Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)(sciencedirect.com)
sciencedirect.com
Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938417304328
110 comments
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.
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.
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...
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...
What diet was that?
> I don't think there's strong enough reason to expect everybody to response similarly to the same diets.
anyone who I have ever known that did a water diet had the same results.
anyone who I have ever known that did a water diet had the same results.
[deleted]
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.
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.
> Lots of foods today have less nutrients because of horrible soil quality.
Is this true? How can a plant look healthy and delicious if it didn't get the right nutrients?
Is this true? How can a plant look healthy and delicious if it didn't get the right nutrients?
Yes, but by how much, and the gravity is of course still getting figured out.
A lot of nutrients though has fallen between 5% and 40% - which is worrying because if it continues, who knows how much we are going to rely on supplements which lacks a lot of phytonutrients. Also, already healthy people have to double or triple their vegetable intake to meet daily reqs, which isn't feasible.
This paper from Davis is about soil depletion:
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1...
Another factor besides soil depletion is Carbon Dioxide recently revealed: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
A lot of nutrients though has fallen between 5% and 40% - which is worrying because if it continues, who knows how much we are going to rely on supplements which lacks a lot of phytonutrients. Also, already healthy people have to double or triple their vegetable intake to meet daily reqs, which isn't feasible.
This paper from Davis is about soil depletion:
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1...
Another factor besides soil depletion is Carbon Dioxide recently revealed: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
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.
You can get more insight by discarding all studies that were performed in a timeframe of less than a year.
yea when it comes to diet, I think longevity studies can usually provide the most useful insights (although usually pretty generalized). You can do a diet for 5-10 years and not see the ill effects until that far in. Anyone who tries to sell you on a way of eating that has only been done en masse (relatively speaking) for a few years is a bit suspect.
Because biopsychoholisticepigenomicgenomicnutrition as a field is only just getting started, food is easily more complicated than brain activity.
Because a) you can’t dissect and a human being and connect them to instrumentation for test and measurement like you would to a machine, and b) the meticulous wide scale testing available to drug companies costs billions, which no one would invest for dietary insights.
I sometimes think I'd volunteer (for money to my family's name) but it's not possible even if I want
I find it takes about 10 to 20 articles to give context into the ongoing conversation that is any particular journal article.
Very good point
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).
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).
> just advising to stop eating
Generally, doctors do in fact do this, and it is incredibly ineffective, which is why they also treat the symptoms. The reasons it is ineffective are deep rooted in human psychology, support networks, and our conceptions of free will vs environmental effects. It is difficult to impossible for a person to simply "stop eating as much" for exactly the same reasons it is difficult for somebody to "just" exersize regularly or "just" look after their body or "just" study hard. We simply do not have as much control over our own fate as we like to think.
Generally, doctors do in fact do this, and it is incredibly ineffective, which is why they also treat the symptoms. The reasons it is ineffective are deep rooted in human psychology, support networks, and our conceptions of free will vs environmental effects. It is difficult to impossible for a person to simply "stop eating as much" for exactly the same reasons it is difficult for somebody to "just" exersize regularly or "just" look after their body or "just" study hard. We simply do not have as much control over our own fate as we like to think.
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"
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"
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) ;)
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) ;)
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
Your body must make a choice on what to process because different processes and hormones are involved. Sugars are always preferred because they have a lower cost of execution resulting in higher net energy. That means fats consumed at the same time are either stored or discarded until all sugars are processed.
That is ideal when food is scarce, sugars are scarce, and high energy output is frequent. Today high energy output is rarely demanded and sugars are abundant, which results in weight gain and obesity.
There is also encoding in the brain that drives a preference for sugar energy. Sugar is more physically addictive than cocaine, for example.
A high fat and low sugar (carbs) diet can be harder on the heart but it results a fairly constant body energy without the ups and downs of sugars and stimulants. It also results in weight loss. The body is smart enough to know how much fat it requires from food for energy output and discards excesses, but that body intelligence is confused by exercise.
That is ideal when food is scarce, sugars are scarce, and high energy output is frequent. Today high energy output is rarely demanded and sugars are abundant, which results in weight gain and obesity.
There is also encoding in the brain that drives a preference for sugar energy. Sugar is more physically addictive than cocaine, for example.
A high fat and low sugar (carbs) diet can be harder on the heart but it results a fairly constant body energy without the ups and downs of sugars and stimulants. It also results in weight loss. The body is smart enough to know how much fat it requires from food for energy output and discards excesses, but that body intelligence is confused by exercise.
