This study expands the evidence of a beneficial association of omega-3 and LOD to EOD as well. These findings suggest that an increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids earlier in life may slow the…
Background & aims: Early-onset dementia (EOD, defined as diagnosis < age 65) imposes a high socio-economic burden. It is less prevalent and less investigated than late-onset dementia (LOD). Observational data indicate that many EOD cases are associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, yet the relationship between diet and EOD has been under-explored. Omega-3 fatty acids are promising dietary factors for dementia prevention; however, existing research has primarily focused on cohorts aged >65. We examined the associations between omega-3 blood levels (which objectively reflect dietary intake) and incident EOD by leveraging data from the UK Biobank cohort.
Methods: We included participants aged 40-64, free of dementia at baseline and for whom plasma omega-3 levels and relevant covariates were available. We modeled the relationships between the three omega-3 exposures (total omega-3, DHA, and non-DHA omega-3) and incident EOD with quintiles (Q) and continuous linear relationships. We constructed Cox proportional hazards adjusting for sex, age at baseline and APOE-ε4 allele load, besides other lifestyle variables reported to relate to incident EOD. We also assessed the interaction between each exposure of interest and APOE-ε4 allele load.
Results: The study included 217,122 participants. During the mean follow-up of 8.3 years, 325 incident EOD cases were ascertained. Compared to participants at Q1 of total omega-3, those at Q4 and Q5 showed a statistically significantly lower risk of EOD (Q4, hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval] = 0.62 [0.43, 0.89]; Q5, 0.60 [0.42, 0.86]). A statistically significant inverse association was also observed for total omega-3 as a continuous variable. Compared to participants at Q1 of DHA, those at Q5 of non-DHA showed a significant lower risk of EOD. A statistically significant lower risk was observed in Q3, Q4 and Q5 of non-DHA omega-3. Finally, we observed no evidence of interaction omega-3 × APOE-ε4 allele load.
Conclusions: This study expands the evidence of a beneficial association of omega-3 and LOD to EOD as well. These findings suggest that an increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids earlier in life may slow the development of EOD. Additional research is needed to confirm our findings, particularly in more diverse populations.
Keywords: Alzheimer; Biomarkers; Cognition; Fatty acids; Lifestyle.
Read the original article
Comments
Studies like this always seem to cite stats in a way that's pretty inaccessible to me. This is more clear to me:
* 217,122 participants whose data was extracted from the UK biobank database
* Out of those 217,122, 325 got early onset dementia over an average of 8.3 years
* The vast percentage of data came from exactly one blood draw per person between 2006 and 2010 at the beginning of the biobank study
Omega-3 Blood | Hazard Risk | Rate of Incidence | Percent Incidence Level Quintiles | | Over 8.3 Years | Over 8.3 Years -------------------|------------------|--------------------|------------------ Q1 (Lowest 20%) | 1.0 | 193 in 100,000 | 0.193% Q4 (High) | 0.62 | 120 in 100,000 | 0.120% Q5 (Highest 20%) | 0.60 | 116 in 100,000 | 0.116%The most interesting finding is that the non-DHA effect is much stronger than the DHA effect. This doesn't align with the mechanistic explanation. Either this this is a novel and interesting result, or it's more evidence that we're just measuring wealth and health consciousness.
Observational studies like these are useful for guiding future research, but, on their own, they're essentially useless for informing lifestyle changes.
By mobilejdral 2026-02-0822:111 reply The non-DHA omega-3 EPA are good at preventing perivascular fibrosis and thus a better glymphatic system for the removal of beta-amyloid proteins. EPA also helps produce melatonin which kick off sleep and this whole process.
Natto-serrazime is probably an excellent complement as it is on the other side and is a dissolver. (Noteworthy: Pterostilbene + Glucosamine similar to EPA reduces fibrosis)
The interesting connection is how this is needed when we are older, but not younger. When younger ERa activates more which does this all on its own. This is the connection to why 2/3 of alzheimer's are post-menopausal women and why HRT is important.
Edit: and to tie this to APOE as it is the gene most associated with Alzheimer's. e4/e4 requires more choline so someone with e4/e4 is more likely to be choline deficient. EPA/DHA usually attach to Phosphatidylcholine (PC) when in the blood/brain. PEMT is a gene controlled by ERa to make choline, but from the above less ERa activation and we make less PEMT so less choline and less PC. Choline is the precursor to Acetylcholine (primary neurotransmitter for memory and focus and essential for REM sleep). This is why Choline is known to help with Alzheimer's.
