PDA

View Full Version : Study Suggests Fish Is Good for Brain


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Samuel
Mon, Oct-10-05, 18:21
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-FIT-Aging-Brains-Fish.html

Study Suggests Fish Is Good for Brain

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 10, 2005
Filed at 6:22 p.m. ET

CHICAGO (AP) -- Eating fish at least once a week is good for the brain, slowing age-related mental decline by the equivalent of three to four years, a study suggests.

The research adds to the growing evidence that a fish-rich diet helps keep the mind sharp. Previous studies found that people who ate fish lowered their risk of Alzheimer's disease and stroke. Fish such as salmon and tuna that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids also have been shown to prevent heart disease.

For the new study, researchers measured how well 3,718 people did on simple tests, such as recalling details of a story. The participants, all Chicago residents 65 and older, took the tests three times over six years. They also filled out a questionnaire about what they ate that included 139 foods.

''We found that people who ate one fish meal a week had a 10 percent slower annual decline in thinking,'' said co-author Martha Clare Morris, an epidemiologist at Rush University Medical Center. ''Those who ate two fish meals a week showed a 13 percent slower annual decline.''

At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant women, nursing mothers and children to avoid certain types of fish with high levels of mercury -- shark, swordfish, king mackerel or tilefish. Mercury can damage the growing brains of fetuses and children.

The study of fish and mental sharpness was posted Monday on the Web site of the Archives of Neurology and will appear in the journal's December issue. It was published early online because of its general interest.

The researchers looked for, but failed to find, a link between omega-3 fatty acids and protection from brain decline. Previous studies found such a link.

Morris said it is possible that something else about eating fish worked to keep people's minds sharp. Or the food questionnaire might have been too broad to allow researchers to estimate omega-3 intakes accurately, said Dr. Pascale Barberger-Gateau, who does similar research at the University of Bordeaux in France but was not involved in the current study.

In the questionnaire, ''only four seafood items were included, which did not allow this distinction,'' Barberger-Gateau said in an e-mail.

The questionnaire included four broad seafood categories: tuna fish sandwich; fish sticks/fish cakes/fish sandwich; fresh fish as a main dish; and shrimp/lobster/crab.

Testing participants' blood for omega-3 fatty acids would have given a more definitive measure, said Dr. William E. Connor of the Clinical Nutrition Department of Medicine at Oregon Health & Science University. He was not involved in the study.

kebaldwin
Mon, Oct-10-05, 19:01
The brain is mostly fat.

http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/0C984EE8632698D68525653D00764003

And since most Americans are now deficient of Omega 3s, I can believe that those that take fish oil will do much better.

The value of omega 3s goes well beyond mental capability.

kwikdriver
Mon, Oct-10-05, 20:19
''We found that people who ate one fish meal a week had a 10 percent slower annual decline in thinking,'' said co-author Martha Clare Morris, an epidemiologist at Rush University Medical Center. ''Those who ate two fish meals a week showed a 13 percent slower annual decline.''


Next up: "The Catholic Diet: How to lose weight, find God, and protect your brain." ;)

Lez
Tue, Oct-11-05, 05:57
yup. my Granma told me that!!!

many years ago.

lex

mcsblues
Tue, Oct-11-05, 16:36
Whilst 'we' might agree with the result of this study - if you are interested, check out the original paper for an example of absolutely abysmal pseudo science.

http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/62.12.noc50161v1

They had subjects self reporting their diets from 137 categories - 4 of which were fish or fish products - but only one of these 4 identified the variety of fish (tuna). They also took no blood samples to determine omega 3 status - so they had no measure of omega 3 intake or effect - but somehow made a finding that there results were NOT based on the omega 3 content of fish.

But beyond that - this is a study which had a multitude of uncontrolled variables - and the result they determined was 'caused' by one of them?

Give me strength!

Cheers,

Malcolm