The notion of binary carbohydrate vs. fat metabolism is not reality. You're always using some of both, the balance just shifts dependent on a whole host of factors. Further, this has little to do with what happens to ingested nutrients. Fat and sugar are digested concurrently. You gut doesn't "decide" not to absorb fat, or to shove it into adipose tissue (there's no pathway for his; fat has to be digested before storing) because there was carbohydrate in your meal.
The comparison of sugar to cocaine is absurd. I don't have the will to try explaining it right now, but I urge you to read the literature on the subject, not write ups by bloggers/journalists.
The comparison of sugar to cocaine is absurd. I don't have the will to try explaining it right now, but I urge you to read the literature on the subject, not write ups by bloggers/journalists.
> Sugars are always preferred because...
Also consider that sugars in the blood cause a pH imbalance, and if they are not rapidly metabolized this causes damage to our organs (and diabetic symptoms). You could make the same argument that fires are a priority in the kitchen because a cook will address them first.
Also consider that sugars in the blood cause a pH imbalance, and if they are not rapidly metabolized this causes damage to our organs (and diabetic symptoms). You could make the same argument that fires are a priority in the kitchen because a cook will address them first.
Interesting, but a later paper that cites this one did not get the same result. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6
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 out why, the second paper compared glucose and isomaltulose (glucose-containing saccharides with different glycemic responses) to see whether a sugar’s predicted glycemic response could account for the differences in cognitive performance noticed in the earlier study between beverages with glucose and those without.
[1] This second paper’s abstract doesn’t mention glucose vs. no glucose’s effects on cognitive performance like the earlier paper does.
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 out why, the second paper compared glucose and isomaltulose (glucose-containing saccharides with different glycemic responses) to see whether a sugar’s predicted glycemic response could account for the differences in cognitive performance noticed in the earlier study between beverages with glucose and those without.
[1] This second paper’s abstract doesn’t mention glucose vs. no glucose’s effects on cognitive performance like the earlier paper does.
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) despite of being very sweet-tasting.
> "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) despite of being very sweet-tasting.
>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.
Pretty much any large, digestible carbohydrate. Starch being the prime example.
We might be referring to different “second” papers :)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319... is about about perceived sweetness
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper
Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper
Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)
Oops, my bad! :(
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
> 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/
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/
Some would say keto is a way of eating as opposed to a diet that can been seen as a temporary change of eating habits.
I've never heard anybody say that keto causes brain fog. In fact a lot of people describes the opposite result which I would think most search results are about. There's also something called "keto flu" which some people experience for some time when they switch to a keto diet.
These terms are pretty vague and the best way to get a better understanding is too try keto yourself. It's just a different way if eating. You don't have to cook fancy meals and you can stop at any time.
I've never heard anybody say that keto causes brain fog. In fact a lot of people describes the opposite result which I would think most search results are about. There's also something called "keto flu" which some people experience for some time when they switch to a keto diet.
These terms are pretty vague and the best way to get a better understanding is too try keto yourself. It's just a different way if eating. You don't have to cook fancy meals and you can stop at any time.
I did keto for 5 months or so back in 2014. I found the brain fog description very apt. I couldn't think beyond a couple of moves ahead, which began affecting my work. Going back to a normal diet I was fine again.
I’m 4 years into carbohydrate recovery and strict keto. I expect to live the rest of my life this way. I have not experienced brain fog after my first few weeks of withdrawal.
[deleted]
The answer is: it depends.
The first two weeks while the body adapts, can have worse things than brain fog, and they are known as the keto flu.
Some people can suffer from it, others are just fine all the time.
After your body adjusts, you can feel sharper for a longer time than in carb heavy diets.
In my particular case: I used to work fine for about two or even three hours after lunch (getting my carbs to be able to work).
Now, with a keto diet, I can work for eight hours straight. I am and feel sharper. I have been in Keto for years now.
The first two weeks while the body adapts, can have worse things than brain fog, and they are known as the keto flu.
Some people can suffer from it, others are just fine all the time.
After your body adjusts, you can feel sharper for a longer time than in carb heavy diets.
In my particular case: I used to work fine for about two or even three hours after lunch (getting my carbs to be able to work).
Now, with a keto diet, I can work for eight hours straight. I am and feel sharper. I have been in Keto for years now.
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 should be getting potassium and magnesium from vegetables, but supplements can be a useful diagnostic tool: If you take 400 mg of potassium and find, an hour later, that you're thinking more clearly, that's data.
