Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook      Sign In   
  • Create Account       

Photo

B-vitamins + DHA = Less Cognitive Decline

B12 Folic Acid Folate B6 Homocysteine DHA Omega-3 Cognitive Health Alzheimers Disease

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Dean Pomerleau

Dean Pomerleau
  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,491 posts

Posted 22 January 2016 - 05:45 PM

All,

 

In another apparent micronutrient synergy involving DHA for improved brain health (see Curcumin Elevates DHA in the Brain thread for the other), this new randomized control trial [1] found that supplementing for two years with three B-vitamins (folic acid, B6 and B12) slowed the cognitive decline that often leads from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's Disease (AD), but only if the person had "high normal" levels of serum DHA at baseline:

 

When omega-3 fatty acid concentrations are low, B vitamin treatment has no effect on
cognitive decline in MCI, but when omega-3 levels are in the upper normal range,
B vitamins interact to slow cognitive decline. A clinical trial of B vitamins
combined with omega-3 fatty acids is needed to see whether it is possible to slow

the conversion from MCI to AD. 

 

Michael warns against CRers supplementing with DHA, but for brain health it seems that adequate DHA may be important. Curcumin might help increase DHA in the brain by boosting ALA->DHA conversion, but he's also dissed curcumin, so I'm wondering what he thinks of all this...

 

--Dean

 

----------

[1] J Alzheimers Dis. 2016 Jan 6. [Epub ahead of print]

 

Omega-3 Fatty Acid Status Enhances the Prevention of Cognitive Decline
by B Vitamins in Mild Cognitive Impairment.

 

Oulhaj A(1), Jernerén F(2), Refsum H(2,)(3), David Smith A(2), de Jager CA(4).

 

Free full text: http://content.iospr...sease/jad150777

 

A randomized trial (VITACOG) in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) found
that B vitamin treatment to lower homocysteine slowed the rate of cognitive and
clinical decline. We have used data from this trial to see whether baseline
omega-3 fatty acid status interacts with the effects of B vitamin treatment. 266
participants with MCI aged ≥70 years were randomized to B vitamins (folic acid,
vitamins B6 and B12) or placebo for 2 years. Baseline cognitive test performance,
clinical dementia rating (CDR) scale, and plasma concentrations of total
homocysteine, total docosahexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acids (omega-3 fatty
acids) were measured. Final scores for verbal delayed recall, global cognition,
and CDR sum-of-boxes were better in the B vitamin-treated group according to
increasing baseline concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids, whereas scores in the
placebo group were similar across these concentrations. Among those with good
omega-3 status, 33% of those on B vitamin treatment had global CDR scores >0
compared with 59% among those on placebo. For all three outcome measures, higher
concentrations of docosahexaenoic acid alone significantly enhanced the cognitive
effects of B vitamins, while eicosapentaenoic acid appeared less effective. When
omega-3 fatty acid concentrations are low, B vitamin treatment has no effect on
cognitive decline in MCI, but when omega-3 levels are in the upper normal range,
B vitamins interact to slow cognitive decline. A clinical trial of B vitamins
combined with omega-3 fatty acids is needed to see whether it is possible to slow
the conversion from MCI to AD.

PMID: 26757190


There will never be peace in the world while there are animals in our bellies.

#2 nicholson

nicholson
  • Supporting
  • 222 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 12:27 PM

Suggestion for you Dean:

 

If you think it might be a good idea, why don't you rename this thread something like:  "PREVENTING COGNITIVE DECLINE - B-vitamins + DHA" 

 

Undoubtedly cognitive decline is a major issue, and it would enhance ease of access to the information if people are encouraged to post on the topic in a single location.

 

Rodney.

 

PS:  In my experience of its use I believe 'cheeky' to be a far closer synonym for 'irreverent' than is 'disrespectful'.  However, to me 'irreverent' implies a greater degree of subtlety in the user of the irreverent remark.  So I think 'irreverent' was a better fit in this case than 'cheeky'.


Edited by nicholson, 23 January 2016 - 12:28 PM.


