[HN Gopher] Omega-3s: Are "Brain-Boosting" Effects Scientificall...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Omega-3s: Are "Brain-Boosting" Effects Scientifically Backed?
        
       Author : mililitre
       Score  : 118 points
       Date   : 2023-01-27 09:56 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (abouttolearn.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (abouttolearn.substack.com)
        
       | wolfi1 wrote:
       | reminds me of lecithin which was marketed in the 80s as helpful
       | for the aging brain, turns out, lecithin does not cross the
       | Blood-Brain barrier
        
         | EMM_386 wrote:
         | The thing is, there are simply too many variables.
         | 
         | Using your example of lecithin, there are numerous studies that
         | show it is effective in improving/reversing fatty liver
         | disease.
         | 
         | https://www.bcm.edu/news/lecithin-component-may-reduce-fatty...
         | 
         | There have been other studies that establish a link between
         | liver health and alzheimers, even that protein from the liver
         | can cause Alzheimer's disease in the brain.
         | 
         | https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210914152531.h...
         | 
         | That study aims to prove that high fat content in the liver
         | could cause Azlheimer's. So indirectly, taking lecithin may
         | help the brain, even though it doesn't cross the blood brain
         | barrier!
         | 
         | Too many variables.
        
         | LinuxBender wrote:
         | For what it's worth, 1 egg contains about 3.3 grams of
         | lecithin. Provided one is not averse to eating eggs there
         | should be no need to take it in supplement form. Eggs have the
         | best form of lecithin.
        
       | tablespoon wrote:
       | Anecdotally, when I first started taking (6 normal-strength pills
       | a day) of fish oil in college, I quite unexpectedly noticed my
       | "field of view" expanded when I was driving. Previously I'd been
       | exclusively focused on a smallish area immediately in front my my
       | car, but after a few months of Omega 3s, I noticed I was
       | "noticing" and taking into account traffic that was much further
       | down the street.
       | 
       | Though I kinda suspect that was the result of curing a
       | deficiency, because I plateaued and didn't notice other
       | improvements after continued supplementation. It was also very
       | early in the fish oil/Omega 3 craze, so I suspect the food up to
       | that point was generally more deficient in it (e.g. no feed
       | chickens flax to get "Omega 3" eggs).
        
         | sudosteph wrote:
         | Interesting, I actually had an extremely similar experience,
         | except it was when I first took ADHD medicine, and I noticed it
         | most strongly while navigating through the city by foot. "Field
         | of View" is a good sort of description for it though, it was
         | like the amount of information I could passively perceive about
         | my immediate surroundings just increased dramatically.
        
         | dreamoffire wrote:
         | Doesn't this sound like an inexperienced driver gaining more
         | experience or was there little driving in between?
        
           | tablespoon wrote:
           | > Doesn't this sound like an inexperienced driver gaining
           | more experience or was there little driving in between?
           | 
           | Maybe it sounds that way, but it wasn't.
           | 
           | I'd already been driving for 5+ years by that time, and the
           | change happened only after a couple of months of
           | supplementation.
           | 
           | I also used to frequently "zone out" in a particular way
           | during daily life, which also went away around the same time.
        
       | anoplus wrote:
       | I like experimenting with different lifestyles to see how I feel.
       | Most of the times there are too many variables to make
       | conclusions. Anyway, I tried going vegetarian for few weeks, then
       | introduced fish to diet and felt noticeably better. Then, I tried
       | remove fish and take fish oil instead. Felt absolutely no
       | benefits. At-least feeling wise. I repeated this experiment
       | multiple times so I am sure it isn't coincidence
        
         | anthlax wrote:
         | And how did you control for placebo?
        
           | anoplus wrote:
           | No control. I don't believe I am affected by placebo.
        
             | anthlax wrote:
             | Interesting - how does one determine if they are "affected
             | by placebo" or not?
        
               | narag wrote:
               | If you don't mind, you're not affected.
               | 
               | Or in other words: if you're affected, you don't mind.
               | 
               | (I'm not even joking. If you're researching a substance
               | to use it for others, you definitely need it to control
               | for placebo. But if you're doing it just for yourself,
               | you only need it to work, no matter why. Another story is
               | if it stops working)
        
               | ryanklee wrote:
               | Placebo is a baseline effect. It's a hurdle to clear to
               | show efficacy above the minimum any substance can meet.
               | 
               | I've heard this argument before, i.e., placebo is an
               | effect therefore why not, but I cannot understand why
               | time and money would be committed to an activity or
               | substance that is only as good as any other activity or
               | substance.
               | 
               | Placebo should signal: move along, nothing to see here!
        
               | anthlax wrote:
               | This is an great take! I agree placebo is a powerful tool
               | :). Thanks for the conversation
        
               | anthlax wrote:
               | This is a great take! I agree placebo is a powerful tool.
               | Thanks for the conversation
        
       | n2j3 wrote:
       | cost of 100 omega 3 capsules (in .gr): ~10 euros, fish and nuts
       | cost about 18 euros per kilo and tend to spoil.
        
         | pprotas wrote:
         | Omega 3 capsules can also spoil, right?
        
           | humbleferret wrote:
           | > Omega 3 capsules can also spoil, right?
           | 
           | Yes, they do. An old study suggests an average of 20% of
           | omega-3 fish oil products had excessive oxidation. Or in
           | other words, rancid.
           | 
           | https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/80/1/138/6.
           | ..
        
         | ilostmyshoes wrote:
         | You you can just buy cold pressed flax oil and supplement with
         | that. ~30 USD for ~1L iirc and it has an absolute assload of
         | ALA (omega3)
         | 
         | Hemp seed oil is a good one for omega6 but usually people get
         | enough 6 from diet and 3 is the one we need to boost to get the
         | 3:6 ratio up
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_ratio_in_food
        
           | johnyzee wrote:
           | ALA must be converted to EPA and DHA, which it does at less
           | than 10% efficiency, so you'd need to consume an assload of
           | it, too. Your best bet is still fish(oil).
        
             | ilostmyshoes wrote:
             | [dead]
        
             | Py-o7 wrote:
             | and you can actually use up all the various desaturase and
             | elongase enzymes in the process so that 10% upper bound
             | drops markedly as you consume more ALA. Put differently
             | long chain n-3's production definitely isn't linearly
             | dependent on short chain n-3s like ALA and stearidonic
             | acid.
        
           | newaccount74 wrote:
           | I like flax oil, but it spoils very quickly. I have trouble
           | going through 250ml before it goes rancid.
        
             | ilostmyshoes wrote:
             | Do you keep it in a refrigerator?
        
               | newaccount74 wrote:
               | Maybe I should
        
         | ben_w wrote:
         | Fish are famous for spoiling quickly, but nuts are not.
        
         | The_Colonel wrote:
         | Eating a lot of fish also brings some risks from microplastic
         | and other pollution, especially if you don't pay attention to
         | where it comes from.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | simonh wrote:
       | So basically once your body has all the nutrients it needs to
       | grow or make the things it needs to make, it makes them. Even
       | more extra stuff it doesn't need, it doesn't use. Makes sense.
       | 
       | This also appears to apply to the immune system. There's zero
       | evidence that supplements that are supposed to "boost your immune
       | system" do any such thing. Yes your immune system functions best
       | if you have good nutrition, but that's it. Even better nutrition
       | just isn't a thing.
       | 
       | Side rant, sorry, but I had this conversation with a relative
       | during covid, she was touting supplements to 'boost her immune
       | system'. There's one way we have found that really does actually
       | boost your immune system, that works with your natural defences
       | by training them specifically to fight a particular disease.
       | Vaccination.
        
         | treeman79 wrote:
         | Lot of issues can be autoimmune related. Goal is to calm down
         | the immune system. Not boost it. This is where basics like
         | getting away from sugar are so important.
        
           | kimmik wrote:
           | Immune system isn't just too much or too little. Can't
           | simplify it to that. People with autoimmunity are also
           | immunesuppressed at baseline.
        
             | treeman79 wrote:
             | Your sort of correct. Lots of drugs like plaquninal are
             | immune modifiers not suppressant.
             | 
             | However shoving large amounts of sugar and basically
             | everything in the American diet is a great way to get the
             | immune system to decide that everything in body is the
             | enemy.
        
               | johnyzee wrote:
               | Sugar is pro-inflammatory, and so is omega-6 fatty acids,
               | the consumption of both of which has increased massively
               | within the last 60-70 years. Omega-6 fats have gone from
               | less than 5% of human diet to up to 30% today, thanks to
               | the commercial success of 'vegetable' oils. These two
               | alone probably represent the most conspicuous diet
               | changes that have happened in our societies in recent
               | history and should be obvious suspects when looking at
               | disease factors, imho.
        
               | hombre_fatal wrote:
               | The biggest change in the human diet is the explosion of
               | cheap calories on the food market, especially hyper
               | palatable ones.
               | 
               | If canola oil or even just linoleic acid were so bad for
               | us, we could cause worse health outcomes by intervening
               | them into diets, but that's not what happens in RCTs.
        
         | seper8 wrote:
         | There is a shit ton of evidence supporting vitamin d3 to fight
         | covid...
        
           | dgacmu wrote:
           | There's not, though. There's a ton of evidence that vitamin d
           | _correlates_ with COVID outcomes, but this is vitamin d's
           | superpower: it correlates with good outcomes for just about
           | everything, but nearly every time there's a good high quality
           | study, it turns out to not be causative. A bunch of those
           | vitamin d and COVID studies were fraudulent.
           | 
           | Vitamin d levels are an excellent marker of good health and
           | they can help predict outcomes but supplementing vitamin d
           | doesn't improve those outcomes. Regretfully. (Except rickets,
           | of course.)
        
             | seper8 wrote:
             | Did you even do a single bit of research before boldly
             | stating there is no research done on the supplementation?
             | 
             | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24053-4
             | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35166850/
             | https://pmj.bmj.com/content/98/1156/87 https://journals.plo
             | s.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
        
               | dgacmu wrote:
               | Yes. There's a ton. Most of it is horribly tainted by
               | correlation effects. Let's consider one of the studies
               | you cited above, which is an observational study from the
               | VA hospitals:
               | 
               | "In the population of US veterans, we show that Vitamin
               | D2 and D3 fills were associated with reductions in
               | COVID-19 infection of 28% and 20%, respectively"
               | 
               | This sounds really awesome, right? Except -- you could
               | also interpret this as "People who are following their
               | doctor's recommendations, going to the pharmacy to fill
               | their prescriptions, and taking them, do better". No
               | kidding - they're probably also taking their other
               | medications and being more generally medically careful!
               | 
               | This is completely consistent with the 99% of vitamin
               | d-related results that show that it correlates with all
               | sorts of positive outcomes.
               | 
               | The high quality interventional studies -- which are
               | actually potentially able to demonstrate causality -- are
               | generally negative. And the larger and better they are,
               | the more likely they are to be negative. One of the
               | largest was the CORONAVIT trial; it was, unfortunately,
               | open-label, but it was large and randomized. (Note that
               | you'd expect the open-label aspect to result in a
               | stronger placebo effect, which .. well, given that they
               | found no benefits, did not occur).
               | https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071230
               | 
               | The vitamin d & covid horse is pretty dead at this point,
               | which is basically the same as the "vitamin d & x" horse
               | for most values of X other than diseases known to be
               | directly caused by vitamin D deficiency. Which are
               | serious and worthy of treatment. Just don't expect
               | vitamin D to be a miracle cure on the basis of its
               | correlation with everything positive.
        
             | nradov wrote:
             | There are multiple clinical studies showing that vitamin D
             | supplements can be effective in fighting COVID-19. Some
             | other studies have shown no effect, but overall there seems
             | to be some benefit.
             | 
             | https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/
        
               | dgacmu wrote:
               | See my reply to the sibling comment.
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | /s Ssshhh. People are making billions mutating the virus and
           | selling vaccines to what they make. Can't let cheap solutions
           | get popular.
        
         | weavie wrote:
         | I guess the argument would be that you don't know for sure
         | whether your diet does provide _all_ the nutrients your body
         | needs, so supplements could be used to fill in any gaps. The
         | assumption being that your body will just dispose of any excess
         | safely.
        
           | EMM_386 wrote:
           | > The assumption being that your body will just dispose of
           | any excess safely.
           | 
           | Not always. Fat-soluable vitamins (A, D, E, and K) will build
           | up in fat tissue and can lead to toxicity.
        
             | spacemadness wrote:
             | Source?
        
               | inejge wrote:
               | Search for "hypervitaminosis A", for example.
        
             | LinuxBender wrote:
             | It may also be worth noting that people with excess body
             | fat will absorb fat soluble vitamins into the excess fat
             | and it will not be available for the thousands of functions
             | in the body that need them until the person is fat adapted.
             | Ideally the high priority goal should be to remove the
             | excess fat but until they do they will need more than the
             | RDI of each component. How much more gets complicated as
             | there are not yet any good tests for testing how much was
             | absorbed into the fat.
        
             | nradov wrote:
             | You would have to take a lot of vitamin D supplements to
             | cause clinical symptoms. Some people have done it, but as a
             | practical matter the risk of hypervitaminosis D from
             | regular multivitamin pills is virtually zero.
             | 
             | Whether those pills actually have any health benefit is a
             | separate issue.
        
           | amerkhalid wrote:
           | Or, in my case, I am 100% certain that my diet is missing
           | many nutrients as I rarely eat fruits or vegetables. I take
           | various supplements and so far things seems to be okay (based
           | on yearly physical and blood work).
        
           | godshatter wrote:
           | There is also the triage theory of aging where the idea is
           | that when micronutrient levels are low (not low enough to
           | cause acute symptoms but below the recommended daily
           | allowance), they are triaged and used where needed (such as
           | ATP production) at the expense of being used normally. The
           | theory is that this can cause long-term problems such as
           | neural decay, cancer, and other signs of aging.
           | 
           | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693790/
        
             | Py-o7 wrote:
             | +1 for Bruce Ames. This idea profoundly shaped my thinking
             | a few years ago.
             | 
             | The one nit is I'm not sure how we'd go about testing it.
        
