Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by redis_mlc » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

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.

> Earlier fruits didn't have anywhere near the sugar content of the cultivated ones today. In fact, many fruits of old were inedible

I have heard that cereal crops (wheat, corn) were basically grass before farming started. This was a disadvantage for Aztecs and Mayans since it took a while for humans to migrate there, and then to cultivate them to a useful efficiency level.

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

#62

Post by saurik » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:06 AM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #60

saurik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Ahhh!!! LOL

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

#63

Post by dlkmp » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:29 AM UTC

fatlasp wrote: post #9

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 was keto for six months a year or so ago and definitely felt sharper at the time as well. Turns out I like carbs more than clear headedness

Same story for me, also went keto for approx. six months and experienced the same benefits but once I started carbs again, those seemingly great benefits loose against the ease of just being able to eat "normally".

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

#64

Post by dlkmp » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:34 AM UTC

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.

It doesn't. That's why "Hungerast", i.e. sudden loose of energy due to all carbohydrates being used up is a thing in all endurance focused sports.

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

#65

Post by johnchristopher » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:38 AM UTC

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...

By the plant. The plant that is driven by its genes to maximize its offspring.

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

#66

Post by johnchristopher » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:39 AM UTC

hoka-one-one wrote: post #48

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.

Can you cite some sources please? I've tasted some very sweet wild berries.

And I had some very sour apples so I think our anecdata cancel each other.

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

#67

Post by 411111111111111 » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:43 AM UTC

astrange wrote: post #58

lvs wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because saying "it depends on the person" is akin to saying "there are too many (possibly unknown) variables at play to actually figure out what causes what".

Nutritional sciences have it hard. it's basically impossible to really isolate cause and effect while staying moral with complex organisms like humans

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

#68

Post by zby » Sun, May 02, 2021, 8:56 AM UTC

The question here is why dietary science is so unreliable? There are so many fads. Every year. Many of them with a base in a peer reviewed paper, but all conflicting with each other.

And even reading this comments here: yes keto diet makes me sharp thinking, no actually keto gives 'brain fog', no it is glucose that gives 'brain fog'. It reads like a primary example of some random effects that people interpret to be caused by whatever they currently do.

I am all for going to the source and reading scientific articles - but it is hard. And at some point it is important to admit that we are laypersons in such and such area and the fact that we read (and partially understood) a peer reviewed paper might not mean that much because science is too under the pressure of https://www.gwern.net/Littlewood

Here is another argument for why reading just one peer reviewed article is not too informative in some health related problems: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/covidvitamin-d-much-mo...

And by they way the abstract of this particular article is a kind of strange: first they admit that "Neuro-cognitive research has confirmed that glucose, as a main energy substrate for the brain, can momentarily benefit cognitive performances, particularly for memory functioning." - so they admit that the effect of glucose is positive and they even say that it is confirmed. Then they go to their own experiment and report "ingestion of glucose and sucrose led to poorer performances on the assessed tasks as opposed to fructose and the placebo" - so the effect here was negative. But they don't even notice that it is the reverse of what they believe was 'confirmed'. The activities were maybe different - but still.

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

#69

Post by astrange » Sun, May 02, 2021, 9:00 AM UTC

411111111111111 wrote: post #67

astrange wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because saying "it depends on the person" is akin to saying "there are too many (possibly unknown) variables at play to actually figure out what causes what". Nutritional sciences have it hard. it's basically impossible to really isolate cause and effect while staying moral with complex organisms like humans

Especially because it might not be up to the human, since our digestion relies on symbiotic gut bacteria, which we don’t have good ways to test what they even are.

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

#70

Post by scns » Sun, May 02, 2021, 9:02 AM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #26

retypepassword wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. I’ve only read the abstract [1], but I feel like the second paper was like, “glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” And the first paper was just like, “glucose = bad” That is, the earlier paper noticed that consuming glucose/sucrose-containing beverages reduced cognitive performance compared to consuming beverages with no glucose, and the later paper was trying to figure out why. And to figure ou…

I think you got it mixed up, because the second paper is not > "glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” but rather: “glucose = bad because of perceived sweetness? Nope!” There are sweeteners that do not activate insulin (like stevia). I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin). Their case in the paper is that fructose is not "bad" (like glucose is) desp…

Fructose might not have an effect on cognitive performance. It is still bad for you, since its effect on the body is similar to ethanol. The liver will transform it into fat, high fructose consumption will net you a fatty liver.