What sugar does to your brain | Hacker News Reader

What sugar does to your brain

theage.com.au

164 pointspiotrkaminski65 comments

I took a memory course (audio tapes) many years ago. One of the suggestions by the presenter was to not drink any coffee or alcohol or eat any white flour or white sugar before listening to each course.

I obeyed this rule for a few tapes, but then around the 4th tape, I said "phooey to that", and ate a bag of peanut m&m's before doing a course.

The difference in my attention span was so striking, I instantly became a believer in the adverse affects of white sugar on memory. I could not keep my focus on the course. My mind wandered like a 2 year old in a toy shop. Every idea that popped into my head distracted me from listening and focusing on the material.

As an aside, I had already learned to memorize all 52 cards in a deck and could do memory tricks with names and various lists. So I wasn't a memory newb when taking this course.

In a proper experiment, another group would be told they will perform better if they eat candy, and are not given candy until the 4th tape

Sure, but this is life, and since everyone has intimate knowledge of their own bodies, they have a massive database to compare past experience with. So it's not the same as any old random experiment when you test with your own life.

it's worse than any random experiment because it is incredibly prone to a widely known set of biases, which is precisely what experiments try to correct. basically, self-experimentation is incredibly prone to false positives and negatives.

Well try it yourself then. If you get a good/bad effect, are you saying that it's a pure placebo affect?

I have a family, and we don't eat refined sugars. That is the one limitation on diet I have added for us. (besides some religious requirements) And guess how often my kids are sick? Almost never. I mean a slight cough every couple years.

You can make claims either way with any experience. But I had ear aches, pink eye, sore throats, flu, (one summer I was sick all 3 months of break) athletes foot, migraines, gas and cramps. I'd wake up delerious from fevers and vomitting. Frequent and regular coughs and colds. This was my entire childhood.

I gave up eating crappy food, and I haven't had a sore throat in about 15 years. And when I did, it was because I was drinking too much coffee and not getting sleep. I lowered my coffee intake, got rest and hydrated. And no more sore throat.

A doctor will say they are "unrelated", but I have years of testing and proving they are not unrelated. If you get sick and are in a hospital, they give you white bread and jello.

But recently, this is beginning to change. A number of people have told me that their doctors have warned them about eating white sugar now, how is damages arteries and causes other problems.

So, yes, you are correct, that known biases can affect things. But the truth is hard to deny. Try it yourself, see how well you focus when eating vegetables or unprocessed food of any kind vs junk food.

There's a story of a Wisconsin based school for boys (it's like a juvey hall or something) and they removed all the processed food, pop, etc... from their diets, hired an expensive chef to cook good food for them, and across the board, behaviour improved.

My story convinced me, it's not "purely scientific" but I _knew_ the difference was there. Refined sugar messed with my ability to focus.

Myself and my family pretty much never get sick either. But we have a massive sweet tooth. Lots of ice cream and baked goods and candy.

Yep, and it doesn't adversely affect some people as much as others. Some people can smoke daily until they are 90.

But the truth is coming out about how it adversely affects most people.

The term you're looking for is "confirmation bias" and it probably explains your observations with sufar.

Could it be that you were just more tired, or otherwise not at top mental capacity that day, causing you to succumb to "phooey to that" in the first place?

It's possible that one time, but I tested it multiple times. Try it yourself.

Interesting! Could you share the memory course? I often feel like I have similar issues with my thinking, and I find it hard to focus. Willing to explore any avenue that would make it easier for me to focus.

lol, not sure I want to now. The guy doesn't seem to have the greatest reputation anymore. It was Kevin Trudeau's mega memory.

Before this, I had gone through another before was Harry Lorayne's course. This was many years ago though. So I don't know how they are now.

I did a quick search, and this _looks_ like what I did.

http://www.real-memory-improvement.com/how-to-memorise-playi...

Keep in mind, that this is a very simplified few of the process, and it likely won't work without a detailed lesson plan, and strict following of this guys rules. Also, it's not an easy thing to learn, it took a lot time. But once you do, you can use it pretty quickly.