By incrediblylarge 2026-02-0917:001 reply I did a job for some neuroscientists years ago and we found a very strong correlation between microplastics exposure and elevated acetylcholine in a very young sample. They all thought there should be no effect or the effect should be inverted because of oxidative stress. We never resolved the phenomenon though. From what I understand, Acetylcholine elevation in the lipidome is either neuroprotective or neutral. Is there any reason why microplastics exposure would tend to increase acetylcholine?
By mobilejdral 2026-02-121:04 Depends on the microplastics, but many act as endocrine disruptors that "mimic" estrogen, tricking the body into over-activating ERa and upregulates the PEMT gene and the higher acetylcholine. It could also be that the microplastics can physically bind to or chemically inhibit acetylcholinesterase and that is the reason for the higher acetylcholine. Depending on the cause this is only a short term good thing, but could be downregulating genes.
By downrightmike 2026-02-091:51 And then there is D3 + K2 leads to less cancer. Magnesium, we straight up don't get enough
By LorenPechtel 2026-02-0919:26 Yeah, we put an awful lot of work into such research and find nothing that doesn't look like either measuring health consciousness or measuring health. (ie, is going to church weekly actually a benefit, or is the ability to attend a weekly social event what's actually being measured.)
By morgengold 2026-02-0820:145 reply So you can reduce your dementia incidence risk from Q1 -> Q5 by a whopping 0.08%-points. But in media you surely will read about a 40% reduction.
*edited: %-points instead of %
The reduction in risk is 0.08 percentage points, not 0.08 percent. The "%" symbol always means "percent", not "percentage points". The 0.08 percentage point reduction is a 40% reduction.
EDIT: don't assume the causality
By sieabahlpark 2026-02-0822:40 [dead]
By baxtr 2026-02-0821:19 Maybe they wanted to say "down to" instead of "by"?
By KempyKolibri 2026-02-0820:581 reply Sure, because both are true (although that 0.08% is only over 8 years of known omega 3 consumption - as timescales increase the absolute risk moves towards the relative risk).
That 0.08% reduction would mean approximately 28,000 fewer EOD cases - not to be sniffed at!
By AlecSchueler 2026-02-098:061 reply > That 0.08% reduction would mean approximately 28,000 fewer EOD cases - not to be sniffed at!
What would it mean for salmon stocks and increased environmental damage?
By KempyKolibri 2026-02-0910:291 reply Depending on where you source your omegas from, potentially zero impact!
To be clear my preference would be to source n3s from algal supplements and, once food safety testing for humans is complete, n3s from GM rapeseed.
In time I hope we end up with lab meat/plant-based meat alternatives that use these n3s so we can get the benefits of fish without the environmental and ethical concerns of getting n3s from fish.
By susiecambria 2026-02-100:03 If from menhaden, there's a raging debate on the one hand about trout, the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia), the ecology and environment more broadly, and the other hand a Canadian company based in a small rural county in Virginia (Omega Protein, which, BTW, does not provide year-round benefits to all of its employees which creates a drain on already super limited services and supports. Omega Protein is not alone in this.).
I don't know enough about any of this to have an informed opinion, but I do understand that menhaden put Reedville, VA on the map.
By llm_nerd 2026-02-0820:58 This is talking about early onset, which is a particularly terrifying outcome. And yes, 1 in 1000 for a horrible outcome sounds much better than 2 in 1000, doesn't it?
And to be clear, many things that people worry about is less likely than that. Homicides (over an 8 year period about about 0.04 per 1000 people), terrorism (vanishingly small), and on and on.
None of this means that people should stock up on omega-3s, and as likely the study is actually finding a correlation with something else (e.g. wealthier people enjoy more fish rich diets and are less exposed to toxins, or something else), but halving something terrifying that isn't that uncommon is legitimately newsworthy.
By ricardobeat 2026-02-0821:041 reply The 40% (66%?) is the number that matters. Same way you wearing a helmet reduces your changes of brain damage in a motorcycle accident by 90%, yet you’re not on a motorcycle most of the time.
When it comes time to decide whether or not to take action and what that action should be, I'd say that the total potential risk reduction is more important.
One should weigh the cost of the proposed intervention in time/money/other_expense against the potential benefit. The potential benefit is the total reduction in risk * the magnitude of the unwanted outcome.
40% is less relevant.
By KempyKolibri 2026-02-1010:37 The thing is, the 0.08% doesn't capture the total potential risk reduction - only the risk during the timeframe of the study (8 years in this case). Where we're talking about exposures and outcomes that stack over time (exposure to LDL and heart disease being a classic one) the absolute risk is, in my opinion, more misleading than the relative risk.
For example you see this oft-quoted stat about "statins only increase lifespan by 3 days" based off relatively short RCTs, but this doesn't capture the effect of statin use over decades, which is where we see much, much bigger gains.