#3 Dean Pomerleau

Dean Pomerleau
  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,491 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 02:06 PM

Rodney,

 

Suggestion for you Dean:

 

If you think it might be a good idea, why don't you rename this thread something like:  "PREVENTING COGNITIVE DECLINE - B-vitamins + DHA" 

 

Undoubtedly cognitive decline is a major issue, and it would enhance ease of access to the information if people are encouraged to post on the topic in a single location.

 

I agree with the importance of cognitive health. But to be honest, this type of "omnibus" thread has had mixed reviews and some pushback among the moderators of these forums... The reasonable argument (it seems to me, although I didn't promote it) is that packing all the discussions of a single large health topic like "PREVENTING COGNITIVE DECLINE" into a single thread will result in very long threads, with inevitable diversions & divergences off-topic. It's the natural way these types of forums go. 

 

Instead, it has been advocated that we keep threads fairly granular and relatively narrowly-focused, with good keywords to help people search via the forum search mechanism, and via the helpful functionality the forum software provides to show related threads based on overlapping tags at the bottom of the page. If you're reading this on a desktop, you should be able to see them at the bottom of your browser window. But in case not (i.e. if you're on an android or ios device), here is what they look like via a screen capture:

 

jMfnjHx.png

 

Notice all these other threads are quite relevant to the topic of this thread. As if by magic, but really just a result of good keyword tagging, the forum software automatically bubbles up other threads relevant to the topic of this one.

 

Between this and the search mechanism for the forums, it seems to me (and especially to others) a better solution than having just a few omnibus threads for high-level topics. In fact, with just a few omnibus threads, tagging threads with keywords becomes a lot more difficult, since when you say add a new study and discussion of it to an omnibus thread, you need to go back and edit the first post in the thread to insert new keywords, and each thread is limited to only 10 keywords, adding further constraints....

 

So at least for now I'm inclined to maintain threads at a relatively granular level.

 

P.S. I certainly didn't mean my use of 'irreverent' to be interpreted in a mean, critical or pejorative way. I meant it as a complement! But people have different interpretations for words, and we each have different levels of familiarity with the English language and its almost infinite, bizarre subtleties

 

--Dean


There will never be peace in the world while there are animals in our bellies.

#4 Greg Scott

Greg Scott
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 02:44 PM

But to be honest, this type of "omnibus" thread has had mixed reviews and some pushback among the moderators of these forums... The reasonable argument (it seems to me, although I didn't promote it) is that packing all the discussions of a single large health topic like "PREVENTING COGNITIVE DECLINE" into a single thread will result in very long threads, with inevitable diversions & divergences off-topic. It's the natural way these types of forums go. 
 
Instead, it has been advocated that we keep threads fairly granular and relatively narrowly-focused, with good keywords to help people search via the forum search mechanism, and via the helpful functionality the forum software provides to show related threads based on overlapping tags at the bottom of the page. If you're reading this on a desktop, you should be able to see them at the bottom of your browser window. But in case not (i.e. if you're on an android or ios device), here is what they look like via a screen capture:
 
Between this and the search mechanism for the forums, it seems to me (and especially to others) a better solution than having just a few omnibus threads for high-level topics. In fact, with just a few omnibus threads, tagging threads with keywords becomes a lot more difficult, since when you say add a new study and discussion of it to an omnibus thread, you need to go back and edit the first post in the thread to insert new keywords, and each thread is limited to only 10 keywords, adding further constraints....
 
So at least for now I'm inclined to maintain threads at a relatively granular level.

 
Dean,

Thanks for this excellent post.

You have produced a number of these educational posts with great screenshots.

Can you tag those posts so we can get a listing of all your meta-forum posts?

They really deserve to be spotlighted with some forum heading, like FAQ or "Tips for getting the most out of this website".
--
greg

#5 Dean Pomerleau

Dean Pomerleau
  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,491 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 03:46 PM

Good idea Greg!

 

I'll create a thread or post with links to all the helpful tips and tricks for getting the most from these forums.

 

--Dean


There will never be peace in the world while there are animals in our bellies.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: B12, Folic Acid, Folate, B6, Homocysteine, DHA, Omega-3, Cognitive Health, Alzheimers Disease