I got long term general memory improvement out of doing all of these things. But the super amazing feats you learn are like exercising muscles. You don't keep them unless you keep using them.

I had a lot of fun with it though. :)

Keep in mind, memory is also contextual. You're physiological state, as well as your physical state are signals that become part of the memory.

Absolutely. You can dramatically increase your likelyhood of remembering something by simply being interested in it. Or intentionally focusing on it. (ie, you don't misplace your keys if you intentionally set them somewhere vs absent mindedly doing it)

Memory is a complicated system affected by a lot of things.

The BBC tested this with kids. At one party they got greens at the other sweets.

When kids ate sweets they were more active at first but then got tired very quickly. The difference was striking.

Edit: search keywords: BBC sugar experiment

I couldn't find any real results from searching. They reference a few papers in one article, about pre-existing studies (most studies fail to replicate the sugar high effect) but none of this work is convincing to quantitative scientists.

first in the video tab (duckduckgo)

that's a TV show not a real experiment.

Isn't black coffee good for you? Were they talking about coffee with cream and sugar?

I don't think coffee is "good" for you. But also don't think a small amount in your life is bad either. I put in on the same level as alcohol... so, maybe there is a benefit?

My experience with coffee is that is messes with my heart, dehydration and irritability levels. I love coffee, and these things only happen when I drink too much.

Are you suggesting that the sugar in coffee is the bad part?

I learned from some random comment on Hacker News in the past. "For any of the food recipe, you read on internet, just halve the quantity of sugar, and the food would still taste good".

Turns out it was a totally valid advice. I have been following it since than.

I do the same for my recipes. Turns out people don't even notice the drop in sugar. Using unsweetened apple sauce as an oil replacement for baking also works well too (however requires a little experimentation).

I wonder how quartering the sugar would taste?

Probably fine, provided you trained your tongue and brain to not be so sweet driven.

For example, I don't (read: close to can't) drink full strengh juice or sports drinks. I cut them with approx 75% water. I can't imagine how people don't do this.

BTW, I a couple weeks ago I noticed the "one third the sugar" grape juice looks to be nothing other than regular grape juice with water added. Imagine that, same price, one-third the actual product. Great work if you can get it.

I noticed a similar thing with "reduced sugar squeezed orange juice" which is 50% added water and some Vitamin C.

I've heard on a few occasions from people visiting from oversees (Canada and Western Europe) how a lot of food tastes so much sweeter to them here in the US then back home.

> "It often happens in the afternoon when your brain, which runs on sugar, starts to get hungry."

This moment isn't the problem per se. The brain's need for fuel is a legitimate biological process. The real problem is the generally poor attention to diet outside of the window. Juice for breakfast. Soda with lunch, dinner and late night. Cookies for snacks. Let's not forget sugar being added to (processed) food even when it's not necessary. Etc. These have all been normalized. Cookies for breakfast? Sure. No problem.

So what came first, the sugar addiction or the classic (shite) First World (mostly processed food) diet? I'd argue it's the latter. We've over-reinforced neuro paths to an unhealthy level. And we've made that a social norm as well. The brain isn't designed for such a relentless assault.

everywhere i go, i got fed with cookies and candies. everywhere i see children eating ice cream and sweets. I bet we will remember these dark times one day but right now the state of the ignorance is staggering

And that ignorance is an accomplice in the every increasing cost of healthcare. Talking about healthcare without talking about health is silly. Yet that's what we do.

iiuc simple carbs are main reason of three big ones, heart problems, cancer and diabetes. Seen more research linking it. And no one is talking about yet

Please allow me to clarify just a bit: No one mainstream in a position of power/influence is talking about it.

Sure we got ACA but that was only half the opportunity. The other half was telling the American people The Truth about their diet/lifestyle, and how that effects the cost of healthcare (to say nothing about the quality of life).

The problem is, that kind of honesty doesn't fare well with voters. It's also not good for business: Big Pharma, Food Inc., etc.

As far as I can tell, yet is going to be around for a long time.

