High refined sugar intake linked to a 23% higher risk of mental disorders
ucl.ac.uk
ucl.ac.uk
> The study found no link between sugar intake and new mood disorders in women and it is unclear why. More research is needed to test the sugar-depression effect in large population samples.
There is literally no further comment on why this effect was not observed in women. Why? To me, this means it's possible that some confounder is at play here.
I'm also with Xeoncross (another commenter here) who observed that this study took place from 1983 to 2013. Quoting him:
> Sugar consumption has gone up, so has US inflation, less overall exercise, social media consumption, and a variety of other possible negative factors.
So you're telling me that the link was not observable in women, AND that many social/economic realities changed in the course of the study, and we're supposed to believe there was little room left for confounders? This reeks.
There's also substantial evidence that the ketogenic diet is useful for treating other mental disorders: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat...
Not me though, I'm just trying to reduce demand.
Websites advocating for a Ketogenic diet feel just as biased and most of the time don't have half the research backing it.
Anecdotally, keto diet did absolutely nothing for me except make me feel even worse, whereas I’ve noticed dramatic improvements in mood and health after three weeks of a purely plant based diet.
Usually when people feel like crap (initially) on keto it's their bodies switching over from primarily burning sugar to primarily burning fat, but it subsides after a few hours/days depending on the person/diet (look up "keto flu").
Note that keto does not necessarily include meat. You'd get the same effect eating nothing but raw vegetables for a week.
In contrast I’ve been purely plant based for three weeks now and I’ve noticed dramatic improvements in my mood and energy levels. I’ve lost a bit of weight and I really enjoy what I’m eating. The numbness and swelling I’ve struggled with for over a year as a result of surgery for a broken leg has also massively improved, which I didn’t expect.
https://lifeforbusypeople.com/2016/08/24/why-anti-fat-is-com...
Industrial meat is not exactly good, though, it has all kinds of issues but the fat and cholesterol aren't a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKv1m2SVio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831224
Edit: Looking at the last link of your first video, it acknowledges low carb diets are beneficial short and medium term, but there's very little literature for long term. It concludes low carbs are bad long term... but you must see the table on page 13 to see how they reached that conclusion. The "low carb score" group still had a crazily high 37-42% of carbs (compared to LCHF diets which are usually 5% carbs), it had more smokers and all of them had trans fats (very dangerous but can be easily avoided altogether).
My personal theory is a lot of prescribed keto diets have lax regulations on meat, so everyone who goes for them immediately maxes out the tastiest item available. The meat, assuming it's high quality/minimally processed isn't a problem directly, but eating more meat means you're eating fewer vegetables/fruit/nuts to balance things out.
I'd still say meat is more than a luxury in moderate doses. Zinc/B-Vitamins/Omega-3s and a lot of other good stuff is very hard to find naturally in non-meat form, and given the lack of regulation in the supplement industry I'd rather get such things through food.
I don't think that makes him a bad person or the website valueless but it is hard to argue it does not have a strong ethical vegan bias.
At the moment I would claim that overconsumption of highly processed, mostly plant based foods is the real nutritional disaster. Meat consumption is falling in many places but obesity and related diseases are still getting worse.
If you don't have ethical concerns I think low to moderate consumption of animal protein as part of a balance diet is still probably sensible. You probably want to avoid processed meats and charring. But we are all going to die from something and statistically it probably isn't going to be from eating an occasional steak.
I can use that same logic to say that sugar and carbohydrate consumption has gone down while obesity has continued rising:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0OuoFyJtZuI/VkofY-qgeOI/AAAAAAAAbb...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fUv755XU-3g/Vkof8Eln2WI/AAAAAAAAbb...
The main problem is still OVERCONSUMPTION of highly processed and hormone filled foods
As for growing obesity, there is a lot of evidence that points to toxins in our food as an important factor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieQBdS9cN0I
Most of these toxins are concentrated in animal products.
People are also eating a lot more cheese which contributes to obesity:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/now-is-th...
