Full text of nutrition researcher Julia Rucklidge on The Surprisingly Dramatic Role of Nutrition in Mental Health at TEDxChristchurch conference.
Listen to the MP3 Audio here: The surprisingly dramatic role of nutrition in mental health by Julia Rucklidge at TEDxChristchurch
In 1847, a physician by the name of Semmelweis advised that all physicians wash their hands before touching a pregnant woman in order to prevent childbed fever. His research showed that you could reduce the mortality rates from septicemia from 18%, down to 2% simply through washing your hands with chlorinated lime. His medical colleagues refused to accept that they themselves were responsible for spreading infection. Semmelweis was ridiculed by his peers, dismissed and the criticism and backlash broke him down and he died in an asylum two weeks later from septicemia at the age of 47.
What I am going to talk about today may sound as radical as hand washing sounded to a mid-19th century doctor and yet it is equally scientific. It is a simple idea that optimizing nutrition is a safe and viable way to avoid, treat or lessen mental illness.
Nutrition matters. Poor nutrition is a significant and modifiable risk factor for the development of mental illness. According to the 2013 New Zealand Health Survey, the rate of psychiatric illnesses in children doubled over the last five years. Internationally, there’s been a three-fold increase in ADHD, a twenty-fold increase in autism and a forty-fold increase in bipolar disorder in children. And this graph here shows there’s been a four-fold increase in the rates — the number of people who are on disability as a direct consequence of an underlying psychiatric illness. The rates of mental illness are on the rise.
So how are we dealing with this problem? Currently our health care system operates within a medical model. Now this means that you would typically be offered psychiatric medications first followed by psychological therapies and other forms of support. Our reliance on medications as a frontline form of treatment is evidenced from the increasing rates of prescription. For example, in 2012 half a million New Zealanders, that’s one eighth of us, had been prescribed an antidepressant, that’s 38% higher than five years previously.
Similarly, the rates of prescriptions for antipsychotic doubled from 2006 to 2011. Given that this medical model is fairly universal across all Western societies, you would rightfully accept that it was working well. And indeed in some cases then these treatments save lives and I’m not here to dismiss it altogether. However, if a treatment is truly effective, then shouldn’t the rates of disorder and disability as a direct consequence of that illness be decreasing rather than increasing? And that’s why we need to consider the role that medications might be playing in some of these outcomes.
If we take any class of medication: anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety medications, anti-depressants, the pattern is the same. In the short term these treatments are often very effective. But in the long term they aren’t. And in some cases, they’re making life worse.
If we look at, for example, studies that have been done on ADHD children treated with stimulants or Ritalin, in the short term they are better and responding — better responders than any other form of treatment. But in the long term they fare less well than children who were never prescribed these medications.
Another study showed that despite our ever increasing reliance on antidepressants, the recovery rates, relapse rates are no better now than they were 50 years ago prior to the advent of these medications. And children with depression who were treated with antidepressants are three times more likely to convert to bipolar disorder than children who were never given these medications. And people who are randomized to stay on their dose of anti-psychotic medications are less likely to recover from schizophrenia in the long term than people who had been randomized to a dose reduction or complete elimination of the drug.
And I can show you more and more studies, all highlighting this same bleak picture. So pretty depressing.
Is there another way forward? Almost two decades ago, my PhD supervisor at the time, Professor Bonnie Kaplan, told me about some families who were treating themselves with nutrients in southern Alberta, Canada. Now they had bipolar disorder psychosis, depression — these are serious conditions. And my education in clinical psychology had taught me that nutrition and diet were of trivial significance for mental health, and that only drugs with psychotherapy could treat these serious conditions.
But she and others were publishing a preliminary data in the earlier part of the century, showing people getting well and staying well. And so I decided to study the nutrients and that’s what I’ve done for the last decade.
In 2009 I received some funding to run a randomized placebo controlled trial, using minerals and vitamins, also known collectively as micronutrients for the treatment of ADHD in adults. And this study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in April of this year. And here’s what we found.
Within just an eight-week period, twice as many people responded in the micronutrient group compared to placebo. Twice as many people went into remission in their depression in the micronutrient group. Hyperactivity and impulsivity reduced into the normal non-clinical range. And those who were taking the micronutrients were more likely to report that their ADHD symptoms were less interfering in their work and social relationships than people who were on the placebo.
And one year later, those people who stayed on the micronutrients maintained their changes or showed further improvement and those who switched to medications or stopped the micronutrients actually showed a worsening of their symptoms.
Now I need to tell you something here. And that is when I say micronutrients, I’m actually referring to a dose higher than what you’d get out of a vitamin pill purchased in the supermarket. We — in this study we gave participants up to fifteen pills a day with 36 nutrients. So it would be unlikely that if you went and got in over the counter supplement, you would unlikely see these positive benefits, both because the dose is lower and the breadth of nutrients is lower.
Now these positive benefits are not confined to a single study. My lab at the University of Canterbury is a mental health and nutrition research group. And we’ve published over 20 papers in medical journals, all documenting the benefits of micronutrients. For example, this study here showed that we could reduce the symptoms of bipolar disorder in children by 50% with a simultaneous reduction in medication.
This study here showed that we could reduce rates of probable post-traumatic stress disorder from 65% , down to 18% following the Christchurch earthquake with a one month intervention of micronutrients with no change than those not taking the nutrients. Even one year later, those people who had received the nutrients were doing better than those who didn’t. And we’ve just replicated these findings in collaboration with researchers at the University of Calgary following the floods of June 2013 in Alberta, Canada.
To me the message is clear that a well nourished body and brain is better able to withstand ongoing stress and recover from illness. Giving micronutrients in appropriate doses can be an effective and inexpensive public health intervention to improve the mental health of a population following an environmental catastrophe.
In my 20-year career I have rarely seen these dramatic responses from conventional treatments. When people get well, they get well across the board, not only in the symptoms that we treated but also in other areas like improved sleep, stabilization of mood, reduction in anxiety and the reduction in need for cigarettes, cannabis and alcohol.
My research and those around the world have shown that 60% to 80% of people respond to micronutrients, showing just how powerful this intervention is. And internationally, there have now been 20 randomized placebo controlled trials. This is the gold standard that we use to make clinical decisions, showing that we can reduce aggression in prisoners, slow cognitive decline in the elderly, treat depression, anxiety, stress, autism and ADHD. And they might even be more cost effective than current conventional treatments.