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

91–100 of 111 posts

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

#91

Post by shlant »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #78
zby wrote: post #68

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 c…

When I look at the garbage people buy in supermarkets and all the products that are peddled (in Europe btw, I understand US has a lot more "choice") no wonder people have no chance of winning. You go to a doctor being "markedly obese" with some additional health issue, they will not believe you'll ever get better. The fact that you could lose 20 or 40kg doesn't even enter their mind. Instead they give you blood-press…

How to spot someone peddling diet dogma:

1. Gesture vaguely at the evils of the medical and diet industry

2. "once you've tried this, everything you thought you knew about X will change"

3. Prescribe something specific and potentially dangerous with no concern for who is reading. One size fits all.

4. Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes

5. "It's easy once you get used to it"

6. Rationalize something like kidney stones away as just "detox"/"flush"

7. "clueless academics"

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

#92

Post by digitcatphd »

zby wrote: post #68

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 c…

Very good point

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

#93

Post by shlant »

aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #10
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've read that keto diets cause brain fog. I searched it quickly and a bunch of results turned up, too. Is keto intended to be a long term diet?

> Is keto intended to be a long term diet?

According to the literature, I would definitely advise against it.

Good summary:

https://www.thepaleomom.com/adverse-reactions-to-ketogenic-d...

Higher all-cause mortality:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/

Growth retardation:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00028...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00028...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02615...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12455855/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18676520/

Kidney Stones in children:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2852806/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11095028/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10893623/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/088307380730192...

Bone mineral loss and bone health markers:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19064531/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6985427/

Benefits not sustained longterm. No better than high carb:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674467/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090010/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26413954/

“long-term consumption of an LC diet may increase the risk of development of gastrointestinal disorders.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19224658/

Ketogenic diets inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis and induce cardiac fibrosis (in rats)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-00411-4

Long-Term Ketogenic Diet Induces Metabolic Acidosis, Anemia, and Oxidative Stress (in rats)

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnme/2020/3642035/

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

#94

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

shlant wrote: post #91
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I look at the garbage people buy in supermarkets and all the products that are peddled (in Europe btw, I understand US has a lot more "choice") no wonder people have no chance of winning. You go to a doctor being "markedly obese" with some additional health issue, they will not believe you'll ever get better. The fact that you could lose 20 or 40kg doesn't even enter their mind. Instead they give you blood-press…

How to spot someone peddling diet dogma: 1. Gesture vaguely at the evils of the medical and diet industry 2. "once you've tried this, everything you thought you knew about X will change" 3. Prescribe something specific and potentially dangerous with no concern for who is reading. One size fits all. 4. Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes 5. "It's easy once you get used to it" 6. Rationalize something like kidney stones aw…

counter point: all diet advise is useless unless you've tried it and it actually worked on _yourself_. I don't peddle anecdotes but what I have direct experienced and tried. Your insinuation that kidney stones could have been built-up during the course of the diet is impossible - even a quack will tell you that and this happens because of years of build-up not as the result of a diet.

do whatever you're comfortable with or stay unhealthy it doesn't make a difference to me (I don't have a YT channel with affiliate links) ;)

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

#95

Post by shlant »

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

This is not substantiated[1][2]

1. https://twitter.com/Botanygeek/status/1149968041964396545

2. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

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

#96

Post by shlant »

55555 wrote: post #51
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.

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.

yea just come to Borneo and try some of the native fruits to see how wrong that myth is ;)

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

#97

Post by shlant »

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.

here is some info refuting that often parroted myth:

1. https://twitter.com/Botanygeek/status/1149968041964396545

2. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

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

#98

Post by kossTKR »

zby wrote: post #68

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 c…

Luckily you can create a Venn-Diagram and arrive at something pretty universal.

First understand three things:

1) People are very different; genetics, microbiome, allergies and daily habits makes different diets great for different people. We are talking diets as different as super high fat keto, compared to high carb vegan that can probably all be great.

2) Most people thrive with the mysterious 80-20 rule, meaning don't go overboard unless of course trying to achieve something like Keto or are allergic. Most people do not need "very dogmatic" diets.

3) Diets are linked to lifestyle, microbiome, social setting and other factors that we are only beginning to understand, so don't look at anything in isolation.

Then look at the universals:

- Don't bomb your system with high amounts of simple carbohydrates too quickly, unless very active or in a fasted state. It will wreck your insulin system.

- Don't eat to much processed foods, they are always way lower in nutrients, and if fortified, still missing phytonutrients and often contains too much sugar etc.

- Eat a varied diet and cherish high density nutrient foods like dark leafy greens and offal. Lots of foods today have less nutrients because of horrible soil quality.

- Learn to listen to your body also foods are somewhat psychoactive if you start listening to the queues. Try an elimination diet if having problems, otherwise adjusting these things are often key: Dairy, Fats, Carbs, Caffeine, Fiber, Meat and more contested; classes of greens like nightshade, organic / non pesticide, raw vs cooked.

- Try fasting or just eating at different times of the day or skipping meals.

- Lots of people are Vitamin D deficient, and supplementng is easy. Omega3/6 ratio is also out of whack in most people but this is harder to fix.

- Keep an eye on the field of gut-brain-axis, microbiome etc, there seems to be a revolution around the corner, and its a key to understand everything from mood disorders to skin problems, weight loss and autoimmune diseases. But we aren't a place where there is hard data on "what to do" besides fecal transplants.

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

#99

Post by phonypc »

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…

>I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin).

Pretty much any large, digestible carbohydrate. Starch being the prime example.

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

#100

Post by phonypc »

austincheney wrote: post #80
armchairhacker wrote: post #49

They didn't test for fiber and glycemic index. The subjects basically drank sugar vs. sucralose vs. water. There's a big difference between eating/drinking pure sugar and eating a well-balanced meal with carbs. Yeah, the former will make you feel terrible and perform worse. But would the latter really affect you vs. a meal without carbs?

You are describing a real world scenario of drinking fruit juice versus eating the equivalent fruit, and the results are stunning. > But would the latter really affect you vs. a meal without carbs? Yes. The body will prioritize sugars, and thus carbs, over fats in both processing and energy extraction. That is problematic in that the rapid processing of sugars produces a result similar to a stimulant drug while consu…

I have trouble parsing exactly what you mean here, but it feels like a misunderstanding. Do you think consumed fats just sit ignored in your gut until any carbs are digested? Or that all fats consumed coincident with carbs are necessarily stored in adipose tissue? Both are absolutely not the case.
Post reply on HN