I suspect that in a society without an endless convenient supply of sugar, the body is much more accustomed to using ketosis to generate fuel. We find it very difficult to turn on that pathway, typically through extremely aggressive carb restriction (<20g/day).

> They found that the volunteers who regularly ate a high-fat, high-sugar diet were much more likely to crave snack foods even when they weren’t hungry.

> The scientists suggest the high-sugar and fat diet was actually impairing the ability of the brain to block food cravings.

It's a shame they didn't separate high fat from high sugar diets. Fats aren't addictive, nor are they anywhere near as damaging as sugars and carbs in high doses.

What you're saying is also partially misleading.

The question how problematic carbs (or anything else, really) are is most significantly defined by the glycemic index. The damaging factoe is how quickly the sugar can be processed, and how high the first peak is.

If you eat common full-grain rye bread then you'll have entirely different results than eating pure sugar.

I would argue that refined white sugar doesn't affect you the same way as organic unprocessed sugar. (from experience) I don't think it even takes going to the extreme of comparing refined sugar to whole grains, I think white sugar is toxic on a level we as a society are just starting to recognize.

It reminds me of the early days when everyone started saying that cigarettes caused cancer, but the scientists were conflicted... Us common sense folks new better.

No need to doubt science — science has always been clear on the fact that depending on glycemic index, it takes different times for the sugar to be metabolized and end up in your blood stream. As result, your blood sugar will either stay consistent for hours, as with longer, slower metabolized starches in full grain, compared to refined, shorter sugars in white sugar, which immediately peaks your blood sugar.

This has direct effects on saturation and insulin production, which obviously effects the way your brain reacts to this kick.

I am not doubting science. I am doubting popularly reported science. Go look up the ads where doctors recommended certain brands of cigarettes. I saw an ad from the 50s showing a spoon full of lead additive and claiming it was safe enough to eat. The list goes on...

It's not the facts presented, it the ignored facts, or the twisted presentation that I object to.

My brother worked for Red Bull, where he knew in detail which ingredients affected the body in which way. And it was pretty much all bad, unless you just didn't think so, or you believed your boss.

Also, I am not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out that the bar for your argument is much lower than you think.

You should check the literature to see if your experience is anything other than a psychological one. I can find no indication that a few percent minerals will offset the 97% sucrose in brown sugar. I agree the brown tastes better but a bit of color doesn't mean that there isn't something pure white and deadly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin) underneath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_sugar

the literature will also show you that moderate consumption of sugar doesn't have any negative health consequences

As far as science goes, a certain amount are arsenic doesn't have any negative health consequences either.

But the next time you are at the grocery store look for sugar in every thing you buy. You will be surprised. When I stopped eating refined sugars, my shopping list was cut by about 90%. I don't feel that's an exaggeration either.

Keep in mind there are a dozen or so different names for the various types of refined sugars. They have been trying to hide it for years now.

Regular brown sugar is white sugar with molasses added back in... I didn't follow your link, but I suspect that is what it says.

No, that's not right at all. Regular brown sugar is produced as a by-product during sugar refining. What you're describing is a commercial, made to look like brown sugar, by adding molasses and caramel coloring to refined sugar. It's an abomination.

True brown sugar is derived from the sugar mother liquor, which is a far more interesting substance than most people can appreciate.

Sort of tangential fun fact: two of the favorite varieties of rice in Thailand where I live, fragrant Jasmine rice and sticky rice, have a higher glycemic index than pure glucose. I was a bit shocked to learn that and made some dietary changes to help drop my blood sugar which had been creeping up to near prediabetic level.

Choose your carbs carefully.

> It's a shame they didn't separate high fat from high sugar diets. Fats aren't addictive, nor are they anywhere near as damaging as sugars and carbs in high doses

There are lots of confounding variables in this article. It's a shame they didn't tell us what the "high-fat" diet consisted of. Some fats are basically safe. Some oils go rancid during the production process and need to be "refined".

I do not believe 2000kcal of beans is in any way damaging, yet it's mostly carbs, water and protein with a bunch of nice micronutrients.

