Live data from Hacker News

Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

sciencedirect.com

71–80 of 111 posts

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

#71

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.

In addition to things other folks have said: Honey has existed for quite some time, because bees have existed for quite some time. Honey is pretty full of sugary goodness.

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

#72
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…

Because biopsychoholisticepigenomicgenomicnutrition as a field is only just getting started, food is easily more complicated than brain activity.

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

#73
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…

You can get more insight by discarding all studies that were performed in a timeframe of less than a year.

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

#74
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…

I don't think I'd inherently read all the conflicting reports from people as obviously mis-attributed noise. I don't think there's strong enough reason to expect everybody to response similarly to the same diets.

Not only does everybody have unique genetics, environments, and histories, but how sure are we that all the people saying they do keto, for example, are doing the same thing?

It's a giant complex mess, even if you assume humans are prefect and infallible observers and attributers of cause to effect. Which, as you pointed out, they absolutely are not. At all.

So not only do you not have the expectation that individuals will respond similarly, the difficulties in ascertaining what any individual is actually doing, you also have to deal with misattributed experiences, and the ability for our brain to play tricks on us.

And that's even assuming everybody is acting in good faith. Which they almost certainly are not, considering money can be involved.

I've yet to come up with any decent way of approaching these topics. There are so many confounding factors I don't even know where to begin.

Turning yourself into an endless experiment and figuring out ways to blind yourself and measure results (which is yet another rabbit hole...) is honestly starting to look like the most viable way to get to some kind of 'truth' for this stuff, at least for you, now. Though even at this extreme, time is limited.

Otherwise... I guess you just do what you feel like and do something different if you feel bad. If you feel good doing whatever you're doing, maybe that just has to be good enough. Because I don't know how to actually get any deeper than that in any reasonable way.

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

#75
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…

I don't think I'd inherently read all the conflicting reports from people as obviously mis-attributed noise. I don't think there's strong enough reason to expect everybody to response similarly to the same diets. Not only does everybody have unique genetics, environments, and histories, but how sure are we that all the people saying they do keto, for example, are doing the same thing? It's a giant complex mess, even…

Yeah - it is a good point about people reacting differently.

My sister had Hashimoto and she did diet and now her hormones are OK without any supplementation. She did it a few years ago - and every doctor she consulted (here in Poland) did not believe that a diet can do that. But I trust her and she did a regular checkups of thyroid hormones and and something that showed the immune reaction to track the progress and check what foods are good. I think now doctors are more open towards diets - but still I think no one would believe in a complete remission.

On the other hand you can find many similar first hand stories about every health condition with such weird beliefs.

It is a fascinating subject - and also a very high impact one: https://zby.medium.com/rational-patient-community-6d3617dffc...

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

#76
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…

One problem is it's notoriously hard to get subjects to follow a diet and accurately report it. Due to both practical and ethical constraints you can't keep human subjects locked up and eating only what they're allowed to eat. I think this goes a long way to explaining all the conflicting results out there.

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

#77
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?

The problem with keto is, just like with "normal" diets is the wildly different formulations.

You can do keto with trash food or simply bad ingredients (e.g. vegetable oils for fat, various processed "keto snacks") and aside from maybe some weight loss you won't experience any of the real and sustainable benefits.

This is why you can't go with people's testimonials, I can guarantee you that people who say keto didn't work for them simply didn't know how to formulate the diet properly.

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

#78
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-pressure meds and other things to "manage the symptoms". With the medical industry depending on adding things to the list of purchases you have to make instead of just advising to stop eating people will continue to be fat and unhealthy.

The whole dietary and supplements industry is a historic dumpster fire of corporate disinformation. I recently came across a YT channel where they made a point about water diet in which the author advertised all kind of supplements that he recommended (incl an affiliate link to these products). I was like "serious? the whole point of water diet is to stop stuffing your face not to make a trip to the pharmacy"

I bring this up specifically because once you've done water diet for 30 or 40 days (or whatever crazy limity you thought you couldn't achieve), everything that dietary/medicine science suggests looks like it's a scam to profit from the weak and gullible. I was in a really horrible shape just before divorce, sick, depressed, overweight, ... (felt horrible especially because I used to run marathons nearly every year so I missed feeling great a lot). When I attempted my first water diet there was no YT channel and no research other than stern health warnings by the quacks. I knew it had to work because my dad was on water diet once a year when I was a kid. In his 40ies and he became so good at it that he lasted over 2 months (he also had gained a lot of experience with this over the years and slowly built things up).