It seems to me that both RR and AR are things to take into consideration and we have to be mindful of the shortcomings of each.
By fulafel 2026-02-096:07 ... over 8 years. Order of magnitude difference if it extrapolates to lifetime.
By getnormality 2026-02-0818:261 reply This could significantly underestimate the real impact. A single point measurement is perhaps a pretty noisy measure of long term average. If we had lifetime averages, the quintiles would be more purely differentiated by the variable of interest, and the risk would be as well.
Holding all else equal, noisier estimates bias us towards the null. This is attenuation bias.
However, the estimates are still probably overestimated. Confounding, p-hacking, publication bias, all move us towards larger estimates.
By MichaelDickens 2026-02-091:192 reply I would think that, by default, noise would not have a bias? Adding noise doesn't change the mean, it just increases the variance, right?
By tfirst 2026-02-103:20 The Wikipedia page on this is not bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_dilution
By namibj 2026-02-092:40 It pushes confidence bounds closer to the null hypothesis.
By kingkawn 2026-02-0823:39 “Still probably” is classic statistical science
By casey2 2026-02-095:00 Why are Q2 and Q3 missing. My guess is that they show a higher incident rate than Q1. Let me verify that, oh wait I can't. This article is pointless
Besides there is so much noise here. You ate fish before going to the doctor to get your blood drawn in 2006
also keep in mind, P hacking came about as a means to try to prove racial science.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjhs-themes/article/...
Racists work really hard to crunch the numbers. Do you think its a new phenomenon?
No, I'm well aware of the eugenics origins of much the current field of statistics (and even the racial etymologies of terms like "regression to the mean"). In fact, I'd say most of our social sciences were originally primarily concerned with eugenics
But the claim that the practice of p-hacking itself has such a specific history seems dubious and I don't quite see how your source backs that up—interesting though it is
By cyanydeez 2026-02-1019:30 Sure, they wouldnt tell you they invented p-hacking.
We have been here before many times. Nutritional epidemiology studies have a terrible track record of establishing causal relationships (e.g., Beta-carotene and lung cancer, selenium and prostate cancer, etc all were not replicated when the definitive clinical trials were done). The problem is that statistical models with questionable and often untestable assumptions are used, but the results are reported as if these models were fault-less. The result is overly optimistic estimates of statistical significance and inflated confidence in study findings.
By KempyKolibri 2026-02-0910:34 I would disagree with this. While we can always point to examples where epi did not align with RCTs, this doesn’t capture how discordant (or not) this relationship is in the aggregate.
Thing is, we actually have empirics on this, and in reality observational studies comparing intake to intake are concordant in over 90% of cases, so I think we actually have a very strong case for making causal inferences based on replicated epi findings:
By deeth_starr_v 2026-02-0817:234 reply > Compared to participants at Q1 of DHA, those at Q5 of non-DHA showed a significant lower risk of EOD. A statistically significant lower risk was observed in Q3, Q4 and Q5 of non-DHA omega-3
If I'm reading this right, if you can't get many fish sources in your diet, it's better to increase the quantity of non-DHA sources (certain seeds, oils and vegetables). But my understanding is non-DHA is not helpful so I may not be understanding correctly
I think it's easy to take algal-based omega-3 supplements. They've gotten pretty good in the last couple years with gummies with a high dose and no algae test. And no fish killed!
Schizochytrium oil with DHA and EPA, which is sold as "algal" omega-3, for a lack of a correct word that could be understood by the general population (Schizochytrium is not an alga), is very good and no fish are killed for it.
Nevertheless, it remains at least 3 times more expensive than a fish oil, e.g. cod liver oil (I mean price per content of omega-3 fatty acids, not per volume; when not diluted to fool the customers, "algal" oil has a double concentration in comparison with fish oil, i.e. 5 mL of "algal" oil are equivalent with 10 mL of fish oil).
Taking daily a decent dose of "algal" oil can be more expensive than the daily protein intake required by a human, if that is taken from cheap sources (e.g. legumes and chicken meat). Allocating a major part of the budget for food to a supplement taken in minute quantities seems excessive.
I am not aware of any serious reason for the high cost of "algal" oil. A decade ago, it was much more expensive, e.g. 8 times or more in comparison with cod liver oil. Then the price has dropped to 3 times, and then it has diminished no more, remaining at 3 times for 5 years or more.
I believe that it should be possible to further reduce the cost of "algal" oil to make it an acceptable substitute for fish oil, but it seems that the producers are content with their niche market of rich vegans and they do not make any effort to reduce the cost in order to enlarge their market.
