Skip to content

Bottom line: view the games as fun and a way to pass some time, but nothing more. From the Atlantic:

The Myth of the Brain Game

Over the past decade, digital brain-training games have emerged as the newest way to sharpen memory skills. They’re often touted as having a wide range of benefits, from helping people remember names and childhood stories to possibly staving off dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

In October, Stanford University’s Center for Longevity and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin asked a group of more than 70 neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, and academics to share their views on these games. “There is little evidence that playing brain games improves underlying broad cognitive abilities, or that it enables one to better navigate a complex realm of everyday life,” the group wrote in a consensus report.

The validity of brain games has been a point of debate ever since the first iterations of them launched in the early 2000s. What’s notable about the Stanford/Max Planck report is its deliberation and scope, offering insight collected over the course of a year from experts based at 40 institutions in six different countries.

The report questions the “pernicious,” “exaggerated,” and “misleading” claims made by brain-game manufacturers and stresses that wide-reaching positive results are “elusive.” The signatories don’t call out any specific types of brain-training software, but their language is often damning. “Many scientists cringe at exuberant advertisements claiming improvements in the speed and efficiency of cognitive processing and dramatic gains in ‘intelligence,’” they write.

Brain training is projected to be a $3 billion industry by 2015. Its target demographic is vast, from kids lagging behind in school to seniors who’d love to be able to remember things more efficiently. Most people, in fact, would appreciate the opportunity to feel like they’re getting the most out of their brains, and when a particular product is advertised as being both educational and backed by science, it can be hard to resist.

That there’s a need for scientists to issue a signed letter like this one only goes to show how popular brain games are and to what extent experts feel the public may have been seduced by the promise that they’re endorsed by science. The letter is both a word of caution to the public and the signatories’ way of distancing themselves from the commercial products. 

In 2013, two researchers at the University of Oslo and University College London conducted a meta-analysis of 23 different brain-training studies. What they saw was what every skeptic has seemed to notice. “Memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize,” they wrote. That is, training with games helped people get better at the games they were playing, but not much else.

Brain games aren’t a complete waste of time. They provide mental stimulation, the kind that doctors advise the elderly to get from crosswords and other mind games. They are fun, engaging, even competitive. They show how we can train the brain to get better at a task with repeated practice. But these are fairly obvious results given what we know about the brain's plasticity. 

All that said, the things that do help shape a healthy brain are the things that have been tried and tested for years. Physical fitness forces more blood to flow into the brain, allowing for more neural connections. So exercise works, as does conventional training in reading and language skills for children with reading-comprehension and oral language difficulties.

Also helpful are curiosity and engagement with the world around us, and the body’s lifelong subconscious effort to keep the brain active. The report's summary is perhaps the biggest indictment of any pop-a-pill brain-game philosophy. “The promise of a magic bullet detracts from the best evidence to date,” they wrote. “Cognitive health in old age reflects the long-term effects of healthy, engaged lifestyles.”

Children spending time outside (more than 14 hours a week) have lower rates of nearsightedness, even if they spend a lot of time reading. From Science Daily:

Scientists study effects of sunlight to reduce number of nearsighted kids

Kids who spend more time outside are less likely to need glasses for nearsightedness – but scientists don’t know why. Researchers are now looking more closely at physical changes in the eye influenced by outdoor light exposure in the hopes of reducing cases of myopia, which affects one-third of the American population.

Despite what many parents may think, kids who spend a lot of time reading or squinting at tiny electronic screens aren't more likely to become nearsighted than kids who don't. However, that risk is only reduced if the child spends plenty of quality time outside. The "outdoor effect" on nearsightedness, or myopia, is a longstanding observation backed by both scientific and anecdotal evidence. It's so compelling that some nations in Asia, which have among the highest myopia rates in the world, have increased the amount of daily outdoor time for children in the hopes of reducing the need for glasses.

But so far, no one has defined exactly what it is about being outside that seems to offer a protective effect against the condition, which causes distant objects to appear blurry.