First time I tried it I managed to do it for 2 weeks but then caved watching my family eat dinner every night. Still I felt proud AF. 2 years later I lasted 40 days. It not only got rid of all my fat but there was also no brain fog. And it boosted my confidence tremendously. It made me confident that I could keep going after 30 days that it was actually really hard to stop since I had became mentally so strong. I literally had to force myself not to go one more day "because I came this far already"

2 weeks into the 40 days I was still going for runs of up to 1 hrs/daily and ran until week 3, then changed to walks. I was dropping ~1kg almost every day the first 10-14 days and then 0.5 - 0.7 /day. The amount of mental energy I had was like I was on some kind of secret drugs (only without the side-effects). I didn't feel tired as long as I had 4-5 hrs sleep per night. I did lose some muscles but I also lost _all_ of my fat and despite people talking about "jo-jo effect" and saying "ugh you're just losing water", I never gained more than a few kg afterwards (still true today and it was almost a decade ago).

few weeks after finishing the diet and getting into a normal eating cycle, I was being able to continue my running routine which I was used to from my marathon times. The weight and pressure on joints were no longer an issue. I don't believe in organized religion but I still felt a moment of "awakening" during those days. The amount of clarity I had in my head can only be described as "spiritual" with a huge capacity to analyze many things at the same time. I imagine this is what microdosing feels like only the results are real and not imagined. I suddenly understood why fasting is a common theme in every religion. It was life altering in every sense.

While I've never done 40 days again I do every couple of months 3-5 days and once a year up to 10 days. The rest of the year I'm on an IF plan of 20:4 and it's laughably easy simply because my brain has the memory of having lasted once a lot longer and because of it I know my body quite well. The reason why I still do this is that I want to replicate that mental power I learned I could have in a sustainable and safe manner (I no longer have the kg/reserves to just not eat for a month LOL). Having learned this also now allows me to sometimes keep going for days without food on my summer long distance hikes through the wilderness if I'm forced - and it's a lot less scary if I know I'm out of resources as long as I got water.

Most people will not do water-diets because they can't picture not eating this long. But you're hungry only for the first couple of days. The rest is easy in comparison. What makes other types of dieting hard is a constant on/off cycle in which you need to go through the hunger peaks over and over. Beat your mind first then beat your body is much more effective.

PS: after I did the 40 days I ended up having kidney stones. Not from the diet but the diet flushed it all out which were the result of couple of years of terrible diet (and would have been something I'd have to eventually go through anyway). There are some doctors who say if you have cancer cells your body might actually eat them as these get attacked/eaten first). IDK probably needs citations and more research but since I have taught myself to experiment with this I kind of feel sorry for those who are getting gamed by latest research on what causes people to be fat. Stop eating. Don't do the stupid "eat less" or eat better advise - that comes second, and it comes automatically anyway. First learn that you have power and are able to survive for several months if needed. Problem solved and you can skip debunking whatever clueless academics are saying in their studies (who probably most of them are fat and unhealthy themselves anyway).

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

#79
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you're having trouble concentrating on a ketogenic diet it's likely that you're not eating enough vegetables, and might be eating too much protein. Too much protein can take you out of ketosis, but people think they can just eat lean hamburger three times a day. If the fat/protein ratio is right, the inability to focus can be a symptom of electrolyte deficiency, particularly sodium, potassium, and magnesium. You s…

Eating more protein doesn't take you out of ketosis, that's just a myth; it will just lower the amount of keytones that are being produced. If only are protein or nothing at all and you would still be in ketosis.

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

#80

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 consumed fat is just stored without use. Dropping carbs has allowed me to feel focused constantly without need for caffeine and minimizes sensations of hunger.

Post reply on HN