Insights Give Hope for New Attack on Alzheimer’s

NY Times ^ | December 13, 2010 | GINA KOLATA

[neverdem]

Alzheimer’s researchers are obsessed with a small, sticky protein fragment, beta amyloid, that clumps into barnaclelike balls in the brains of patients with this degenerative neurological disease.

It is a normal protein. Everyone’s brain makes it. But the problem in Alzheimer’s is that it starts to accumulate into balls — plaques. The first sign the disease is developing — before there are any symptoms — is a buildup of amyloid. And for years, it seemed, the problem in Alzheimer’s was that brain cells were making too much of it.

But now, a surprising new study has found that that view appears to be wrong. It turns out that most people with Alzheimer’s seem to make perfectly normal amounts of amyloid. They just can’t get rid of it. It’s like an overflowing sink caused by a clogged drain instead of a faucet that does not turn off.

That discovery is part of a wave of unexpected findings that are enriching scientists’ views of the genesis of Alzheimer’s disease. In some cases, like the story of amyloid disposal, the work points to new ways to understand and attack the disease. If researchers could find a way to speed up disposal, perhaps they could slow down or halt the disease. Researchers have also found that amyloid, in its normal small amounts, seems to have a purpose in the brain — it may be acting like a circuit breaker to prevent nerve firing from getting out of control. But too much amyloid can shut down nerves, eventually leading to cell death. That means that if amyloid levels were reduced early in the disease, when excess amyloid is stunning nerve cells but has not yet killed them, the damage might be reversed.

Yet another line of research involves the brain’s default network...

[Jim Noble]

The way I feel this morning, they’d better hurry up...

[WVKayaker]

My 87 yo father is in the VA hosp in Richmond, VA. He has deteriorated to the point that my sis, an RN, while visiting him is constantly queried as to "when is my daughter coming"? He is fading fast.

He is a WW2 submarine vet, and has earned his place. They take good care of him, and my sis,,, she keeps showing up with NC style BBQ for him! It is the only thing he remembers that he loves.

I watch everything in the news about AZ prevention!

...Contrary to the common belief that smoking the drug destroys memory, researchers have found that it could actually keep the brain young. The team at Ohio State University found that specific elements of marijuana can be good for the ageing brain by reducing inflammation there and possibly even stimulating the formation of new brain cells.

The research suggests that the development of a legal drug that contains certain properties similar to those in marijuana might help prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease. -click to Read entire article

[editor-surveyor]

With coconut oil, its not ketogenesis; coconut oil actually is composed of ketones, and specifically the ketones that the brain needs to fight dementia.

[editor-surveyor]

Dr. Newport’s findings show that coconut oil will stop the degeneration, and reverse it. But the pharma fans in the hospital won’t be friendly to the idea.
.

[Wonder Warthog]

"With coconut oil, its not ketogenesis; coconut oil actually is composed of ketones, and specifically the ketones that the brain needs to fight dementia."

Might I suggest you look up the composition of coconut oil?? I don't see any ketones listed in the chemical compositon given on Wikipedia. I don't think your supposition above (or the comments in the article) are correct.

[editor-surveyor]

Trusting wikipedia over a biochemist and a surgeon seems rather argumentative to me, but use what you will; I’m not going there.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Trusting wikipedia over a biochemist and a surgeon seems rather argumentative to me, but use what you will; I’m not going there."

Yes, but the article wasn't written by either a biochemist or a surgeon. It was written by a "journalist", who probably never came anywhere near a chemistry class.

As a chemist myself, and being overweight, I've studied a bit about fat metabolism, (Atkins diet), and the idea that coconut oil natively contains significant amounts of "ketones" is suspicious. The body itself makes ketones from fatty acids in the liver. I've seen nothing to indicate a direct route of dietary ketones into the metabolism.

I suspect the reporter simply didn't correctly understand what the scientist types were saying.

[editor-surveyor]

The report was written by a nutritionist.

You’re talking about ketosis as per the Atkins diet, where the body is forced into ketosis by starving it of glucose, and forcing the metabolism of body fat, and the article is dealing with the ketones produced by the normal digestion of the coconut oil, without tampering with the normal glucose balance.