"Data suggest that a child who is genetically predisposed to myopia are three times less likely to need glasses if they spend more than 14 hours a week outdoors," says optometrist Donald Mutti, OD, PhD, of The Ohio State University College of Optometry. "But we don't really know what makes outdoor time so special. If we knew, we could change how we approach myopia."

Supported by a pilot grant from Ohio State's Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), Mutti is now focusing his research on the variables he feels have the most potential: invisible ultraviolet B rays (UVB) and vitamin D, and visible bright light and dopamine."Between the ages of five and nine, a child's eye is still growing. Sometimes this growth causes the distance between the lens and retina to lengthen, leading to nearsightedness," explained Mutti. "We think these different types of outdoor light may help preserve the proper shape and length of the eye during that growth period."

UVB light is invisible to the human eye, but triggers several cellular functions in the body, including the production of vitamin D. Vitamin D is thought to support the function of the smooth muscle tissue found around the lens in the eye. This muscle not only helps focus light on the retina, but may also maintain the proper eye shape and length between the lens and the retina, something that can become distorted during the rapid growth of a child's eye.

Some studies, including one by Mutti, show that people with myopia have lower blood levels of vitamin D -- indicating that they have spent less time outdoors, with possible negative effects on the eye..."We don't know if vitamin D is simply a proxy for measuring outdoor time, or if it is actually exerting a biological effect on how the eye works and develops," said Mutti.

There's another part of sunlight that could help prevent myopia: exposure to visible bright light. Even on a cloudy day, visible light outdoors is at least 10 times brighter than the light indoors.When exposed to outdoor light, specialized cells in the retina help control how big or little the pupil dilates to let more or less light in. The cells connect to others that release dopamine -- an important neurotransmitter in the eye and brain. Previous research suggests that dopamine also slows down the growth of the eye, but there isn't technology currently available that can measure dopamine release in the eye directly.

This research finding of lower IQ in children with higher exposure to 2 common phthalates during pregnancy is very troubling. Especially since avoiding all phthalates in the USA is currently impossible. But one can lower levels in the body by reading all ingredients and trying to avoid certain products (e.g. dryer sheets, vinyl shower curtains, personal care products with phthalates, scented products). And don't microwave food in plastic containers. From Science Daily:

Prenatal exposure to common household chemicals linked with substantial drop in child IQ

Children exposed during pregnancy to elevated levels of two common chemicals found in the home -- di-n-butyl phthalate and di-isobutyl phthalate -- had an IQ score, on average, more than six points lower than children exposed at lower levels, according to researchers.

DnBP and DiBP are found in a wide variety of consumer products, from dryer sheets to vinyl fabrics to personal care products like lipstick, hairspray, and nail polish, even some soaps. Since 2009, several phthalates have been banned from children's toys and other childcare articles in the United States. 

Researchers followed 328 New York City women and their children from low-income communities. They assessed the women's exposure to four phthalates--DnBP, DiBP, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, and diethyl phthalate--in the third trimester of pregnancy by measuring levels of the chemicals' metabolites in urine. Children were given IQ tests at age 7.

Children of mothers exposed during pregnancy to the highest 25 percent of concentrations of DnBP and DiBP had IQs 6.6 and 7.6 points lower, respectively, than children of mothers exposed to the lowest 25 percent of concentrations after controlling for factors like maternal IQ, maternal education, and quality of the home environment that are known to influence child IQ scores. The association was also seen for specific aspects of IQ, such as perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. The researchers found no associations between the other two phthalates and child IQ. The range of phthalate metabolite exposures measured in the mothers was not unusual: it was within what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention observed in a national sample.

"A six- or seven-point decline in IQ may have substantial consequences for academic achievement and occupational potential.""While there has been some regulation to ban phthalates from toys of young children," adds Dr. Factor-Litvak, "there is no legislation governing exposure during pregnancy, which is likely the most sensitive period for brain development. Indeed, phthalates are not required to be on product labeling."

While avoiding all phthalates in the United States is for now impossible, the researchers recommend that pregnant women take steps to limit exposure by not microwaving food in plastics, avoiding scented products as much as possible, including air fresheners, and dryer sheets, and not using recyclable plastics labeled as 3, 6, or 7.

