Western diet and brain function
Options
Replies
-
That, "Do parasites make us like cats," video that was posted above was about toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is something that is cleared from the body, it isn't an ongoing parasitic infection, unless it's acquired through the placenta - as far as I can ascertain by a quick Google search.
Now, gut biome to me is more interesting and could be called a sybiotic relationship, right? IF we concede that the gut biome is responsible in part for the production of certain neurotransmitters (which, I'm thinking that HAS been established) then we could make the connection between depression/anxiety/compusion and food. It's not that big of a leap. I know the research is not there yet, but it is there for rats and pigs (addictive behavior/compulsion due to neurotransmitter deficiency)...just a matter of time, really, until the connection is made in humans. At least it seems plausible to me based on my past food compulsions and my past food choices compared to how much better I am now on a varied diet with lots of different plants and different protein selections.
If we ate a varied diet, with all the building blocks for good neurotransmitters in the brain, we'd all be better off. That isn't what's being disputed though. We're saying that a Western diet - high in processed foods, is bad for the brain. Potato, potahto. Sounds legit, seriously.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »That, "Do parasites make us like cats," video that was posted above was about toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is something that is cleared from the body, it isn't an ongoing parasitic infection, unless it's acquired through the placenta - as far as I can ascertain by a quick Google search.
Now, gut biome to me is more interesting and could be called a sybiotic relationship, right? IF we concede that the gut biome is responsible in part for the production of certain neurotransmitters (which, I'm thinking that HAS been established) then we could make the connection between depression/anxiety/compusion and food. It's not that big of a leap. I know the research is not there yet, but it is there for rats and pigs (addictive behavior/compulsion due to neurotransmitter deficiency)...just a matter of time, really, until the connection is made in humans. At least it seems plausible to me based on my past food compulsions and my past food choices compared to how much better I am now on a varied diet with lots of different plants and different protein selections.
If we ate a varied diet, with all the building blocks for good neurotransmitters in the brain, we'd all be better off. That isn't what's being disputed though. We're saying that a Western diet - high in processed foods, is bad for the brain. Potato, potahto. Sounds legit, seriously.
"MEOW." WTH!🤨0 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »That, "Do parasites make us like cats," video that was posted above was about toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is something that is cleared from the body, it isn't an ongoing parasitic infection, unless it's acquired through the placenta - as far as I can ascertain by a quick Google search.
Now, gut biome to me is more interesting and could be called a sybiotic relationship, right? IF we concede that the gut biome is responsible in part for the production of certain neurotransmitters (which, I'm thinking that HAS been established) then we could make the connection between depression/anxiety/compusion and food. It's not that big of a leap. I know the research is not there yet, but it is there for rats and pigs (addictive behavior/compulsion due to neurotransmitter deficiency)...just a matter of time, really, until the connection is made in humans. At least it seems plausible to me based on my past food compulsions and my past food choices compared to how much better I am now on a varied diet with lots of different plants and different protein selections.
If we ate a varied diet, with all the building blocks for good neurotransmitters in the brain, we'd all be better off. That isn't what's being disputed though. We're saying that a Western diet - high in processed foods, is bad for the brain. Potato, potahto. Sounds legit, seriously.
"MEOW." WTH!🤨
Care to expand?
also, I didn't post that video, that was @jm_1234
AND I MEANT Symbiotic. ack1 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »That, "Do parasites make us like cats," video that was posted above was about toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is something that is cleared from the body, it isn't an ongoing parasitic infection, unless it's acquired through the placenta - as far as I can ascertain by a quick Google search.
Now, gut biome to me is more interesting and could be called a sybiotic relationship, right? IF we concede that the gut biome is responsible in part for the production of certain neurotransmitters (which, I'm thinking that HAS been established) then we could make the connection between depression/anxiety/compusion and food. It's not that big of a leap. I know the research is not there yet, but it is there for rats and pigs (addictive behavior/compulsion due to neurotransmitter deficiency)...just a matter of time, really, until the connection is made in humans. At least it seems plausible to me based on my past food compulsions and my past food choices compared to how much better I am now on a varied diet with lots of different plants and different protein selections.
If we ate a varied diet, with all the building blocks for good neurotransmitters in the brain, we'd all be better off. That isn't what's being disputed though. We're saying that a Western diet - high in processed foods, is bad for the brain. Potato, potahto. Sounds legit, seriously.
