Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / February 2005
Omega-3s, ROS, and the Aging Brain.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
MikeV - 14 Feb 2005 14:16 GMT This was posted by T. Carter on sci.life-extension. This is a subject dear to montygram's heart. Any criticisms Monty?
MikeV
Fish oil supplements slow ageing of brain 12/21/2004 - People who eat oily fish or take fish oil supplements score 13 per cent higher in IQ tests and are less likely to show early signs of Alzheimer's disease, according to a new study in Scotland. The study, carried out on more than 300 people, lends support to the benefits of fish oil - already taken to protect the heart - for mental health and particularly for its protective effects against Alzheimer's. Dementia already affects millions around the world and the threat is increasing with the growing numbers of elderly. Alzheimer's disease, the leading cause of dementia in the elderly, afflicts an estimated 4.5 million people in the US alone. A team from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh gathered data from people who had taken part in a national IQ survey in 1947, when they were aged 11, and tested them again in 2000-01 when they were aged 64. The researchers used a questionnaire to find out about omega-3 levels from the subjects' diet and supplement use, and tested their plasma levels of omega-3. Writing in this month's American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (vol 80, no 6, pp1650-1657), the researchers report that cognitive function in the 64-year-olds was higher if they were supplement users than if they did not take supplements. After adjustment for childhood IQ, tests for mental speed found food supplement users to have a higher score. Lawrence Whalley, a professor of mental health at Aberdeen University and head of the research team, told The Times that there was evidence that fish oils slow the ageing of the brain by reducing inflammation. "The big difference we found was not in memory but in mental speed," he told the paper. "The brains of fish oil users seemed to be faster. There was a strong relationship between mental test scores and the omega-3 content in the blood." "The results suggest to me that they have younger brains than the non-users. The ageing of their brain is being slowed down by a year or two."................. Theoretical considerations give cause for concern that the highly unsaturated nature of fish oil makes it a target for ROS and thus a pro-aging factor despite its proven beneficial effects on coronary function and other probable benefits. This study allays those fears some for me.
Thomas
montygram - 14 Feb 2005 20:04 GMT You, like so many others, don't read what I write very carefully. Eating feces may be healthier than consuming a large dose of cyanide, but I prefer to do neither. So get that sh#t eating grin off your face, Thomas!
Seriously, and for the "umpteenth" time, omega 3s interfere with AA metabolization, at least temporarily (some studies suggest that after about a year or so, inflammatory conditions actually become worse), and so this is the "healthy" benefit uncovered. However, there is no doubt that omega 3s are highly susceptible to lipid peroxidiation in vivo, and over time, this takes its toll on the body. So you get a stroke instead of suffering from arthritis, or whatever. Look at some of the WHO statistical databases (available on the internet). People in poor countries on coconut oil or palm kernel oil diets have almost no cancer, unless they smoke a lot, and then their rates of lung and/or bladder cancer are still a lot lower than USA and similar countries. Just do some independent thinking, man!
Juhana Harju - 14 Feb 2005 20:16 GMT :: You, like so many others, don't read what I write very carefully. :: Eating feces may be healthier than consuming a large dose of cyanide, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: in vivo, and over time, this takes its toll on the body. So you get :: a stroke instead of suffering from arthritis, or whatever. " *Lots of fish prevents stroke in elderly people, but don't fry it*!
Studies looking at health benefits between fish consumption and stroke risk come up with definite conclusions, writes Daariush Mozaffarian, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist with Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
In his study, Mozaffarian analyzed medical records for 4,775 adults over age 65, all without heart disease at the study's beginning. He also got diet information on each, including whether they ate fish and how it was fixed. Then he looked at their medical records 12 years later.
There were 626 strokes among these elderly people. He found that those who ate more tuna and other fish had a lower risk of strokes.
Compared to people eating fish less than once a month, he shows that:
o Those who ate tuna and other non-fried fish one to four times a week had a 27% lower risk of stroke. Those eating fish five or more times per week had 30% less stroke risk. o Those eating fried fish and fish sandwiches had higher stroke risk - 44% higher risk if they ate it more than once a week."
Mozaffarian, D. Archives of Internal Medicine, Jan. 24, 2005; vol 165: pp 200-206.
http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/Article/99/105339.htm?printin g=true
 Signature Juhana
Juhana Harju - 14 Feb 2005 20:24 GMT :: montygram wrote: :::: You, like so many others, don't read what I write very carefully. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: Mozaffarian, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist with Brigham and Women's :: Hospital and Harvard Medical School. This is the orginal study.
Mozaffarian D, Longstreth WT Jr, Lemaitre RN, Manolio TA, Kuller LH, Burke GL, Siscovick DS. Fish consumption and stroke risk in elderly individuals: the cardiovascular health study. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jan 24;165(2):200-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15668367
 Signature Juhana
John Que - 15 Feb 2005 02:16 GMT > :: You, like so many others, don't read what I write very carefully. > :: Eating feces may be healthier than consuming a large dose of cyanide, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Mozaffarian, D. Archives of Internal Medicine, Jan. 24, 2005; vol 165: > pp 200-206. http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/Article/99/105339.htm?printin g=true
Perhaps both you and Monty hold a part of the overall truth on this topic. People getting a higher portions of the unsaturated fats as omega 3 fare better than those who getting more omega 6 fatty acids. But one can get too much unsaturated fat over all. And the saturated plant fats have some merits such as being more chemically stable. Don't palm oils have more tocotrienols than most polyunsaturated veg oils used here in the West world. Many who eat palm oil and coconuts also eat fish.
montygram - 15 Feb 2005 02:38 GMT Look at that can of tuna fish in your cubbard. There is almost no fat in it. I have some cans that say zero grams of fat, with 17 or so grams of protein.
In any study, people will replace foods, so yes, I agree that a can of tuna is healthier than most of the things typical Americans are eating these days. I'll take that can of tuna (packed in water) over a hamburger any day of the week. Shellfish is probably even healthier, if it's not terribly polluted. Think it through, don't just assume that what the authors say is the absolute truth. They lead you in the direction they want you go, but when you look at the raw data, the way the data was collected, the socioeconomic factors, etc., you realize that the study may have some merit, or it may have very little if any. If you see many studies that same the same thing AND discuss the primary biochemical mechanism involved (often it's oxidative stress), then you can begin to feel comfortable coming to TENTATIVE conclusions.
John Que - 15 Feb 2005 06:25 GMT > Look at that can of tuna fish in your cubbard. There is almost no fat > in it. I have some cans that say zero grams of fat, with 17 or so > grams of protein. Valid point. Tuna benefits are more likely from the selenium.
> In any study, people will replace foods, so yes, I agree that a can of > tuna is healthier than most of the things typical Americans are eating > these days. I'll take that can of tuna (packed in water) over a > hamburger any day of the week. Shellfish is probably even healthier, > if it's not terribly polluted. Think it through, don't just assume > that what the authors say is the absolute truth. Valid point.
> They lead you in the > direction they want you go, but when you look at the raw data, the way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > primary biochemical mechanism involved (often it's oxidative stress), > then you can begin to feel comfortable coming to TENTATIVE conclusions. Sometimes a person can reach more likely conclusions than than researchers.
|
|
|