129 pointsby brandonb3 hours ago15 comments
  • djoldman2 hours ago
    Studies like this always seem to cite stats in a way that's pretty inaccessible to me. This is more clear to me:

    * 217,122 participants whose data was extracted from the UK biobank database

    * Out of those 217,122, 325 got early onset dementia over an average of 8.3 years

    * The vast percentage of data came from exactly one blood draw per person between 2006 and 2010 at the beginning of the biobank study

      Omega-3 Blood      | Hazard Risk      | Rate of Incidence  | Percent Incidence
      Level Quintiles    |                  | Over 8.3 Years     | Over 8.3 Years
      -------------------|------------------|--------------------|------------------
      Q1 (Lowest 20%)    | 1.0              | 193 in 100,000     | 0.193%
      Q4 (High)          | 0.62             | 120 in 100,000     | 0.120%
      Q5 (Highest 20%)   | 0.60             | 116 in 100,000     | 0.116%
    • getnormalityan hour ago
      This could significantly underestimate the real impact. A single point measurement is perhaps a pretty noisy measure of long term average. If we had lifetime averages, the quintiles would be more purely differentiated by the variable of interest, and the risk would be as well.
    • 44 minutes ago
      undefined
  • insuranceguruan hour ago
    from an actuarial perspective, these longitudinal studies on dementia are huge. early-onset is basically the hardest risk to price for long-term care because the tail of the claim is so long and expensive. finding a solid inverse correlation like this is the kind of thing that eventually shifts premium modeling for an entire generation.
    • getnormalityan hour ago
      Too bad the LTC industry is kinda dead!
  • deeth_starr_v2 hours ago
    > Compared to participants at Q1 of DHA, those at Q5 of non-DHA showed a significant lower risk of EOD. A statistically significant lower risk was observed in Q3, Q4 and Q5 of non-DHA omega-3

    If I'm reading this right, if you can't get many fish sources in your diet, it's better to increase the quantity of non-DHA sources (certain seeds, oils and vegetables). But my understanding is non-DHA is not helpful so I may not be understanding correctly

    • Faelon2 hours ago
      I think it's easy to take algal-based omega-3 supplements. They've gotten pretty good in the last couple years with gummies with a high dose and no algae test. And no fish killed!
      • cultofmetatronan hour ago
        are they artificially converting the ALA to DHA? we treat omega3 like they are all one bucket but theres a big difference.
      • dotancohenan hour ago
        I evolved to eat fish and meat killed. So did all other carnivores. I'm happy to continue eating and shitting and sleeping and having sex, I don't want supplements to replace food and AI to replace intellect and IVF to replace sex. I want to be alive.
        • Faelon10 minutes ago
          Abstaining from killing animals is about the sober realization that we can have perfectly healthy and happy lives without killing animals, who have feelings and a sense of perspective and experience, just like us. Living with my values and actions as one give me a strong sense of life, and I love cooking every day. Plants taste great when cooked well!
        • Insanityan hour ago
          Our species started out predominantly eating fruits, vegetables, nuts,.. As hunter gatherers, meat eating came later and initially was still not a dominant source of nutrition.

          So yes, you eventually evolved for this, but it wasn’t the dominant food source for a loooooong time.

          • amanaplanacanal41 minutes ago
            Homo sapiens? I don't think that's necessarily true. Older ancestors maybe. Home sapiens was probably mostly getting calories from fruit, tubers, and other animals, depending on season and what they could find.
            • Insanity39 minutes ago
              Yeah I left a response about that in another comment. Sapiens (sapiens) perhaps, but not true for the entire homo line.
          • konartan hour ago
            Our species started out predominantly eating whatever was available.

            During different points of time the ration was very different. From "mostly nuts" to "mostly fish".

            • Insanity40 minutes ago
              Yes, but more likely insects as first small “animals”. Hunting animals takes more effort than eating fruits etc.

              I know it’s all vague delineation of where our species really started, and at which point you would no longer consider it the homo line, but for a significant part of history we were a small predator that would eat whatever was _easily_ available. Hunting animals is not easy and it’s a risky endeavour.

              I’m not saying meat wasn’t part of our diet obviously, but it logically wouldn’t have been as dominant a part of our diet as it is today.

            • 43 minutes ago
              undefined
            • wizzwizz434 minutes ago
              And different populations evolutionarily "fine-tuned" in environments with different availabilities of various foodstuffs. While many dietary requirements are common to all humans (e.g. we lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C, making us all susceptible to scurvy), some are specific to individuals and (genetically-related) families.