I have taken occasionally "algal" oil, to test it, but as long as it remains a luxury food I cannot use it to replace the cod liver oil that I am taking regularly, despite desiring to do so.
I think that it is a health tax, as many things are. For what it's worth, it costs me 50 cents a day. I'm not sure what semantics about it not being a "true" algae has to do with anything, though. If it's a protist or an algae, I'm not sure what that information does other than muddy the waters for people forming an opinion on non-animal based omegas.
If you consume "algal" oil of 50 cents per day, that must be some kind of capsule with a small amount of oil, e.g. a few hundred mg of DHA+EPA.
This is much better than nothing, but it is far from a daily intake comparable to that of the populations who live in places with access to cheap sea fish, where such fish are a significant fraction of their food (e.g. Japan).
If your target is to match the diet of such populations, that means e.g. 5 mL per day of non-diluted "algal" oil, i.e. a teaspoon of such oil (or 10 mL of fish oil), which contains around 2 grams of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.
That would be much more expensive when using "algal" oil, at least judging after the prices seen e.g. on Amazon.
In order to not scare the customers, many sources of "algal" oil have a similar price with fish oil, but only because they contain much less omega-3 fatty acids per capsule. If you read the fine print, then you discover the true price ratio.
Two of these is 66 cents and is 1500mg of oil. Seems ok to me. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FL86D4Z6?th=1
That is indeed a good price, but even so, two of those are equivalent with 5 mL of code liver oil, which in Europe costs around $50 per liter, with sales taxes (VAT) and shipping included.
Thus the price of equivalent fish oil is about 25 cents, a ratio of more than 2.6.
If you add to your price sales tax and shipping, it is likely that you arrive to the 3 times higher price that I have mentioned.
Because in most days I eat only food that I cook myself from raw ingredients, which is significantly cheaper than industrially-produced food, I can eat very healthy and tasty food for about $5 per day (in Europe).
The food includes the equivalent in fish oil of 4 of your gummies, which might cost around $1.50 with taxes and shipping.
Paying 30% of the daily budget for food only for a supplement taken in a quantity negligible in comparison with the other food, does not seem right.
By Faelon 2026-02-1122:44 The main difference is that fish have a subjective experience of living, so if you have the option to not kill them, you should take that option. Fish experience living in a meaningful sense, forming social relationships and relating to and understanding the world around them. That makes unnecessarily killing them wrong.
By Saline9515 2026-02-0913:291 reply Where exactly in Europe? In large parts of Europe, fresh food is rather expensive. Especially fatty fish, if not frozen. There are also reasonable concerns about heavy metal/pcb intake and accumulation from fish consumption.
By adrian_b 2026-02-0915:31 Fish is expensive, so I do not eat frequently fish, which is why I take fish oil.
The reports that I have seen about fish oil have found negligible contamination in comparison with the fish from which it had been extracted. Obviously oil extracted from cultured Schizochytrium would be strongly preferable, if only its price would drop to not much more than fish oil. If it were e.g. +50% or even +80% more expensive than fish oil, instead of being triple, I would immediately switch to it.
In Europe, some vegetables and fruits are expensive, but those are not needed in so great quantities as to make a large fraction of the food budget. Staple food, like maize, wheat, lentils, beans, sunflower, proteins from whey or milk, chicken meat, gelatin etc. is cheap.
By cultofmetatron 2026-02-0818:464 reply are they artificially converting the ALA to DHA? we treat omega3 like they are all one bucket but theres a big difference.
Algal omega 3 is the exact same omega3 in fish. This isn't a product endorsement, but you can see an example here: https://www.amazon.com/GparkNature-Supplements-Supplement-Tu...
By deeth_starr_v 2026-02-0819:421 reply Algal ALA has a different chemical makeup https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthPro...
Edit: I think you mean Algae (which is EPA) Edit2: My mistake, I read Algal as ALA rather than Algae (algal)
The "algal" omega-3 is not extracted from any algae, but it is extracted from certain cultivated strains of a fungus-like organism, Schizochytrium.
The cultivated strains have been selected and/or genetically engineered to have enhanced production of certain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.
The composition of an "algal" oil ("algal" is the adjective derived from "alga", "algae" is the plural of "alga") depends on the particular strain that the vendor has used in production.
The first cultivated strains produced only DHA, but in recent years most vendors use strains that allow them to sell oil that has a mixture 2:1 of DHA and EPA, with minor quantities of other long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.
By tbossanova 2026-02-0821:361 reply Can you grow your own at home?
I do not think that growing is difficult, but extracting the oil from it in such a way that it will have a correct composition is likely to be impossible without complex chemical equipment.
