A biphasic response to blueberry supplementation on depressive symptoms in emerging adults: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to examine the acute and chronic effects of wild blueberry supplementation on mood, executive function, and serum biomarkers of neuroplasticity, inflammation, and oxidative stress in emerging adults with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, 60 emerging adults (Mage = 20.0 years, 32% male) with self-reported depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to receive a single blueberry drink (acute phase), followed by 6 weeks of daily blueberry supplementation (chronic phase), or a matched placebo drink. The primary outcome was Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) scores at 6-week follow-up. Further measures included momentary affect (PANAS-X) and accuracy on an executive function task. The data were analyzed using ANCOVAs adjusted for baseline values, sex, and habitual fruit and vegetable intake. Estimated marginal means were calculated to compare the treatment arms. RESULTS: The blueberry drink significantly improved positive affect (p = 0.026) and executive function (p = 0.025) at 2 h post-ingestion, with change scores being positively correlated in the blueberry group (r = 0.424, p = 0.017). However, after six weeks of supplementation the reduction in BDI-II scores was greater in the placebo group by 5.8 points (95% CI: 0.8-10.7, p = 0.023). Generalized anxiety and anhedonia also decreased significantly more in the placebo group. No significant differences were found for any of the biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Six weeks of wild blueberry supplementation were inferior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms. Nevertheless, the correlated improvements in positive affect and executive function after a single dose of blueberries point to a beneficial, albeit transient, psychological effect. These contrasting results suggest a biphasic, hormetic-like response that warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04647019, dated 30 November, 2020.

Thinking about the nerve impulse: A critical analysis of the electricity-centered conception of nerve excitability.

Nerve impulse generation and propagation are often thought of as solely electrical events. The prevalence of this view is the result of long and intense study of nerve impulses in electrophysiology culminating in the introduction of the Hodgkin-Huxley model of the action potential in the 1950s. To this day, this model forms the physiological foundation for a broad area of neuroscientific research. However, the Hodgkin-Huxley model cannot account for non-electrical phenomena that accompany nerve impulse propagation, for which there is nevertheless ample evidence. This raises the question whether the Hodgkin-Huxley model is a complete model of the nerve impulse. Several alternative models have been proposed that do take into account non-electrical aspects of the nerve impulse and emphasize their importance in gaining a more complete understanding of the nature of the nerve impulse. In our opinion, these models deserve more attention in neuroscientific research, since, together with the Hodgkin-Huxley model, they will help in addressing and solving a number of questions in basic and applied neuroscience which thus far have remained outside our grasp. Here we provide a historico-scientific overview of the developments that have led to the current conception of the action potential as an electrical phenomenon, discuss some major objections against this conception, and suggest a number of scientific factors which have likely contributed to the enduring success of the Hodgkin-Huxley model and should be taken into consideration whilst contemplating the formulation of a more extensive and complete conception of the nerve impulse.