Fatty Foods Affect Memory and Exercise Performance 379
Death Metal writes "Eating fatty food appears to take an almost immediate toll on both short-term memory and exercise performance, according to new research on rats and people. Other studies have suggested that that long-term consumption of a high-fat diet is associated with weight gain, heart disease and declines in cognitive function. But the new research shows how indulging in fatty foods over the course of a few days can affect the brain and body long before the extra pounds show up."
Re:Anecdotal evidence supports this (Score:2, Informative)
I've been eating fairly healthy/low fat food for a while, I definitely feel crappy after having certain kinds of food, like the last time I had fish and chips (deep fried fish and very thick cut fries, likewise deep fat fried).. incredibly greasy - I felt like shit for the rest of the evening. Likewise anything with lots of cheese like pizza just makes me feel kind of lethargic. Sure it's enjoyable at the time (though often with fatty foods I just don't find them as attractive as I used to), but a couple of hours later..
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:2, Informative)
Just get on your bike or lift dumbells. Killing your body by removing a required nutrient isn't a diet, it's stupid. Probably as much as vegans.
Simple equation: energy in == energy consumed. If that is not the case, you're doing it wrong. You obviously have enough self-discipline to prevent yourself from eating things you decide, so why not have the self-discipline to do the same using a healthy diet and some exercise?
Re:more high carb propoganda (Score:2, Informative)
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:4, Informative)
And two paragraphs down which you conveniently omitted. :) The anti-ketosis conclusions have been challenged by a number of doctors and adherents of low-carbohydrate diets, who dispute assertions that the body has a preference for glucose and that there are dangers associated with ketosis." [wikipedia.org]
It appears that the "no-carb diet" controversy is far from settled.
Re:Grain lobby propagaunda (Score:1, Informative)
Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
This is typical of the sorts of studies that try to support the low-fat hypothesis. In this case, the problem is that they didn't give sufficient time to adjust to the new diet. It appears that the rats were only given 4 days to adjust to the high-fat diet, compared with weeks on the low-fat diet. The problem is that when the body switches from burning carbohydrates to fats, the fuel the brain uses changes from glucose to ketone bodies. As anyone who has tried a low-carb diet can tell you, for the first several days (a week or two for some people--no idea what it would be for rats) you feel rather dull and drained for several days. Then one day the "brain fairy" arrives and you have more energy, physically and mentally, than you've had in years.
I spent years as a near-vegetarian on a very low-fat diet and what it got me was literally 200 lbs. overweight and type 2 diabetes. I've now lost 46 lbs. on a low carb diet getting about 60% of my calories from FAT, my type 2 diabetes is basically cured, and I feel better than I've felt in at least ten years. My lipid profile has also improved dramatically.
Every study done thus far looking at low-carb vs. low-fat has shown that low-fat is a failure (read the studies, not just the blurbs or the conclusions). Think about it... over the past 20 years, Americans have reduced their fat intake by 25% and type 2 diabetes has increased by 1000%, heart disease has become MORE prevalent, strokes have become MORE prevalent. The Low Fat experiment is a failure. And make sure to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.
Re:I suppose the type of fats or source should mat (Score:2, Informative)
I read articles about nutrition and cognition some time ago. In general high energy expenditure and low energy intake have about the same effect (however rather long-term as far as I recall). "Exercise and the brain: something to chew on" [nih.gov] listed this food as potentially beneficial (though effects are not well-studied yet):
- omega-3 fatty acid (e.g. fish oil),
- some teas,
- fruits,
- folate (vitamin B9),
- spices, and
- other vitamins.
In another article, "Impact of Energy Intake and Expenditure on Neuronal Plasticity" [nih.gov], I found that saturated fats and cholesterol increase the risk of cognitive decline.
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:1, Informative)
Again, there is ample evidence to show that some people (as in many thousands) have consumed well under 2000 calories a month for decades, in the form of carbohydrates, while doing hard physical work - and wound up grossly obese.
If this were true, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization wouldn't have calculated the overall minimum daily per person energy requirement to be 1680 kcal/day, for light physical activity. Your exaggeration is grossly obese. Alternatively, you're only considering the most outrageous of outliers, which is meaningless for the average person.
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:4, Informative)
What you replyto may have been uniformed and biased, but you are not much better, I think - you sound almost religious.
AFAIK carbohydrates in any form are not required nutrients. At least, there are plenty of documented cases of people living long, happy, healthy, productive lives without ever tasting them. The Inuit, for instance, used to regard plants as unfit for human consumption, and would never touch them unless they were starving. OTOH there is evidence that excessive carbohydrates (or possibly the wrong kind) can gradually bring about insulin resistance, obesity, and eventually diabetes.
You know wrong, then. Humans, being apes, basically, need a typical ape-diet: mostly fruits and other not too tough plant material supplied with some meat, most of which ought to be insects. Fruits contain lots of carbohydrates, and meat actually contains some too; it's not all protein. I don't know where you have that about the Inuit from, but I find it unlikely that they would shun any source of food, when they live in such harsh conditions. When you put forth such claims, you really need to give proper sources, otherwise they are simply not convincing.
What it is that brings on insulin resistance and diabetes is still very much open to debate. The only thing we are almost certain we know is that a varied diet and exercise is the best way to avoid it. The modern western diet is incredibly montonous in terms of its basic composition, and more so if you live on processed food, which is more or less made from industrial waste and additives (OK, I admit it, not 100% accurate, but still uncomfortably close).
Simple equation: energy in == energy consumed
There is nothing wrong with this equation as such; it really underlies it all. Where the complications come in is in how to consistently eat less than we need for a prolonged period of time, when we are surrounded by easy calory-options all the time. Any one who has been on a diet knows how desperately hard it can be - and it is not even the feeling of hunger that is bad, it is the fact that your body plays all sorts of tricks to make you abandon your diet; suddenly your motivation is all gone, suddenly you don't feel fat at all and so on. No, it really is as simple as eating less than you need, and that really is so difficult.
Again, there is ample evidence to show that some people (as in many thousands) have consumed well under 2000 calories a month for decades, in the form of carbohydrates, while doing hard physical work - and wound up grossly obese. Just as others (usually much wealthier) have eaten far more than 2000 calories a day for years, while doing little or no physical work, and remained lean and fit.
Hard evidence, please? As you say, it is "ample", so it should be easy to produce. And I think you probably mean 2000 kcal a day; only dead people consume less than 2000 kcal a month, and they don't generally look fat too me.
Yes, that's right - join the bulk of the scientific, medical, and political establishments - and the big food manufacturers who fund them - and blame the victims. It might be possible to do as you suggest if they would tell us what constitutes a healthy diet. Most intelligent, open-minded people who have taken the trouble to inquire about the subject and researched it widely for years must be quite bewildered by now.
So, you don't include the medical scientists in those that have researched the subject for years? Interesting. Still, you are misrepresenting things here - what the scientists say has not varied wildly over the years; the fact that you have to eat less than you need if you want to lose weight has never changed; but as we learn more about why people eat and how the body reacts to it, we also have to change our opinion about how to manage the difficult task of losing weight in a healthy way. And of course it doesn't help a lot that every time a new scientific finding is published, it is taken away by some money grabbing idiot, who then trumpets it as the new, sensational diet of the moment.
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:3, Informative)
This is bullshit. They've done numerous studies disproving it. The people that are thin are ACTUALLY EATING LESS than the people that are fat. Thats what is always boils down to.
http://medicalmyths.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/obesity-is-not-caused-by-slow-metabolism/ [wordpress.com]
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:3, Informative)
Ketosis diets like the anabolic diet work extremely well for a lot of people. Carbs are not a required nutrient if you define required as needed to sustain life. Your body can live off of fat/keytones just fine. People who feel like shit on keytosis diets are most likely not doing it right. The first week or so when your body is transitioning is tough but after that you should not feel bad. If you are not eating enough fat then you will feel bad.
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite, at least what Atkins proposes is that you regulate your weight gain/loss by increasing/decreasing your daily carb intake while ingesting a high-fat diet, in short:
People who feel like shit on keytosis diets are most likely not doing it right
Correct, the key to trigger ketosis is HIGH FAT, about 60% of your daily calories must come from fat. This is the most controversial point of his diet due to the never-proven medical belief that "eating fat makes you fat".
Dr. Atkins clearly wrote in that book that you should not keep induction phase forever, nor you should stop eating carbs at all. It just tells you that you can eat as many calories as you like as long as most of them are from fat while keeping carbs in check. Also high-protein doesn't work, he claims excess protein gets metabolized into glucose making the diet counterproductive.
Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score:1, Informative)
Ok... read the link and the numerous other studies. Metabolism doesn't have a bearing on weight loss.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006 [mayoclinic.com]