              Diet is one of the very few places where your genetic ancestry actually matters – although your gut microbiome, which evolves faster (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00587), may not share quite the same ancestry as your human cell tissue.

          • throw_away_92828 minutes ago
            They have found spears that are at least 400,000 years old, so we have hunted for food at least that long.

            And if you look at our closest relatives chimpanzees, they also hunt without using tools. Humans and their ancestors probably ate whatever they had available, including meat.

          • Antipodean hour ago
            Also likely insects.
        • niek_pasan hour ago
          You also evolved to nearly choke to death when you accidentally eat and breathe at the same time. Doesn’t mean it’s desirable.
          • mlekoszek32 minutes ago
            At least we can talk about it.
          • wang_li24 minutes ago
            “Evolution” is not a sound basis for most choices. We didn’t evolve to wear shoes, live in houses, to use powerful cleaning agents, indoor plumbing, decontaminated water, refrigeration, and pretty much all modern medicine, among about every other thing that is part of modern life.
        • cluckindanan hour ago
          Reject modernity, embrace nomadic life in the forests.
          • Propellonian hour ago
            Preach it. I, for one, welcome my caveman dentist!
        • staticassertionan hour ago
          This feels like a series of completely disconnected statements. The underlying theme seems to be that "living" is something that can only be realized by isolating behaviors to those that developed under specific niche conditions that applied pressure to our ancestors, and that this is good, and that deviating is bad. The word "living" and "alive" seems to be a proxy word for something like "happy" or "fulfilled"?

          So many hoops to jump through to understand what the hell you're talking about, just to land on what could charitably be called the dumbest thing I'll read today if I'm lucky.

        • CalRobertan hour ago
          Ok, but evolution didn’t get us somewhere over 8 billion people can share this planet.
        • boston_clonean hour ago
          You are not a carnivore, neither is any other human.
          • amanaplanacanal39 minutes ago
            Plenty do, though. Just like there are plenty of vegans. And plenty that live on junk food.
        • dymkan hour ago
          You are not living in the body of a carnivore

          Eat some berries and nuts

          "Paleo" diet doesn't even include that much meat in it

    • Qem2 hours ago
      > But my understanding is non-DHA is not helpful so I may not be understanding correctly

      Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the Omega-3 present in most plant sources, can get its chemical structure lenghtened to EPA and DHA in the organism. The problem appears to be, when people get older, the efficiency of this conversion takes a large hit.

      • mikeyousean hour ago
        It’s always a stretch too - takes something like 15x more ALA to convert to DHA when things are going well. Not nothing but if a substantial amount of DHA is protective, it’s hard to get there with only ALA.
  • dur-randir29 minutes ago
    Note that EOD is both rare (of all dementia cases) and highly inheritable.
  • MarkMarine2 hours ago
    What’s missing from this is how much omega 3 containing food, how often you need to get this protective result.

    Do I need to eat fish twice a week? 5 times? Do I need to supplement because there is no way to eat enough fish?

    Would love some practical guidance tacked on to this

    • svaraan hour ago
      It's really unclear unfortunately.

      The correlative effect is quite clear, i.e people who have high omega 3 levels (eat a lot of fish) have health benefits.

      But in random controlled trials Omega 3 supplements have not had convincing effects.

      It might be because the supplements aren't very good, or because there's actually something completely different going on, like fish displaces less healthy foods from the diet.

      • darkersidea few seconds ago
        I wonder about cultural and ethnic confounding factors
      • 10 minutes ago
        undefined
    • boston_clonean hour ago
      I like to get my omegas from the following sources, no fish needed!

      - hemp hearts (complete protein, goes best with oatmeal for breakfast, on salads, or in soups for an extra bit of nutty / fatty flavor)

      - pumpkin seeds (also good source of iron, iirc)

      - algae-based supplement (currently taking an omega3 + vit D + vit K combo capsule from nordic naturals)

      • CWIZO17 minutes ago
        It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
      • Finnucane28 minutes ago
        Note that one of the authors received funding from Big Walnut.
  • hmontazeri2 hours ago
    I bet this is due to omega 3 reducing inflammation and oxidative stress
  • raffa667an hour ago
    https://blog.ncase.me/on-depression/ - I think this is explained in a better and simpler way
  • unsupp0rted2 hours ago
    I would recommend it to elderly family members, but they have atrial fibrillation, and I heard omega 3 can exacerbate it?
    • staticassertion2 hours ago
      It's seemingly dose dependent. Low omega 3 can seems to have the same mechanistic effect. As for what the dose should be? No clue, personally, and it depends on your heavily diet since even one fishy meal could provide as much as most supplements do. Personally, I don't eat much fish, so I'm comfortable with a supplement. If I ate even one piece of salmon in a day I'd skip the supplement that day.

      If I had afib I'd talk to a doctor about it before taking it and probably would stay well under 1G on any day I don't eat fish and skip it entirely on a day that I do.

      Not a dr, not a health professional, not anyone you should listen to perhaps at all, but this is my understanding.

      • unsupp0rted34 minutes ago
        > If I had afib I'd talk to a doctor about it before taking it

        Doctors err on the side of "I read a note that said omega 3 = bad for afib" and stop thinking from that point onward.

  • HPsquared2 hours ago
    I wonder how much of this is Omega-3 in the diet, or if there are processes that could deplete levels in the blood.
    • cpncrunch2 hours ago
      Abstract says blood levels objectively reflect dietary intake.
  • midtakean hour ago
    It's difficult if not impossible to increase your intake of omega-3 without increasing your intake of omega-6 even more. I am not sure that's worth it.
    • the_pwner22439 minutes ago
      The O3:O6 ratio matters more. And with the right diet it's very easy to get tons of O3 with an excellent O6 ratio (1:4 vs. the 1:10+ of the standard western diet). Vegan with some seeds (hemp, flax, chia, etc.) and a fish oil or algal EPA/DHA supplement will do it quite easily. As long as you use olive/avocado oil over the O6-heavy cooking oils. Other diets are probably also capable of this.
    • ipaddran hour ago
      Not sure I understand. Replacing chicken with salmon seems simple. So does eating walnuts.
    • Aldipoweran hour ago
      Linseed oil.
      • aedraxan hour ago
        unfortunately the effectiveness from Omega 3 is from DHA and EPA but ALA (seed based omega 3) is minimal effective. Algae based omega 3 might be fine though
  • akashnagaran hour ago
    Highly underrated
  • pengaru2 hours ago
    I suspect the positive effects of consuming nutritious forms of fish-centric meals has as much to do with what you're _not_ eating in those meals as contents like omega-3s.

    There's a bunch of less harmful stuff you can fill your diet with that just by virtue of displacing terrible things has positive effects.

    • coffeefirst16 minutes ago
      Yeah. In many cases these correlations wind up being a measure of home cooking.
  • 464931682 hours ago
    Are vegan sources of omega 3 worth it or am I fucked
    • FeteCommunistean hour ago
      Just use an algae-based omega-3 supplement. Eating algae is how fish build up omega-3 levels in their bodies anyway.
      • ultreia18 minutes ago
        This is the only Omega-3 thing I felt actually made a difference back when I was vegan. All of the ALA-based supplements I tried were useless.
    • scnsan hour ago
      Should be, that's where the fish get it from.
    • andyjohnson0an hour ago
      Not sure where you are located, but here in the UK supermarkets (eg Tesco) sell vegan omega 3/6/9 capsules.
    • Manfredan hour ago
      Seaweed :)
    • boston_clonean hour ago
      very worth it! seven years here with no negative health effects noticed; plus, you’re saving animal lives and helping sustain the planet.

      natural sources for omega FAs include hemp hearts and pumpkin seeds.

  • DonThomasitos2 hours ago
    Cool! But isn‘t that already common wisdom and the basis for the omega3 fanboy culture?
    • dude2507112 hours ago
      Just a stepping stone towards Omega 6, 9 and ultimately 7 grindset...
      • testdelacc12 hours ago
        If you’re not already on Omega 12, it’s already over for you. You’re cooked. Just pre-pay your funeral expenses and wait a couple weeks.
        • cmenge2 hours ago
          Whatever it is, if you have the Omega 13 you get a chance to correct it! Though that one might not help for slow-moving deterioration...
  • ck2an hour ago
    Studies also show you do NOT need DHA and DHA can be detrimental, you want pure EPA or very high EPA to DHA ratio

    if you want the purest Omega3 EPA without all the contaminants that are in OTC supplement nonsense (they are completely unregulated and untested by batch)

    ask your doctor for a script of generic VASCEPA

    CostPlusDrugs has the cheapest generic Vascepa that I've found

    The dose is usually two pills a day but trust me on this, start with one for a long time, it takes your GI a long time to handle it without bathroom urgency

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5282870/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoQUM30Ess