           | simonh wrote:
           | That's a perfectly fair point, I took Vitamin D during
           | lockdown because I wasn't getting enough sunlight. I'm just
           | saying that it makes sense that beyond satisfying your body's
           | needs there's no higher plane of health that supplements will
           | take you to.
        
           | Cthulhu_ wrote:
           | That's the sales pitch for multivitamins and the like; they
           | talk you into a problem but they provide the solution.
           | 
           | Certain vitamins your body will dispose of safely (like
           | vitamin C), but there's others that just build up until they
           | kill you; there's the case of Xavier Mertz [0] who was
           | theorized to have died from an excess of vitamin A after
           | eating his sled dogs' livers.
           | 
           | But the basic rule is: just eat normally / "a balanced diet";
           | you likely don't need supplements unless you have absorption
           | issues or stick to a specific diet (e.g. vegetarianism /
           | veganism, soylent / diet shakes, or the same thing every day,
           | like the 14 year old who only ate chips and ended up
           | (partially) blind due to a vitamin deficiency [1])
           | 
           | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Mertz
           | 
           | [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L19-0361,
           | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-teenager-went-blind-
           | fro...
        
             | seper8 wrote:
             | Even that balanced diet will consist of less and less
             | minerals and vitamins as time goes on and growers optimize
             | for vegetable, fruit VOLUME instead of vitamin/mineral
             | contents.
             | 
             | >>>
             | 
             | The level of decline varied depending on the specific
             | nutrients and the type of fruit or vegetable, but it
             | generally ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent
             | for riboflavin. In particular, calcium dropped most
             | dramatically in broccoli, kale, and mustard greens, while
             | the iron content took a substantial hit in chard,
             | cucumbers, and turnip greens. Asparagus, collard greens,
             | mustard greens, and turnip greens lost considerable amounts
             | of vitamin C.
             | 
             | Further studies since then have backed up the case that
             | nutrient levels are dissipating. Research in the January
             | 2022 issue of the journal Foods found that while most
             | vegetables grown in Australia had relatively similar iron
             | content between 1980 and 2010, there were noteworthy drops
             | in certain veggies. Declines in iron content, ranging from
             | 30 to 50 percent, occurred for sweet corn, red-skinned
             | potatoes, cauliflower, green beans, green peas, and
             | chickpeas. By contrast, Hass avocados, mushrooms, and
             | silverbeet (another name for chard) actually gained in
             | iron.
             | 
             | Grains have also experienced declines, experts say. A study
             | in a 2020 issue of Scientific Reports found that protein
             | content in wheat decreased by 23 percent from 1955 to 2016,
             | and there were notable reductions in manganese, iron, zinc,
             | and magnesium, as well.
             | 
             | <<<
             | 
             | https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-
             | conserv...
        
               | deepsquirrelnet wrote:
               | Food storage and preservation also has a lot to do with
               | it as well. Oxidation makes a lot of nutrients mostly
               | unavailable, and degradation can happen quickly. Minerals
               | in vegetables aren't chelated, so while they sit in
               | refrigerated storage, they are still rapidly losing
               | nutrition.
        
             | scottLobster wrote:
             | The question is one of optimization. There are arguably
             | optimal doses of particular nutrients (i.e. Vitamin D) that
             | would be extremely hard to achieve through "a balanced
             | diet". Also most people do not and many can not eat a
             | "balanced diet", as that requires a ton of effort to
             | maintain.
             | 
             | To put it another way, if the benefits of exercise were
             | available in pill form on grocery store shelves, everyone
             | would be taking that pill. Saying "you could save some
             | money by just exercising normally!" is making a lot of
             | assumptions about what people are willing and able to do,
             | and frankly you'd be a fool to waste time exercising if the
             | benefits were achievable through a magic pill.
             | 
             | Supplements aren't quite that magical, but they make
             | optimal, hard-to-achieve doses achievable, even on a bad
             | diet. Granted they can also be misused, or doses can be so
             | low/ingredients not bio-available such that they have no
             | impact. They're a tool like anything else, and can be used
             | correctly or incorrectly. Part of what bugs me about the
             | meta-analysis saying "supplements don't reduce all-cause
             | mortality!" is that they lump wildly different supplements
             | with different make-ups, taken in different doses on
             | different schedules from different starting diets with
             | different amounts of discipline/regularity. Of course at a
             | population level the number of people using them wrong
             | probably outnumber the people who do their research and
             | maintain a disciplined approach. Your average person has
             | issues getting their car's oil changed and understanding
             | the difference between synthetic and conventional oil. A
             | skilled individual could properly apply and see benefits
             | from supplements, just as a skilled individual could
             | successfully change their own oil.
        
               | ROTMetro wrote:
               | And what is a balanced diet? Is it the 1990s food pyramid
               | that I was taught by my doctor to follow?
        
           | 300bps wrote:
           | _The assumption being that your body will just dispose of any
           | excess safely._
           | 
           | Well worded. From my personal experience, this assumption is
           | dangerous.
           | 
           | About 20 years ago I was having elevated AST/ALT liver
           | enzymes three tests in a row indicating liver damage. Doctor
           | ordered every test to see what was going on but everything
           | came up negative. She asked me if I took a multivitamin which
           | I did. She told me to stop.
           | 
           | Haven't had elevated liver enzymes since.
        
             | kimmik wrote:
             | What was in that multivitamin you took? Interesting
             | anecdote but I worry you are throwing the baby out.
        
               | 300bps wrote:
               | It was a mass-market Centrum multivitamin.
        
           | AmericanChopper wrote:
           | If you spend enough time looking into what micronutrients you
           | need, you eventually figure out that it is actually pretty
           | hard to get them all through diet. But there is essentially
           | no end to the scientifically backed list of beneficial
           | supplements you might choose to take, so if you want to
           | start, there's not really a rational place to stop, and it
           | can spiral out of control quite quickly. I think the better
           | approach is just to eat a varied diet.
        
         | lr4444lr wrote:
         | Well, that and high quality, sufficient sleep. That is way
         | harder as you age, and a worthwhile aim of lifestyle
         | modification or supplementation to support it.
        
         | johnyzee wrote:
         | This is why omega-3s are effective. Your body depends on them
         | to function optimally, and they are found in only a very few
         | food sources, pretty much only fish. The omega-3s found in nuts
         | and plants can convert to the most critical fatty acids, but
         | about ten times less efficiently.
        
         | zackees wrote:
         | [dead]
        
         | phkahler wrote:
         | >> So basically once your body has all the nutrients it needs
         | to grow or make the things it needs to make, it makes them.
         | Even more extra stuff it doesn't need, it doesn't use. Makes
         | sense.
         | 
         | I find it really common when researching the benefits of X to
         | run across articles citing research that "X does nothing in
         | healthy people" seemingly to discredit the idea that taking X
         | is a good idea. But if you have a deficiency that research
         | isn't really relevant. Gotta read the qualifiers.
        
         | cainxinth wrote:
         | I've often said that when discussing vitamins, in particular,
         | the general public thinks of them incorrectly like stackable
         | video game power ups. In reality, they are more analogous to
         | essential pieces of the game's code.
         | 
         | You don't get super powers by taking a whole bunch, and things
         | start malfunctioning if you lack them.
        
         | newsclues wrote:
         | I think the "boost your immune system" things are just common
         | deficiencies in modern people.
         | 
         | If most people don't get enough vitamin C or D in regular life,
         | then the advice to boost their immune system with a sufficient
         | does to be non-deficient would function to boost their immune
         | system to a normally healthy level.
        
           | Dalewyn wrote:
           | Milk sold in the US almost always has vitamin D added to it,
           | because presumably Americans don't get enough sunlight to
           | produce sufficient amounts.
           | 
           | Instant noodles sold in Japan almost always have vitamins B1
           | and B2 added to them, for presumably similar reasons.
        
             | bayindirh wrote:
             | > because presumably Americans don't get enough sunlight to
             | produce sufficient amounts.
             | 
             | UHT denatures vitamin D, hence UHT and Pasteurized milk has
             | lower vitamin D levels before the sterilization process.
        
             | walthamstow wrote:
             | White bread and processed grain products in the UK always
             | have things like iron, calcium, vitamins, riboflavin added.
             | I think it's to replace the loss of the nutrient-rich germ
             | from milling.
             | 
             | Never known what riboflavin is, still don't today, but I
             | saw it on the side of a cereal box every day as a child and
             | the word is etched in my mind
        
               | jerf wrote:
               | Riboflavin is one of the vitamin B complex. I remember it
               | because deficiencies are _extremely_ rare, and there
               | appears to be no practical upper limit on how much you
               | can take, it is virtually impossible to overdose on. I
               | mean, obviously, there is _some_ limit, but it 's sky
               | high.
               | 
               | Which makes the supplementation of it a particular joke,
               | in my opinion.
               | 
               | That it was discovered as a "vitamin" at all is probably
               | more to do with it being easy to spot (very brightly
               | colored) and easy to chemically handle and a few other
               | accidents of history more than anything else:
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riboflavin#History (I am
               | editorializing that a bit and I freely admit that.) It
               | certainly doesn't stick out like, say, iron, which has
               | recognizable deficiency symptoms and plenty of people in
               | the real world with them.
        
             | yucky wrote:
             | I don't know any adults who drink milk. I'm sure some do,
             | but I wouldn't count on that as the solution to Vitamin D
             | deficiency.
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | You will want k3 if you take d2. Highly recommend getting
           | tested for D deficiency.
           | 
           | Source. I used to have crippling migraines almost every day.
           | I don't anymore.
        
             | robg wrote:
             | I used to get crippling Seasonal Affective Disorder every
             | year, got tested, was badly deficient, and now don't
             | anymore.
        
               | bigcloud1299 wrote:
               | How did you all resolve the deficiencies? Can you link
               | any product you took? I am in need of Vitamin D.
        
               | jeremyt wrote:
               | See Dr Berg:
               | 
               | https://youtu.be/NFxQJmvgXOQ
        
               | idiocrat wrote:
               | I watched the 4 min video.
               | 
               | Unfortunately Dr Berg seems not to consider the concept
               | of biological half-time. I am sure he know the concept,
               | just forgot to put it into his calculation formula.
               | 
               | He basically assumes that if his patient consumes 2000 IU
               | vitamin D today, then tomorrow his patient has depleted
               | all 2000 IU and has zero vitamin D in patient's blood.
               | 
               | This is obviously wrong.
        
               | hombre_fatal wrote:
               | That guy is a scientologist quack btw.
               | 
               | Here's one example of how incompetent he is:
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKNzLRmzLg
               | 
               | He basically turns low quality listicle nutrition
               | pointers into videos with a whiteboard.
        
               | robg wrote:
               | 1. Get tested 2. If low, start taking D3 with K 3. Keep
               | taking D3 with K 4. Get tested again 5. Take more if no
               | improvement
               | 
               | I take 5000 IU most days.
        
             | outime wrote:
             | You've mixed them up - it's D3 with K2.
        
               | hombre_fatal wrote:
               | FWIW, your gut already synthesizes K2 from K1. K1 is easy
               | to get from green leafy vegetables from spinach to
               | broccoli, though I suppose easy to avoid if you don't eat
               | well.
               | 
               | K2 from dietary doses of meat (MK-4) doesn't change
               | circulating levels of MK-4 -- it's basically not
               | bioavailable. Though K2 from fermented products like
               | cheeses and natto (MK-7) _is_ bioavailable.
               | 
               | Doesn't seem like something worth worrying about if you
               | have a varied diet that includes green veggies.
        
             | mgraupner wrote:
             | May I ask if you had gut/intestine problems before?
        
               | treeman79 wrote:
               | Yes. Had tons of random problems. Ended up being
               | autoimmune Sjogrens and a clotting disorder.
               | 
               | Diet changes and supplements are how I got thing under
               | control for most issues. Blood thinners for Clotting
               | since That's way to dangerous, and no combination of
               | anything else helped.
               | 
               | LDN covers symptoms when I'm not strict about diet.
        
               | mgraupner wrote:
               | Interesting. I had similar symptoms like migraine/brain
               | fog, stiff neck and muscle tension as soon as October
               | (winter in Central Europe) came. Tested for Vitamin D
               | deficiency and had super low levels. Since taking
               | supplements I feel good in winter for the first time in
               | probably 5 years. I'm also a very outdoorsy person, so
               | getting enough sun is not always a sure way wo have high
               | levels of Vitamin D.
        
               | treeman79 wrote:
               | Look up IIH. High cranial pressure. Comment about stiff
               | neck is a big clue.
        
               | jerf wrote:
               | "Sun" is definitely not sufficient. Vitamin D synthesis
               | requires UVB exposure [1] and that plummets to
               | effectively zero in the higher latitudes in the winter: h
               | ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037520/#sec3
               | -n... By "higher latitudes" I mean considered on a global
               | scale; continental Europe is effectively all at these
               | "higher latitudes".
               | 
               | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
        
           | simonh wrote:
           | I don't think that's what a lot of people think boosting
           | means. Certainly the family member I'm talking about, and the
           | circle of people she associates with and sends breathlessly
           | excited emails about, think these supplements will protect
           | them from pretty much everything. That they don't just have
           | healthy immune systems, but boosted ones that literally will
           | protect them from coronavirus, flu, even cancer. That's why I
           | don't like that term, it's become a cult byword.
        
           | cullenking wrote:
           | I recently got a broad panel of tests done, and found out I
           | was Vitamin D deficient. This was a big surprise to me
           | because I live in the high desert of central oregon, which
           | gets lots of sun even in the winter. I am very active and
           | outside everyday. It is cold however, so my arms are always
           | covered. We are 45 degrees north of the equator.
           | 
           | I was at 20 ng/mL which is considered deficient. 3 weeks of
           | 5,000 IU a day supplementation (162lbs, fit, active male)
           | brought me up to 31 ng/mL, which is just barely up from
           | deficient. I upped to 10,000 IU a day for 1 week, dropped
           | back to 5,000 IU a day, and will test again in two weeks.
           | Everyone is different, but hopefully this gives some helpful
           | numbers for anyone considering supplementing, and whether or
           | not the paltry 1,000 IU commonly advised is adequate for
           | people living at a higher latitude in the winter.
        
