11 ms·

As a former Alzheimer's researcher, this is a big fucking deal. It puts together a lot of clues (APOE risk, microglia) and finds a theory that makes a lot of se

• yosito 3y ago
  Are you aware of any other studies that support this theory? In other words, is this replicable?
• ianai 3y ago
  What kind of fat is it? Like is it possible to avoid by avoiding too much fat?
  • Turskarama 3y ago
    Too early to know for sure but I'm going to say it's very unlikely, the relationship between diet and body composition is rarely so straight forward.
  • rustcleaner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • water-data-dude 3y ago
      That seems like a needlessly bitter response, why the antipathy?
      • Cornbilly 3y ago
        There is a weird crowd of people on the internet that have convinced themselves that seed oils are the cause of many ailments. It doesn’t have a ton of scientific backing but Joe Rogan promoted some guru doctor a while back that spread the idea to a lot more people.
        • Dig1t 3y ago
          >Joe Rogan promoted You mean he did an episode where he had a conversation with the doctor? Or was the doctor a sponsor of the show where he advertised products? I don't think simply having a conversation about an idea counts as promotion. Advertising is another matter though..
          • tux3 3y ago
            Having a conversation in a very public place can certainly end up promoting ideas Take a popular piece of media, inject a conversation about fringe ideas with some crackpot that would have very limited reach otherwise. This gives very high visibility to very fringe ideas. Giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints is promoting those viewpoints.
            • Dig1t 3y ago
              Promotion: "activity that supports or provides active encouragement for the furtherance of a cause" Simply discussing an idea, even giving undue weight, is not promotion. Conflating the two is dangerous as it provides justification for censorship. The free exchange of ideas and information is the only way a democracy can survive. If the idea is bad or wrong, it will be debated and ultimately defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
              • lpapez 3y ago
                > If the idea is bad or wrong, it will be debated and ultimately defeated in the marketplace of ideas. This implies the existence of a marketplace of ideas where people can freely trade thoughts. It was not the case in the past (i.e. you go to jail or are excommunicated for dissent), and it is increasingly not the case in the modern world (i.e. the algorithm is telling you what they want you to hear). You cannot have a free marketplace of ideas in a world where the forums these ideas are being discussed have an incentive of causing conflict and keeping you engaged. This is not an attack on you or anything, I just think we should all be more aware that everything we hear today has an agenda hidden behind it, which is malicious more often than honest.
    • qwerpy 3y ago
      I’m on the same page as you regarding the anti-“saturated animal fats” crowd, but I actually don’t mind them. My animal-based cooking oil spend would be a lot higher if everyone stopped buying plant-based oils.
      • dimask 3y ago
        You try to avoid oxidised UFAs and you get oxidised cholesterol instead [0], which is at least as bad and probably worse [1]. [0] https://sci-hub.se/https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf970788d https://sci-hub.se/https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf97... [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mnfr.200500063 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mnfr.200500063
    • rustcleaner 3y ago
      Biggest comment score hit in a while... (... worth it.)
      • bratbag 3y ago
        'At least I annoyed someone' is one of the biggest red flags for a fool who thinks they are smart. Parties interested in intelligent discourse will avoid you, and lurking readers will cement their opion as opposite yours. It's the scream of a child rationalising rejection.
        • gfodor 3y ago
          This is true in some forums, but not on this one. On this one, posting things that are even slightly non-consensus leads to grumbling and downvotes.
          • striking 3y ago
            Far fewer people can downvote than can upvote, though. You generally have to post something a little more evocative than "slightly non-consensus". But even taking your argument at face value, even if you take pride in having annoyed people for having expressed an opinion you find valuable, it's boring and petulant and ugly to then brag about it. Surely you can't be arguing for that kind of behavior.
            • rustcleaner 3y ago
              You know the saying: flak in the ass is a good sign you're on target!
              • gfodor 3y ago
                Yeah once it becomes clear you’re in the kind of forum I am talking about the satisfaction doesn’t come from the presumed effect on others but the signal that you actually may have said something important.
    • solumunus 3y ago
      Discounting one set of reductive misinformed ideas while putting forward another. You love to see it.
    • VMG 3y ago
      > The matched subjects who ate meat (including poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18, p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken into account https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8327020/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8327020/
      • jimrandomh 3y ago
        That's a small observational study from 1993, with p>.05 outside of the subgroup analysis. Whatever search strategy led you to it is severely flawed.
        • VMG 3y ago
          is this better? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10517714 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10517714
          • striking 3y ago
            > While we did not find statistically significant evidence to support an association of consuming relatively more plant- and fewer animal-based foods with the risk of dementia, our HR of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86–1.01) for the hPDI cannot rule out a subtle beneficial effect of healthy plant-based eating on the brain. "cannot rule out a subtle effect". Otherwise not statistically significant. Great.
            • VMG 3y ago
              it doesn't seem like plant food causes Alzheimer though
              • striking 3y ago
                Oh, yeah. Sorry, that makes sense.
      • 3y ago
    • ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
      Olive oil pulled from human consumption? Good luck with that.
  • caymanjim 3y ago
    The idea that eating fat leads to higher body fat is the most dangerously-wrong health misconception in history.
    • _heimdall 3y ago
      We've probably done more harm with the similar, and also incorrect, assumption that eating more saturated fats go directly to the blood and clog arteries.
      • antiframe 3y ago
        Can you point to some evidence that increased saturated fat consumption does not increase LDL? Or that there is no link between serum LDL levels and plaque build up? Or are you making a different claim?
        • _heimdall 3y ago
          Dr Michael Eades is a good gateway toif you're interested. He wrote a book a while ago now titled Protein Power [1], I think he is working on an update/sequel as well. At the high level, my basic claim is that the idea that dietary saturated fat directly leads to heart attack is incorrect. The history of this claim dates back to President Eisenhower. After having a heart attack while in office he wanted to tell the public how he could avoid the same fate. Researchers cut corners to meet political targets, ignoring data that disproved their hypothesis and claimed that plaque found in cadaver arteries was made of saturated fats and that it got there due to the person's diet. The claims weren't backed up by the studies used and we were told that this was now a known fact when it wasn't. We've spent many decades since avoiding saturated fats in favor of unsaturated fats, which are highly oxidative and have concerning side effects when run through the Krebs Cycle. Dr Eades also has a few interesting talks on the subject when he walks through the Krebs Cycle and the difference of saturated and unsaturated fats in case that's helpful. I think [2] is one I watch years ago, though he has other similar talks on YouTube as well. [1] https://proteinpower.com/ https://proteinpower.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MTNJNAZPiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MTNJNAZPiw
  • Sparkyte 3y ago
    Probably the combination of sugar and salt. The fats our body makes. Probably doing ketogenics and fasting reduces Alzheimer's.
  • callmeal 3y ago
    More likely we'll need to start paying attention to sugar intake. I've heard researchers call Alzheimer as "type 3 diabetes". This makes total sense to me since sugar consumption is a big driver of body fat accumalation.
  • francisofascii 3y ago
    Probably the opposite. Eating more "good" fat assuming you then have less sugar. Nuts, olive oils, omega-3s, etc.
  • pama 3y ago
    Per the Nature paper, this fat is believed to be part of an immune system response and not related to your intake or total body fat. It is also far from clear that eliminating the production or use of this fat during a microbe invasion would lead to more or less dementia down the road (a good reminder that clinical trials are useful and also risky). This work shows a very refreshing and solid hypothesis and lots of people work on it, but it’s not reason to start changing diets.
    • ianai 3y ago
      Yeah, I almost wish I hadn’t asked given the comments. Really points at an interesting mechanism though. Hopefully this means some kind of preventative or even treatment is possible.
