Recent research (BMJ 26.10.02) indicates that the old wives tale about fish being good for the brain may be true after all. I am therefore going to test the following hypotheses:

For my measure of mental performance I will be using reaction time, recorded by the ruler drop test, and mental agility using a set of Stroop Cards.

My prediction is that someone who eats fish on a regular basis shows an improvement in reaction time over someone on a none fish diet.

My background for this prediction is as follows. Fish contains a number of valuable nutrients in addition to Omega-3 oils. Research (Skirrick) has found that fish contain the carbohydrate Offinose. This substance is known to have beneficial effects on lipid tissue (and myeline)in humans. Why this is so, remains unclear. However many of the oily fish contain this carbohydrate in large amounts.

In humans, offinose is normally broken down by the recently discovered enzyme offinase to yield the single sugars glucose and apriorose. The glucose is used as an energy source for cell respiration, while apriorose forms part of the glycolipids present in cell membrane.

However there is a chemically different form of the enzyme, which is named beta-offinase (b -offinase). This enzyme is one of an unussual group of enzymes which are neither catabolic nor anabolic but instead transform. Transforming enzymes of this type slightly change the position of OH groups in some carbohydrates without hydrolysing them, resulting in a new product.

In the case of b -offinase, the substrate offinose is transsformed to the oligosaccharide inspirose. Inspirose is found in high concentrations in many nerve terminals in the brain and also causes the formation of new connections within the brain.

For this investigation I am going to use two groups of 10 volunteers, comprising 5 males and 5 females each group.

Individuals will all be between the ages of 20-25. It would have been preferable to use younger subjects with more rapidly developing brains but I was advised against this on ethical grounds.

The individuals will also all be non-fish eaters. This will allow comparison not just between subjects but also of the before and after effects on the fish eating group.

I have also decided to exclude smokers, drinkers and those taking part in sports requiring quick reactions.

The reaction test

Consists of the standard format outlined in Newburg and Holtom (2002). A metre ruler is dropped through the volunteer's fingers and 3 replicates are carried out. This will be carried out every other day for 1 week.

I will administer random cards from a set of 10 different Stroop Cards on the days the reaction test isn't being carried out.

Both of these sets of scores will be converted into a single measure using the Wittgenstein formula. I have chosen this method since it takes the original performance as a baseline This will result in a range of performance scores ranging from 1(deterioration in faculties) through 3 (no change) to 5 (substantial increase in performance).

Group A-the non fish eaters will be tested at daily intervals at different times of the day for 7 days.

Group B will be fed a diet high in oily fish. A typical days menu will be,

Breakfast: Sardines on Toast

Elevenses: Taramasalata on Ryvita

Lunch: Mackerel and gooseberry sauce

Evening Meal: Bouilabaisse(fish soup) followed by Grilled Herrings.

For drinks, the subjects will be allowed as much water as they want in addition to a compulsory 3 teacups of Cod-Liver Oil daily.

No dairy food are allowed as lactose is known to interfere with the formation of inspirose and may result in the formation of the undesirable substance dullardose. Dullardose is like a carbohydrate version of prion proteins, causing normal carbohydrats(especially inspirose) to lose at least some of their functionality.

Unfortunately a Pilot Study was not possible as the volunteers were not willing to have an extended period on the 100% fish diet.

The raw data is shown in Appendix A

Plotted on a graph of normalised deviatory significance (Appendix 2) there is a clear correlation between increased fish eating and performance. These are highlightd in the Wittgenstein figures. However the raw data seems to show no change whatsoever. Why the difference? I had to employ an additional index for Grp B after Day 2 to reflect their adverse reactions to continuing with the study. I therefore added a Gaggability Index of 1 for Days3 and 4, then increased the correction factor to 2 for the remaining days.

This gave an excellent set of results.

For my evaluation I must focus on 2 areas; limitations in the technique and suggestions for improvement/extension of the study.

I notice that the Grp B became irritable and unco-operative after the first day. I presume this is due to a build up of inspirose causing increased btrain activity. There were also some signs of nausea-obviously an infetion was around and in future I would lock the volunteers in individual isolated rooms. Interestingly, hygiene problems arose in Grp B; many complained of smelling of fish.

For a future investigation I would use Cod Liver Oil capsules. I would like to do a reverse study using a fish eating people . Maybe withdrawal of fish and a change to a meat or vegetable diet would cause the Wittgenstein Index to move downwards to 1.

All in all I was very pleased with the way this went, and I am now off down to the chippy for a celebratory meal. On second thoughts perhaps I'll go for a Burger instead.

April 1st.