Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#51

Post by 55555 »

kstenerud wrote: post #40
NullChronos wrote: post #30

Humans evolved colour vision to detect ripe fruit. Fruit has a, relatively, considerable amount of sugar. For such a substantial mutation, for which all of us share, it would seem counter-productive to evolve such a trait that harms us.

Earlier fruits didn't have anywhere near the sugar content of the cultivated ones today. In fact, many fruits of old were inedible (e.g. apples). Sources of sugar such as sweet fruits and honey were rare delicacies, not daily occurrences. Humans in various regions would have adapted over 1000 generations to better match their environment. We live in a VERY different world now.

This is a myth. I think 10,000 years ago there were only 2 million humans walking the earth. Fruit trees growing on uninhabited islands today have delicious sweet mangos. Fruits which exist but have never been cultivated at scale are also deliciously sweet.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#52

Post by yosito »

chmod600 wrote: post #50
kstenerud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier fruits didn't have anywhere near the sugar content of the cultivated ones today. In fact, many fruits of old were inedible (e.g. apples). Sources of sugar such as sweet fruits and honey were rare delicacies, not daily occurrences. Humans in various regions would have adapted over 1000 generations to better match their environment. We live in a VERY different world now.

While I'm sure not everyone had access to sweet fruit all the time, are you sure it was really so rare? Fruit is meant to be eaten, so as long as plants have the spare energy, I don't see why they wouldn't make lots of appealing fruit. Veggies would make more sense to be bitter. Also, where did you get 1000 generations from? That's 20000 years in one place. It seems like a lot of humans would be a lot more mobile tha…

> Fruit is meant to be eaten

Meant by who? Evolution don't give a fuck...

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#54

Post by tokamak-teapot »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #29
mrandish wrote: post #6

It's only N=1 anecdata but since going to a VLC/Keto diet I've felt cognitively sharper (in addition to other benefits like losing weight, needing less sleep, etc).

I felt noticeably sharper on keto, which at the time I felt like was primarily a lack of sleepiness and an increased ability to focus for necessary durations. Thats how it felt, would love to see non subjective data on this.

Still N=1 but at least it’s not just ‘feeling’ clearer:

I can complete cryptic crosswords by particular setters when eating a keto diet. I couldn’t do this before.

Did I just get better at them? I’ve had two switches back to non-keto for a few weeks each and during both I could hardly start the crosswords.

I also ‘know’ I am much more able to focus and prioritise better in my work, but there is no quantitive measure I can use there.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#55

Post by LegitShady »

yosito wrote: post #52
chmod600 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm sure not everyone had access to sweet fruit all the time, are you sure it was really so rare? Fruit is meant to be eaten, so as long as plants have the spare energy, I don't see why they wouldn't make lots of appealing fruit. Veggies would make more sense to be bitter. Also, where did you get 1000 generations from? That's 20000 years in one place. It seems like a lot of humans would be a lot more mobile tha…

> Fruit is meant to be eaten Meant by who? Evolution don't give a fuck...

I thought the whole evolutionary advantage was that animals spread the seeds around after eating the fruit, making survival much more likely. So not 'meant to be eaten' as in intentional choices, but meant to be eaten as in - this is why its an evolutionary advantage.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#56

Post by guerrilla »

NullChronos wrote: post #30

Humans evolved colour vision to detect ripe fruit. Fruit has a, relatively, considerable amount of sugar. For such a substantial mutation, for which all of us share, it would seem counter-productive to evolve such a trait that harms us.

Fruit comes with fiberand vitamins. I suspect that's the real difference.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#57

Post by astrange »

jniedrauer wrote: post #19
mrandish wrote: post #6

It's only N=1 anecdata but since going to a VLC/Keto diet I've felt cognitively sharper (in addition to other benefits like losing weight, needing less sleep, etc).

You can get the same effect with much less lifestyle disruption just by exercising. Specifically low intensity cardio trains your body to metabolize fat efficiently.

What does metabolizing fat have to do with carbs giving you brain fog?

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#58

Post by astrange »

lvs wrote: post #31
Grimm1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's very much a person to person thing, I typically feel much clearer on a keto/low carb diet.

Or maybe none of this mumbo jumbo does anything and you're all fools?

It's more reasonable to believe it depends on the person, since why wouldn't it.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#59

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

esperent wrote: post #7
imwillofficial wrote: post #2

This is big. Highlights: •Glucose and sucrose ingestion led to negative cognitive performances. •Negative effects due to blood glucose increase were more evident with overnight fasting. •Sugar effects on cognitive abilities are likely to be glucose-mediated. •Sweetness perception does not play a role in moderating cognitive performances.

N=49 Interesting results, but I'd take them with a grain of sugar until they get replicated several times over. Especially since they match my bias that sugar=bad.

It's actually even worse than that.

I don't have access to the paper, but they had 8 conditions (3 sugars + placebo * fasting|non fasting).

That's basically six people per condition. I assume that they did some kind of repeated measures design (although the abstract doesn't say), but the numbers reported are most likely to be statistical noise, especially without preregistration or standard analytical methods.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#60

Post by sebmellen »

saurik wrote: post #39
selimthegrim wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inconclusive?

Correct: as in there isn't actually sufficient evidence to make the case one way or the other, based on the data that has since been published (which means we know even less than "it isn't true").

I believe the reason selimthegrim tried to clarify was that you had typed "inclusive" in your first comment, which would give the whole sentence a very different (harder to decipher) meaning :)
Post reply on HN