This therapy doesn’t require any elimination of starches in the diet.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The report was written by a nutritionist."

Then I suggest that, in future, you provide links to stuff you post. You grouched because I referred to Wikipedia, while yourself referring to a non-attributed "something". Double-checking other sources, I find zero differences between the composition of coconut oil in the various sources checked, including Wikipedia.

"You’re talking about ketosis as per the Atkins diet, where the body is forced into ketosis by starving it of glucose, and forcing the metabolism of body fat, and the article is dealing with the ketones produced by the normal digestion of the coconut oil, without tampering with the normal glucose balance."

And precisely how does "digestion of coconut oil" generate ketones?? MY question whether (and your original assertion) was that coconut oil CONTAINED ketones....not that said ketones were "generated during digestion". And the follow-on question was whether other known healthfully beneficial fats (olive oil, fish oil) were different. I would assume that any digestive process that converts the fatty acids in coconut oil would similarly affect any fatty acid. Why is coconut oil different from these fats?

"This therapy doesn’t require any elimination of starches in the diet."

Which is irrelevant to what I am/was asking.

[editor-surveyor]

Your reply makes me wonder what exactly you are objecting to.

I didn’t “grouch” about your pick of wikipedia. No one here accepts wikipedia as an authority on anything, but it is often used by trolls that wish to confuse an issue. (no, I’m not calling you a troll)

> “And precisely how does ‘digestion of coconut oil’ generate ketones?”

.
Really, that is outside of the purpose of the article, and the ketonic action of coconut oil is not even faintly in question anywhere that I can find. 70% of the search hits for coconut oil deal with the accepted fact of the ketonic properties of the oil, and I recommend that you take advantage of those hits if you genuinely have interest in that, because I am not qualified to give an authoritave answer.

> “ And the follow-on question was whether other known healthfully beneficial fats (olive oil, fish oil) were different”

.
Apparently not, as I can’t find any discussion of ketonic properties of any of them by web search.

> “Why is coconut oil different from these fats?”

.
Sounds like a really good subject for a PhD dissertation.

If I run into any answers to your questions, I will forward them to you.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Your reply makes me wonder what exactly you are objecting to."

It's quite simple. You stated that coconut oil contains ketones.

The exact quote is:

"With coconut oil, its not ketogenesis; coconut oil actually is composed of ketones, and specifically the ketones that the brain needs to fight dementia.

So I go and look up the chemical composition of coconut oil, I see no ketones there. I see fatty acids. And as a chemist, I "do" know the difference.

If your original statement had been "the fatty acids in coconut oil are converted to ketones during digestion", I wouldn't have had a problem with your commentary. Proteins can yield glucose during digestion, but we don't call them "sugars".

I "am" interested in the topic of nutritional ways of decreasing lapse of brain function. I am "of an age" where such things start to happen, and I know my short term memory "she ain't as good as she used to be".

Add to which, I am experimenting with "intermittent fasting" both for weight loss and possible longevity effects, and one of the things allowed outside the "normal eating hours" of the fast is/are fatty acids.

If I can benefit the fast AND improve brain horsepower with a tablespoon or two of coconut oil, I am VERY interested, but there are other beneficial oils that I might choose (as mentioned, fish oil and olive oil). I already take "omega-3" gelcaps, but I'm not seeing much effect. I currently have a slight bias against coconut oil, since much of its fatty acid content is "saturated fats", and a lot of science says that polyunsaturated and monounsaturated are nutritionally superior, so I am much interested in understanding the differences and similarities of the three oil types.

[editor-surveyor]

> “ a lot of science says that polyunsaturated and monounsaturated are nutritionally superior”

.
I knew instantly that this was false when I read it, but I couldn’t find the articles that properly dealt with it, but I finally found one of them:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html

[Wonder Warthog]

I'd feel better about this guy's science if not for this section, which is completely misleading, and implies that the organic solvents used are the toxic equivalents of benzene. The largest used such extraction chemical is HEXANE, and the only commonality it has with benzene is that it has six carbon atoms. Hexane has never even been hinted at as a possible carcinogen. And the rest of his screed about the other oil-processing steps is equally false.

