Interesting article - A (real) scientific study seems to indicate vitamins and minerals and some supplements can help to reduce brain cell loss as we age.
A (real) scientific study seems to indicate supplements can help to reduce brain cell loss as we age
It hasn’t worked for me.
Note it’s a mouse study. There are a lot of mouse studies that report x or y that don’t pan out when humans try it.
It is a mouse study, so not sure how much overlap there is with humans.
I really don’t see why this is controversial. If you tell people ‘eat a diet full of fruits and vegetables, it will reduce your risk of dementia’ people have no problem with it. But if you tell them to take pills that have the vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables and you see some/many of the same benefits, people write it off.
- It’s a mouse study.
- It’s a study in an abnormal population of mice known for accelerated aging. Normal mice did not see benefits.
- No indication from the article whether the supposed measures of anti-aging were evaluated blindly (i.e. did the analysts/pathologists know which mice they were looking at?).
- The supplements discussed in the article have not been shown to prevent or treat Alzheimer’s in humans, alone or in combination.
“So far, studies have not demonstrated that, over the long term, health or lifestyle factors can prevent or slow Alzheimer’s disease or age-related cognitive decline. Similarly, clinical trial results do not support the use of any particular medication or dietary supplement to prevent these conditions.”
The thing is, a good diet (including one rich in fruits and vegetables) offers a complex array of vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals that cannot be duplicated in supplement pills. In fact, attempts to artificially supplement with antioxidants like beta-carotene and vitamin E have backfired, resulting (at least in some studies) in higher risk of serious disease including cancer.
Sometimes I wish that people who jump on the latest study ("looka dis, X cures Y. It’s science!) would spend a little more time looking into what’s been done in the field and learning about the scientific method.
This is great news - for MICE.
Once again, Humans are NOT just really big mice.
Why does the press have to make these pathetic “Scientific Find of the Century”?
It’s not exactly like we have a slow news cycle…
You know, I don’t think anyone disputes that a healthy diet and exercise are good for you, even those who eat junk food and lay around a lot. But when diet and exercise are touted as a cure-all and a full proof preventative of all manner of diseases it becomes a way of blaming people for their illnesses that is unfair and disgusting and unkind.
“You know, if Joe had eaten more fruits and vegetables, and maybe jogged when he was younger, his family wouldn’t be having these problems finding a nursing home for him. That won’t happen to me because I drink kale smoothies and go to the gym.”
Yeah, pal. You’re never going to get old and die. Don’t you worry.
Funny. I just read this article yesterday. Exercise may stimulate brain growth
I have never heard anyone who is intelligent say that exercise and diet are “cure alls” for everything. Does this really happen a lot?
Google “diet cure” and you get over 41 million hits. True, many of the ones attributing cures for multiple diseases to various diets are credulous/stupid, but others undoubtedly qualify as intelligent…just not on this subject.
Rubbing your cats’ bellies can be shown to prevent having your eyes clawed out while you sleep.
It’s usually expressed in a more subtle way than my example, and usually more specific. Like so:
“These last few weeks have been rough. My father died of lung cancer.” “Oh, that’s too bad. Was he a smoker?”
“Did you hear about Sally in Marketing? She just got diagnosed with type two diabetes.” “Really? She never looked that heavy to me.”
“So Uncle Greg has Alzheimer’s now? I’m not surprised. He never did anything with his brain but watch TV with it.”
This is the same attitude that used to blame people’s sicknesses on their sins, and it’s just as bad now as it ever was since science has replaced religion for many people.
I’m not clear on your point here. For the first two instances although the observations by the questioners may be impolite their intimations that lung cancer > smoking and diabetes > overweight are generally correct. Both diseases are hugely and directly correlated in terms of a specific behavior causing the result.
It may be blunt and impolite but operationally smokers and people who overeat and do not exercise ARE to blame to a significant extent if they get diabetes or lung cancer. These risk relationships have been known for decades and are blared at people through all manner of media. How is acknowledging this “bad”.
Because you are assuming that if you don’t smoke, eat wisely, and stay active physically and mentally, you wouldn’t get those diseases, which is not always the case. Also you are implying that people who get those diseases deserve what they get. It’s mean-spirited.
Was calling a totally respectable research hospital, Emory or Duke or something. While on hold they asked for volunteers who were fat and depressive for a study of fish oil. I’m fat and depressive and decided it wouldn’t hurt to try. No noticeable results so far, but it’s only been three days.
Is that all? Search for /gold chevrolet/ gets 24-million. Not a very useful metric.
“Misses the point” generates 18,700,000 hits. :smack:
Seriously, how much does a mouse have to remember in an average day? Where he put his car keys?:rolleyes: