15 ms·

Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids as a protective factor of myopia

yalok 1y ago
Summary from GPT (wow, not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health): Omega-3 fats seem to protect against myopia, while saturated fats seem to increase the risk. Other nutrients didn’t show clear effects. Foods rich in omega-3 (protective foods) • Fatty fish: salmon, mackerel, sardines, tuna, herring, anchovies • Seafood: oysters, mussels • Plant sources: flaxseeds, chia seeds, walnuts, hemp seeds • Oils: flaxseed oil, canola oil, soybean oil • Fortified foods: some eggs, dairy, or juices enriched with omega-3 Foods high in saturated fats (risk foods) • Fatty meats: beef, lamb, pork, processed meats (sausages, bacon) • Dairy: butter, cheese, cream, whole milk, ice cream • Baked goods: pastries, cookies, cakes made with butter or shortening • Fast foods: fried chicken, burgers, pizza • Coconut and palm oil products (though plant-based, they’re high in saturated fats) So the takeaway is: More fish, nuts, and seeds may help protect children’s eyes, while too many fatty meats, butter, and fried foods may raise the risk of myopia.
- privatelypublic 1y ago
  Milk/cheese is hardly the best/only source of calcium.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Although high omega-3 with saturated fats may protect against the effect of only a diet high and saturated fats. If I was not on my phone, I would look up the studies on this. :)
- AstroBen 1y ago
  > not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health Non-fat dairy. Greek yogurt + walnuts + berries
  - j45 1y ago
    Low/no-fat cheeses are available too. The kitchen is a pharmacy.
- angiolillo 1y ago
  > wow, not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health The importance of dairy is overblown, especially in the US where the dairy industry funds a lot of school nutrition initiatives. I helped out around a cousin's dairy farm as a kid but eventually discovered that I'm part of the ~2/3rds of the world population that doesn't digest dairy well. You'll get calcium as long as you eat some white/navy beans, tofu, kale, okra, collards, broccoli raab, chia, or even "calcium fortified" foods.
- alphazard 1y ago
  There has historically been a lot of flawed research about saturated fat. Sugar and fat together is always fattening, and being obese comes with a lot of risk. > Summary from GPT This whole post is filled with bad implicit advice. No one should stop eating meat to make their eyesight better. No one should add canola oil to their diet as a source of Omega 3.
  - adrian_b 1y ago
    Yeah, also soybean oil would be as useless as canola oil. Among vegetable oils, flaxseed oil is the best source of ALA, while also walnut oil and hemp oil have decent amounts. However many humans, especially many men, have a too low capacity for elongating ALA into DHA and EPA, so they may remain deficient in omega-3 fatty acids even when eating decent amounts of ALA from flaxseed oil or the like. Because you normally do not know your own biosynthetic abilities, it is less risky to eat fish oil or Schizochytrium oil, instead of flaxseed oil.
- rsync 1y ago
  "... wow, not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health ..." A disappointing level of knowledge and sophistication in this late, 21st century era. Your bone health is almost entirely correlated to the load bearing exercise and gravity stress that you put on your musculoskeletal system. Fine optimizations to your diet (just like fine optimizations everywhere in life) are only sensible after you've taken care of the big, macro factors.
  - ac29 1y ago
    > Your bone health is almost entirely correlated to the load bearing exercise and gravity stress that you put on your musculoskeletal system. This is a somewhat bold claim. I have literally zero dairy in my diet or calcium fortified alternatives. My best estimate is that without supplementation I would get 20-50% of the recommended calcium intake. Is your suggestion that lifting weights is better than a calcium supplement for bone heath in this case?
nickparker 1y ago
I have a fun omega-3 anecdata point going right now. A friend of mine researches the stuff in mouse models and told me it's extremely beneficial, but you need to buy a fancy brand to avoid rancid oil or heavy metal contamination both of which ~null out the benefits. She recommended Sports Research. I bought some and started taking it and my 1:1 bullet chess ELO jumped from 850 to ~1070 over the next couple weeks. I play chess a bit like sushi ginger for the mind - purge working memory with a short intense task to context switch. I intentionally don't study openings or anything so I can use it as a benchmark for mental horsepower with a reasonably slow drift in the baseline from 'actually learning chess'. My friend says this effect is way too big to actually attribute to the vitamins and it has to be placebo etc but I'm thoroughly enjoying the idea that omega-3 Nick would win 3/4 bullet matches against deficient Nick. https://www.chess.com/member/nickparkerprint/stats/bullet?days=365 https://www.chess.com/member/nickparkerprint/stats/bullet?da...
- rainworld 1y ago
  Revealed: many common omega-3 fish oil supplements are ‘rancid’ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/17/revealed-many-common-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-are-rancid https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/17/revealed...
  - j45 1y ago
    Kirkland Omega 3’s seem to be decent, hope they are.
    - reducesuffering 1y ago
      They are pitifully low in EPA/DHA per $
      - j45 1y ago
        Agreed, it’s why I’m taking multiples. Open to other omega 3’s if there’s any recommendations.
savorypiano 1y ago