The findings build on earlier, similar observations by the researchers of associations between prenatal exposure to DnBP and DiBP and children's cognitive and motor development and behavior at age 3. This September, they reported a link between prenatal exposure to phthalates and risk for childhood asthma. It's not known how phthalates affect child health. However, numerous studies show that they disrupt the actions of hormones, including testosterone and thyroid hormone. Inflammation and oxidative stress may also play a role.

Further reasons to try to consume foods and beverages from glass containers and avoid cans and plastic bottles. Note that the BPA caused changes within 2 hours, and that BPA-free alternatives may be no better than BPA. Some researchers are speculating whether the high incidence of hypertension is linked to the prevalence of BPA in our environment. From Medical Xpress:

Cans lined with Bisphenol A may increase blood pressure

Drinking or eating from cans or bottles lined with Bisphenol A (BPA) could raise your blood pressure, according to new research reported in the American Heart Association's journal Hypertension. BPA, a chemical used as an epoxy lining for cans and plastic bottles, is everywhere, and its consumption has been associated with high blood pressure and heart rate variability. Previous studies have shown that BPA can leach into foods and drinks.

"A 5 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure by drinking two canned beverages may cause clinically significant problems, particularly in patients with heart disease or hypertension," said Yun-Chul Hong, M.D., Ph.D., study author... "A 20 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease."

In this study, researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial recruiting 60 adults, mostly Korean women, over the age of 60 from a local community center. Each trial member visited the study site three times and was randomly provided with soy milk in either glass bottles or cans. Later urine was collected and tested for BPA concentration, blood pressure and heart rate variability two hours after consumption of each beverage.

Urinary BPA concentration increased by up to 1,600 percent after consuming canned beverages compared to after consuming the glass-bottled beverages.. Soy milk was the ideal beverage for the test because it has no known ingredient that elevates blood pressure, researchers said.

UPDATE: The NY Times has a nice write-up of this research with further details:

BPA in Cans and Plastic Bottles Linked to Quick Rise in Blood Pressure

A single instance of increased blood pressure may not be particularly harmful. But the findings suggest that for people who drink from multiple cans or plastic bottles every day, the repeated exposure over time could contribute to hypertension, said Dr. Karin B. Michels, an expert on BPA who was not involved in the new research.

BPA has been used since the 1960s to make countless everyday products like plastic bottles, food containers, contact lenses, and even sippy cups and baby bottles. The chemical can leach into food, and studies show that the vast majority of Americans who are tested have BPA in their urine.

The chemical is an endocrine disrupter that can mimic estrogen. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration said BPA could no longer be used in baby bottles and children’s drinking cups. Canadian regulators formally declared BPA a toxic substance in 2010 and banned it from all children’s products.

Because of growing consumer concerns, some bottles and packaged food products now carry “BPA free” claims on their labels. However, these products often contain chemically similar alternatives – like bisphenol S. One study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that plastic products advertised as BPA-free still leached chemicals with estrogenic activity – and some of these chemicals were even more potent than BPA.

This would be a major shift in advice. Take note: they found the benefits outweighed the cons only in women starting from the age of 65 and above. From Science Daily:

Cons of regular low-dose aspirin to stave off serious illness in women outweigh pros

The pros of giving healthy women regular low-dose aspirin to stave off serious illness, such as cancer and heart disease, are outweighed by the cons, suggests a large study.

But the balance begins to shift with increasing age, and limiting this form of primary prevention to women aged 65 and above, was better than not taking aspirin at all, or treating women from the age of 45 onwards, say the researchers.

They base their findings on almost 30,000 healthy women, who were at least 45 years old and taking part in the Women's Health Study.Participants were randomly assigned to take either 100 mg of aspirin or a dummy tablet (placebo) every other day, to see whether aspirin curbed their risk of heart disease, stroke, and cancer.