       | ravenstine wrote:
       | Even if supplementing omega 3 had any meaningful benefit, enough
       | of those supplements are either spoiled or tainted with things
       | like aldehydes that I decided to stop taking them.
       | 
       | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30529885/
       | 
       | Better to just eat meat and eggs.
        
       | francisofascii wrote:
       | > They also have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties
       | that might help brain function.
       | 
       | I think people take omega-3s for the antioxidant and anti-
       | inflammatory properties. That's the benefit. The "brain boosting"
       | effects, if any, are just a possible bonus.
        
       | sinenomine wrote:
       | Regardless of the potential nootropic effect discussed in the
       | blogpost, the circulatory system (heart) benefits are pretty well
       | studied and proven:
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22370-2 though require
       | considerable doses of the DHA or EHA.
        
       | meindnoch wrote:
       | Anecdotal experience: I was taking an SNRI medication, and when I
       | tried an omega-3 supplement it gave me those unmistakeable brain
       | zaps you get when weaning off of antidepressants. So it
       | definitely did _something_ to my brain!
       | 
       | By the way, paradoxically, people discontinuing antidepressants
       | usually take omega-3 hoping that it will _lessen_ their brain
       | zaps...
        
       | tgv wrote:
       | Does lack of it have an effect? I couldn't find that in the list.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | mark_l_watson wrote:
       | I am not an expert in nutrition, but I still have my opinions: I
       | try to consume a lot of Omega 3 via the food I eat: chia seeds,
       | walnuts, etc. I avoid eating foods, like the fish Tilapia, that
       | contain a lot of Omega 6.
       | 
       | I do take one daily Omega 3 supplement I get from my optometrist
       | for a particular vision problem.
        
       | azubinski wrote:
       | There was a strange country where the pure Omega-3 "fish fat" was
       | extremely popular, almost every child was fed this in childhood.
       | 
       | Then these kids grew up. And they became tens of millions of
       | idiots who put cans of water in front of TVs so that some
       | charlatan would "charge" this water.
       | 
       | So this Omega-3 is proven not to help the brain. It maybe even
       | harmful. The second assertion has not yet been refuted.
       | 
       | :)
        
         | dennis_jeeves1 wrote:
         | >So this Omega-3 is proven not to help the brain. It maybe even
         | harmful. The second assertion has not yet been refuted.
         | 
         | So I don't recollect all sources but it does appear that for
         | people who understand the nuances ( of which there are not
         | many) it indeed could be harmful.
         | 
         | One source: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml
        
       | moremetadata wrote:
       | Is this an obedience to authority and child abuse study? You'd
       | have to read the article and then click through on the links to
       | see, unless my internet access is being MITM.
       | 
       | Edit. Didnt see any mention of neutrophils and the effect EPA has
       | on their size and effectiveness, which can also increase brain
       | function in a round about way and no mention of its testosterone
       | enhancing ways which through its mild aromatase inhibition, which
       | then contradicts the oestrogen-choline pathway and the effect
       | choline has on the brain. Contradictions everywhere.
        
       | AppleBananaPie wrote:
       | There are a lot of things that supplements are claimed to help
       | but clearly don't. That being said there are things that have
       | promising scientific research about benefits and this article
       | lacks any information on EPA omega 3s separate from the others
       | which ultimately makes me disregard any conclusion of omega 3s as
       | a whole.
       | 
       | Look into the potential effects of EPA omega 3s specifically on
       | depression and the potential benefits compared to or combined
       | with anti-depressants. Andrew Huberman had it in his episode on
       | anxiety and depression I think.
       | 
       | The impact of omega 3s on adhd is also an interesting area of
       | research.
       | 
       | Using a click bait "brain-boosting" description completely misses
       | the point of many studies that show that certain diets low in
       | different omega 3s cause different problems for people.
        
       | mistercow wrote:
       | I don't understand the author's reading of the literature they
       | cite. They refer to "isolated studies" and then link to a
       | systematic review of 25 studies. They also linked to the same
       | review twice for both memory and attention, which I assume is a
       | mistake, because the review only supports the claim about memory.
       | 
       | But none of these studies are about "brain-boosting". They're
       | about preventing or reversing cognitive decline, which is perhaps
       | related, but ultimately different.
       | 
       | No fault to the author of this post for being unable to find
       | evidence focused on healthy adults; anyone who has looked into
       | the evidence around nootropics can tell you that pretty much
       | nobody wants to study that. But it's important to be clear about
       | what the evidence actually says, and what it doesn't speak to.
        
         | abeppu wrote:
         | > anyone who has looked into the evidence around nootropics can
         | tell you that pretty much nobody wants to study that
         | 
         | There's a class of areas where lots of non-experts are
         | interested, but doing studies large enough to detect modest
         | effect sizes with high confidence is too expensive. Nutrition
         | can do either large survey studies, or small controlled
         | experiments. Exercise researchers often have to work with a
         | small number of untrained participants. I would love a citizen
         | science platform for large studies of low-risk interventions
         | operated like a multi-armed bandit setup. "Oh, you're
         | interested improving working memory? Follow regimen X for 90
         | days and do this working memory test every week." I feel like
         | the hardest parts are getting participants to adhere to their
         | assigned intervention, and preventing participants with a pre-
         | existing agenda from joining.
        
           | karpierz wrote:
           | > I feel like the hardest parts are getting participants to
           | adhere to their assigned intervention, and preventing
           | participants with a pre-existing agenda from joining.
           | 
           | This combined with perverse incentives are why it's not
           | possible. Non-experts with the resources to solve these
           | problems are generally trying to sell you something, and
           | aren't particularly interested in the truth.
        
             | abeppu wrote:
             | Perhaps so. Saying it's "not possible" seems like an overly
             | strong conclusion.
             | 
             | For specific interventions, I think it might be possible to
             | have open, blinded participation. E.g. for supplements
             | which may affect memory:
             | 
             | - Participants sign up to buy a supplement which they know
             | will be one of k generally safe supplements or a placebo
             | 
             | - The specific supplement or placebo they receive it
             | thompson sampled (or similar) from our bandit given data so
             | far, and sent to them unlabeled
             | 
             | - They're only able to receive their next bottle if they
             | complete weekly tests or measurements
             | 
             | The value prop is that you're probably buying a pretty good
             | intervention, even if you don't know which one it is (and
             | perhaps you're getting a discount subsidized by the
             | minority of people who are paying for a placebo at any
             | given time).
             | 
             | For a number of questions related to exercise, people may
             | fall into camps about their prior beliefs, and may self-
             | sabotage if they're in treatment group that goes against
             | their preferences but there isn't a clear thing to sell.
             | E.g. which of a family of training schedules helps people
             | reduce their 10k running time the most?
        
         | permo-w wrote:
         | why is it that no one wants to study the effects of nootropics?
        
           | boringg wrote:
           | Way too many variables to control for which makes any
           | scientific findings incredibly difficult to validate. Tough
           | to make a career on it and way to many conflict of interests.
           | 
           | It's too bad because if someone could legitimately find
           | conclusive results that would be really helpful.
           | 
           | It feels like its a part of the medical space that the
           | mainstream part of the medical community has shunned which
           | has allowed for a lot of less scrupulous individuals to take
           | up the mantel (See all the podcasts etc). It's too bad
           | because there is probably something to it but its tough to
           | validate/quantify.
        
           | Mtinie wrote:
           | I have two hypotheses that came to mind when I read your
           | question:
           | 
           | 1. It's a hard problem to quantify effects on cognitive
           | functioning provided by nootropic supplements. We still have
           | so much to learn about brain function;
           | 
           | 2. Nootropics offer patent holders opportunities to make
           | obscene amounts of money. As long as those supplements are
           | (generally) safe to consume. That level of review requires
           | R&D spending, but _too much_ investigation may inadvertently
           | reveal that these money-making "miracle" products are far
           | less effective than the manufacturers claim.
        
             | theptip wrote:
             | I don't think 1. is correct. There is a large body of
             | research looking into different dimensions of brain
             | function, and how different conditions impair those
             | functions.
             | 
             | For example, look at the N-back test for working memory.
             | This is popular in the nootropics community, and is widely
             | used in clinical pharmacology research. There are plenty of
             | other tests. Scientists do experiments like "measure how
             | impaired you are on alcohol vs. antihistamines" to compare
             | impairment profiles from different modes of drug action.
             | 
             | You can measure impairment from sleep deprivation, alcohol,
             | etc., so of course you can measure improvement in
             | attention, reaction speed, working memory, spatial
             | reasoning, and so on.
             | 
             | The difficulty with quantifying effects is not that we need
             | to learn about brain function to know how to measure them,
             | it's that nootropics have quite small effect sizes, if any.
             | 
             | I think it's entirely about 2 -- large studies are
             | expensive, and unless your effect size is enormous you need
             | a large study to detect it.
        
             | permo-w wrote:
             | 1. is certainly true. to my mind, an accurate quantitative
             | measure of brain function doesn't exist: you run into the
             | fairly intractable philosophical problem of "what is brain
             | function?"
             | 
             | while that is true, not being 100% philosophically sound
             | has never stopped psychology studies before - far from it
             | 
             | 2. is also perfectly true, with the caveat that it only
             | applies to beneficiaries of the patents.
             | 
             | so your hypotheses account for beneficiaries of the
             | patents, and scientists who aren't willing to broach the
             | subject of measuring brain function, but what about the
             | complement of those subsets? what about non-beneficiaries
             | who _are_ willing to quantify brain function? are they
             | simply a small enough subset that it justifies the
             | observation? or is there another hypothesis to be found? or
             | perhaps the observation is flawed in itself
        
               | Mtinie wrote:
               | > [...]or is there another hypothesis to be found?
               | 
               | There most certainly are more hypotheses to discuss. I
               | picked the two which came immediately to mind and passed
               | my personal "plausible enough" check.
               | 
               | Thank you for giving me more to consider!
        
           | captainbland wrote:
           | I imagine there aren't many scientists who want to enable
           | their own line of work descending into a doping arms race
           | like some sports can in the absence of anti-doping
           | regulations.
           | 
           | Edit: or if they do catch on to something, a moral panic
           | breaking out and having to do drugs tests on the regular or
           | something
        
           | mistercow wrote:
           | I think it boils down to a combination of:
           | 
           | 1) It's hard to sell the output of this research. Your health
           | insurance isn't going to pay $100 a day to make a healthy
           | person smarter.
           | 
           | 2) The output of your research is going to be low priority
           | for regulatory approval
           | 
           | 3) As both result and cause of the above, there's virtually
           | no existing funding for this kind of research
           | 
           | 4) If you succeed, you're going to spark an immediate furor
           | over fairness and the morality of human enhancement (which
           | I'm not saying I personally agree with, but it will happen)
        
           | manuelabeledo wrote:
           | "no one" is a bit of an overstatement.
           | 
           | If I run a quick search on PubMed, there are a handful
           | focused on cognitive enhancement and other effects on healthy
           | brains, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35366192/
        
           | shredprez wrote:
           | The person you're replying wrote no one wants to study the
           | effects of nootropics _in healthy adults._
           | 
           | Sick people with insurance, particularly chronically ill
           | ones, or those with illnesses that threaten their lives, are
           | where I'd imagine the majority of money is made. You could
           | probably argue treating the ill is more psychologically
           | impactful work too. That's going to skew where researcher's
           | focus their attention, especially if their work is funded by
           | private industry.
        
           | omginternets wrote:
           | Because most of the time, interest in a topic is a function
           | of plausibility. Most nootropics have little or nothing to
           | indicate they work -- not even a hint of something plausible.
           | 
           | Of course, it's possible the scientific community is
           | overlooking something promising. This has happened before.
           | But that's a dangerous bet for a career scientist to take.
           | 
           | Practically, if you want nootropics that work, and if you
           | want to consume something whose long term side-effects are
           | actually known, get an adderall prescription. (Or, stop
           | trying to neurotically optimize every detail of your life and
           | go outside.)
        
           | crazypyro wrote:
           | Because people buy it without it being proven and proving
           | anything related to cognitive ability is both difficult and
           | expensive.
           | 
           | This makes doing studies on their effectiveness a neutral to
           | losing scenario.
           | 
           | Either:
           | 
           | The nootropic works. Great, you probably spent a decent
           | amount of money and... The results are still going to be hard
           | to quantify and measure. It may not be good enough results to
           | convince people who already weren't convinced. Might as well
           | not do it and keep making money off people who buy it without
           | scientific studies.
           | 
           | Or
           | 
           | The nootropic doesn't work. Shit. Bury the results and never
           | publish or risk losing a money maker.
        
             | permo-w wrote:
             | this is all true for the producers/sellers of the
             | nootropic, but what about anyone else?
        
               | paulluuk wrote:
               | Indeed, it seems to me that a paper proving that
               | nootropics are either harmful or helpful would be quite
               | publishable, which is (unfortunately?) what modern
               | science is all about.
        
           | zackees wrote:
           | [dead]
        
         | mililitre wrote:
         | Thanks for the feedback: will update the second link to point
         | to the correct source, and I think "isolated findings" would be
         | a more accurate word here.
         | 
         | I agree that many of the studies are about cognitive decline,
         | but there's also research on improving cognitive function,
         | which would probably be closer to "brain boosting" category you
         | mention.
         | 
         | For example, from the first source I listed, "Six trials
         | (including 1757 participants) assessed executive function, 5
         | trials (including 1426 participants) assessed effects of LCn3
         | on processing speed, and 11 (including 5698 participants)
         | assessed memory. Meta-analysis suggested little or no effect
         | for all of these measures (as well as the subcategories of
         | memory, all moderate- or low-quality evidence; see
         | Supplementary Material for further information)."
        
           | bearcream67 wrote:
           | "Current evidence supports the finding that omega-3 PUFAs
           | with EPA >= 60% at a dosage of <=1 g/d would have beneficial
           | effects on depression."
           | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5
           | 
           | Is this considered brain boosting?
        
             | GTP wrote:
             | I don't think so, I would consider "brain boosting"
             | something that makes the brain of an healthy person perform
             | better at certain tasks, not something that improves it for
             | people with a disease.
        