This should be studied across different populations, not just one which is known for myopia.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  I disagree, I think they need to study specific populations for specific diseases associated with different diets. If you study this across population where this doesn’t matter as much then they will say omega-3 has no effect on nearsightedness, which is bad for the population that needs omega-3. Omega-3 saved me from the fate of my family, dying from a heart attack before I was 50. And I see this need in my genetics, specifically FADS1 FADS2 polymorphisms that make me need higher chain omega-3 fatty acids like from seafood.
  - j45 1y ago
    Agree. Omega 3 is well studied. Things don’t have have to be proven universally for every human, but omega 3 seems pretty universal.
bilsbie 1y ago
I just can’t imagine how you’d remove healthy user bias from a study like this.
hellojebus 1y ago
This reminded me of the Knowledge Project podcast with Dr. Rhonda Patrick on certain biomarkers, including omega index as an indicator for longer life span. https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/dr-rhonda-patrick/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/dr-rhonda-patrick/
- ruibiks 1y ago
  [dead]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
How much was the highest-quartile group consuming?
simianwords 1y ago
Hi any trusted review of Nordic Natural's fish oil please?
nemo44x 1y ago
Omega 3 helps manage triglycerides which when high make managing insulin difficult which results in the liver putting more glucose in the blood. This can create poor vision as high glucose damages eyes. Wonder if this is related.
whatever1 1y ago
Compare Chinese and Indian myopia frequencies. One country loves fish the other is mostly vegetarian.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Both of these cultures are genetically adapted to the foods they need. So comparing these populations will not reveal anything about myopia in certain populations.
  - whatever1 1y ago
    Why? Who died of Myopia and did not pass their gene to the next gen ?
    - gs17 1y ago
      You wouldn't die "of myopia", you would die because myopia means you didn't see things that might be hazardous.
    - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
      I’m sorry you’re missing my point. If a culture grows up eating a lot of long chain poly unsaturated fatty acids, and then suddenly they stop, then the myopia develops. In populations that depend on a very heavy vegetarian diet, which is comprise primarily of shortchange, polyunsaturated fatty acids, they might have other issues not related to myopia when they go off of their traditional diet. Myopia in my opinion is a result of the industrialization of food.
- amai 1y ago
  Is that a joke? The myopia rate in China is much higher than in India: China's myopia rate is 31%: 400 million of its 1.3 billion people are myopic. The prevalence of myopia in high school in China is 77%, and in college is more than 80%. A study indicated that the prevalence of myopia among urban children in India of aged 5 to 15 increased from 4.44% in 1999 to 21.15% in 2019. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia
fortran77 1y ago
I hate to sound like one of those "Do Your Own Research" types, but as far as I can tell, there are only a few supplements that have repeatedly shown _some_ benefits in peer-reviewed replicated studies for general health: Vitamin D, Omega 3, and possibly Magnesium and Creatine. So I stopped taking a daily multivitamin and I just take modest doeses of these 4 supplemements every day.
- moduspol 1y ago
  It may depend on what you count as a supplement. Fiber and protein are pretty good to supplement, though obviously you can also get them from diet. And testosterone (at least for males), though not without side effects.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > Vitamin D, Omega 3, and possibly Magnesium and Creatine. Vitamin D supplementation is mildly helpful for those with low baseline levels. However the benefits have been exaggerated across the internet and podcasts. A lot of studies show no measured reduction in things like frequency of respiratory infections ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38178229/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38178229/ for example, which funnily enough had the Vitamin D3 treated men getting more respiratory infections). Omega 3 has also been greatly exaggerated. Later large scale studies have shown minimal to no effects. Magnesium is another one that can be helpful for those who are deficient, but due to the long duration within the body a lot of the supplement fanatics who consume large doses of magnesium might be getting too much over time. Gwern did some self-experimentation where magnesium might have possibly been net negative over time: https://gwern.net/nootropic/magnesium https://gwern.net/nootropic/magnesium Creatine is the latest trend. If you believe the latest trends you need to consume a huge amount daily and it will fight off everything from depression to low energy. This is another one where the most impressive studies are all very small, but the larger the study the less impressive the results. The influencers only talk about the small, impressive studies, of course.
  - theologic 1y ago
    It turns out that the vast majority of the USA POPULATION, which I think we have some of the best data for, is magnesium deficient or 50%. The issue is basically vitamins are a catalyst, and is very difficult to justify putting more catalyst into any type of chemical equation. So overdosing on magnesium doesn't make a lot of sense to me. By the way, I also love Gwern.
andrewla 1y ago
Have not read the underlying study but given that it is a generic nutrition and vision study, this seems like a clear case of p-hacking. At best it could be a "here is something that might merit future research". They find that one of the nutrient factors studied is positively correlated with improved vision at p=0.01. https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
Aurornis 1y ago
This is a small study (n=1005) that only included children age 6-8. The way they're shotgunning a long list of nutrients against a list of eye parameters screams p-hacking to me, so I wouldn't get excited about this result. Omega-3 and fish oil stories always attract a lot of impossibly positive claims, but real-world studies are rarely as good as the anecdotes. I would also caution people that fish oil isn't entirely benign to supplement with, despite common wisdom suggesting it's risk-free. Fish oil supplements can induce depressive-like symptoms in some people and high dose fish oil is a known trigger for mania in certain people with mood disorders. You can find countless puzzled posts from people wondering why fish oil is making them feel bad: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com+fish+oil+makes+me+depressed https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com+fish+oil+m... These outcomes are unlikely, but watch for them. It's really sad when someone is taking high dose fish oil because they're desperate for depression relief and all of the influencers say it's good for depression, then months later they run out of pills for a few days and are surprised that they feel better. Before I get accused of exaggerating anecdotes, there are also randomized clinical trials with an order of magnitude more patients than this study that show a slight increase in depression, opposite of the expected reduction in mood disorders: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787320 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787320
- theologic 1y ago
  First, I am not trying to object to your point, but I do wanna point out this is a classical problem with the medicinal field. In that they show an outstanding inability to understand how to actually process data in light of survivorship bias. Do we know survivorship bias is here in your large study? Obviously not, but it is a strong concern. And one of the classic reasons these studies are very poor at establishing clear causation. So, lets start by framing the study differently: 1. 10% drop out 2. 6-7% in the non-Omega3 get depressed, which is now down to 90% of the population 3. 6-75 in the 0mega3 depressed, which is now down to 90% of the population My first question is, "Do we think that depressed people are more likely to follow a rigorous protocol for making sure they are highly adherent to taking their Omega-3s, or do we think that this group would tend to drop out of the study? To me my hypothesis is clearly that depressive people tend to be less adherent. This seems intuitively obvious to anybody that knows anybody with depression. At the very least, this should be a massive red flag. The study assumes those missing participants are “missing completely at random,” rather than systematically related to the key outcome: depressive symptoms. If participants who developed new or worsening depression were more likely to leave the study (a real possibility in mood research), the results would disproportionately reflect those who stayed well—not those most at risk. The study does acknowledge in its methods that follow-up missingness was treated as random and that participants administratively censored were presumed “missing completely at random.” However, this assumption ignores the real-world possibility that depressive symptoms themselves most likely drives dropout. Without targeted analysis of why people left, the null results risk underestimating any true link between omega-3 and depression prevention, making this a textbook example of unaddressed survivorship bias in clinical trial design and reporting.
esbranson 1y ago
> Cтатья отсутствует в базе I was unable to access the OP's source, but I do want to point out there are several ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with different nutrient characteristics. Thanks be to Chat G for banging this out, but I like many people have had this drilled in. ALA (α-linolenic acid, 18:3 n-3) is an essential fatty acid. It's nutritional role is primarily as a precursor to the other ω-3 PUFAs, humans can elongate and desaturate ALA into longer-chain ω-3s (EPA, DPA, DHA), but the conversion efficiency is very limited (<5% to EPA, <1% to DHA for most people). ALA cannot be converted from EPA, DHA, or DPA. Sources are primarily plant oils (flaxseed, chia, walnuts, canola, soy). If this is your only source of ω-3 PUFAs, you're unhealthy. EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid, 20:5 n-3) is (conditionally) essential. Its role is anti-inflammatory, a precursor for resolvins, cardiovascular protection, eye and brain signaling, and a precursor to DHA synthesis in limited amounts. Sources are marine foods (fatty fish: salmon, mackerel, sardines, anchovies). DHA (docosahexaenoic acid, 22:6 n-3) is (conditionally) essential. Its role is as a major structural lipid in the retina, brain, and neural tissues, visual function, cognitive development, and neuronal membranes. Sources are marine foods (same as EPA) plus algae oils. DPA (docosapentaenoic acid, 22:5 n-3) is an intermediate between EPA and DHA. Don't know. Sources are fish and red meat (esp. grass-fed ruminants). In practice EPA, DHA, and DPA conversion from ALA is too inefficient, so direct dietary sources (fish, seafood, algal oil) are the meaningful way humans obtain enough EPA/DHA. That's why nutrition guidelines (WHO, FAO, NIH, EFSA) often treat EPA + DHA as conditionally essential, especially for infants (where DHA is critical for retina and brain development) and for populations with low fish intake. Eat fish. As always, a balanced and diverse diet is a key requirement for health. For those who don't know, sardines are less fishy than tuna (hardly at all IMO), cheap, widely accessible, and pretty sure they have low mercury risk.
amai 1y ago
If that would be the case, why is myopia on the rise in Asia, where people eat a lot of fish?
cyberax 1y ago
My anecdata: I have a moderate case of dry eyes, so I tried fish oil and then vegan omega-3 supplements. They did nothing whatsoever. IPL and RF treatments eventually helped, though.

Summary from GPT (wow, not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health): Omega-3 fats seem to protect against myopia, while saturated fats seem to increase the risk. Other nutrients didn’t show clear effects. Foods rich in omega-3 (protective foods) • Fatty fish: salmon, mackerel, sardines, tuna, herring, anchovies • Seafood: oysters, mussels • Plant sources: flaxseeds, chia seeds, walnuts, hemp seeds • Oils: flaxseed oil, canola oil, soybean oil • Fortified foods: some eggs, dairy, or juices enriched with omega-3 Foods high in saturated fats (risk foods) • Fatty meats: beef, lamb, pork, processed meats (sausages, bacon) • Dairy: butter, cheese, cream, whole milk, ice cream • Baked goods: pastries, cookies, cakes made with butter or shortening • Fast foods: fried chicken, burgers, pizza • Coconut and palm oil products (though plant-based, they’re high in saturated fats) So the takeaway is: More fish, nuts, and seeds may help protect children’s eyes, while too many fatty meats, butter, and fried foods may raise the risk of myopia.

privatelypublic 1y ago
Milk/cheese is hardly the best/only source of calcium.
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
Although high omega-3 with saturated fats may protect against the effect of only a diet high and saturated fats. If I was not on my phone, I would look up the studies on this. :)
AstroBen 1y ago
> not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health Non-fat dairy. Greek yogurt + walnuts + berries
- j45 1y ago
  Low/no-fat cheeses are available too. The kitchen is a pharmacy.
angiolillo 1y ago
> wow, not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health The importance of dairy is overblown, especially in the US where the dairy industry funds a lot of school nutrition initiatives. I helped out around a cousin's dairy farm as a kid but eventually discovered that I'm part of the ~2/3rds of the world population that doesn't digest dairy well. You'll get calcium as long as you eat some white/navy beans, tofu, kale, okra, collards, broccoli raab, chia, or even "calcium fortified" foods.
alphazard 1y ago
There has historically been a lot of flawed research about saturated fat. Sugar and fat together is always fattening, and being obese comes with a lot of risk. > Summary from GPT This whole post is filled with bad implicit advice. No one should stop eating meat to make their eyesight better. No one should add canola oil to their diet as a source of Omega 3.
- adrian_b 1y ago
  Yeah, also soybean oil would be as useless as canola oil. Among vegetable oils, flaxseed oil is the best source of ALA, while also walnut oil and hemp oil have decent amounts. However many humans, especially many men, have a too low capacity for elongating ALA into DHA and EPA, so they may remain deficient in omega-3 fatty acids even when eating decent amounts of ALA from flaxseed oil or the like. Because you normally do not know your own biosynthetic abilities, it is less risky to eat fish oil or Schizochytrium oil, instead of flaxseed oil.
rsync 1y ago
"... wow, not sure about avoiding cheese & milk - sounds risky for calcium/bones health ..." A disappointing level of knowledge and sophistication in this late, 21st century era. Your bone health is almost entirely correlated to the load bearing exercise and gravity stress that you put on your musculoskeletal system. Fine optimizations to your diet (just like fine optimizations everywhere in life) are only sensible after you've taken care of the big, macro factors.
- ac29 1y ago
  > Your bone health is almost entirely correlated to the load bearing exercise and gravity stress that you put on your musculoskeletal system. This is a somewhat bold claim. I have literally zero dairy in my diet or calcium fortified alternatives. My best estimate is that without supplementation I would get 20-50% of the recommended calcium intake. Is your suggestion that lifting weights is better than a calcium supplement for bone heath in this case?

nickparker 1y ago

I have a fun omega-3 anecdata point going right now. A friend of mine researches the stuff in mouse models and told me it's extremely beneficial, but you need to buy a fancy brand to avoid rancid oil or heavy metal contamination both of which ~null out the benefits. She recommended Sports Research. I bought some and started taking it and my 1:1 bullet chess ELO jumped from 850 to ~1070 over the next couple weeks. I play chess a bit like sushi ginger for the mind - purge working memory with a short intense task to context switch. I intentionally don't study openings or anything so I can use it as a benchmark for mental horsepower with a reasonably slow drift in the baseline from 'actually learning chess'. My friend says this effect is way too big to actually attribute to the vitamins and it has to be placebo etc but I'm thoroughly enjoying the idea that omega-3 Nick would win 3/4 bullet matches against deficient Nick. https://www.chess.com/member/nickparkerprint/stats/bullet?days=365 https://www.chess.com/member/nickparkerprint/stats/bullet?da...

rainworld 1y ago
Revealed: many common omega-3 fish oil supplements are ‘rancid’ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/17/revealed-many-common-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-are-rancid https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/17/revealed...
- j45 1y ago
  Kirkland Omega 3’s seem to be decent, hope they are.
  - reducesuffering 1y ago
    They are pitifully low in EPA/DHA per $
    - j45 1y ago
      Agreed, it’s why I’m taking multiples. Open to other omega 3’s if there’s any recommendations.

savorypiano 1y ago

This should be studied across different populations, not just one which is known for myopia.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
I disagree, I think they need to study specific populations for specific diseases associated with different diets. If you study this across population where this doesn’t matter as much then they will say omega-3 has no effect on nearsightedness, which is bad for the population that needs omega-3. Omega-3 saved me from the fate of my family, dying from a heart attack before I was 50. And I see this need in my genetics, specifically FADS1 FADS2 polymorphisms that make me need higher chain omega-3 fatty acids like from seafood.
- j45 1y ago
  Agree. Omega 3 is well studied. Things don’t have have to be proven universally for every human, but omega 3 seems pretty universal.

bilsbie 1y ago

I just can’t imagine how you’d remove healthy user bias from a study like this.

hellojebus 1y ago

This reminded me of the Knowledge Project podcast with Dr. Rhonda Patrick on certain biomarkers, including omega index as an indicator for longer life span. https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/dr-rhonda-patrick/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/dr-rhonda-patrick/

ruibiks 1y ago
[dead]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

How much was the highest-quartile group consuming?

simianwords 1y ago

Hi any trusted review of Nordic Natural's fish oil please?

nemo44x 1y ago

Omega 3 helps manage triglycerides which when high make managing insulin difficult which results in the liver putting more glucose in the blood. This can create poor vision as high glucose damages eyes. Wonder if this is related.

whatever1 1y ago

Compare Chinese and Indian myopia frequencies. One country loves fish the other is mostly vegetarian.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
Both of these cultures are genetically adapted to the foods they need. So comparing these populations will not reveal anything about myopia in certain populations.
- whatever1 1y ago
  Why? Who died of Myopia and did not pass their gene to the next gen ?
  - gs17 1y ago
    You wouldn't die "of myopia", you would die because myopia means you didn't see things that might be hazardous.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    I’m sorry you’re missing my point. If a culture grows up eating a lot of long chain poly unsaturated fatty acids, and then suddenly they stop, then the myopia develops. In populations that depend on a very heavy vegetarian diet, which is comprise primarily of shortchange, polyunsaturated fatty acids, they might have other issues not related to myopia when they go off of their traditional diet. Myopia in my opinion is a result of the industrialization of food.
amai 1y ago
Is that a joke? The myopia rate in China is much higher than in India: China's myopia rate is 31%: 400 million of its 1.3 billion people are myopic. The prevalence of myopia in high school in China is 77%, and in college is more than 80%. A study indicated that the prevalence of myopia among urban children in India of aged 5 to 15 increased from 4.44% in 1999 to 21.15% in 2019. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia

fortran77 1y ago

I hate to sound like one of those "Do Your Own Research" types, but as far as I can tell, there are only a few supplements that have repeatedly shown _some_ benefits in peer-reviewed replicated studies for general health: Vitamin D, Omega 3, and possibly Magnesium and Creatine. So I stopped taking a daily multivitamin and I just take modest doeses of these 4 supplemements every day.

moduspol 1y ago
It may depend on what you count as a supplement. Fiber and protein are pretty good to supplement, though obviously you can also get them from diet. And testosterone (at least for males), though not without side effects.
Aurornis 1y ago
> Vitamin D, Omega 3, and possibly Magnesium and Creatine. Vitamin D supplementation is mildly helpful for those with low baseline levels. However the benefits have been exaggerated across the internet and podcasts. A lot of studies show no measured reduction in things like frequency of respiratory infections ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38178229/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38178229/ for example, which funnily enough had the Vitamin D3 treated men getting more respiratory infections). Omega 3 has also been greatly exaggerated. Later large scale studies have shown minimal to no effects. Magnesium is another one that can be helpful for those who are deficient, but due to the long duration within the body a lot of the supplement fanatics who consume large doses of magnesium might be getting too much over time. Gwern did some self-experimentation where magnesium might have possibly been net negative over time: https://gwern.net/nootropic/magnesium https://gwern.net/nootropic/magnesium Creatine is the latest trend. If you believe the latest trends you need to consume a huge amount daily and it will fight off everything from depression to low energy. This is another one where the most impressive studies are all very small, but the larger the study the less impressive the results. The influencers only talk about the small, impressive studies, of course.
- theologic 1y ago
  It turns out that the vast majority of the USA POPULATION, which I think we have some of the best data for, is magnesium deficient or 50%. The issue is basically vitamins are a catalyst, and is very difficult to justify putting more catalyst into any type of chemical equation. So overdosing on magnesium doesn't make a lot of sense to me. By the way, I also love Gwern.

andrewla 1y ago

Have not read the underlying study but given that it is a generic nutrition and vision study, this seems like a clear case of p-hacking. At best it could be a "here is something that might merit future research". They find that one of the nutrient factors studied is positively correlated with improved vision at p=0.01. https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/

Aurornis 1y ago

This is a small study (n=1005) that only included children age 6-8. The way they're shotgunning a long list of nutrients against a list of eye parameters screams p-hacking to me, so I wouldn't get excited about this result. Omega-3 and fish oil stories always attract a lot of impossibly positive claims, but real-world studies are rarely as good as the anecdotes. I would also caution people that fish oil isn't entirely benign to supplement with, despite common wisdom suggesting it's risk-free. Fish oil supplements can induce depressive-like symptoms in some people and high dose fish oil is a known trigger for mania in certain people with mood disorders. You can find countless puzzled posts from people wondering why fish oil is making them feel bad: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com+fish+oil+makes+me+depressed https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com+fish+oil+m... These outcomes are unlikely, but watch for them. It's really sad when someone is taking high dose fish oil because they're desperate for depression relief and all of the influencers say it's good for depression, then months later they run out of pills for a few days and are surprised that they feel better. Before I get accused of exaggerating anecdotes, there are also randomized clinical trials with an order of magnitude more patients than this study that show a slight increase in depression, opposite of the expected reduction in mood disorders: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787320 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787320

