Welcome to Straight Talk on Health. I’m your host Dr. Chet Zelasko. Straight Talk on Health is a joint production with WGVU in Grand Rapids MI. With a PhD in exercise physiology, I’ve been teaching people how to improve their health through diet, exercise, and supplementation for over 30 years. I look at the science behind all the headlines and social media, and let you know whether it’s something to consider or not. You can check out other things that I do on my website Drchet.com and sign up for my free emails.
Another week. Another study. Actually, it's the commentary about the study that really grabbed my attention. Using language like “fail” or “did not protect the brain” were used in the commentary about a recent study on omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and cognitive ability. Let's take a look at this study and then we can decide for ourselves whether the science supports the commentary.
Researchers at the University of Southern California recruited 365 subjects with specific physical and genetic profiles. Specifically, they recruited half the subjects with the APOE ε4 carriers, a gene known to be associated with an increased risk of developing ALZ. They were attempting to see whether 2 grams of high DHA omega-3 fatty acid fish oil could improve or at least prevent the decline in cognitive ability. The researchers tested the change in the omega-3 composition of cerebrospinal fluid as well as took scans of the brain to see whether any shrinkage in specific areas of the subjects’ brains occurred. They also did standardized cognitive testing to measure improvements or declines in cognition.
After two years, while there was improvement in the DHA ratio in the brain as evidenced by the increases in DHA in the cerebrospinal fluid, there were no differences in the cognitive testing nor positive changes in specific brain regions. That led the researchers to conclude that high dose DHA omega-3 fatty acids were of no benefit for improving markers for brain health. Are those comments, as well as “failed” and the other comments I mentioned really warranted?
Let's start here. I take omega-3 fatty acids is a dietary supplement and have for close to 30 years. I can still remember the very day that I began taking omega-3 fatty acids. I had a discussion with a cardiologist when I visited Kansas City close to 30 years ago. He shared a paper with me that presented data on the relationship between omega-3 fatty acid intake and sudden death. What made me immediately begin to take omega 3's, and I mean starting that very day, was the tremendous reduction in sudden death for people who had heart attacks but took omega-3 fatty acids. While I can't remember it precisely, it was close to 80% if I remember correctly. But even if it were only 50% or 30%, that's still a tremendous reduction in the risk of sudden death. It doesn't mean that you don't get the heart attack; it means you don't die from it which I think is a pretty important thing. But I digress.
When I read research and comments as I referred to earlier, it makes me wonder what the real purpose of the comments are. I mean, the research results are the research results. Moving past the results sometimes exceeds what does study truly indicated. I think that's the case with this study and here are my reasons why.
This study suffered significant subject losses. The researchers acknowledged that fact but felt that the statistical approach used could in some ways compensate for the loss of data. What happened? Due to the rolling start of this study, subjects were recruited just prior to the COVID outbreak. 38% of the subjects were lost in the follow-up due to pandemic restrictions. While all subject losses are important I think these may have particularly impacted the results. The characteristics of those subjects were that they were less educated, had lower scores on cognitive testing, and had lower initial omega-3 DHA levels. There is only so much that can be done to adjust statistically when over 1/3 of the subjects are lost in the follow up.
The most significant problem as I see it was that there was no cognitive training of any type included in the study. This was just a ‘give people a supplement and see if there are any changes in a period of two years in their memory, learning, and brain size.’ I don't know why they expected an improvement in cognitive function when there was no attempt to impact the learning process by some form of training program.
What really caught my attention was a comment by the head researcher. In reflecting on the purpose of his research into brain and preventing ALZ, he did a nice job of suggesting that brain health is not dependent on any single variable. Diet, exercise, sleep, and a whole host of other things impact brain health as many other studies have demonstrated.
What he then said was that his research group would work on developing medications to help the body use nutrients more effectively. Say what? Why does the body need medications to do something that it should be able to do naturally? Maybe I'm being a little too selective in criticizing his comments but it would seem the work should focus on developing better programming in all phases of health to help people keep their cognitive function as they age, not on developing medications.
Hearing comments like that just make me suspicious. If you remember from prior STOH episodes, I've covered the relationship between the American Medical Association and the FDA producing videos for physicians to train them on how to talk to their patients about dietary supplements. While I think the intent might have been a good thing, the only message that I really got from watching the videos was for physicians to do two things. First, make sure that the physician informs the patients that all dietary supplements are not approved by the Food and Drug administration. In reality, no dietary supplement is approved by the Food and Drug administration nor is any food really approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Some new entries into the food field, like the current focus on peptides, are trying to get approved as a class considered as generally regarded as safe or GRAS for short, no supplement has ever been approved.
The second part of the video focuses on reporting every potential problem to the Safety Reporting System of the FDA.To me, what was implied was that every stomach ache as well as serious events should be reported to the adverse effects reporting system. The question that I see is that, while not overtly stated, any time a patient has any type of negative impact, real or imagined, the event should be reported as an issue with dietary supplements. I'm not saying that's absolutely implied but you sure get that feeling when you watch the videos. You can search for American Medical Association Food and Drug administration videos on dietary supplements and you can watch them for yourselves and see what feeling you come away with
Back to this study. What this research demonstrated was that a single nutrient is not the complete solution for delaying age-associated cognitive function by itself. It needs to be part of a total package. I'm going to continue to take my omega 3 fish oil supplements as well as continue to train my brain, exercise regularly and do all those other things that contribute to brain health. That seems like a more natural way to do things.
That’s all the time I have for this episode. If you like this podcast, hit the like button and share the link with your friends and colleagues about it. Until next time, this is Dr. Chet Zelasko saying health is a choice. Choose wisely today and every day.
Reference: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ebiom.2026. 106316