Compared with placebo, regular aspirin was linked to a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, bowel cancer, and in some women, other cancers, but only marginally so.And this slight health gain was trumped by the prevalence of internal gastrointestinal bleeding, which affected two thirds of the women  taking the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding rose with age, but so too did the drug's impact on lowering the risk of bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease, with the balance appearing to tip in favour of the drug for women aged 65 and above..The researchers calculated that over 15 years, 29 over-65s would need to be treated with aspirin to prevent one case of cancer or heart disease/stroke...But they conclude that blanket treatment "is ineffective or harmful in the majority of women with regard to the combined risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and major gastrointestinal bleeding."

Another popular view bites the dust.

From the NY Times: Why Antioxidants Don’t Belong in Your Workout

Antioxidant vitamins are enormously popular with people who exercise. The supplements are thought to alleviate muscle damage and amplify the effects of exercise. But recent studies have raised questions about whether antioxidants might be counterproductive for runners and other endurance athletes. And now a cautionary new experiment adds to those doubts by finding that antioxidants may also reduce the benefits of weight training.

 Both aerobic exercise and strength training lead to the production of free radicals, molecules that in concentrated amounts can cause tissue damage. Antioxidants sop up and neutralize free radicals. So, the thinking goes, taking antioxidant should lessen some of the damage and soreness after exercise and allow people to train harder.But recent experiments with endurance athletes have found that consuming large doses of vitamins C and E actually results in a slightly smaller training response. 

So for the new study, which was published online this month in The Journal of Physiology, scientists at the Norwegian School of Sports Sciences in Oslo and other institutions, some of whom previously had studied aerobic exercise and antioxidants, set out to repeat those experiments in a weight room.

They began by recruiting 32 men and women who had at least some experience with weight training. They measured the volunteers’ muscular size and strength.Then they randomly divided them into two groups. Half were asked to start taking two antioxidant vitamin pills each day, one before and one after exercising. The total daily dosage amounted to 1,000 milligrams of Vitamin C and 235 milligrams of Vitamin E, which “is high but not higher than athletes commonly use,” ...The other group did not take any supplements.

All of the volunteers then began the same resistance-training regimen, consisting of four fairly rigorous training sessions each week. As the exercises grew easy, weights were increased, with the aim of pumping up the size and strength of the volunteers’ muscles.The program lasted 10 weeks. 

In general, people’s muscles had increased in size to the same extent, proportionally. The group that had taken the vitamins now had larger muscles. So did the group that had not. But there were subtle but significant differences in their strength gains. Over all, the volunteers who had taken the antioxidants had not added as much strength as the control group. Their muscles were punier, although they had grown in size.

The differences continued beneath the skin, where, as the muscle biopsies showed, the volunteers taking the vitamins had reduced levels of substances known to initiate protein synthesis. Protein synthesis is necessary to repair and strengthen muscles after weight training. So the volunteers taking the vitamins were getting less overall response from their muscles, even though they were following the same exercise program.

Exactly how antioxidant pills change muscles’ reactions to weight training is still unknown. But Dr. Goran and his colleagues speculate that, by reducing the number of free radicals after exercise, the vitamins short-circuit vital physiological processes. In this scenario, free radicals are not harmful molecules but essential messengers that inform cells to start pumping out proteins and other substances needed to improve strength and fitness. Without enough free radicals, you get less overall response to exercise.

The upshot is that whether you lift weights or jog, Dr. Goran would advise “against the use of high-dosages of concentrated antioxidant supplements.”

From Medical Xpress:

Obesity may shorten life expectancy up to eight years

'Tis the season to indulge. However, restraint may be best according to a new study led by investigators at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC) and McGill University. The researchers examined the relationship between body weight and life expectancy. Their findings show that overweight and obese individuals have the potential to decrease life expectancy by up to 8 years. The study, published in the current issue of The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, further demonstrates that when one considers that these individuals may also develop diabetes or cardiovascular disease earlier in life, this excess weight can rob them of nearly two decades of healthy life.

Dr. Grover and his colleagues used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (from years 2003 to 2010) to develop a model that estimates the annual risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in adults with different body weights. This data from almost 4,000 individuals was also used to analyze the contribution of excess body weight to years of life lost and healthy years of life lost.

