8 ms·

Fish oils don't slow mental decline

44 points by tokenadult 13y ago

ekm2 13y ago
Isn't this the same thing as "Meat does not make you muscular?" There has to be a combination of diet and exercise.
- jasallen 13y ago
  There is, however, a significant correlation between meat eating (or more specifically protein consumption) and muscularity. If you corrected for exercise in the right way you would still see this correlation (a naive approach would remove all effects of exercise and you would lose the correlation). So if this study is taken at face value (and well, no, don't do that) there is no correlation even before correcting for other factors.
  - ekm2 13y ago
    If you do not work out, the meat merely makes you fat.
    - jasallen 13y ago
      I don't think correlation means what you think it means.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      That's not exactly true. I saw a study recently that showed high protein diets increase lean body mass independent of exercise.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>If you corrected for exercise in the right way you would still see this correlation (a naive approach would remove all effects of exercise and you would lose the correlation). I'd like to see some citations for this.
timje1 13y ago
I see a similarity between this study and the recent crack baby myth debunking - it's not the crack, it's the poverty. Only in this case, they're suggesting that it's not the Omega-3: it's the affluent (and health conscious) vs the not-so-affluent.
jasallen 13y ago
I hate when these researchers don't stick to the rationally implied conclusions. "We see no correlation" is the rationally implied conclusion of the research. "Maybe it's affluence" is not science, at that point the researcher became just-some-guy(gal?) throwin' out his theories.
- wuliwong 13y ago
  I absolutely agree. I would also add that as scientists we have the ability to shape opinions because our statements tend to be taken as fact (whether or not we are speaking about our field of research). With this comes a responsibility to be honest and transparent, a responsibility which is shirked all too often. The idea that this study is somehow the end of the discussion and it is now "proven" that Omega-3 fats don't help curb memory loss is laughable.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Finster 13y ago
  It's common when writing a scientific paper to write opinions like that. "We showed there is no correlation. Possible explanations for past correlation may be..." It's not just some guy throwing theories against a wall to see what sticks. It's someone who has studied this exact topic for many months or years.
  - wuliwong 13y ago
    Yea, I see your point. I think I'm more annoyed by the title which greatly overstates the implications of the study.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Exactly. Speculation from someone who is entrenched in the study of a subject is very valuable. Is it not speculation that leads to further investigation and eventually a scientific study? Educated guesses is just as much a part of science as doing an actual controlled study.
readme 13y ago
Here's another study that found DHA did slow mental decline http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20434961 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20434961
- arn 13y ago
  The study you cite is a better study too in that it's randomized controlled prospective study, whereas the one linked here seems to be an observational one. Observational ones are the ones where everyone says correlation doesn't imply causation.
- hiraki9 13y ago
  Full Text: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43533989_Beneficial_effects_of_docosahexaenoic_acid_on_cognition_in_age-related_cognitive_decline http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43533989_Beneficial_...
arn 13y ago
Measuring blood levels of Omega-3 seems a strange method. Presumably they correlated high blood levels with high intake?
mistercow 13y ago
Ugh, I wish New Scientist would just go away. No link to the original study, gross exaggeration of the study's findings and scope in the headline. And a mention that one study doesn't overturn the entire existing body of research would have been nice.
klt0825 13y ago
I would be interested to see what the blood levels of EPA/DHA were in the patients studied, the article isn't really helpful in that respect and it may be important.
hammock 13y ago
Follow the money. Who funded this study? Also, better summary here http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20130925/study-questions-fish-oil-brain-claims http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20130925/...
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  What's interesting to me in that study summary is this: "...between 65 and 80 years old who had normal thinking and memory at the start of the study... The women took tests on thinking and memory each year for an average of six years. Blood levels of omega-3s were taken at the start of the study. Overall, the researchers found no changes in mental function based on the levels of omega-3s in the blood. " Given that age range, isn't maintaining baseline a net positive effect?
com2kid 13y ago
Fish Oil does however help with anxiety and depression! A large mega-dose of DHA/EPA (~1600mg of DHA, 1200mg of EPA) is the difference between my being stuck at home, and my going out to a party and socializing. Fish Oil is not a panacea, but, there is lots of evidence [1] in its favor. [1]http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/ http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/
- tocomment 13y ago
  That's a lot, where do you buy it? Also all I brands I've seen are higher on EPA over DHA. (The one in front of my is 780mg EPA and only 260 DHA) Does that still help you or do you need a certain ratio?
  - NARKOZ 13y ago
    I buy off from Amazon, the reviews are helpful. "Nordic Naturals" is a good brand to check out.
    - tocomment 13y ago
      Do you think the amounts of EPA vs DHA are important? Do you worry about too many heavy metals?
      - com2kid 13y ago
        You want a good 3:2 ratio or so. Good brands independently list how much EPA and DHA are in each pill. Bad ones say "1000mg". That is useless, you can end up with minimal EPA and DHA and a bunch of filler oils. Meh. Best I've found is ~600mg EPA and 400mg of DHA per capsule. Edit: Good brands are purified, heavy metals should not be a concern.
        shire 13y ago
        which one do you buy and how much are they?
AsymetricCom 13y ago
Great news, Fish oils are very expensive lately.
ffrryuu 13y ago
Yeah and medicine does not help final outcome, which is death.
matznerd 13y ago
DHA is "almost 50% weight of the neuronal membranes[1]" in the brain. If your body does not have enough of it from the diet, it has to be synthesized in the body. It is a lot more efficient to supplement it and a lack of it is known to create mental decline. It is well established within the Nootropic community that nearly everyone should supplement it. I take Jarrow Max DHA 2-3 times per day (500 mg DHA and 72 EPA/per cap) [1] http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf

44 points by tokenadult 13y ago

ekm2 13y ago

Isn't this the same thing as "Meat does not make you muscular?" There has to be a combination of diet and exercise.

jasallen 13y ago
There is, however, a significant correlation between meat eating (or more specifically protein consumption) and muscularity. If you corrected for exercise in the right way you would still see this correlation (a naive approach would remove all effects of exercise and you would lose the correlation). So if this study is taken at face value (and well, no, don't do that) there is no correlation even before correcting for other factors.
- ekm2 13y ago
  If you do not work out, the meat merely makes you fat.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    I don't think correlation means what you think it means.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    That's not exactly true. I saw a study recently that showed high protein diets increase lean body mass independent of exercise.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>If you corrected for exercise in the right way you would still see this correlation (a naive approach would remove all effects of exercise and you would lose the correlation). I'd like to see some citations for this.

timje1 13y ago

I see a similarity between this study and the recent crack baby myth debunking - it's not the crack, it's the poverty. Only in this case, they're suggesting that it's not the Omega-3: it's the affluent (and health conscious) vs the not-so-affluent.

jasallen 13y ago

I hate when these researchers don't stick to the rationally implied conclusions. "We see no correlation" is the rationally implied conclusion of the research. "Maybe it's affluence" is not science, at that point the researcher became just-some-guy(gal?) throwin' out his theories.

wuliwong 13y ago
I absolutely agree. I would also add that as scientists we have the ability to shape opinions because our statements tend to be taken as fact (whether or not we are speaking about our field of research). With this comes a responsibility to be honest and transparent, a responsibility which is shirked all too often. The idea that this study is somehow the end of the discussion and it is now "proven" that Omega-3 fats don't help curb memory loss is laughable.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Finster 13y ago
It's common when writing a scientific paper to write opinions like that. "We showed there is no correlation. Possible explanations for past correlation may be..." It's not just some guy throwing theories against a wall to see what sticks. It's someone who has studied this exact topic for many months or years.
- wuliwong 13y ago
  Yea, I see your point. I think I'm more annoyed by the title which greatly overstates the implications of the study.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Exactly. Speculation from someone who is entrenched in the study of a subject is very valuable. Is it not speculation that leads to further investigation and eventually a scientific study? Educated guesses is just as much a part of science as doing an actual controlled study.

readme 13y ago

Here's another study that found DHA did slow mental decline http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20434961 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20434961

arn 13y ago
The study you cite is a better study too in that it's randomized controlled prospective study, whereas the one linked here seems to be an observational one. Observational ones are the ones where everyone says correlation doesn't imply causation.
hiraki9 13y ago
Full Text: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43533989_Beneficial_effects_of_docosahexaenoic_acid_on_cognition_in_age-related_cognitive_decline http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43533989_Beneficial_...

arn 13y ago

Measuring blood levels of Omega-3 seems a strange method. Presumably they correlated high blood levels with high intake?

mistercow 13y ago

Ugh, I wish New Scientist would just go away. No link to the original study, gross exaggeration of the study's findings and scope in the headline. And a mention that one study doesn't overturn the entire existing body of research would have been nice.

klt0825 13y ago

I would be interested to see what the blood levels of EPA/DHA were in the patients studied, the article isn't really helpful in that respect and it may be important.

hammock 13y ago

Follow the money. Who funded this study? Also, better summary here http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20130925/study-questions-fish-oil-brain-claims http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20130925/...

GrinningFool 13y ago
What's interesting to me in that study summary is this: "...between 65 and 80 years old who had normal thinking and memory at the start of the study... The women took tests on thinking and memory each year for an average of six years. Blood levels of omega-3s were taken at the start of the study. Overall, the researchers found no changes in mental function based on the levels of omega-3s in the blood. " Given that age range, isn't maintaining baseline a net positive effect?

com2kid 13y ago

Fish Oil does however help with anxiety and depression! A large mega-dose of DHA/EPA (~1600mg of DHA, 1200mg of EPA) is the difference between my being stuck at home, and my going out to a party and socializing. Fish Oil is not a panacea, but, there is lots of evidence [1] in its favor. [1]http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/ http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/

tocomment 13y ago
That's a lot, where do you buy it? Also all I brands I've seen are higher on EPA over DHA. (The one in front of my is 780mg EPA and only 260 DHA) Does that still help you or do you need a certain ratio?
- NARKOZ 13y ago
  I buy off from Amazon, the reviews are helpful. "Nordic Naturals" is a good brand to check out.
  - tocomment 13y ago
    Do you think the amounts of EPA vs DHA are important? Do you worry about too many heavy metals?
    - com2kid 13y ago
      You want a good 3:2 ratio or so. Good brands independently list how much EPA and DHA are in each pill. Bad ones say "1000mg". That is useless, you can end up with minimal EPA and DHA and a bunch of filler oils. Meh. Best I've found is ~600mg EPA and 400mg of DHA per capsule. Edit: Good brands are purified, heavy metals should not be a concern.
      - shire 13y ago
        which one do you buy and how much are they?

AsymetricCom 13y ago

Great news, Fish oils are very expensive lately.

ffrryuu 13y ago

Yeah and medicine does not help final outcome, which is death.

matznerd 13y ago

DHA is "almost 50% weight of the neuronal membranes[1]" in the brain. If your body does not have enough of it from the diet, it has to be synthesized in the body. It is a lot more efficient to supplement it and a lack of it is known to create mental decline. It is well established within the Nootropic community that nearly everyone should supplement it. I take Jarrow Max DHA 2-3 times per day (500 mg DHA and 72 EPA/per cap) [1] http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf