At the November meeting of the Psychonomic Society, a group of experimental psychologists, I gave a 15-minute talk (PowerPoint) about my omega-3 research. (Anyone know how to add audio to a PowerPoint file?) Almost all the data in the talk I’ve posted here, but it had one not-blogged idea, which I summarize like this:
optimize brain –> optimize body
The intake level of a nutrient that optimizes brain function should be close to the level that optimizes the function of everything else. In particular, the omega-3 intake that makes the brain work best should be close to the level that makes the rest of the body work best. This is because the brain and the rest of the body are bathed in the same blood.
It is easy to see why this is so. I have many electrical appliances: clock, telephone, TV, microwave, refrigerator, laser printer. In spite of vastly different innards and functions, all of them run best when their electrical supply is very close to house current. The electric current that makes my laser printer work best is very close to the electric current that makes my refrigerator work best. Of course, this is by design. LIkewise, the different parts of our body, although doing vastly different things, have all been adjusted by evolution to work best with the nutritional equivalent of house current. Just as we might study laser printers to learn what current to use with our refrigerator, we can study the brain to learn what nutrients optimize immune function.
This is a new idea in nutrition (at least, new to me). It is supported by and explains some of the most interesting data I’ve posted. It explains why Tyler Cowen’s gums got so much better so quickly — because he was taking almost exactly the best amount of flaxseed oil for his gums. Tyler chose his intake of flaxseed oil based on my behavioral data, which suggested the best amount was between 2 and 3 tablespoons/day. The gums and the brain could hardly be more different, but the best level for the brain turned out to do a wonderful job of healing his gums. Same thing with Anonymous and sports injuries.
By the way, this shows the scientific value of blogging. My gums got better, too, but not as impressively as Tyler’s. I didn’t have a lot of injuries to heal. The big improvements noticed by Tyler and Anonymous were “accidents” (unintended consequences). Science thrives on accidents; blogging, it turns out, is a new way to generate them.
This is really sketchy reasoning.
Your appliances were designed for 2 things: to be useful, and fit your 120V line. Evolution happens at the edge of life or death, and my first inclination would be to say that only one of the advantages: anti-inflammation or better reaction time etc, is necessary at any one cusp. The probability of needing optimums of both is (to first order) unlikely.
In any case, without more specific examples (specific proteins and vitamins from the past, and studies showing the optimal coupling of the involved systems) I wouldn’t have made the strong statement about “should”. Could, might? Maybe.
NEI, I don’t follow your reasoning. If you have a different explanation of why a dose of flaxseed oil chosen based on brain measurements did such a good job of improving gum health, I’d like to hear it.
For one thing, I dispute your ability to notice a decline in gum health with excessive amounts of fat intake (or a plateau, or lowest effective dose–these things require more subjects. shocker.) Without this, you’re stuck saying “brains need this much, but any amount is good for gums.”
2-3 tablespoons of oil seems like a large amount even for early coastal humans, let alone those on the savanna. It seems a stretch to claim an optimum.
In fact, browsing your presentation, I notice you didn’t even find the optimum for the brain, only a plateau in effect. An easy (and easily confirmed) explanation for this is that storage has maxed, but there are others just as relevant as your conclusion.
Thanks, NE1. I’m unable to find an alternative explanation in what you wrote.