Of course refined carbohydrates and sugars are also a big problem and they should be scrupulously avoided.
There is a group of Type 2 diabetics in remission who are doing just fine on meat-based and keto-based diets, with no medication. If meat was a causal contributing factor to diabetes, I wouldn't expect to see that. We do eat a lot of leafy greens, it isn't like all-meat-all-the-time. But fresh meat, simply prepared, eaten to the protein macros appropriate for your body, does nothing to exacerbate these already-diagnosed Type 2 patients from going back into Type 2.
A contributing factor to diabetes is surplus calories creating excess body fat. You can do that with meat, vegetables, fruit, and breads. Harder to do with vegetables if you eat the veggies raw; if you eat only leafy greens for vegetables, I'd say it is nearly impossible.
There are vegan/vegetarian Type 2 patients, but I have yet to run across one in remission on no medication, for two years or longer, so they might be rare. It is much harder to get your proteins while carb restricted to manage blood sugar levels, eating only vegetables; I'm sure there are vegetarian Type 2's in remission out there, likely using soy-based products and protein powder to get their protein, it's just not as popular a method of going into remission.
Personally, I switched to preparing meals using as unprocessed as possible foods. If I could eat raw beef (like a tartare), I would; I don't because it is too time-consuming to prepare. This rules out tofu and other soy-based products, and protein powders as well, for me personally. I can manage to build muscle and keep my blood sugar markers in a normal non-diabetic range as long as I keep my daily net carbohydrate intake to 20g or less. If you are familiar with vegetarian diets and can suggest a way for me to switch to a vegetarian approach that observes that, supports about 2500 calories per day, and is made from unprocessed ingredients, then please let me know, thanks.
But the links between diabetes and animal products are pretty well established:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/why-is-meat-a-risk-factor-f...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/diabetes-as-a-disease-of-fa...
You might want to have a look at this book too:
https://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabe...
How was the link determined? I'd like to see the number of studies that studied people with low carb diets. Carbs is in pretty much everything nowadays, and it's really difficult to find people that consumes <5% that are not doing some low carb diet on purpose.
Or people that eat only once a day.
Very related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831224
But how are their arteries looking?
> but I have yet to run across [a vegetarian/vegan] in remission on no medication, for two years or longer, so they might be rare
How many have you run into? How strictly were they following a whole-food plant-based diet? What is your sample size?
Scientifically speaking, the movie "What The Health" summarizes the facts succinctly:
Low Fat, Plant-Based Diet is More than Twice as Powerful at Controlling and/or Reversing Diabetes, than the ADA Diet Recommending Meat and Dairy
See http://www.whatthehealthfilm.com/facts/ for a list of citations supporting that statement.
From Greger's book How Not to Die he writes in the Introduction to Part 2:
> From a nutrition standpoint, the reason I don’t like the terms vegetarian and vegan is that they are only defined by what you don’t eat. When I used to speak on college campuses, I would meet vegans who appeared to be living off french fries and beer. Vegan, technically, but not exactly health promoting. That’s why I prefer the term whole-food, plant-based nutrition. As far as I can discern, the best available balance of evidence suggests that the healthiest diet is one centered on unprocessed plant foods. On a day-today basis, the more whole plant foods and the fewer processed and animal products, the better.
And from the Preface of How Not to Die he writes:
> True, I have biases of my own to rein in. Although my original motivation was health, over the years, I’ve grown into quite the animal lover. Three cats and a dog run our household, and I’ve spent much of my professional life proudly serving the Humane Society of the United States as the charity’s public health director. So, like many people, I care about the welfare of the animals we eat, but first and foremost, I am a physician. My primary duty has always been to care for my patients, to accurately provide the best available balance of evidence.
Even organic meat and animal products don't come without health risks and it comes at substantial cost to our environment.
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2... http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/...
Granted that's a relative judgement. Too much meat, even organic meat, can be unhealthy depending on a number of factors.
