there.
- tiku 4y agoI thought of the same thing. Eating fish often says you have a well balanced diet.
- puttycat 4y ago
- barbarbar 4y agoThere is also the option for "fish oil" on a bottle. I have recently tried that - but it is... not that delicious.
- _c3ag 4y agoit hurts to read, but how about the ethical if you care… AND the poor-human way? flaxseeds and chia are cheap for what they provide! and dirt cheap if you have time & possibility to buy directly from a farmer
- ackfoobar 4y agoI read somewhere that those omega-3s from seeds are less effective than those in fish, as a conversion step is needed.
- puttycat 4y ago
- _c3ag 4y agoand please _c3ag, adopt any poor children at early age and let them eat books and consume any type of scientific podcast and feel how they build up!
- nordsieck 4y ago> flaxseeds and chia are cheap for what they provide! My understanding is that the Omega-3 from these is not particularly bio-avaiable compared to fish/krill oil.
- puttycat 4y ago
- _c3ag 4y agoyeah… so just eat more! less than 4 spoons should be enough. and having only ALA and not EPA/DHA as source of omega-3 will slowly lead to your body be more efficient at transforming (ALA to EPA/DHA) https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/suppl_1/449S/4576612 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/suppl_1/449S/45766... and there is plenty of educative websites searching for “vegan” and omega-3 sources… edit: ops my bad! thought i could reach one of the studies that conclude this by Googling but nope, i linked the wrong one :D here is your dose of research, https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1040/4597496 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1040/4597496
- rgbrenner 4y agoAffluence is a sign of "genetically driven higher mental acuity"? Source?
- bjoli 4y agoIt might be a sign of better nutrition during childhood. Things like iron from 6 months and up have a pretty big effect on brain function later in life.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nextlevelwizard 4y agoAnd if this was studied and proven to be true then all you contrarians would again reverse the arrow of causation saying that "no no no, it is not the iron supplements it is X". Yes, of course we can not ethically proof that any one supplement has some precise effect, but instead of burying your head in the sand you can follow some general trends.
- civilized 4y ago> And if this was studied and proven to be true then all you contrarians would again reverse the arrow of causation saying that "no no no, it is not the iron supplements it is X". The point here is that this study didn't prove anything - it's an observational study. The results are consistent with a range of possibilities, not just the ones the study authors were the most interested in promoting to the public. Academic guesses about causation are often wrong, and they're often biased towards what's interesting to academics and what raises the profile of their research. So it's important to highlight other possibilities, especially the "boring" ones that wouldn't get as much attention for the study authors. There are high-quality studies that actually prove things. For example, we know the impact of lead on IQ because of direct interventions (children who have lead above a certain threshold undergo chelation therapy, so you can compare those right below to those right above).
- bee_rider 4y ago
- jallen_dot_dev 4y agoAbstract says they adjusted for potential confounders. Presumably wealth was one of them, as that seems like an obvious thing to control for in any health study.
- civilized 4y agoOr maybe o3's lead to intelligence which leads to wealth, and controlling for wealth would underestimate the true effect of o3's. I have no dog in this race :)
- nurettin 4y agoI have an obviously better explanation: In this case, the correlation has to do with being health-conscious which leads to better health and is linked to ingesting o3. And the reason we argue causation is the simple fact that the mechanism behind the correlation is not explained in a clear chemical way.
- civilized 4y agoSo health-conscious people consume more o3 because the health authorities tell them it's good, but what actually works is some other thing they do, probably just avoiding obesity and sedentary lifestyle?
- nurettin 4y agoExactly, and other behavior like thinking twice before ingesting something probably offsetd whatever harm health authorities may (perhaps unwillingly) cause.
- weberer 4y agoCanned tuna is 50 cents a can. Sardines are a dollar a can.
- gubernation 4y ago[flagged]
- disabled 4y agoThis is fairly well known. But generally, these tips are the way to go: https://www.ted.com/talks/sandrine_thuret_you_can_grow_new_brain_cells_here_s_how https://www.ted.com/talks/sandrine_thuret_you_can_grow_new_b... Anyways, I personally take: 1. nano encapsulated punicic acid (called Granagard), which crosses the blood brain barrier effectively (search "nano-pso" on Google Scholar) 2. sulforaphane/sulphoraphane (spelling depends on where you are located) 3. co-ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide + luteolin 4. ubiquinol 5. methylated b vitamins (~50% of the population has a MTHFR variant that generally requires you to need methylated B vitamins, versus regular B vitamins) 6. high doses of gamma linolenic acid (I use evening primrose oil and Jarrow brand is trusted) 7. algae omega 3
- nanidin 4y agoDo you notice a difference?
- PaulHoule 4y agoOne of those disturbing things about nootropics is that people frequently stack a large number of them so the effects of any particular one is unclear. There are also questions about what exactly a substance is. Years ago I bought a tub of Piracetam that felt a little bit like that stuff in the movie Limitless. No Piracetam I bought afterwards felt that way so I wonder if I'd really gotten something more like amphetamine.
- adriand 4y agoYou can also find vegan sources of these nutrients, such as algae oil, which keeps you from contributing to the devastation of the oceans - not to mention protecting you from being poisoned by mercury and microplastics.
- anonuser123456 4y agoVegan sources are ALA, not EPA or DHA. ALA has no documented positive impact on human health.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoYou're probably thinking of land-based sources of omega-3 fatty acids, such as linseed, which are indeed composed only of ALA. Algae oil, on the other hand, is rich in EPA and DHA. In fact, fish themselves don't synthesise their own EPA but obtain it from the algae they (or their prey) feed on.
- TekMol 4y agoDo you have a source for this, that fish do not create their own EPA but obtain it from algae?
- jbernsteiniv 4y ago"Marine Cryptophytes are Great Sources of DHA and EPA" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793051/ "Like humans, fish obtain EPA and DHA from their diet, basically from microalgae, some of which could be used in commercial PUFA production."
- adrian_b 4y agoFew fish eat directly unicellular algae or other unicellular protists, which are indeed the main producers of DHA and EPA. Those unicellular living beings are normally eaten by small animals, e.g. copepods, which are eaten by small fish, which are eaten by big fish. Thus all of them get the required DHA and EPA.
- stewbrew 4y agoSo let's ignore all possible confounders, don't even start asking questions, and focus on some random detail because my supervisor is a huge fan of it.
- neuroma 4y agoThey did adjust for confounders available in the Framington heart study. Observational studies are less good at showing causation, sure. Whilst I can't see the original article, the news summary insinuated a dose related effect. A sample size of >2000 is also decent. Naturally in an ideal world you'd want a 3 arm, 20 year long, randomised placebo controlled double blinded study. But who would ever 1. Pay for it, 2. Wait that long.
- stewbrew 4y agoThe problem with large sample sizes is that random deviations show up as significant difference unless you have a responsible statistician in the team.
- garrettgrimsley 4y ago>We used linear regression models to relate Omega-3 fatty acid concentrations to brain MRI measures (i.e., total brain, total gray matter, hippocampal, and white matter hyperintensity volumes) and cognitive function (i.e., episodic memory, processing speed, executive function, and abstract reasoning) adjusting for potential confounders. https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/05/WNL.0000000000201296 https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/05/WNL.0000000... Unless you have good reason you ought not be so uncharitable. Have you good reason?
- stewbrew 4y agoI cannot access the original paper and I don't have the time for it. Was the study registered in advance? Did they also test other outcome variables and then did cherry picking? Which potential confounders did they test? How do they cope with the problem that they measured something at the end of a longer process? When I see such studies, on closer inspection, they often turn out to be crap. It could be this really is a gem among a pile of gravels (my apologies if that were the case) but I'm sceptical.
- hervature 4y agoDid not read the paper but did not find any reference to omega 6 nor the ratio of omega 6 to 3. There are studies showing that the ratio is more important than the amount of omega 3 [1]. Because humans typically eat 16:1 (6 to 3) increasing 3 is actually just making the ratio more even which is what matters. A good food for this is flaxseed which is 1:3.5 which is less than fish which can be 1:30 or higher but does not come with the problems of consuming fish. In this reference frame, one can think of avoiding bad ratio foods instead of eating fish. Turns out that basically the most common oils and red meat have ratios of 20:1 (the wrong way) and so just avoiding oil and red meat ends up accomplishing the same goal. As always, nutrition causality is hard to establish, but trying to cut way back on oils and red meat is going to pay much larger dividends than eating more fish. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/
- jonmc12 4y agoOmega-3 index is better correlated with overall health than O3/O6 ratio. Also, flaxseed is a source of ALAs whereas early all O3 health benefits come from DHA/EPA. A great source of info is Dr Rhonda Patrick's interviews w/ Dr Bill Harris. Here is a short clip - https://share.descript.com/view/2w6WidsYZlT https://share.descript.com/view/2w6WidsYZlT
- strken 4y agoALA is metabolised to EPA and DHA, albeit in a pretty lossy way. Is there some reason it wouldn't work as well?
- astrange 4y agoThe rate for that seems to depend on the person, and IIRC has been suggested to only happen for women.
- hosh 4y agoIt happens for men, just that it is a low conversion rate. The conversion rate is even higher for women who are pregnent or breastfeeding, which makes sense from an natural adaptation point of view. You can also elevate the level of DHA in chicken eggs (up to a point) by feeding the chickens flax seed in their diet. Seems like DHA is nutritious for any young, growing brains. The key thing about the ALA conversion in women is that you're not going to OD on it. Having too much DHA gives you insomnia (though, that is not such a bad thing if by circumstances, you are already sleep deprived). I havn't seen any papers on it, but my personal experience is that the ratio of DHA to EPA is also important for mental health. EPA seems to help with smoothing out burnout and protect against spiraling into depression.
- shmde 4y agoIs the "Find an expensive alternative to a substance which is easily available/cheap" uniquely an american thing ? Milk? Nah we have almond milk/soya milk/xyz milk. Cottage cheese ? Nah we have tofu, protein through meat ? Nah we have beans, Omega 3 by just eating a goddamn fish which is available in the grocery store ? Nah I am gonna eat some processed capsule.
- inglor_cz 4y agoNot an American, but I hate most fish. The smell is just revolting. I can tolerate sushi somehow, but just walking through a fishery is ordeal for me. "Eating goddamn fish" for me is what "eating goddamn dog" would be for you. Give me the capsule.
- iamacyborg 4y agoI also can’t stand fish, the vegan capsules are a lifesaver as there’s no fishy after taste to deal with either
- pmoriarty 4y ago"Cottage cheese ? Nah we have tofu" These have completely different tastes and consistencies... especially if you're talking about firm/frozen tofu. Cottage cheese is not an adequate substitute. Not to mention that milk, which cottage cheese is made of comes from cows, and many people have ethical objections to factory farming of animals. "protein through meat ? Nah we have beans" Again, many people avoid eating animals for ethical reasons (or health reasons)... and, again, these are not equivalent in taste or consistency. There are taste/consistency reasons why burritos and chili, for example, have beans in them and not just meat. "Omega 3 by just eating a goddamn fish which is available in the grocery store ? Nah I am gonna eat some processed capsule." Some people have concerns about consuming too much mercury when eating fish, and want alternatives because of that, others because of ethical reasons once again. Are these all uniquely American concerns? I don't think so. Just consider Asia, where eating tofu has been the norm for a very long time. Vegetarianism is also very popular in India and some other parts of the world.
- bigbluedots 4y ago
- myle 4y agoI used to take omega-3 fish oil for about a month. My cholesterol levels went through the roof, even though I was taking only a spoon a day as recommended. For anyone who tries it, I strongly recommend to stop a blood exams before and a month or two afterwards.
- RandomWorker 4y agoDepending of what is the content probably you only needed 1 spoon every month. The level of spoon of fish oil can be up in the 10.000s.
- mrmuagi 4y agoI'm finding it can increase LDL in some cases apparently. I have been taking it daily for past year and my HDL and LDL levels improved though. Although, my diet and exercise regimine improved drastically.
- thelittleone 4y agoWhich cholesterol went through the roof? Because there's a lot of misinformation and myths, for example "all cholesterol is bad for you" [1] among others. https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/myths_facts.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/myths_facts.htm
- aszantu 4y agoproblem with eating more fish - you're also eating more heavy metals which potentially destroy braincells
- jbotz 4y agoThis is a problem only with fish that are relatively high on the food chain (such as tuna), as each rung on the ladder effectively acts as a multiplier for heavy metals accumulation. Also fish that are high on the food chain are usually caught older (larger) so they've had much more time to accumulate heavy metals (I just today saw a headline saying "the snapper you're eating may have been 60 years old"). You could live your whole life eating nothing but canned sardines (which are caught young and small) and you'd never have a mercury toxicity problem (at least with the levels of mercury contamination in the oceans today). Another thing is that fish oil supplements do not seem to suffer any heavy metal contamination; partly because the fish used for this purpose happen to be low on the food chain, and partly because of the way the fish oil is processed. There have been a couple of studies where they actually tested more than a dozen common (i.e. supermarket availability) fish oil supplements and found zero mercury or other heavy metal contamination in most of them and only insignificant trace levels in one or two IIRC.
