Science in Action: Omega-3 (motor-learning surprise, continued)

The results I described in the previous post surprised me because (a) my performance suddenly got better after being stable for many tests and (b) after the improvement, further practice appeared to make my performance worse. I’d never before seen either result in a motor learning situation. If you can think of an explanation of the result that practice makes performance worse, and animal learning isn’t your research area, please let me know.

Learning researchers used to think of associative learning as a kind of stamping-in process. The more you experience A and B together, the stronger the association between them. Simple as that. In the 1960s, however, several results called this idea into question. Situations that should have caused learning did not. The feature that united the various results was that in each case, learning didn’t happen when the animal already expected the second event. If A and B occur together, and you already expect B, there is no learning. Theories that explained these findings — the Rescorla-Wagner model is the best known, but the Pearce-Hall model is the one that appears to be correct — took the discrepancy between expected and observed — an event’s “surprise factor” — rather than simply the event itself, to be what causes learning. We are constantly trying to predict the future; only when we fail do we learn.

In my motor-learning task, imagine that the brain “expects” a certain accuracy. When actual accuracy is less, performance improves. Performance stops improving when actual accuracy equals expected accuracy. The effect of more omega-3 in the blood, and therefore the brain, was to increase expected accuracy. (One of the main things the brain does is learn. If we do something that improves brain performance in other ways, it is plausible that it will also improve learning ability.) Thus the sudden improvement. The decrement in accuracy with further practice came about because, when the omega-3 concentration went down, actual accuracy was better than expected accuracy. Accuracy was “over-predicted,” a learning theorist might say. So the observed change in performance was in the opposite-from-usual direction. Accuracy got worse, not better.

Related happiness research. “Christensen’s study was called “Why Danes Are Smug,” and essentially his answer was it’s because they’re so glum and get happy when things turn out not quite as badly as they expected.”

Science in Action: Omega-3 (motor-learning surprise)

The more I played racquetball, the more accurate my shots became — the more control I had. It was a kind of learning: learning to place the ball. I was fascinated by how little we knew about how that learning took place. I studied associative learning in my own research. The motor learning during racquetball resembled associative learning in the sense that my actions (hitting the ball with the racket) were shaped by what happened next (accuracy of placement). Yet I knew nothing non-obvious about motor learning.

This background of ignorance is why I find my latest flaxseed oil results so interesting. As I’ve posted, I’ve started using a new test in which I use the touchpad to “toss” the cursor from one spot to another (that is, move the cursor with a single finger movement), and measure how close it “lands” to the target. The function relating cursor position to finger position on the touchpad isn’t simple.

Of course I wanted to see how flaxseed oil affected performance on this task. I doubted that it would. This task is untimed. No time pressure. It is like shooting free throws. Most of the previous tasks I’ve used that have shown a flaxseed-oil effect have been tasks where you respond as fast as possible. My balance test was go at your own pace, but it involved a huge amount of computation. Balancing my body on one foot for several seconds seemed to involve a lot more computation than moving a finger about an inch.

Usually I take 4 tablespoons of flaxseed oil just before bedtime. One recent day I took it much earlier and did the toss test at 30-minute intervals before and for several hours afterward.

Here are the results plotted as a function of test session number.

toss results vs condition

Here are the same results plotted versus the time of the test:

toss accuracy vs. time of test

Here is a close-up of the crucial data:

toss accuracy vs. time of session (close-up)

About two hours after I drank the flaxseed oil, my accuracy got worse. Then it slowly got much better. The amazing thing about the improvement is that it reached a maximum long after you would think that the effects of the flaxseed oil had worn off. My overall level of omega-3 is high because I take 4 T flaxseed oil per day. The effect of shifting when I drink the 4 T is just to change the timing of a short-lived peak. Usually that peak happens when I’m asleep and my omega-3 levels are reasonably constant while I’m doing the test. In this case the peak happened while I was doing the test.

I’ll discuss what this might mean in a later post.

Why Are Games Powerful? (Part 1)

Drug addiction, sure. The first pleasurable drugs were probably discovered hundreds of thousands of years ago, if not much earlier. All cultures use drugs. Drugs physically reach the brain. But video game addiction? Video games are a millisecond old, compared to drugs. How did they get so potent so fast?