           | stevespang wrote:
           | [dead]
        
       | PragmaticPulp wrote:
       | One of the interesting things you pick up on from reading
       | supplement blogs and fitness forums is that a lot of people have
       | negative reactions to Omega 3 supplements. If you search for
       | "omega-3 depression" you find a lot of stories from people whose
       | depression started or worsened with omega-3 supplements, and
       | resolved later.
       | 
       | This is a particularly interesting find given that the placebo
       | effect would be expected to go in the opposite direction: Many of
       | these people started the supplement because they thought it was
       | going to improve their health, not worsen it. It can take a very
       | long time to recognize the connection between the supplement and
       | side effects.
       | 
       | Several other supplements are common contributors to depressive
       | symptoms. Choline supplements often make irritability and
       | depression worse. This finding isn't surprising given that
       | cholinergic signaling has been known to be associated with
       | depression for decades and many powerful antidepressants are
       | anticholinergic. Yet you can find a lot of supplement sellers
       | pushing choline supplements as something that automatically
       | improves brain health.
        
         | sinenomine wrote:
         | Regardless of personal reports you mention, choline is a _very_
         | interesting substance due to demonstrated long-term attention
         | benefits in children after being administered to their mothers
         | during pregnancy:
         | https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1096/fj.2021012...
         | 
         | This is as close to "life-changing" as it gets with these
         | substances.
        
         | bearcream67 wrote:
         | I'm curious as to what papers mention this! Quickly pulling up
         | one related appears to clearly support EPA omega 3
         | supplementation being a beneficial tool to help with
         | depression.
         | 
         | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5
        
       | bazmattaz wrote:
       | Anecdotal evidence time!
       | 
       | I take 3 high strength omega 3 tablets every day. I feel like it
       | sharpens my mind and improves my focus. It might be a placebo but
       | I know when I go off them (sometimes I have a few off months for
       | no real reason) I get bad brain fog and my performance at work
       | slips. With omegas i feel like I sleep better and recover from
       | the gym quicker
        
       | osigurdson wrote:
       | I've always thought that these types of studies / meta-analysis
       | are conducted in a backward manner. A study is proposed, funded,
       | performed - possibly with a particular objective in mind. The
       | results are published (possibly used in various marketing
       | materials), then almost enviably, methods and rationale are
       | questioned by others post hoc. The end result of the exercise is
       | often no knowledge gained with diminishing public trust in
       | science.
       | 
       | Instead what we should do, is to come up with a study design
       | first, gain broad consensus that the study, if rigorously
       | conducted in accordance to the design, would yield statistically
       | meaningful results.
       | 
       | The challenge here is many studies would likely be infeasible
       | (requiring millions of people or hundreds of years in order to
       | attain a statistically valid result - or both). However, that is
       | useful in it's own right as it would help us to direct resources
       | at studies that do have a hope of increasing knowledge.
       | Infeasible studies will just have to wait until we can accurately
       | simulate biological phenomena.
        
         | bannedbybros wrote:
         | [dead]
        
       | mamonster wrote:
       | I mean, that's kind of the gist of supplements as a whole, you
       | only take them if you cannot replicate it using a normal
       | diet/lifestyle.
       | 
       | The biggest example for this IMO is Vitamin D. If you can spend
       | time in the Sun regularly every day, you won't ever need to touch
       | vitamin D. But how realistic is that for most people ?
       | 
       | The only supplement I've encountered so far that has a noticeable
       | effect that cannot be reproduced with any realistic diet is
       | creatine.
        
         | nervousvarun wrote:
         | Creatine...would say especially if you're male, is such a game-
         | changer. Recently got my dad who is in his 70s to start taking
         | it and it's been enormously positive for him. Really good
         | stuff.
         | 
         | Personally think it's probably equally valuable for women but
         | can't get my wife to take it (worried about the bloating which
         | is a thing).
         | 
         | To your point it would be very difficult to get the equivalent
         | creatine from your diet. Would take a lot of steak.
        
           | rex-mundi wrote:
           | What benefits did you Dad get from it?
        
             | nervousvarun wrote:
             | More weight and energy/faster recovery with his circuit
             | training. His overall lean muscle tone has visibly
             | improved.
             | 
             | Haven't asked him about his cardio training but he's moving
             | more weight around than he did before and that's creating
             | benefits for him overall.
        
           | taeric wrote:
           | Did you look at any of the studies that showed placebo
           | effects comparable to creatine? It is insane, as we know the
           | mechanism for how creatine does its thing. Still, the social
           | effects of being told it is effective seems to be the
           | dominant reason it is as effective as it is.
        
             | nervousvarun wrote:
             | Have not seen those studies.
             | 
             | Creatine is one of the most studied supplements out there
             | though so would think the empirical data supports it at
             | this point.
             | 
             | I'm speaking anecdotally of course. I used to cycle
             | creatine but now I just always take it. When I'd cycle off
             | I'd lose 5-10 lbs every time. Thats mostly water weight but
             | my lifts would decrease about 10% as well. Not to mention
             | the extra energy (more reps not just more weight)
             | 
             | It makes a significant difference for me.
        
               | taeric wrote:
               | It is one of the more studied drugs, agreed. We are very
               | confident it works. Which is why the studies that show
               | being told it works is a major driver are insanely
               | interesting and worth checking on.
        
           | mancerayder wrote:
           | I lift weights and do other exercise but never took Creatine.
           | Are there benefits that aren't tied to exercise performance
           | specifically as a goal ?
           | 
           | Does it have downsides in the body?
        
             | smileysteve wrote:
             | Non exercise performance benefits:
             | 
             | - helps build skeletal support muscles which reduces
             | osteoarthritis and treats osteopetrosis
             | 
             | - helps strengthen the heart muscle
             | 
             | - the brain also uses atp, increased brain function
             | (anecdotally, can help reduce brain fatigue)(Parkinson's,
             | als, Huntingtons, possibly Alzheimer's
             | 
             | Downsides:
             | 
             | Increased load on the kidneys - which combines with an
             | increased load from muscle breakdown (which it can reduce,
             | but most likely the workout with it will increase muscle
             | breakdown) - don't take it and workout hard if you are
             | approaching renal failure.
             | 
             | Some stomach upset, diarrhea, and muscle bloating.
        
         | vassy wrote:
         | I was reading your comment and wanted to comment about creatine
         | until I saw it added at the end. With over 20 years of gym
         | training and taking massive amounts of supplements, I totally
         | agree. Apart from protein if you can't get enough from food, I
         | find that everything else is either useless or not worth the
         | price.
        
       | mjburgess wrote:
       | One of the major problems translating "science to advice" is the
       | need to specify a risk/reward model for the person being advised.
       | 
       | If P(TheScience) = 0.01, but P(GeneralInjury|TheScience) =
       | 0.00000000000...1, and P(GeneralBenefit|TheScience) = 0.5 ....
       | then most people should do "what the science says".
       | 
       | Of course there's P(MyBenefit|TheScience) and
       | P(MyInjury|TheScience) which makes rendering general advise often
       | impossible/unethical.
       | 
       | There's a class of people (eg., neurodivergent, autoimmune
       | problems, etc.) for whom P(MyInjury|...) is "anti-correlated"
       | with P(GeneralInjury|...)
       | 
       | ...which leads to more pronounced mistrust regarding medical
       | interventions.
        