theologic 1y ago
First, I am not trying to object to your point, but I do wanna point out this is a classical problem with the medicinal field. In that they show an outstanding inability to understand how to actually process data in light of survivorship bias. Do we know survivorship bias is here in your large study? Obviously not, but it is a strong concern. And one of the classic reasons these studies are very poor at establishing clear causation. So, lets start by framing the study differently: 1. 10% drop out 2. 6-7% in the non-Omega3 get depressed, which is now down to 90% of the population 3. 6-75 in the 0mega3 depressed, which is now down to 90% of the population My first question is, "Do we think that depressed people are more likely to follow a rigorous protocol for making sure they are highly adherent to taking their Omega-3s, or do we think that this group would tend to drop out of the study? To me my hypothesis is clearly that depressive people tend to be less adherent. This seems intuitively obvious to anybody that knows anybody with depression. At the very least, this should be a massive red flag. The study assumes those missing participants are “missing completely at random,” rather than systematically related to the key outcome: depressive symptoms. If participants who developed new or worsening depression were more likely to leave the study (a real possibility in mood research), the results would disproportionately reflect those who stayed well—not those most at risk. The study does acknowledge in its methods that follow-up missingness was treated as random and that participants administratively censored were presumed “missing completely at random.” However, this assumption ignores the real-world possibility that depressive symptoms themselves most likely drives dropout. Without targeted analysis of why people left, the null results risk underestimating any true link between omega-3 and depression prevention, making this a textbook example of unaddressed survivorship bias in clinical trial design and reporting.

esbranson 1y ago

> Cтатья отсутствует в базе I was unable to access the OP's source, but I do want to point out there are several ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with different nutrient characteristics. Thanks be to Chat G for banging this out, but I like many people have had this drilled in. ALA (α-linolenic acid, 18:3 n-3) is an essential fatty acid. It's nutritional role is primarily as a precursor to the other ω-3 PUFAs, humans can elongate and desaturate ALA into longer-chain ω-3s (EPA, DPA, DHA), but the conversion efficiency is very limited (<5% to EPA, <1% to DHA for most people). ALA cannot be converted from EPA, DHA, or DPA. Sources are primarily plant oils (flaxseed, chia, walnuts, canola, soy). If this is your only source of ω-3 PUFAs, you're unhealthy. EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid, 20:5 n-3) is (conditionally) essential. Its role is anti-inflammatory, a precursor for resolvins, cardiovascular protection, eye and brain signaling, and a precursor to DHA synthesis in limited amounts. Sources are marine foods (fatty fish: salmon, mackerel, sardines, anchovies). DHA (docosahexaenoic acid, 22:6 n-3) is (conditionally) essential. Its role is as a major structural lipid in the retina, brain, and neural tissues, visual function, cognitive development, and neuronal membranes. Sources are marine foods (same as EPA) plus algae oils. DPA (docosapentaenoic acid, 22:5 n-3) is an intermediate between EPA and DHA. Don't know. Sources are fish and red meat (esp. grass-fed ruminants). In practice EPA, DHA, and DPA conversion from ALA is too inefficient, so direct dietary sources (fish, seafood, algal oil) are the meaningful way humans obtain enough EPA/DHA. That's why nutrition guidelines (WHO, FAO, NIH, EFSA) often treat EPA + DHA as conditionally essential, especially for infants (where DHA is critical for retina and brain development) and for populations with low fish intake. Eat fish. As always, a balanced and diverse diet is a key requirement for health. For those who don't know, sardines are less fishy than tuna (hardly at all IMO), cheap, widely accessible, and pretty sure they have low mercury risk.

amai 1y ago

If that would be the case, why is myopia on the rise in Asia, where people eat a lot of fish?

cyberax 1y ago

My anecdata: I have a moderate case of dry eyes, so I tried fish oil and then vegan omega-3 supplements. They did nothing whatsoever. IPL and RF treatments eventually helped, though.