Eating diverse food that has a high volume to calories ratio will keep anyone satiated.

I've lost 75 lbs over the last 18 months by simply limiting all carbs as much as practical so my inclination is to not attribute the weight loss to a specific type of carb reduction. But it would be interesting to control for different types of carbs to test your hypothesis.

I'm pretty sure you lost weight by reducing number of calories.

For example, consuming 2000kcal of refined sugar and 2000kcal of beans will result in different calories absorbed given that 2000kcal of beans requires much more energy to digest than sugar liquid.

Some metabolic disorders skew the absorption.

Beans are good carbs because the carbs in them are linked to fiber and so they make you feel more full, and also don't give you the blood sugar spikes that refined carbs do.

Which is the same situation as any good bread. A good rye bread from your baker will have the same effects.

The white bread common in the US would be almost considered a pie in many places in central europe.

Saturated fats are bad in other ways. Sugar and saturated fats are bad. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

> But if you find you can’t resist that craving for a chocolate bar don’t be ashamed

Shame correlates with activation of ventral striatum which plays a role in a formation of addiction. Shouldn't it be "You better be ashamed."?

Don't conflate shame and discomfort. Shame is a social function and the advice is to acknowledge a common problem that is not individually isolated. Your own health, not just secondary responsibility should be the primary driving factor. You need encouragement to overcome an addiction.

In effect, you should solve the issue as soon as possible so you wont have a reason to feel ashamed, but since its a long process you shouldn't be surprised if someone takes the chance for an insult, which ideally should only reinforce the idea and give you a chance to share your insights instead of hiding the issue.

Edit: "shame" comes from Proto-Germanic skamō, from Proto-Indo-European ḱem- (“cover, shroud”). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shame#Etymology_1

Of the various addictive refined powders from plants, for most purposes, I don't differentiate much between cocaine, heroin, and sugar. There are plenty of differences, but none as important as the similarities. Each gives you an up followed by a down. People who take more of each than they want tend to give similar excuses that I would never want to hear myself saying.

The main difference I think of is that sugar ruins a lot more lives and leads to far more early deaths.

I used to eat a rich-sugar morning breakfast a year ago, containing Nutella, peanutbutter, lemonade etc. Once I started cutting down on that breakfast, I noticed I was eating less sugar during the day. Sugar triggers the need for more sugar. So try cutting it down ;)

Unsweetened peanut butter contains 20% carbs and only 10% sugar, but 25% proteins. Looks like sane food to me? (I eat loads of it, so I hope so :)

%10 refined sugar is still too much. The best level is zero or very close to it.

According to the article it is not sugar, but high-fat, high-sugar meals that do most of the harm. That is cakes and similar.

The article regularly conflates high sugar, with weight gain (aka calorific surplus). So it's hard to draw any useful conclusions from it.

Funny, that's exactly what the sugar industry has been trying to push into the public hivemind: Don't worry about sugar intake, just calories -- they're all the same.

Not surprised to see it on HN, they are very successful at having us do their bidding for them under cute and worthless platitudes like "calories in, calories out."

There are lots of studies that isolate sugar, and they all find it is bad news. That is why the World Health Organization is pushing for people to greatly reduce their consumption.

And speaking of science, if the scientists have or were to determine with certainty that it is harmful, what do you think the sugar industry would do in response? Stop selling it, keep selling it but tell the public they should consume much less, or launch a devious, well-funded campaign to mislead the public?

What about non nutrient addiction path ways ? such as twitter / facebook ? any one knows research about hippocampus and social networks ?

Also I do believe that I have multithreading addiction. I can't stop switching tabs whenever I'm bored (internet zapping).

https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2017/12/15/dr-robert-lustig-on-th...

This guys an md then got a law degree to investigate how we’re affected by what your saying , and how govt doesn’t regulate it

Dr Lustig is also a contributor to this site: http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/hidden-in-plain-sight/

coincidentally, lustig is also a "big" name in sugar as a disease https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Anecdotally, the show host is very good, he doesn't just swallow lustig definitions and arguments (which I find a tad weak).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com