Their findings estimated that individuals who were very obese could lose up to 8 years of life, obese individuals could lose up to 6 years, and those who were overweight could lose up to three years. In addition, healthy life-years lost were two to four times higher for overweight and obese individuals compared to those who had a healthy weight, defined as 18.5-25 body mass index (BMI). The age at which the excess weight accumulated was an important factor and the worst outcomes were in those who gained their weight at earlier ages.

"The pattern is clear - the more an individual weighs and the younger their age, the greater the effect on their health," Dr. Grover adds. "In terms of life-expectancy, we feel being overweight is as bad as cigarette smoking."

Much discussion about the link between gut bacteria and liver cancer, as well as the link between inflammation and cancer. Gut microbiome imbalances can cause health harms.

Bottom line: Try to improve your gut microbiome by eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, legumes, and whole grains.

From the Dec.4, 2014 issue of Nature: Microbiome: The bacterial tightrope

Imbalances in gut bacteria have been implicated in the progression from liver disease to cancer. The team's research, published last year, suggests that gut bacteria — which are part of the microbiome of bacteria and other microorganisms that live in and on the body — can play a crucial part in liver-cancer progression.

There are trillions of microorganisms in the human microbiome — they outnumber their host's cells by around ten to one — and their exact role in health and disease is only now starting to be explored. Studies have found that people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease have a different composition of bacteria in their gut from healthy individuals2, 3

 Instead, she sees an emerging picture of liver disease and cancer as a process in which various factors — including a high-fat diet, alcoholism, genetic susceptibility and the microbiome — can each contribute to the progression from minor to severe liver damage, and from severe liver damage to cancer.

Flavell's research suggests that the liver has an important role in immune surveillance and helps to maintain bacterial balance in the gut. Specialized cells in the liver and intestines monitor the microbiome by keeping tabs on bacterial by-products as they pass through. These cells can detect infections and help to fight them.

But they can also pick up on subtler changes in the bacterial populations in the gut. When certain types of bacteria become too numerous — a state called dysbiosis — the immune system becomes activated and triggers inflammation, although at a lower level than it would for an infection... Now, research is emerging that suggests that dysbiosis and the immune reaction it provokes can even contribute to cancer.

He thinks that at least part of this mechanism involves disruption in the balance of the various species of bacteria in the gut. An out-of-balance microbiome promotes a constant state of inflammation, which can contribute to cancer progression, Schwabe says. This aligns with the picture that is emerging of cancer, in general, as an inflammatory process: the same immune reactions that help the body to fight infection and disease can also promote unchecked cell growth.

Some of the earliest research on the human microbiome, published in 2006, demonstrated that the balance of gut bacteria in obese people is different from that in people of healthy weight. In particular, obese people tend to have greater numbers of the bacteria that produce DCA (deoxycholic acid) and other secondary bile acids.

This line of research points to the microbiome as one potential link between obesity and liver-cancer risk . And, much like Schwabe's work, Hara's results indicate that several factors converge to promote cancer: in this case, bacteria, diet and carcinogen exposure. Here, too, the ability to stave off the disease seems to depend on maintaining the appropriate microbial balance. Overweight mice and people have a different composition of gut microbiota from their lighter counterparts, and they have higher levels of DCA, too.

However, not everyone is convinced that individual bacterial species are to blame. Some researchers point out that dysbiosis, and therefore cancer risk, involves multiple strains of bacteria. And the bacterial mix can vary from person to person, meaning it is unlikely that scientists can pin all responsibility on a single species.

Others are looking for ways to promote the growth of healthy bacterial strains rather than target the bad ones....There is also some early clinical evidence that specially formulated probiotics — cocktails of good bacteria — can bump the microbiome back into balance. Hylemon and his colleagues gave people with cirrhosis a probiotic containing Lactobacillus bacteria and found that their blood markers of inflammation decreased along with their cognitive dysfunction (a common symptom of cirrhosis)6. Although the study was not designed to evaluate cancer risk, it does show that delivering bacteria to the gut can have positive therapeutic effects on the liver.