For growing it would be difficult to obtain a good strain. The strains used by commercial producers were originally isolated from some mangrove forests or other such places on sea shores, but then they have passed through years of selection and/or gene manipulation. Even when a good strain would be available, a culture that is grown in less controlled conditions could be susceptible to being wiped out by a disease, I have no idea.
In any case, I think the difficulty is in the oil extraction, not in the culture. In industrial conditions the extraction could be made with supercritical carbon dioxide, for maximum cleanness of the extracted oil, but that would not be feasible at home. Using an organic solvent, like hexane, might be possible at home, but that would be dangerous and there is the risk of contamination of the edible oil with solvent residues.
Accurate chemical analysis of the oil would be needed, to determine the fatty acid profile and validate the extraction method.
By tbossanova 2026-02-0823:42 Right, and I assume if you’re not extracting oil you’d have to eat some impossibly large amount to get a meaningful amount of omega 3
By deeth_starr_v 2026-02-0819:381 reply That's part of my question. ALA is supposed to not convert to DHA easily.
But these results seem to say at higher concentrations ALA lowers risk of EOD. Which tends to refute the belief that only DHA/EPA lower chronic inflammation or that EOD is not just a story about inflammation.
By adrian_b 2026-02-0820:24 I cannot read the whole article, but the abstract says nothing about ALA.
The abstract only partitions the omega-3 acids in DHA and non-DHA.
While non-DHA includes ALA, without any concrete evidence that ALA has some direct role, it is more likely that the correlation seen with non-DHA refers not to ALA, but to the other long-chain omega-3 fatty acids besides DHA.
Humans can elongate ALA into useful long-chain acids, but the efficiency of this is typically lower in males than in females and lower in old people than in young people. Usually pregnant women have the best conversion efficiency.
Unless you monitor your blood composition, you cannot know if eating ALA (e.g. flax seeds or oil, or walnuts) can be sufficient for you. If you are an older male, it is very likely that eating ALA cannot be enough for avoiding deficiency.
By culi 2026-02-091:49 Fish don't produce DHA and EPA. They actually get it from eating algae.
By wang_li 2026-02-0819:02 Go find one that is IFOS certified.
By Aurornis 2026-02-0821:59 > They've gotten pretty good in the last couple years with gummies with a high dose and no algae test
Gummy supplements are questionable, especially for supplements that can have strong flavors and odors by themselves.
If you’re taking algal based gummies and thinking they taste good, they likely either have very little omega-3 or the ingredients have been so heavily processed that I’d start questioning if the omega-3 survived the processing
If your supplements are in gummy form there's a high likelihood animals were killed for gelatin, FYI.
By Faelon 2026-02-094:14 Don't worry- I always check
By culi 2026-02-091:52 Consumerlab is great for this. They test for heavy metal content and accuracy of nutrition labels. They've only tested 4 algae-based ones and they all passed. Carlson, DEVA, and Ovega are the brands they looked at (two from Carlson) with DEVA being their "top pick"
By dotancohen 2026-02-0818:1610 reply I evolved to eat fish and meat killed. So did all other carnivores. I'm happy to continue eating and shitting and sleeping and having sex, I don't want supplements to replace food and AI to replace intellect and IVF to replace sex. I want to be alive.
Abstaining from killing animals is about the sober realization that we can have perfectly healthy and happy lives without killing animals, who have feelings and a sense of perspective and experience, just like us. Living with my values and actions as one give me a strong sense of life, and I love cooking every day. Plants taste great when cooked well!
By dotancohen 2026-02-0821:142 reply
Maybe, maybe not. If one is lacking a hobby and happy to spend much time learning and obsessing and fiddling with what they eat, while accepting that they may be missing some vital things that we don't yet know about, then sure.> Abstaining from killing animals is about the sober realization that we can have perfectly healthy and happy lives without killing animals,But I have enough hobbies and I don't want to risk missing some things we don't yet know about. I just eat what I evolved to eat.
You could find the time to figure out what to eat on a plant-based diet in the space of a single Youtube video. The science that eating plant-based isn't just fine for you but also better for you is extremely solid. Just because we evolved to do something doesn't make it moral, and needlessly killing animals is clearly not moral. Humans did not evolve with the terrifyingly industrial scale farming we do now providing the unprecedented amount of meat global humans now consume.
By dotancohen 2026-02-096:031 reply I don't needlessly kill animals. I kill animals (well, they are killed on my behalf) to eat.
By boston_clone 2026-02-1118:491 reply and there are mountains of evidence that prove you don't need to consume dead animals to have complete nutrition.
which makes the killing of animals to eat a needless act. because it's not needed.