Source?
Because all of this seems to show otherwise:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306319
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/2/518.full
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/can...
> Likely we have been eating meat from the beginning of our existance
Just because we have evolved eating meat, doesn't necessarily mean it is the most optimal. Appeal to Nature.
> The problem is that the anti meat lobby like peta or sugar-bread industry want us to buy more of their products
What "products" is PETA selling??? I have a lot of qualms with PETA, but I have never seen them vindicated in this way...
> Keto is a really good healthy diet its just that requires that you educate yourself
You seem to be really invested in the diet. Maybe you have some bias?
I also have read plenty of studies that contradict the ones above. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong. But I find medical statistical studies very hard to interpret because they don't control for all the factors and the data is not super reliable. Often the conclusions seem excessive given the data that is actually there.
For sure, but I doubt most people doing Keto are eating very little to no meat.
> I find medical statistical studies very hard to interpret because they don't control for all the factors and the data is not super reliable
Ok so you are suggesting we throw out all studies because they may or may not control for all the variables? That seems like a zero sum proposition that is a bit overkill. Of course there are some studies that are less rigorously controlled than others, but to conclude that no studies can be trusted because "medical statistical studies very hard to interpret" and "the data is not super reliable" just seems like an excuse to ignore what is very compelling evidence.
Also please read China Study critiques. They are good at dismantling "red meat is bad" point of view.
2. Nobody is referencing the China Study here. It is also 12 years old. Not sure what critiques you are referring to (as you didn't reference any), but I highly doubt they would discredit the information I referenced just because they have to do with "dismantling" the "red meat is bad point of view."
Here is yet another huge meta analysis of the correlation between red meat and Type 2 Diabetes published just 2 years ago:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yoona_Kim5/publication/...
In my case for example, my sugar consumption fell drastically since I received ADHD medications. It turns out I was using sugar as a stimulant/calming agent for years, and no doctor properly figured it out.
> Although previous studies have found an increased risk of depression with higher consumption of added sugars, none examined the role of ‘reverse causation’. If people with anxiety and/or depression tended to consume more sugary foods and drinks, this could be the real reason why a link between sugar intake and poorer mental health is observed. Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar. As a result, the evidence that mental health is adversely affected by a high sugar intake is strengthened.
If people with mental disorders were more sleep-deprived and then consumed more sugar, wouldn't that also show up in the data?
> Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar.
A causal A > B > C link would look similar (data-wise) to a A > C link.
Let group S be sugar eaters.
Let group A be all people w/o mental disorders.
Let group B be all people w/ mental disorders.
We have the main correlation between sugar and mental disorder:
p[A/S] <= p[B/S]
Using bayes rule:
p[A]p[S/A] <= p[B]p[S/B]
We also have "men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar":
p[S/A] >= p[S/B]
Comparing the inequalities gives us:
p[A] <= p[B]
So you're more likely to have a mental dissorder than not according to this study???
This doesn't follow. Just because mental disorders are correlated with sugar doesn't mean that most sugar eaters have mental disorders.
My hypothesis: people that had a lot of sugar as a young person, perhaps in particular ways or situations, has trained their brain to release dopamine in response to sugar. Everyone I know that had little sugar as a young person doesn't get the medicinal value of sugar.
> [...] Scientists call this phenomenon, “supernormal stimulus.” It is what happens when an exaggerated version of what appeals to evolutionary instincts can cause some one or some thing to engage in behavior counterproductive to its own survival (or the survival of its genes).
MORE!
You wanted a doctor to figure out you ate too many donuts and candy because of your ADHD?
That's pretty tough considering most people eat too much sugar just because.... it is good. Also it is easy as hell for EVERYONE to give up sugar once you are ADHD meds because they have a great appetite suppression effect.
That's not a special effect of mental disorders.
At any rate the glucose uptake is generally lower with fruits, even if juiced (but whole fruits with fiber still intact are best). The rate at which simple sugars enter the blood is considered one of the primary problems, as this leads to a number of metabolic problems and higher generalized oxidation of body tissue.
Unlike added sugars fruits also have antioxidants and a number of other compounds and nutrients that do a swell job at negating these effects and even providing benefits (i suppose because a lot of fruit has surplus of Anti-Oxidant to Sugar Burn.
Fruit is typically a source of fructose, which uses a different metabolic pathway to glucose. Fructose is processed via the liver and converted into glycogen for energy storage.
That said, juice is definitely worse than whole fruit as you typically use several serves of fruit for a single serve of juice. Rarely would anyone eat 3-5 whole oranges in a single sitting. The sugars in a serve of fruit are also locked in a cellulose matrix (fibre) which limits the rate of release, whereas juice is effectively predigested food lacking the slow-release mechanism of the fibre. You're going to be loading your liver with an unnatural amount of sugar, not unlike pouring a jar of honey down your gullet.
It's a reason you should avoid mixing strong alcohol and juice or fructose-heavy soft drinks - you're hitting your liver with both barrels. Add paracetamol to the mix, which in even relatively low doses is toxic to the liver, to cure the morning headache and you're going to feel very unwell.
The ratio of glucose to fructose in HFCS, honey, and most fruits is about the same. Some fruits have more glucose than fructose, some have less, but the ratio for almost all of them is less than 2:1.
I've never really heard anything to suggest fruit is a risk. The fiber slows absorption in the gut, so you don't get the blood sugar spike, and it seems like many issues tied to added sugar consumption trace to the blood sugar spike & insulin response.
So either the problem is the characteristics of a single food item (ratio of sugar, fiber, fat, etc.), some magical byproduct of processing that makes up a very tiny fraction of the food, or (more likely correct) the ratios that make up the diet as a whole. Carb/fat/protein ratio seems important as does the ratios of which carbs. Demonizing sugar or "refined" sugar seems ridiculous, encouraging proportional consumption makes sense.
Fructose doesn't satiate, while fiber does, and it slows down absorption of fructose as well.
For the same reason, fruit juice is pretty much liquid candy with vitamins.
The perfect example is that it's unlikely you'd have the appetite for eating 15 apples, but it's not difficult to drink 15 apples worth of juice.
The sane assumption from this study is that depression or addiction prone people are more likely to look for satisfaction in glutany. Unfortunately that doesn't generate as much fear/ad rev.
Science: Aspartame consumption is correlated with weight gain.
Journalists: Does aspartame cause weight gain?
Readers: Aspartame causes weight gain.
I know it's up to the readers to draw the correct conclusions, but it feels a little bit dishonest for journalists to "let the cards fall where they may" so to speak.
Personaly I'm just getting a bit tired of sloppy journalism causing me to waste time with these bait pieces. IMO journalists are the ones who are supposed to be wading through the crap to find me the valuable information instead of shoveling the crap onto me.
I don't eat refined sugar because it is harmful. However, I wonder how the study accounted for the MANY changes that took place between 1983 and 2013. Sugar consumption has gone up, so has US inflation, less overall exercise, social media consumption, and a variety of other possible negative factors.
Quite. And job security for many has plummeted significantly. Which I would expect to be a major trigger for mental disorders.
The claim is that, within the sample, those who consumed more sugar were more likely to have mental disorders, "independent of health behaviours, socio-demographic and diet-related factors, adiposity and other diseases".
> The study found no link between sugar intake and new mood disorders in women and it is unclear why.
This, plus the fact that many socio-economic realities changed over the course of the study, makes it hard to believe there aren't other confounders at play here.
Unfortunately, this works best for detecting very dramatic health effects, like the link between smoking and lung cancer. For smaller health effects, any meaningful signal in the data can be overwhelmed by other correlations. One famous example is hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women: https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/EBM_Study_Bias_e.htm
(If you don't enjoy cooking from scratch, try a mass-based recipe instead of a traditional volume-based recipe. It is so much faster and more convenient.)