         | chickenimprint wrote:
         | What do you mean by P(TheScience) ?
        
           | mjburgess wrote:
           | The confidence we have that the relevant scientific
           | prescriptions are true.
        
       | nabla9 wrote:
       | Metaphor I learned from a biochemist:
       | 
       | You are in a boat with holes in it (holes in this metaphor are
       | nutritional deficiencies).
       | 
       | To prevent the boat from sinking you patch the holes under
       | waterline starting from the largest. The boat continues to sink
       | until all holes under the waterline are patched. You don't stop
       | sinking by patching one hole again and again. After you have
       | patched all holes under the waterline you can prepare for storm
       | (old age, sickness) and patch holes above the waterline. You
       | should start from the lowest and go upward.
       | 
       | lessons:
       | 
       | 1. Measure. Blood test can determine if you have deficiencies you
       | need to fix.
       | 
       | 2. Once you have fixed one deficiency, fixing it by taking more
       | does not help.
       | 
       | 3. Fancy nutrients (phytonutrients, Omega-3) have very tiny
       | effect size if it exists at all. They would be at the bottom of
       | any list (healthy diet, exercise, sleep, right weight). If you
       | don't get enough sleep your immune system and cognition are
       | compromised and supplements don't compensate.
       | 
       | ----
       | 
       | ps. Body can synthesize omega-3 if there is enough a-linolenic
       | acid (ALA) available. Aging may impair body's ability to make
       | omega-3 fatty acids from ALA. _IF_ this is the case, omega-3
       | supplements _may_ help.
        
         | tablespoon wrote:
         | > ps. Body can synthesize omega-3 if there is enough
         | a-linolenic acid (ALA) available.
         | 
         | IIRC, ALA _is an Omega 3_ , just one the human body doesn't use
         | for much. The body can synthesize EPA and DHA (which it does
         | use), but humans are pretty bad at that. It's totally
         | conceivable that the rate of synthesis evolved in the context
         | of regular dietary intake of EPA/DHA, so never needed to
         | provide for all the body's needs.
        
       | humbleferret wrote:
       | An intriguing read that summarises the findings of multiple
       | sources. Makes one ponder the true effectiveness of other
       | supplements on the market, and whether the $100B+ industry is
       | built on hearsay and deception.
        
         | Spooky23 wrote:
         | No pondering necessary. That entire industry is based on making
         | implications with statements and lobbying to avoid any
         | potential accountability.
        
         | ttyyzz wrote:
         | Selling water / sugar that has been "marketed differently"
         | (read: they lie to you) is a huge industry, yes.
         | 
         | E.g. "Vitamin Water", all kinds of supplements marketed in the
         | fitness industry, even
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy.
         | 
         | Placebo is a strong thing.
        
         | ejb999 wrote:
         | I agree - its hearsay and deception - vitamins and nutrients
         | and dietary supplements are a huge, profit driven, industries -
         | they are not your friend trying to improve your health - they
         | are trying to empty your wallet and nothing else.
        
         | AppleBananaPie wrote:
         | Multiple sources can hardly be considered an effective bar to
         | decide if something as a whole is good or bad for you. The
         | author completely misses major pieces of literature around
         | these and citing something that is critical for you body as
         | 'probably good for you' while not covering a single instance of
         | health problems from deficiencies makes it hard to take this
         | seriously.
        
           | iillexial wrote:
           | >The author completely misses major pieces of literature
           | 
           | Can you provide links?
        
             | bearcream67 wrote:
             | Not who you're replying to but
             | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0515-5 from my
             | other comment seems relevant. There are many, curious what
             | apple will link
        
         | rogerkirkness wrote:
         | Started my career at a supplement company and it is definitely
         | heresy, deception, and weird derivatives of protein and
         | caffeine.
        
       | daniel_iversen wrote:
       | Interesting. But omega-3 oils are still good for the joints at
       | least aren't they, does anyone know?
        
       | rhacker wrote:
       | Supplements are great because at worst they work like a placebo.
       | There is a ton of evidence that placebos actually work better
       | than real FDA approved stuff (in some cases) because there is a
       | metric tonne of crap we don't understand about the brain itself
       | and it's ability to heal the body.
       | 
       | At best they actually affect the gut microbiome in some way
       | (mostly probiotics) which, in many cases, are also backed by
       | clinical studies that show has effects (placebo controlled).
       | We'll be finding out in the coming years that the gut microbiome
       | is the "second brain" or the brain controlling the brain.
       | Everything from mood disorders to major diseases like ALS to
       | auto-immunity of the thyroid may start with good or bad bacteria
       | in our systems.
       | 
       | This is the cutting edge research, nothing in a book in the last
       | 3 years.
        
       | photochemsyn wrote:
       | Try running this through ChatGPT:
       | 
       | "Let's talk about brain function in human beings and the
       | physiological factors like oxygen demand, blood circulation, and
       | energy consumption."
       | 
       | If you're working in a stuffy room with poor ventilation (not
       | getting enough oxygen to the brain), if you're not getting much
       | exercise (not getting enough bloodflow to the brain), and if your
       | diet is poor (resulting in oscillating blood sugar levels and
       | mineral/vitamin deficiency), then brain function (estimated to
       | account for ~20% of avg human energy consumption) is going to
       | suffer. Popping a handful of omega-3 pills will not help much in
       | that situation.
       | 
       | An interesting question relates to the cohort of people who are
       | doing all the right things, i.e. those that have robust
       | circulation, stable glucose levels and well-oxygenated blood and
       | no nutrient deficiencies. In that case, are there specific
       | supplements that might improve mental cognitive function (other
       | than an espresso, of course)?
       | 
       | It's also possible that a given supplement exerts a positive
       | effect on brain function indirectly via improving circulation or
       | helping stabilize blood sugar levels, etc.
       | 
       | [edit] Here's another good ChatGPT question:
       | 
       | "What's the role of the sodium-potassium pump with respect to
       | oxygen in the blood and brain function at the cellular level?"
        
       | jack_pp wrote:
       | Anecdotally, I've read a long time ago that fish oil should help
       | with sleep but I didn't start supplementing. Fast forward to this
       | summer, I had big sleep problems, I couldn't keep a normal
       | schedule and when I woke up I had terrible brain fog, took my
       | like 2-3h in the morning to wake up properly and be able to
       | function.
       | 
       | Then I started taking fish oil, I got it by the bottle because
       | I've read pills could have rancid oil and I figured if I directly
       | taste it I will know if it's fresh/well kept.
       | 
       | My sleep problems disappeared overnight.
        
         | ralfd wrote:
         | What brand/product did you buy?
        
           | jack_pp wrote:
           | This brand, might be different flavour.
           | https://lysi.com/consumer-products/liquid-cod-liver-oil
           | 
           | I put like 5-10ml in a shot glass and fill the rest with
           | water, just chug it and rinse the glass with water a few
           | times. This way, I can barely taste it and have no fish oil
           | aftertaste, the flavor they add might help too
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-27 23:02 UTC)