"In 1989, the petroleum-based solvent, benzene, that is known to cause cancer, was found in Perrier mineral water at a mean concentration of fourteen parts per billion. This was enough to cause Perrier to be removed from supermarket shelves. The first process in the manufacture of margarine is the extraction of the oils from the seeds, and this is usually done using similar petroleum-based solvents. Although these are then boiled off, this stage of the process still leaves about ten parts per million of the solvents in the product. That is 700 times as much as fourteen parts per billion."

If he is that ignorant of (or deliberately lying about)these chemical processes, why should I put credence that the rest of the article isn't similarly BS, and his selection of articles on health effects "cherry-picked"?

[editor-surveyor]

> “I’d feel better about this guy’s science if not for this section, which is completely misleading, and implies that the organic solvents used are the toxic equivalents of benzene...”

.
I can see now that you are being deliberately obtuse. That was not what he was implying. Whether the solvents have been studied for their helth implications, or not (in this case not) the residuals are very significant, in that they are not substances that occur naturally in living organisms, and thus are not suitable in foods.

Consume that which you wish, but don’t attack sound reasoning just to be cute.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I can see now that you are being deliberately obtuse. That was not what he was implying. Whether the solvents have been studied for their helth implications, or not (in this case not) the residuals are very significant, in that they are not substances that occur naturally in living organisms, and thus are not suitable in foods."

Sorry, but no. I have no intention of being "obtuse", deliberately or otherwise. The effects of hexane, by both inhalation and ingestion, have been studied at higher levels than referred to here, in both animals and humans, and the data and toxicology are known. Ten ppm of hexane is totally safe, in food or not. Ten ppm of benzene is a totally different matter, and "is" unsafe. The author of the article is either completely ignorant of chemistry or being deliberately misleading.

"....but don’t attack sound reasoning just to be cute."

Garbage. I'm attacking BAD SCIENCE. Maybe the rest of his statements and conclusions in the article are perfectly legit...I'm not enough of an expert to judge, but in the area of the effects of chemicals, I "am" an expert, and his comments on extraction solvents are totally and flatly WRONG.

[Wonder Warthog]

Here’s more data than anyone could ever want:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp113-c2.pdf

The exposures examined here are FAR higher than the supposed 10 ppm in the oil.

[editor-surveyor]

You should have read the material before posting the link.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You should have read the material before posting the link."

I did read it. The concentrations of ANY health effect are orders of magnitude higher than the 10 ppm level for the level found in the solvent extracted oil. The LOWEST exposure that I saw in the CRC document is 500ppm. If you think differently, then you probably don't understand the material correctly.

But why don't you go ahead and point out exactly what it is that you think you've found to the contrary.

[editor-surveyor]

Nothing in that link was based on any experience with humans, or even chimps. It was all lab rats.

How many rat lifespans does it take for the effects of most environmental toxins to become evident in humans? You have a handful of little pictures, but are completely unaware that the big picture even exists.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Nothing in that link was based on any experience with humans, or even chimps. It was all lab rats."

Read it again. There is plenty of human data included.

Certainly most of the controlled laboratory experiments used animal models (not just rats). Unlike the Nazis, we don't "do" controlled studies using humans, but there is this field of study called "epidemiology", which uses statistical methods to extract health effects data from populations who voluntarily expose themselves to higher levels in their work and lives. There is reference after reference to such studies, both in the link I posted and elsewhere.

"How many rat lifespans does it take for the effects of most environmental toxins to become evident in humans? You have a handful of little pictures, but are completely unaware that the big picture even exists."

It's obvious in your case that one can lead an ass to data, but you can't make him think. The comment is complete garbage. AT MINIMUM, we absolutely KNOW that benzene is significantly more toxic than hexane (of course we really know a lot more than that), but if you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental concept that "the dose makes the poison" then it is useless to try to have a science-based discussion with you.