Self-experimentation made me ask. Using an ordinary psychological test and a speeded arithmetic task, I discovered a fast-acting effect of flaxseed oil. About two hours after ingestion of 4 tablespoons, my brain worked detectably better. The effect wore off over several hours. To properly study this effect, and exploit it to learn more about what fats we should eat (which has been very hard to figure out), I would have to test myself many times per day for many days. Thousands of tests. It would be a lot easier if the tests were fast, portable, and fun — especially fun. Many computer games have these traits. But they don’t provide the data I need, which is a measure of how well my brain is working, and they take too long.

After talking with Greg Niemeyer, I came up with four properties, shared by many games, that might be why they are fun: 1. Right difficulty level. Neither too easy nor too hard. This is a variable emphasized by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in Flow. 2. Feedback. You learn how well you are doing. 3. Variety. Not the same thing over and over. 4. Color. I constructed a task with all four features. To my dismay, it wasn’t fun! (So much for the placebo effect.) I had to force myself to do it.

I had no idea what was wrong. Then, as I’ve written, a friend gave me a bilboquet, which led me to think that there were two principles of fun-making I’d left out: 1. Hand-eye coordination. We enjoy tasks that involve this. 2. Completion. We enjoy tasks where something is cleared up or put neatly together.

I used these ideas to construct a new test. It consisted of moving the cursor around the screen from one colored circle to the next. I move the cursor to a circle and click on it. That circle disappears and a new circle appears somewhere else. It’s a bit like shooting one circle after another. Aim, click, aim, click. Each circle is effectively a new trial. The speed at which I moved the cursor to the new circle and click on it is the main measure. There is trial-by-trial feedback: the color of the next circle depends on how quickly I got to the last circle. Here’s a screen shot (cursor not shown):

circle game

I did this on a Thinkpad. I used the trackpoint to move the cursor. This had the pleasant feature that there was no obvious learning curve — I didn’t improve with practice. Presumably because I have years of practice with the trackpoint

Eventually I got around to the big question: Was this test sensitive to the effects of flaxseed oil? I’ve done two series of measurements to answer this. Here are the results from the first series:

1st test of flaxseed oil with circle game

The green line shows when I drank 4 tablespoons of flaxseed oil (without lignans). Here are the results from the second series:

2nd test of flaxseed oil with circle game

Again, the green line shows when I drank 4 tablespoons of flaxseed oil.

Both times the results resembled my previous results. The flaxseed oil appeared to cause a decrease (= improvement), which reached a maximum around 2 hours after ingestion and declined. The results were far from beautiful but because of the similarity to earlier results (here, here, and here) I found them fairly persuasive. They certainly suggest doing more with this test.

Then I made a different game…

My visit to Greg’s class.

Omega-3 and Sports Injuries (part 4)

Anonymous writes again:

I got caught in a nasty achilles lock the other day–it’s an MMA [mixed martial art] submission move–and while trying to escape, I accidentally dislocated my fibula at the knee. It made a LOUD popping noise, to the point where everyone in the gym stopped. It popped it back in immediately, and other than some instability, it felt OK. Thankfully there was a doctor there (by chance–he does MMA and was in my class). He spent like 15 minutes examining my knee and said that other than some stretched ligaments, it was fine. His quote (I’m paraphrasing):

“That’s amazing. You should need reconstructive surgery right now. I don’t know how that happened, you must have rubber ligaments.”

I told him about taking 4 tablespoons of flax seed oil every day, and he was shocked, and said he was going to research it to see if that could be why I got so lucky. Told him to Google you, it’s all there.

The injury happened Friday. Today (Tuesday) the doctor looked at my knee again in class, and he was amazed not only at the lack of swelling, but that I was able to roll today (not full speed, just lightly).

I have played sports my whole life and have had at least half a dozen various knee injuries. Things like minor cartilage tears, hyperextensions, strains, etc.–none that were this major (a dislocation of a bone at the joint). Of those injuries, I was out longer and recovered much slower than I have with this one. I know this isn’t proof of anything, and I don’t know how much the flaxseed oil has had to do with what happened, but even the doctor is shocked.

More about omega-3 and sports injuries here and here and here.

Addendum. He uses Whole Foods flaxseed oil without lignans.

Flaxseed Oil: Beware of Lignans

When I buy flaxseed oil, I have a choice: with or without lignans. I almost always choose without. Apparently that’s the right choice, witness this from the SLD forums:

I’ve been trying to figure out what besides overeating might cause these flare ups with my gallbladder. It seems clear from the last few days that one of the things that can set it off is Flax Seed Oil with lignans. When I consume 2-3 tablespoons a day of FSO without lignans, I don’t notice any problems. The FSO goes down easy and I don’t feel nausea or pain. But with the lignans I often do. To be sure, I decided to switch from FSO to ground up flax seeds mixed into my oatmeal. And today, the first time I tried that, an hour later the familiar nausea is back.

Interview with Susan Allport

Susan Allport is the author of The Queen of Fats: Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them, which for me was the best source of introductory information on the subject. Chapter 1 is here. A video.

What have been the main reactions to your book?

The best reaction has been from scientists and the American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS), whose members were happy to have the history of this important research laid out for the public and for themselves. The book hasn’t yet caught on with general readers — in part because the material is somewhat difficult and in part because most people think that the problems with fats are with trans fats or saturated fats or cholesterol: three long detours on the road to dietary understanding, in my opinion.

Learned anything since you wrote it that you would include in a revised/expanded edition?

I would certainly include a key piece of evidence that has been available for some time but not brought to light. It has to do with the argument that we don’t elongate and desaturate the parent essential fatty acids very well (the omega-3 fat: alpha linolenic acid and omega-6 fat: linoleic acid). Therefore, the argument goes, it doesn’t matter about the quantities of these parent fats in the diet. What matters is the amount of long chain fats (in fish, etc.)

But here’s the rub and the lie to this argument.

According to the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey and other data, Americans consume more long chain omega-3 fatty acids than they do long chain omega-6 fatty acids (See “Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the food chain in the US”, Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71 S 179s-88s.) Yet their tissues are full of these highly inflammatory omega-6 fats.

How did this happen? There is only one way. The large amount of linoleic acid in the diet (about 7% of energy) overwhelms and outcompetes the much smaller amount of alpha linolenic acid (about .7% of energy). So it does matter how much linoleic acid we consume. Linoleic acid is the elephant in the living room and the reason we are experiencing the many chronic illnesses that are associated with an insufficiency of omega-3s.

I like to think that anyone who has read my flaxseed oil results (flaxseed is high in alpha linolenic acid, the short-chain omega-3 fat) would agree. Next question: My impression is that the optimal amount of omega-3 is highly unclear. Do you agree?

The optimal amount of omega-3s in one’s tissues does seem to vary, somewhat, according to where one lives. In the cold Artic, humans benefited from a very high proportion of omega-3s in their tissues, and there they weren’t penalized for having a lower proportion of omega-6s b/c there are few infectious microorganisms in the Artic. (Omega-6s, remember, are important in mounting a good immune response.) In more temperate and tropical regions, we need a more balanced amount of 3s and 6s in our tissues. We’ll be learning a lot more about these optimal amounts in the future.

What’s most critical to understand, though, is that omega-3s and omega-6s compete for enzymes and for positions in our cell membranes. So the amount of omega-3s you need to eat in order to achieve a given (optimal) amount in your tissues depends entirely on the amount of omega-6s you’re eating. If you’re eating small amounts of omega-6s, you need to eat only small amounts of fish and greens. If you’re eating, as most Americans are, large amount of omega-6s, you’ll need to eat large amounts of fish and greens — more fish than there are in the ocean!

Which widely-listened-to nutrition expert or group of experts has best appreciated the importance of omega-3s? Which has worst appreciated them?

I’ve had very good conversations with Dr. Mehmet Oz, and I know that Andrew Weil has a very good understanding of the issues. Epidemiologists seem to have the least appreciation because they have little knowledge and appreciation of biochemistry, in general.

In that last question I was thinking of Walter Willett, whose book Eat Drink and Be Healthy fails to clearly distinguish omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Since he’s an epidemiologist, that agrees with what you say. Can you say more about the reaction of epidemiologists?

For Willett to observe the difference between the two families of fats in his type of research, he would need subjects with very different proportions of these fats in their tissues. He doesn’t have that since all of his subjects eat a similar American diet. He also doesn’t see it because he doesn’t control for the two families and their competitive interactions. What we need to do to achieve a good understanding of the role of the two families of essential fats in health and disease is to take experimental work (which clearly shows important differences b/n the two families) and use it to frame our prospective studies. (And because of the competitive interactions, we can’t use fish intake as an indication of omega-3 status; we must use tissue levels of the two families!)

How Much Fish Oil Should You Take?

A WSJ article doesn’t reach much of an answer:

Hardly a month goes by without a study suggesting that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil can fend off disease — including heart attacks, strokes, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, psoriasis and even attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The problem is, to get the health benefits seen in clinical trials, you probably need to take fistfuls of capsules.

“The kind of benefits seen in most of the clinical trials with omega-3 generally have involved much higher doses than you see recommended on supplement labels,” says Charles Serhan, a Harvard Medical School expert on omega-3’s activity.

Which raises a little-discussed point. For practical purposes, it’s not enough to show that a drug works; you also need to find out the minimum dose that produces near-optimal results. In layman-speak, you need to find “the right dose.” Studies that compare drug and placebo are no help; much better would be studies that compare dosages (e.g., Group A gets one dose, Group B gets a different dose).

Here are three more useful comments:

1. I found that about 3 Tablespoons/day of flaxseed oil was enough to produce the best brain performance. As I’ve said, the amount that optimizes brain performance is likely to be a good amount for everything else. For the same reason that the best voltage pattern for your TV is likely to be a good voltage pattern for your other electrical appliances.

2. You can choose the minimum dose of fish oil that makes your gums perfectly pink. The transition from reddish gums (a sign of inflammation) to pink gums (no inflammation) takes about a week.

3. You can do mental tests to choose your dose, as I have done. The big problem here is practice effects — you will get better at the test just from doing it. So you will need several weeks of doing the test before the practice effects become small. You have to be a little bit sophisticated at data analysis — at least, able to plot your data — to take this approach.

In the future I can imagine people repeatedly measuring their mental ability with short (2-3 minute) tests, just as diabetics measure their blood sugar today.

Thanks to Santosh Anagol.

Speaking of Gifts

Yesterday I knocked something off a table and caught it before it fell very far. “Nice catch,” said an observer. I too was surprised. Today the same thing happened. Something fell and I surprised myself by catching it. I think it’s the omega-3. Tests showed that flaxseed oil reduces my “simple reaction time” — the time to push a button as quickly as possible in response to a signal.

Ulcerative Colitis and Flaxseed Oil (continued)

Tom commented on my earlier post on this topic:

I imagine that the lady you met must have been newly diagnosed. I have had ulcerative colitis since 1996. Most of the people that I know with u.c. take omega-3, though perhaps more commonly as fish oil. All of my gastroenterologists have agreed that it can be a useful adjunct to other therapies. In fact, one of the drug companies is developing a supplement drink that combines omega-3’s with the soft fiber found in bananas, vitamin D and some other foods that are very beneficial to u.c., but hard to get in the right propotions. In general though, doctors seem reluctant to recommend diet-only solutions. I have a relatively mild case, but have had two bad flare ups. Consequently I take two of the drugs listed in addition to fish oil. I am hopeful that one day I will get off the other meds, but for now I just take a very low dose of the drugs thanks largely, based on my self-experimentation, to the omega-3s.

The lady I met (who had ulcerative colitis) had had the problem for 14 years. She had not previously heard of using flaxseed oil. “This is your lucky day,” I told her, not because I told her to try flaxseed oil but because I could tell her a good dose (at least 2 T/day). How much is crucial information.

It is very difficult to do experiments, even self-experiments, that measure the effect of different doses of flaxseed oil on ulcerative colitis. I’m sure they haven’t been done. It was her lucky day because I’m pretty sure I was the only person in the world who could have told her with confidence what dose to take. (Which I could do because of the optimize brain –> optimize body principle.) The gastroenterologists who recommend omega-3 as useful additions — they couldn’t say what the best dose is. The drug company making a supplement drink can’t say what the best dose is.

Until you know the best dose of a drug or nutrient — the one that delivers the largest possible effect — you are very likely to underestimate its effectiveness. If Tom starts using a large-enough dose of flaxseed oil he may no longer need other medications.

Omega-3 and Parkinson’s Disease

The press release had a curious title: “Omega-3 fatty acids protect against Parkinson’s.” The certainty suggested an experiment, but Parkinson’s is too rare to study prevention experimentally. The press release turned out to be about a rat study that used a drug called MDPT to cause brain damage that resembles Parkinson’s. Rats given a high-omega-3 diet suffered much less damage — apparently none — from the drug.

Rats given the high omega-3 diet had much less omega-6 in their brains than control rats — one more reason, in addition to the Israeli Paradox, to think that omega-6 may be just as bad as omega-3 is good. Omega-3 may act by displacing omega-6 (they are almost identical physically).

The results could have been taken to suggest both (a) eat more omega-3-rich foods, such as fish and (b) eat less omega-6-rich foods, such as most nuts and vegetable oils, but only the first recommendation reached the public.