By dotancohen 2026-02-127:321 reply Yes, if I want to read mountains of papers and meticulously watch and count what I eat and stay current on research and accept difficulty in deciding what and where to eat and treat the joyful act of eating as if it were a shameful act of desperation, then I could. But like I said, I have enough hobbies and I find no shame in recognising that my lineage evolved from a single cell organism to an apex predator.
By boston_clone 2026-02-1215:55 And yet despite this self-assessed evolution to apex predator status, you probably accept the difficulty and self-restrain from killing other humans during a fit of road rage if you're cut off while driving.
However, some people have cultivated empathy for non-human beings to the point that killing an animal for an easier meal is morally equivalent to killing a human for an easier time on the road.
Some people have also recognized that a bit more difficulty in finding a place to eat is worth it to decrease the ecological impact of eating beef and cheese.
And some others still have realized that not everything should be hedonistic, and enjoy a plant-based diet that contributes to overall greater health even if it means a bit less (or rather, different - vegan food is delicious) sensory pleasure.
Shame can be a powerful motivator to be sure, but altruism and compassion are preferred, here.
I'm an omnivore. all meat or no meat is not what i'm evolved to eat. Perhaps I eat too much meat, but zero meat isn't the right answer.
Just because you evolved to do something doesn't provide a moral justification to do that thing. Whether you evolved to or not, animals suffer extraordinarily in the farms of torture we've made for them. It is well accepted that you can eat healthily on a vegan diet, and it would only really take a couple articles to figure out how to have a healthy plant-based diet. You could do it at Walmart.
Who's moral justification? Yours?, My families?, my community?, my government? my god?
I maybe too much of a individualist, so I get a little triggered when I see claims from others about the moral justification of what I should eat, what job I should have, who I should vote for... When these things that I do are not hurting myself or other humans.
Now I'm sure you could take an example of each one of these and "butterfly affect" to some example of hurting another human, but I could do the exact same thing to any one of [your] lifestyle choices.
By Faelon 2026-02-1122:50 The moral justification comes from the understanding that the brain is an organ which integrates information to form this profound feeling of presence that you and I share. There is zero evidence to suggest that we don't share this feeling with animals. This is a scientific argument. I'm a professional neuroscientist working in brain simulation, and even the complexity of a ringworm is out of the grasp of the field. The complexity of the brain is unrivaled anywhere else in nature, and it has this wonderful emergent property that I feel like something. Animals feel like something. It feels like something to be a cow, a chicken, and a pig. They understand and relate to the world. That is why it is wrong to kill them unless you have to.
By boston_clone 2026-02-1118:51 > no meat is not what i'm evolved to eat
why do you think this? I've lived seven healthy years with zero meat and am in superb physical shape. how many 30+ year olds do you know that can run a five minute mile? can you?
By dotancohen 2026-02-094:10 Yeah, I eat plenty of those too!
By Saline9515 2026-02-0914:291 reply Why the focus on "killing"?
Plenty of things you consume create suffering, in plants, in animals, but also in humans. Therefore, why just focus on killing certain animals?
Other ways can also be more beneficial overall, such as favoring local farms which respect animals. Those exist, although their products are more expensive. In the alpine mountains where I grew up, cows and goats had undoubtedly a better life than most humans on earth.
You can also change the way to work and consume - all of this vegan ethic isn't very coherent if, as a manager, you pressure your subordinates to the maximum, and fire your coworker who you suspect that she just got pregnant.
By Faelon 2026-02-1123:00 The focus is on killing because we understand that the brain is the organ which generates sensation and presence. Plants completely lack the machinery to integrate information on the level of even a ringworm. Once you get to the size of the animals we commonly eat for food, there is an immense amount of complexity, much more similar to ourselves than different. The ethics of veganism if very coherent. The brain generates subjective experience, the feeling of being something. To deprive one of that experience is wrong- most people would report preferring to be than not. Of course, to your point about subordinates, vegans should also treat humans with respect. Actually, veganism provides a framework that tells us WHY we should treat other humans with respect- because they feel, just like I do. So, if we can practically avoid causing suffering to those with brains, as most people on this website can easily do, it is best to do so. Most plants worldwide are grown to feed to animals, by the way, so even if plants suffered, we should prefer a plant-based world which minimizes this suffering. this would also minimize the human exploitation in the food industry and reduce our reliance on the monoculture which broadly produces the bevy of animal feed grown to feed the insatiable global appetite for animal flesh. One more comment on your alpine animals comment- those animals were slaughtered for their flesh. Could you "humanely" kill a human selectively bred to grow to the size of an adult in two years? How would you do it? Would the average person be ok if you painlessly killed them after two years of roaming through the mountains? I don't think so.
>Plants taste great when cooked well!
Maybe? But until we get to the point where this is universally true, or I forget how good a prime fillet tastes, I don't see a good reason to stop eating meat.
By boston_clone 2026-02-1118:53 Some (many?) ethical, ecological, and healthy choices will require you to go beyond "does this taste good" or "does this feel good"?
Our species started out predominantly eating fruits, vegetables, nuts,.. As hunter gatherers, meat eating came later and initially was still not a dominant source of nutrition.
So yes, you eventually evolved for this, but it wasn’t the dominant food source for a loooooong time.
By amanaplanacanal 2026-02-0818:531 reply Homo sapiens? I don't think that's necessarily true. Older ancestors maybe. Home sapiens was probably mostly getting calories from fruit, tubers, and other animals, depending on season and what they could find.
By Insanity 2026-02-0818:55 Yeah I left a response about that in another comment. Sapiens (sapiens) perhaps, but not true for the entire homo line.
Our species started out predominantly eating whatever was available.
During different points of time the ration was very different. From "mostly nuts" to "mostly fish".
And different populations evolutionarily "fine-tuned" in environments with different availabilities of various foodstuffs. While many dietary requirements are common to all humans (e.g. we lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C, making us all susceptible to scurvy), some are specific to individuals and (genetically-related) families.
Diet is one of the very few places where your genetic ancestry actually matters – although your gut microbiome, which evolves faster (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00587), may not share quite the same ancestry as your human cell tissue.
By throwaway198846 2026-02-0821:081 reply > Diet is one of the very few places where your genetic ancestry actually matters
Aside from lactose intolerance what else is different between humans?
By adrian_b 2026-02-0821:30 There are many other intolerances, e.g. coeliac disease and the many different kinds of food allergies.
Besides these cases, which are obvious due to immediate harm, and which are the reason for laws about food labeling that mentions lactose, gluten and various allergens, there is a lot of variability between humans in the efficiency of digesting various foods and in the capacity of absorption for various nutrients.
Some people are able to eat pretty much anything, while others are aware that they do not feel well after eating certain things, so they avoid them.
Yes, but more likely insects as first small “animals”. Hunting animals takes more effort than eating fruits etc.
I know it’s all vague delineation of where our species really started, and at which point you would no longer consider it the homo line, but for a significant part of history we were a small predator that would eat whatever was _easily_ available. Hunting animals is not easy and it’s a risky endeavour.
I’m not saying meat wasn’t part of our diet obviously, but it logically wouldn’t have been as dominant a part of our diet as it is today.
By adrian_b 2026-02-0820:46 The most likely hypothesis about how humans have become the most efficient hunters of the planet does not pass through catching insects and very small animals, but through eating the remains of the big prey killed by carnivores.
There are various bits of evidence for this, like the higher stomach acidity of humans, which resembles that of carrion eaters, like hyenas.
It is plausible that the ability to throw sticks and stones was used initially for scaring other predators and make them abandon their prey, and only later, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, it became accurate enough to be usable for hunting living animals.
The ability to use stones to break the bones and eat the parts inaccessible for the carnivores who had killed the prey, i.e. marrow and brain, which are rich in hard to get nutrients, e.g. omega-3 fatty acids, is also presumed to have played an important role in the development of a bigger and bigger brain.
It is likely that the gangs of humans acted in a very similar way with the packs of hyenas, which acquire much of their food by scaring away from their prey the other predators, e.g. cheetahs, wild dogs, leopards and even lions. Moreover, similarly to humans, the most important ability of hyenas is not speed, but endurance when pursuing a possible prey that is tired or weakened, e.g. by wounds. While hyenas rely on their big teeth to chase the other predators, humans have relied on their ability to throw things at a distance, for the same purpose. While humans are quite bad at running, jumping, climbing or swimming, in comparison with most mammals, their throwing ability is unmatched by any other animal.
By throw_away_928 2026-02-0819:061 reply They have found spears that are at least 400,000 years old, so we have hunted for food at least that long.
And if you look at our closest relatives chimpanzees, they also hunt without using tools. Humans and their ancestors probably ate whatever they had available, including meat.
By blacksmith_tb 2026-02-0819:49 Not much meat, however[1] (unless we're counting insects, I suppose, but even then, still mostly fruit).
By Antipode 2026-02-0818:42 Also likely insects.
You also evolved to nearly choke to death when you accidentally eat and breathe at the same time. Doesn’t mean it’s desirable.
By wang_li 2026-02-0819:10 “Evolution” is not a sound basis for most choices. We didn’t evolve to wear shoes, live in houses, to use powerful cleaning agents, indoor plumbing, decontaminated water, refrigeration, and pretty much all modern medicine, among about every other thing that is part of modern life.
