Some of you might remember our post the 24th of January this year were we questioned the validity of the claim that "Vitamin D may be a mental aid". The study we questioned observed that “They found that compared to those with the highest vitamin D levels, those with the lowest were more than twice as likely to have impaired understanding” Our claim was that the low vitamin D levels found in these patients could just as well be a result of their mental incapabilities or illness, and not the cause of it, and that supplemeting would not provide any health benefit.
Interestingely, a UK study now has cast doubt on claims that eating oily fish, high in containt of vitamin D, can protect against dementia in old age after all, according to the BBC.
Data from a trial of more than 800 older people initially showed that those who eat plenty of oily fish seem to have better cognitive function. But factors such as education and mood explained most of the link. Researchers need to clarify what, if any, benefits fish oil has on the ageing brain, they wrote in the Journal of Nutrition, Health and Ageing.
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in diet as a way of preventing dementia. Much focus has been on omega 3 fatty acids found in oily fish, such as salmon and mackerel. And there are biological reasons; backed by tests in the laboratory, why in theory, these fatty acids would be neuroprotective.
The latest study found a significant association between eating a couple of portions of fish a week and better scores on tests of cognitive function. But when the researchers, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, took into account education and psychological health the association almost disappeared. Now this is done by adding variables into the data when you run the statistical test, students who has used the softwares SPSS for social science, or Eviews for time-series analysis, or in other ways tested for correlation between several variables are familiar with how these variables are added to the equation.
Experts advise eating a couple of portions of fish a week, with at least one being an oily fish, because there are proven benefits on the heart. Study leader Dr Alan Dangour said claims about the benefits of oily fish in warding of dementia in older people seemed to have been oversold.
"The evidence on this has always been sporadic. What this shows is there is a link between people who eat oily fish and better cognitive function, but if you adjust for education and mood this relationship goes, so it's not at all clear that healthy older people get any benefit from eating fish oil."
The evidence collected by Dr Dangour was for a study due to report later this year comparing fish oil supplements with placebo. He added that this randomised, controlled study should provide clarification.
Neil Hunt, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, said: "One of the best ways to reduce your risk of dementia is by eating a Mediterranean diet rich in fruit, vegetables, grains, fish and poultry. However, we still do not know which components of this sort of diet help the most.
Unfortunately this study does not add to our understanding. Once age, sex and education are accounted for the research does not show any significant benefit of regularly eating oily fish. "
So that is another example of the “overselling” of Vitamin D found so far, is it any strange people are confused about the health benefits from this hormone? If vitamin D does not positively affect the health of eldery, what about children and infants? I attended a party this week end and spoke with many young mothers who’s doctor’s had told them to give their infants vitamin D drops “because ordinary breast milk from the mother is not enriched with Vitamin D!” Maybe there is a perfectly good reason for that!! It is not suppose to be there! Luckily one of the mothers in question was a veterinary and knew about the complex attributes of the hormone we call Vitamin D, hence refused to comply the “doctors orders”.
Have a look at these two research papers, which is two of few longer term studies of the effects of giving infants supplements with Vitamin D. Conclusion: A significant higher risk for actopic allergy!
Why? They don’t know, but if you were to ask someone who believed the newest research about vitamin D’s ability to suppress innate immunity, one could speculate about the dangers involved with giving children which adaptive immunity yet has to be developed, a hormone with immune modularly actions. I wonder why these studies never make it to the press? Maybee someone who makes a lot of money by line-expanding their supplementproducts and market them as wonderpills we are to eat from the day we are born, to the day we die, might have some influence on the the press...
Later this month, we saw that focusing solely on the genes and their effect of increasing risk for diabetes was wrong, although they do play a role, they are most probably not the solely cause when it comes to developing diabetes of both types. Later studies found supporting evidence that an infection could be the "trigger" for diabetes and further research were granted.
Later this month, we saw that focusing solely on the genes and their effect of increasing risk for diabetes was wrong, although they do play a role, they are most probably not the solely cause when it comes to developing diabetes of both types. Later studies found supporting evidence that an infection could be the "trigger" for diabetes and further research were granted.
Other studies also indicate that infections plays a role in other chronic mental disease. I have a twin brother who has been hospitalized for several years due to a mental condition, now since we are identical twins our genes should be quite similar, but I am not mentally ill, and he does not have what we today call an “autoimmune disease”. So the genes cannot explain it, there must be environmental factors, like infections. Now have a look at this article from Scientific American:
"The body’s immune reaction, rather than the infections themselves, may be to blame for the resulting brain damage and psychiatric symptoms."
They speculate if viruses or bacteria may be at the root of schizophrenia and other disorders, the immune system may be involved in causing physciatric symptoms, so why not dementia? I can feel demented now and then, anyone with Sjogren’s or Chronic Fatigue are familiar with the term “Brain Fog”, which, too me, seems like nothing else then temporary dementia… waxing on and off as the immune response changes in strength.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment