How many working brain cells do researchers have? Part n+1

Once upon a time, I took the mickey out of some eejit researchers in How many working brain cells do researchers have? Guess what? I'm doing it again. A Facebook friend sent me a link to a worrying "new" study Omega-3 Supplements Linked To Prostate Cancer. Oh, dear. Things are looking bad for oily fish & fish oil supplements. Just a moment!

I did some digging on PubMed for the author and found this:- n-3 Fatty acids and prostate cancer risk. The main feature of wild oily fish & fish oil supplements is their high ratio of EPA & DHA (long-chain omega-3 fatty acids) to LA (a shorter-chain omega-6 fatty acid). It would therefore be logical to assess oily fish consumption and/or fish oil supplement intake by measuring the ratio of serum EPA:LA and/or DHA:LA and/or (EPA+DHA):LA.

What did Brasky TM, Crowe FL & Kristal AR actually do? According to the abstract, they measured only serum EPA, DHA & (EPA+DHA). They didn't measure serum LA. Therefore, if the subjects in the EPIC study ate a diet with a high omega-6 (n-6):omega-3 (n-3) ratio (i.e a Standard English Diet), subjects with a high serum n-3 level would have a very high serum n-6 level. As excessive levels of serum n-6 pufas are carcinogenic (see Completing the trine: Which are the safest fats?), it's not surprising that the study produced the results that it did.

There only one thing to do, in cases like this...

Because one palm just isn't enough!

EDIT: Here's a better analysis:- Fish Oil and your Prostate. It looks as though n-6 was measured, which makes my analysis wrong, but I'm keeping the double face-palm, as the full study is hidden behind a £30 pay-wall. Here's another good analysis:- Omega-3 Fats and Cancer.

How many working brain cells do researchers have? Part 2.

Having discovered The Cochrane Library, I thought I'd see what was in it regarding Vitamin D & Cancer. I found the following Protocol Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.

"Why it is important to do this review
The available evidence on vitamin D and cancer incidence is intriguing but inconclusive. Results of recently completed randomised clinical trials testing the influence of vitamin D supplementation for cancer prevention are inconsistent. Lappe et al found that vitamin D supplementation is associated with significantly decreased cancer incidence (Lappe 2007). On the contrary, another large randomised clinical trial found no effect of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on cancer incidence (Wactawski-Wende 2006). A recent meta-analysis by Autier and Gandini of 18 randomised clinical trials found significantly lower mortality in vitamin D supplemented participants (Autier 2007). We have been unable to identify any systematic reviews of randomised trials on vitamin D supplementation for cancer prevention."

I took a closer look at the Wactawski-Wende trial. In this trial, a daily Vitamin D dose of 400IU was used. That's less than one tenth of an effective dose (5,000IU/day). What happens when you take less than one tenth of an effective dose of a medication? Nothing. Which is exactly what they found. Like, Duh!

The randomised trials in the Autier meta-analysis used daily Vitamin D doses of 300 to 2000IU. The trial size–adjusted mean daily vitamin D dose was 528IU. Once again, mostly pathetically inadequate doses were used.

The Lappe trial used a daily Vitamin D dose of 1,100IU (+ Calcium). It's a bit low, but there was a beneficial effect. When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 months (to allow time for serum 25(OH)D levels to stabilise and ignore results from subjects who started the trial with undiagnosed cancers), there was a 77% reduction in cancer diagnoses (RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005)).

No cancer trials have yet been done using 5,000IU/day of Vitamin D3.

So, thanks to eejit researchers testing ineffective doses, there is no conclusive evidence supporting Vitamin D3. People continue to die from cancer unnecessarily. What is Cancer Research doing with all of the money that they get?

How many working brain cells do researchers have?

Apparently (according to a Japanese study referred to in Am I Missing Something??? ), eating/drinking lots of sugary & starchy carbohydrate causes postprandial hyperglycemia (high blood glucose after meals) in people with type 2 Diabetes. No sh*t, Sherlock! Postprandial hyperglycemia "causes damage to blood vessels, inflammation and oxidation and these cause clogged vessels and heart attacks." I think we're all in agreement that postprandial hyperglycemia is BAD. So, how to tackle this thorny problem? By pharmacological approaches i.e. drug therapies. Like, Duh!
And what is Diabetes-UK's (& the ADA's) dietary advice to people with type 2 Diabetes?
"The actual amount of carbohydrate that the body needs varies depending on your age, weight and activity levels, but it should make up about half of what you eat and drink." & under Ten steps to eating well:
"At each meal include starchy carbohydrate foods
Examples include bread, pasta, chapatis, potatoes, yam, noodles, rice and cereals. The amount of carbohydrate you eat is important to control your blood glucose levels." Like, Duh!


I've been doing a bit of research on methylglyoxal (MG) as a result of reading Methylglyoxal on Atkins... Uh oh! Apparently it's very toxic, therefore ketogenic diets are BAD, mmm-kay? MG causes Insulin Resistance and Advanced Glycation End-products which are both deemed to be undesirable.

Consider this: MG is a glycolysis (conversion of glucose to pyruvate) inhibitor. As MG inhibits glycolysis in cells, uptake of Blood Glucose by cells decreases. Oh, look. Cells have become Insulin Resistant! As uptake of Blood Glucose by cells decreases, Blood Glucose rises. Oh, look. Increased Advanced Glycation End-products! It's bleedin' obvious (to anyone with a sufficient number of working brain cells) that, on a high-carb diet, MG is toxic. It's a no-brainer that MG's toxicity disappears on a low-carb/keto diet, when you actually want cells to burn fatty acids/ketones rather than glucose. Like, Duh!

In fact, strangulating the glucose pathway in cells may have benefits. See Cancer.


Here's another one. According to Progressive bone mineral content loss in children with intractable epilepsy treated with the ketogenic diet (KD), "The KD resulted in progressive loss of BMC." And yet, just above, "Growth and bone health status were suboptimal as were serum 25-OHD concentrations and dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D." Like, Duh!