By mlekoszek 2026-02-0819:02 At least we can talk about it.
By Braxton1980 2026-02-0820:04 >, I don't want supplements to replace food and AI to replace intellect and IVF to replace sex. I want to be alive
No one is pushing for these changes you suggest and to take a stance suggests a social disorder or mental illness.
By cluckindan 2026-02-0818:231 reply Reject modernity, embrace nomadic life in the forests.
By Propelloni 2026-02-0818:47 Preach it. I, for one, welcome my caveman dentist!
By boston_clone 2026-02-0818:342 reply You are not a carnivore, neither is any other human.
By amanaplanacanal 2026-02-0818:55 Plenty do, though. Just like there are plenty of vegans. And plenty that live on junk food.
I don't know anyone who claims that. Humans are omnivores is the most common claim - that is eat a mix of meat and vegitables.
This is orthogonal to the main point which is that just because we are capable of eating something doesn't provide a moral justification for eating something. It is extremely clear from data and example that it's possible and actually easy to live a happy life on a plant-based diet. This means that eating meat is a choice, and many would say it is an overwhelmingly cruel choice.
By Saline9515 2026-02-0914:40 Morality is a relative and personal thing. It is also very clear from data that you can live a good life while eating quality animal products.
Some may prefer to do it for personal pleasure, but also ease of life, or cost, which allows them to have time for things that they believe are also moral. Such as taking care of their children, working, and so on.
By boston_clone 2026-02-1118:50 The commenter I'm replying to implicitly made that claim:
> [...] So did all other carnivores
By CalRobert 2026-02-0818:30 Ok, but evolution didn’t get us somewhere over 8 billion people can share this planet.
By BobaFloutist 2026-02-0923:421 reply I evolved to shit outdoors, bathe in cold water, sleep on the ground, and die without having traveled more than at most a couple of hundreds of miles from my birthplace but I refuse to be limited by the capacities of a glorified ape without language, culture, or understanding of the interiority of others, not to mention indoor plumbing.
By dotancohen 2026-02-1021:351 reply Well actually I still prefer to shit outdoors and bathe in cold water.
By BobaFloutist 2026-02-111:13 That would I assume preclude taking a shower for 3-4 months of the year in some climates? Especially since we didn't evolve with indoor heating either. Or indoors at all, for that matter.
By staticassertion 2026-02-0818:30 This feels like a series of completely disconnected statements. The underlying theme seems to be that "living" is something that can only be realized by isolating behaviors to those that developed under specific niche conditions that applied pressure to our ancestors, and that this is good, and that deviating is bad. The word "living" and "alive" seems to be a proxy word for something like "happy" or "fulfilled"?
So many hoops to jump through to understand what the hell you're talking about, just to land on what could charitably be called the dumbest thing I'll read today if I'm lucky.
By dymk 2026-02-0818:29 You are not living in the body of a carnivore
Eat some berries and nuts
"Paleo" diet doesn't even include that much meat in it
> But my understanding is non-DHA is not helpful so I may not be understanding correctly
Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the Omega-3 present in most plant sources, can get its chemical structure lenghtened to EPA and DHA in the organism. The problem appears to be, when people get older, the efficiency of this conversion takes a large hit.
By mikeyouse 2026-02-0818:40 It’s always a stretch too - takes something like 15x more ALA to convert to DHA when things are going well. Not nothing but if a substantial amount of DHA is protective, it’s hard to get there with only ALA.
By Aurornis 2026-02-0821:55 > But my understanding is non-DHA is not helpful so I may not be understanding correctly
A lot of the common wisdoms about fish oil and omega-3 were based on early studies that had some too good to be true results. As studies were scaled up to more participants and more rigorous methods many of the amazing early results gave way to less impressive or even null results.
I think it’s a good idea to get a mix of omega-3s in your diet, but given everything I’ve seen I don’t think it’s all that important to start micro optimizing everything with isolated supplements. Consume a mixed variety of sources and try to get some fish in there every once while.
The importance of DHA specifically in this study is a good example of how individual studies don’t tell the whole story. This could be a spurious result that is correlated with something else that leads to elevated DHA in the blood (diet choices). Supplementing isolated DHA could miss whatever the real factor was.
By culi 2026-02-091:47 Well the other major omega-3 typically supplemented is EPA. Which also mostly comes from fish sources (and both DHA and EPA come from algae that the fish eat)
ALA is very weakly converted to the other fatty acids but it also has benefits in its own right. It's a pretty interest antioxidant being active in both fat and water