• mobilejdral 3y ago
  Can I ask you your thoughts about CYP21A2? Been studying folks with only one working CYP21A2 due to the resulting atypical adrenal function and I noticed that their dna also contains all the genetic variants associated with Alzheimer's (some are beneficial in this case). Inquiring about the family tree of the single CYP21A2 I have yet to have someone tell me of an ancestor that died of Alzheimer's. But the family members with two good CYP21A2 (and all of the other typical Alzheimer's genetics) are the ones that end up with Alzheimer's. And for good measure, when someone has 3 CYP21A2 nearly always they will get Alzheimer's. (they also end up with Hypercortisolism). Subclinical Hypercortisolism has a long association with Alzheimer's. A deficient CYP21A2 and the decreased incidences of Alzheimer's is not talked about other than the fact that it isn't associated with Subclinical Hypercortisolism, but Subclinical Hypocortisolism instead. All of the known indirect early preventative measures for Alzheimer's result in shifting from Subclinical Hypercortisolism towards Subclinical Hypocortisolism. This was not my intended area of study, but the pattern is interesting and curious for your thoughts.
  • smeej 3y ago
    I'm really uninformed about this topic, but I'll second the request for info about this! I have Alzheimer's on three sides of my family (really banking on the fact that I take after the 4th grandmother who was sharp as a tack till 98), and while I haven't ever looked into a diagnosis of hypercorticolism, thanks to very early (in utero/neonate) trauma, my parasympathetic nervous system never learned how to clear cortisol like it should, which I'm working to remediate now. I've been operating under the assumption that Alzheimer's is a high risk in my future, but I'd love to know more about what any experts would say I could even try to do by lifestyle change or preventative treatment!
    • saintlunaire 3y ago
      May I ask how you found out your nervous system has trouble clearing cortisol? Is there a test you can do? How are you remediating it? I also have Alzheimer’s in the family and this hypercortisolism discussion feels familiar to me.
    • 3y ago
• helpfulmandrill 3y ago
  Ironically those late nights might contribute to Alzheimer's risk ;)
  • ransom1538 3y ago
    Or. Apparently, not.
• cies 3y ago
  > All around the world, there are labs pulling late nights trying to figure out how to drug this. I dont know why, but I've been under the impression for years that it was fat build-up. I remember I saw images of alzheimer brains with clogged arteries. Sure drugging would be nice, but why not figure out what in our modern diet and habits is responsible for this? Why not tell people that the insane amount of oils/fats we consume (in comparison to our primate animal relatives) is killing us and/or making us sick?
  • Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    You are assuming this is a modern disease? Why? Folks have had different sorts of dementia for centuries, though. We simply didn't have the knowledge nor the tools to differentiate one from another and tended to call things by different names. Not as many people die young now, either, so more folks are actually getting diseases that present in old age. You can't observe many old folks if there aren't any, and you won't notice as many diseases that hit mostly women if a lot of women die in childbirth. And a note: Food of yesteryear wasn't really better/healthier than now. It was different, more risky, and for most folks, was just made of whatever they happen to have and not very varied.
    • cies 3y ago
      It's not a modern disease, it simply has exploded in occurrence. This explosion is modern. This is likely due to our diet. There's a book called "the blue zones" that dives into healthy diets and lifestyles that have historically helped people grow old. > Food of yesteryear wasn't really better/healthier than now. Not all food was. But Okinawans do pretty well for a long, long time.
      • amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        I’m not so convinced about “blue zones”. A lot of longevity claims seem to disappear once modern record keeping and birth certificates come into play.
        • 3y ago
• hkt 3y ago
  Silly question, but could this be aided by simply reducing body fat down to extremely low levels?
  • benterix 3y ago
    This is not a silly question, might be one of the most important questions for those of us who are going to live long enough.
  • HlessClaudesman 3y ago
    Let's not jump to interventions just yet because prolonged low body fat comes with it's own set of serious health risks.
  • moi2388 3y ago
    No. The brain is about 60% fat. It’s not about having fat in your brain, it’s about having AND amyloid plaques AND fat in specific locations AND probably a whole host of other factors. Does eating healthy food instead of highly saturated fats provide health benefits? Yes. Does having too low levels of body fat lead to health problems? Also yes.
• amelius 3y ago
  Perhaps a stupid question but why wasn't this found earlier after examination of brain tissue?
  • michaelcampbell 3y ago
    I'm not an expert, but I've been reading lately that the plaque vector has been so well studied because it's the only direction that has been able to get funding. Conspiracy aside, this seems like a more common thing now - someone has a little bit of possible progress, and no one will give any money to any other thing, often at our detriment.
• hilbert42 3y ago
  "Back when Alzheimer's disease was first identified by Alois Alzheimer, he noted that in addition to the plaques and tau buildup, there was also a buildup of fat droplets in brain cells. Since that time, little effort has been made to determine whether they might be the cause of the disease." I'm not medical researcher but I find this statement incredible. It's over 120 years since Alzheimer did this work. Why the fuck is it just becoming a big deal now? Surely this info was in the literature back then so why was it ignored and not followed up decades ago? With Alzheimer's we've witnessed over many decades seemingly any number research leads that have gotten nowhere and have ended up as dead ends yet it's only now that we're following up an ancient lead that should have been researched many decades ago. As a lay onlooker, such revelations only further shake my faith in medical research. Every week there are many high profile PR announcements and research papers with the promise of major medical breakthroughs yet the vast percentage come to naught, or what's reported is such a miniscule incremental step towards actual medical treatment that an effective treatment might not be realized for decades, if at all. Why is medical research allowed to be hyped like this? Much of the reason why the public's faith and trust in science is at an all-time low is the undeliverable hype from medical research. After decades of hyped promises about cures and treatments which aren't delivered or that fall short of the promise people no longer believe or researchers. People are just fed up with promises that aren't delivered. It's not only research into Alzheimer's that the public feels as having fallen short, it's almost the full gamut. Take cancer research for instance, it's been grossly over hyped for many decades. Let me explain: I recall as a child in the 195Os before starting school, my mother took me to a movie matinee, there was a main feature and newsreels. I clearly remember two of the newsreel stories, one was on rockets and warfare and the other about cancer research. After the matinee I ask my mother about cancer and so as not to worry me she said "it's a rare disease you'll never have to worry about." A couple of years later when I was about 7 or 8, we were on holidays at my grandmother's place and I saw that her next-door neighbor was quite ill and my grandmother told me she was dying of cancer. That's when I found out my mother had lied to me, and even at that age I was shocked and upset that she'd done so. I've always remembered those incidents so ever since I've taken note of articles and reports about cancer in newspapers, popular science mags such as SciAm, New Scientist, and in professional journals such as Science and Nature, etc., and whilst I've not taken count, there has been many thousands of them over those many decades. Almost every one of these reports has made claims about 'promising research' or a 'possible cure' for cancer. Let's look at the facts, the vast majority of those reports and research papers has come to naught! As a guesstimate, I'd reckon that if the research in 0.1% of them had actually been positive and even partially successful and led to actual treatment that was effective then cancer would either be cured by now or at least a very manageable disease. Well, as we all know, that hasn't happened by a long measure. Yes, some progress has been made but it's a drop in the ocean, as about one third of the population still dies of cancer. No matter how one massages the stats that's not success. Fact is, whether it's cancer, Alzheimer's, drug research or other medical research, there's a never ending stream of reports that promise much, much more than they ever deliver. Another form of disingenuous hype in PR releases and medical research papers is that the title and abstract are often over hyped. Words like 'significant' or 'large improvements' are used when referring to some procedure or outcome. A full reading of the text shows the actual figure as low as 5% or so. In my opinion that verges on scientific fraud. It won't fool any researcher who reads the paper but it will a newspaper editor who only reads the title and abstract (he/she likely won't understand the body text anyway). Right, the hype goes straight through to and misleads the public. It's time the medical industry took away the rose-colored glasses and stopped the hype and bullshit about medical research. It's time medical researchers stopped publishing for the sake of it, or for career advancement, or to obtain increased funding. Publishing substandard research or research that's going to end up a dead end, or can't result in treatments for decades is not only unethical but it's unfair on those who are ill, it gives false hopes that come to nothing. Finally, the quote above backs up what many of us lay people have thought for decades, which is that much medical research is either uncoordinated and or badly misdirected.
• loceng 3y ago
  Do you know if water-only fasting is a good way and/or necessary way to help stave off or even allow regression to occur? An anti-inflammatory diet, inflammation being known as one of the ~5 root causes of Alzheimer's for awhile now, like a ketogenic diet has been known to be beneficial - but water fasting will not only lower inflammation as much as possible, it will also arguably would cause more of the fat reserves to be used up - but whether that includes fat buildup in the brain too?