- Py-o7 4y agoThis. I eat tuna at most once a month. You also excrete a lot of metals via vigorous sweating (as well as urine and stool). All the more reason to do sustained cardio (or sauna) plus drink lots of water and eat lots of fibrous food. I.e. having a well rounded 'generically healthy' lifestyle (though I am suggesting a lot more sweating than most Americans are used to).
- goodpoint 4y agoNot to mention the environmental destruction. Use vegan sources.
- aszantu 4y agosadly, I suffer migraines when I ingest plant fats. Except for cocos fat, which isn't very sustainable even if organic - it has been transported around the world before it gets in my diet - and usually rain-forest has been killed to plant cocos.
- casey2 4y ago
- MengerSponge 4y agoI don't have access to the full article (it isn't on Sci-hub either), but can someone check if they control for income? While I can believe the claims of this work, they might have just found a spurious correlation.
- jjuliano 4y agoHigh quantities of omega-3s are present in fish offal. However, in our country, we only consume the offal of a reliable, clean fish, such as "i.e. Milkfish." We cook them and eat them either "boiled pickled fish" style or in sour soups.
- IvanaDora 4y ago
- netmonk 4y agoCan we have a little more context from the study. Nothing is said about diet pattern and content. Given the fact that modern diet is mostly linoleic acid (omega6) known to be very poisonous. Known the fact the omega3 can remediate a little the negative effect of omega6 poisonous effect. Aren’t this study just observing this remediation effect that should not exist if we were respecting natural diet for human: low in PUFA, high in SFA. So know let’s setup a clear study between high SFA group (with zero o6) and high pUFa group. Anything else is just science tartuffery.
- beowulfey 4y agoLinoleic acid is an essential nutrient—we must eat it as a part of our diet. Did you mean poisonous at high dosages?
- adrian_b 4y ago"Poisonous" is not the right word, but at high daily intakes linoleic acid begins to have various detrimental effects, like preventing the synthesis of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids or competing with various other activities of the liver, which now has to convert the excess linoleic acid into other fatty acids. The cheapest vegetable oils have a very high proportion of linoleic acid, so when they are used for cooking it is very easy to ingest an excessive amount of linoleic acid. Among the oils with a good proportion for the linoleic acid are the olive oil and the so-called "high oleic sunflower oil" (not the traditional sunflower oil). The canola oil also has a good proportion, but I have no experience with using it. Among nuts and seeds there are some with a high content of linoleic acid, e.g. pine nuts or poppy seeds, but such nuts or seeds are unlikely to be ever eaten in a so great quantity as to cause problems, unlike the cooking oils. Many nuts, e.g. almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, cashews, peanuts, have a good proportion of linoleic acid.
- xchip 4y agoSure, an 'improvement' of a 0.00001% is still an improvement
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Test0129 4y agoCool, yet another reason to take good quality fish oil. I take a good quality Fish Oil and get yearly blood work. Noticed a DRAMATIC decrease in Triglyceride levels. Now I have yet another reason to continue keeping this ritual.
- copperx 4y agoWatch out for prostate cancer.
- shahinghasemi 4y agoWhat fish oil are you using?
- bradmcgo 4y agoIt’s strange. Whenever I take liquid Omega-3s, I feel… off. It seems to make me feel mentally lethargic. I know that’s super vague but I’m not sure how else to describe it.
- Py-o7 4y agoI'd encourage people to actually read the above link. It is very early days and quite far from definitive, but an encouraging attempt that's of special interest for people who are APOE-4 positive and/or have a family history of Alzheimers. Setting aside early onset Alzheimers, which is arguably a different disease, Alzheimers has major genetic and (ill specified) lifestyle components, tends to manifest in one's ~70s but the damage is believed to start accumulating several decades earlier, hence this study on people in their 40's is of interest. I still think regular cardio work has the best evidence behind it but if you are at heightened risk of Alzheimers, be pragmatic and make the best out of fuzzy data.