Don't overdo it with electrolyte supplements, though; too much sodium can increase the calcium in your blood enough to give you kidney stones, if you're lucky, and worse effects if you're unlucky. Too much potassium can mess with your heart.
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 should be getting potassium and magnesium from vegetables, but supplements can be a useful diagnostic tool: If you take 400 mg of potassium and find, an hour later, that you're thinking more clearly, that's data.
Don't overdo it with electrolyte supplements, though; too much sodium can increase the calcium in your blood enough to give you kidney stones, if you're lucky, and worse effects if you're unlucky. Too much potassium can mess with your heart.
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.
Keto diets are usually (not always!) used to lose weight.
Calorie restriction is a sure way to get brain fogs, and it's easy to inadvertently be in caloric deficit when on keto, because you have to give up many foods, and there are no sudden cravings for sugary/starchy food.
Calorie restriction is a sure way to get brain fogs, and it's easy to inadvertently be in caloric deficit when on keto, because you have to give up many foods, and there are no sudden cravings for sugary/starchy food.
This is probably from the increase in cortisol that accompanies VLC. I get the same feeling with alternate day fasting.
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?
The brain fog is caused by rapid fluctuations of blood sugar. Low intensity aerobic exercise has a number of positive effects that all play off each other: You metabolize fat more readily as an energy source, which makes your body less reliant on carbs. This alleviates the exhaustion you might normally feel as your blood sugar crashes. And carbs (and especially refined sugars) are routed directly to muscles, blunting the insulin response and increasing insulin sensitivity.
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.
It's actually not a thing in "all" endurance sports. Once you push into the realm of ultra endurance, athlete become so efficient at fat metabolism that they never "hit the wall" so to speak.
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.
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.
Same here. The brain likes to run on ketones.
I‘ve heard claims that it also slows neurological aging, no idea how valid that is.
I‘ve heard claims that it also slows neurological aging, no idea how valid that is.
The full paper is available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321663790_The_sweet...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321663790_The_sweet...
The conclusion makes no sense as glucose is half as sweet as sucrose, which is half as sweet as fructose. Does anyone have the paper for how they controlled for this? It makes perfect sense if sweetness is the stimulant.
But book "Willpower" mentions a lot of research where glucose did a lot positive for, well, not cognition, but for Willpower, ego depletion, and resilience.
The research on that whole area of psychology is inclusive at best, despite making a fun and compelling narrative.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29591537/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29591537/
Well, the book Willpower also does mention research experiments with description of the process, not out results. I don't know who to believe, this one paper, or theirs multiple.
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").
[deleted]
Interesting, considering the brain can not metabolize fructose, only glucose and ketones.
Liver is the only organ that can metabolize fructose, where it ends up producing metabolites very similar to alcohol, leading over time to non-alcoholic fatty liver.
Liver is the only organ that can metabolize fructose, where it ends up producing metabolites very similar to alcohol, leading over time to non-alcoholic fatty liver.
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.
My impression was that was just a theory based on the assumption that fruit was worth evolving to eat. It could be a happy accidental source with calories; or it could have been a great source of calories that was the best option at the time, but is no longer.
Or did plants evolve colored fruit because the plants with colored fruit were recognized most easily and thus spread the most by animals (including humans)?
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.
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 ;)
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/
1. https://twitter.com/Botanygeek/status/1149968041964396545
2. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
And I had some very sour apples so I think our anecdata cancel each other.
The existance of fruit that isn't sweet is not a counter example to the fact that sweet fruit exists at all
> 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/
This is not substantiated[1][2]
1. https://twitter.com/Botanygeek/status/1149968041964396545
2. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
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 than that.
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 than that.
> Fruit is meant to be eaten
Meant by who? Evolution don't give a fuck...
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.
By the plant. The plant that is driven by its genes to maximize its offspring.
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.
The fruit we have today is so much higher in sugar than back in times when the vision evolved.
Not starving >> slight brain fog
Fruit comes with fiberand vitamins. I suspect that's the real difference.
What was "the fasting condition" in the study? They started a fast with sugar? They ended a fast with sugar? What was the interval between the ingestion and the test?
How much sugar was consumed?
How much sugar was consumed?
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.
•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.
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.
wordplay on the idiom "take it with a grain of salt"
^ for the sake of non-native speakers
I appreciate what you did there.
^ for the sake of non-native speakers
I appreciate what you did there.
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.
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.
hdhdhsjsu(4)
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.