Search

The use of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (ω-3 PUFA) supplements is increasingly common among middle-aged and older adults. Users of ω-3 PUFA supplements often report using such supplements to support cognitive health, despite mixed findings reported within the ω-3 PUFA literature. To date, very few studies have explored cognitive effects in distinctly middle-aged (40 to 60 years) adults, and none have examined the acute effects (in the hours following a single dose) on cognitive performance. The current study evaluated whether a single dose of ω-3 PUFA (4020 mg docosahexaenoic acid and 720 mg eicosapentaenoic acid) influences cognitive performance and cardiovascular function in middle-aged males. Cognitive performance and cardiovascular function were assessed before and 3.5-4 h after consumption of a high dose of ω-3 PUFA (DHA + EPA) or placebo, incorporated into a standardized meal (i.e., single serve of Greek yogurt). In this study of middle-aged males, no significant differential treatment effects were observed for cognitive performance. However, a significant reduction in aortic systolic blood pressure (pre-dose to post-dose) was apparent following consumption of the ω-3 PUFA (DHA + EPA) treatment (mean difference = -4.11 mmHg, p = 0.004) but not placebo (mean difference = -1.39 mmHg, p = 0.122). Future replication in a sample comprising females, as well as patients with hypertension, is merited.

Background: Previous randomized controlled trials examining cognitive and mood effects of combination multivitamin supplements in healthy, non-clinical adults have reported mixed results. One purported explanation for this is that the dietary status of participants at the start of supplement interventions may influence the magnitude of the effect of supplementation. Methods: In this study, we evaluated the effect of a multinutrient formula containing B group vitamins, Bacopa monniera and Ginkgo biloba on memory, attention, mood and biochemical markers of nutrient status in middle-aged adults ( M = 52.84 years, n = 141) with 'optimal' and 'sub-optimal' diets over 12 weeks. We hypothesised that active supplementation would differentially improve memory and attention in those with a 'sub-optimal' diet. Results: Mixed model, repeated measures analysis revealed that, in comparison to placebo, active treatment was associated with significant increases in B vitamin status (B1, B6, B12). Regarding behavioural outcomes there was no significant benefit to memory ( F (1, 113.51) = 0.53, p = 0.470) nor attention ( F (1,113.77) = 1.89, p = 0.171) in the whole cohort. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was a significant beneficial effect of supplementation on attentional performance in individuals with an 'optimal' diet prior to supplementation ( F (1,57.25) = 4.94, p = 0.030). In the absence of a main effect of supplementation across the entire cohort, there were also a number of significant three-way interactions (treatment by time by diet group) detected in secondary outcomes including lower state anxiety and mental fatigue in those with an 'optimal' diet. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the cognitive benefit of B vitamin and herbal supplementation may be dependent on diet quality, supporting the concepts of 'co-nutrient optimisation' and interdependency of nutrients. This warrants further investigation. This study advocates characterising the diet of participants prior to supplementation as it may influence the effect of a nutraceutical intervention.

Evidence for diet quality representing a modifiable risk factor for age-related cognitive decline and mood disturbances has typically come from retrospective, cross-sectional analyses. Here a diet screening tool (DST) was used to categorize healthy middle-aged volunteers ( n = 141, 40-65 years) into "optimal" or "sub-optimal" diet groups to investigate cross-sectional associations between diet quality, cognitive function, and mood. The DST distinguished levels of nutrient intake as assessed by Automated Self-Administered 24-h dietary recall and nutrient status, as assessed by blood biomarker measures. Compared with the "sub-optimal" group, the "optimal" diet group showed significantly higher intake of vitamin E ( p = 0.007), magnesium ( p = 0.001), zinc ( p = 0.043) and fiber ( p = 0.015), higher circulating levels of vitamin B6 ( p = 0.030) and red blood cell folate ( p = 0.026) and lower saturated fatty acids ( p = 0.012). Regarding psychological outcomes, the "optimal" diet group had significantly better Stroop processing than those with a "sub-optimal" diet ( p = 0.013). Regression analysis revealed that higher DST scores were associated with fewer mood disturbances ( p = 0.002) and lower perceived stress ( p = 0.031), although these differences were not significant when comparing "optimal" versus "sub-optimal" as discrete groups. This study demonstrates the potential of a 20-item diet screen to identify both nutritional and psychological status in an Australian setting.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to examine and quantify the effects of B vitamin supplementation on mood in both healthy and 'at-risk' populations. A systematic search identified all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of daily supplementation with ≥3 B group vitamins with an intervention period of at least four weeks. Random effects models for a standardized mean difference were used to test for overall effect. Heterogeneity was tested using the I 2 statistic. Eighteen articles (16 trials, 2015 participants) were included, of which 12 were eligible for meta-analysis. Eleven of the 18 articles reported a positive effect for B vitamins over a placebo for overall mood or a facet of mood. Of the eight studies in 'at-risk' cohorts, five found a significant benefit to mood. Regarding individual facets of mood, B vitamin supplementation benefited stress ( n = 958, SMD = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.45, p = 0.03). A benefit to depressive symptoms did not reach significance ( n = 568, SMD = 0.15, 95% CI = -0.01, 0.32, p = 0.07), and there was no effect on anxiety ( n = 562, SMD = 0.03, 95% CI = -0.13, 0.20, p = 0.71). The review provides evidence for the benefit of B vitamin supplementation in healthy and at-risk populations for stress, but not for depressive symptoms or anxiety. B vitamin supplementation may particularly benefit populations who are at risk due to (1) poor nutrient status or (2) poor mood status.