More discussion of the benefits of vitamin D. From Science Daily:

Vitamin D deficiency, depression linked in international study

Vitamin D deficiency is not just harmful to physical health -- it also might impact mental health, according to a team of researchers that has found a link between seasonal affective disorder, or SAD, and a lack of sunlight. "Rather than being one of many factors, vitamin D could have a regulative role in the development of SAD," said Alan Stewart of the University of Georgia College of Education.

Stewart and Michael Kimlin from QUT's School of Public Health and Social Work conducted a review of more than 100 leading articles and found a relationship between vitamin D and seasonal depression."Seasonal affective disorder is believed to affect up to 10 percent of the population, depending upon geographical location, and is a type of depression related to changes in season," said Stewart, an associate professor in the department of counseling and human development services.

"We believe there are several reasons for this, including that vitamin D levels fluctuate in the body seasonally, in direct relation to seasonally available sunlight," he said. "For example, studies show there is a lag of about eight weeks between the peak in intensity of ultraviolet radiation and the onset of SAD, and this correlates with the time it takes for UV radiation to be processed by the body into vitamin D.

Vitamin D is also involved in the synthesis of serotonin and dopamine within the brain, both chemicals linked to depression, according to the researchers. "Evidence exists that low levels of dopamine and serotonin are linked to depression, therefore it is logical that there may be a relationship between low levels of vitamin D and depressive symptoms," said Kimlin, a Cancer Council Queensland Professor of Cancer Prevention Reseach. "Studies have also found depressed patients commonly had lower levels of vitamin D."

Vitamin D levels varied according to the pigmentation of the skin. People with dark skin often record lower levels of vitamin D, according to the researchers.

Kimlin, who heads QUT's National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in Sun and Health, said adequate levels of vitamin D were essential in maintaining bone health, with deficiency causing osteomalacia in adults and rickets in children. Vitamin D levels of more than 50 nanomoles per liter are recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine...."A few minutes of sunlight exposure each day should be enough for most people to maintain an adequate vitamin D status."

Makes sense. From Science Daily:

High school football players show brain changes after one season, even in absence of concussions

Some high school football players exhibit measurable brain changes after a single season of play even in the absence of concussion, according to a new study.

Dr. Whitlow and colleagues set out to determine if head impacts acquired over a season of high school football produce white matter changes in the brain in the absence of clinically diagnosed concussion.The researchers studied 24 high school football players between the ages of 16 and 18. For all games and practices, players were monitored with Head Impact Telemetry System (HITs) helmet-mounted accelerometers, which are used in youth and collegiate football to assess the frequency and severity of helmet impacts.

Risk-weighted cumulative exposure was computed from the HITs data, representing the risk of concussion over the course of the season. This data, along with total impacts, were used to categorize the players into one of two groups: heavy hitters or light hitters. There were nine heavy hitters and 15 light hitters. None of the players experienced concussion during the season.

All players underwent pre- and post-season evaluation with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the brain. DTI is an advanced MRI technique, which identifies microstructural changes in the brain's white matter.

The brain's white matter is composed of millions of nerve fibers called axons that act like communication cables connecting various regions of the brain. Diffusion tensor imaging produces a measurement, called fractional anisotropy (FA), of the movement of water molecules along axons. In healthy white matter, the direction of water movement is fairly uniform and measures high in fractional anisotropy. When water movement is more random, fractional anisotropy values decrease, suggesting microstructural abnormalities.

The results showed that both groups demonstrated global increases of FA over time, likely reflecting effects of brain development. However, the heavy-hitter group showed statistically significant areas of decreased FA post-season in specific areas of the brain, including the splenium of the corpus callosum and deep white matter tracts.

"Our study found that players experiencing greater levels of head impacts have more FA loss compared to players with lower impact exposure," Dr. Whitlow said. "Similar brain MRI changes have been previously associated with mild traumatic brain injury. However, it is unclear whether or not these effects will be associated with any negative long-term consequences."