"MEOW." WTH!🤨
Care to expand?
also, I didn't post that video, that was @jm_1234
AND I MEANT Symbiotic. ack
Bad joke. Oh, I know plenty about toxo. We have had cases in the immune suppressed. Never saw one act like a cat, but they did go kind of crazy.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »That, "Do parasites make us like cats," video that was posted above was about toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is something that is cleared from the body, it isn't an ongoing parasitic infection, unless it's acquired through the placenta - as far as I can ascertain by a quick Google search.
Now, gut biome to me is more interesting and could be called a sybiotic relationship, right? IF we concede that the gut biome is responsible in part for the production of certain neurotransmitters (which, I'm thinking that HAS been established) then we could make the connection between depression/anxiety/compusion and food. It's not that big of a leap. I know the research is not there yet, but it is there for rats and pigs (addictive behavior/compulsion due to neurotransmitter deficiency)...just a matter of time, really, until the connection is made in humans. At least it seems plausible to me based on my past food compulsions and my past food choices compared to how much better I am now on a varied diet with lots of different plants and different protein selections.
If we ate a varied diet, with all the building blocks for good neurotransmitters in the brain, we'd all be better off. That isn't what's being disputed though. We're saying that a Western diet - high in processed foods, is bad for the brain. Potato, potahto. Sounds legit, seriously.
"MEOW." WTH!🤨
Care to expand?
also, I didn't post that video, that was @jm_1234
AND I MEANT Symbiotic. ack
Bad joke. Oh, I know plenty about toxo. We have had cases in the immune suppressed. Never saw one act like a cat, but they did go kind of crazy.
Is is cleared by healthy people, though?
NM, side issue and I don't really care, I don't even know if jm was joking or serious by linking that.1 -
Ah ok. The book was just an example about control, not related to weight or obesity. My point was basically that things (including parasites) exert degrees of control over us and/or diminish our control over ourselves. I don't mean 100%, but even if it is .005% it is still control and I suspect it is a cumulative affect, not an individual one. But if something can control .005% of us then in theory we could be controlled 100%.
OK. But how likely that all those 0.005% factors all line up and point in the same direction?
Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", right? Maybe a corollary is "Any sufficiently complex combination of myriad tiny uncontrollable impulses is indistinguishable from free will".
I don't know whether free will is real, but I generally perceive myself as having free will (being able to make choices). So far, acting on that perception - whether it's true or not - has had beneficial results for me. Until I begin to have dramatic experiences to the contrary, I'm going to continue to act as if free will were a real thing, for much the same reason as I trust this table beside me to hold my coffee cup, even though physics suggests the table consists significantly of empty space. If I'm 100% controlled, but it's working out great to think I have choices, why change my mind? (Or maybe someone will say I can't change my mind, because 100% controlled.
)
I'm feeling like this might be a good time to inject the many worlds interpretation, and the "Universe Splitter" app (a real thing, for iOS only). If you like, you can now ignore free will, and base your life choices on the quantum equivalent of the magic eight ball, feeling some confidence (?) that regardless of the outcome, your binary choice had the opposite outcome for you in some other universe.
2 -
Ah ok. The book was just an example about control, not related to weight or obesity. My point was basically that things (including parasites) exert degrees of control over us and/or diminish our control over ourselves. I don't mean 100%, but even if it is .005% it is still control and I suspect it is a cumulative affect, not an individual one. But if something can control .005% of us then in theory we could be controlled 100%.
OK. But how likely that all those 0.005% factors all line up and point in the same direction?
Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", right? Maybe a corollary is "Any sufficiently complex combination of myriad tiny uncontrollable impulses is indistinguishable from free will".
I don't know whether free will is real, but I generally perceive myself as having free will (being able to make choices). So far, acting on that perception - whether it's true or not - has had beneficial results for me. Until I begin to have dramatic experiences to the contrary, I'm going to continue to act as if free will were a real thing, for much the same reason as I trust this table beside me to hold my coffee cup, even though physics suggests the table consists significantly of empty space. If I'm 100% controlled, but it's working out great to think I have choices, why change my mind? (Or maybe someone will say I can't change my mind, because 100% controlled. )
I'm feeling like this might be a good time to inject the many worlds interpretation, and the "Universe Splitter" app (a real thing, for iOS only). If you like, you can now ignore free will, and base your life choices on the quantum equivalent of the magic eight ball, feeling some confidence (?) that regardless of the outcome, your binary choice had the opposite outcome for you in some other universe.
For me the "free will" question is a non-starter pragmatically because it would make my life untenable to act in a way that assumes I don't have free will.
It's purely an intellectual exercise (one that I find interesting), there's no way to actually *apply* a conclusion that I don't have free will and no clear template for how I would interact with others once I've concluded that they cannot control their actions.
Specifically for food: let's say I accept that I am not deciding what and how much I eat. What then? I don't understand the expected progression from there.1 -
Ah ok. The book was just an example about control, not related to weight or obesity. My point was basically that things (including parasites) exert degrees of control over us and/or diminish our control over ourselves. I don't mean 100%, but even if it is .005% it is still control and I suspect it is a cumulative affect, not an individual one. But if something can control .005% of us then in theory we could be controlled 100%.
OK. But how likely that all those 0.005% factors all line up and point in the same direction?
Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", right? Maybe a corollary is "Any sufficiently complex combination of myriad tiny uncontrollable impulses is indistinguishable from free will".
I don't know whether free will is real, but I generally perceive myself as having free will (being able to make choices). So far, acting on that perception - whether it's true or not - has had beneficial results for me. Until I begin to have dramatic experiences to the contrary, I'm going to continue to act as if free will were a real thing, for much the same reason as I trust this table beside me to hold my coffee cup, even though physics suggests the table consists significantly of empty space. If I'm 100% controlled, but it's working out great to think I have choices, why change my mind? (Or maybe someone will say I can't change my mind, because 100% controlled. )
I'm feeling like this might be a good time to inject the many worlds interpretation, and the "Universe Splitter" app (a real thing, for iOS only). If you like, you can now ignore free will, and base your life choices on the quantum equivalent of the magic eight ball, feeling some confidence (?) that regardless of the outcome, your binary choice had the opposite outcome for you in some other universe.
Mind blown Aunt Granny. How much of that Devil's Cabbage did you imbibe back in the 60's?🤟0 -
psychod787 wrote: »Ah ok. The book was just an example about control, not related to weight or obesity. My point was basically that things (including parasites) exert degrees of control over us and/or diminish our control over ourselves. I don't mean 100%, but even if it is .005% it is still control and I suspect it is a cumulative affect, not an individual one. But if something can control .005% of us then in theory we could be controlled 100%.
OK. But how likely that all those 0.005% factors all line up and point in the same direction?
Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", right? Maybe a corollary is "Any sufficiently complex combination of myriad tiny uncontrollable impulses is indistinguishable from free will".
I don't know whether free will is real, but I generally perceive myself as having free will (being able to make choices). So far, acting on that perception - whether it's true or not - has had beneficial results for me. Until I begin to have dramatic experiences to the contrary, I'm going to continue to act as if free will were a real thing, for much the same reason as I trust this table beside me to hold my coffee cup, even though physics suggests the table consists significantly of empty space. If I'm 100% controlled, but it's working out great to think I have choices, why change my mind? (Or maybe someone wthe aill say I can't change my mind, because 100% controlled. )
I'm feeling like this might be a good time to inject the many worlds interpretation, and the "Universe Splitter" app (a real thing, for iOS only). If you like, you can now free will, and base your life choices on the quantum equivalent of the magic eight ball, feeling some confidence (?) that regardless of the outcome, your binary choice had the opposite outcome for you in some other universe.
Mind blown Aunt Granny. How much of that Devil's Cabbage did you imbibe back in the 60's?🤟
I was only 14 at the end of the 60s, and a very innocent country girl. So, 70s and 80s, mostly. Maybe quite a lot.
Look up the app, really: I didn't make it up. It's amusing to contemplate.janejellyroll wrote: »Ah ok. The book was just an example about control, not related to weight or obesity. My point was basically that things (including parasites) exert degrees of control over us and/or diminish our control over ourselves. I don't mean 100%, but even if it is .005% it is still control and I suspect it is a cumulative affect, not an individual one. But if something can control .005% of us then in theory we could be controlled 100%.
OK. But how likely that all those 0.005% factors all line up and point in the same direction?
Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", right? Maybe a corollary is "Any sufficiently complex combination of myriad tiny uncontrollable impulses is indistinguishable from free will".
I don't know whether free will is real, but I generally perceive myself as having free will (being able to make choices). So far, acting on that perception - whether it's true or not - has had beneficial results for me. Until I begin to have dramatic experiences to the contrary, I'm going to continue to act as if free will were a real thing, for much the same reason as I trust this table beside me to hold my coffee cup, even though physics suggests the table consists significantly of empty space. If I'm 100% controlled, but it's working out great to think I have choices, why change my mind? (Or maybe someone will say I can't change my mind, because 100% controlled. )
I'm feeling like this might be a good time to inject the many worlds interpretation, and the "Universe Splitter" app (a real thing, for iOS only). If you like, you can now ignore free will, and base your life choices on the quantum equivalent of the magic eight ball, feeling some confidence (?) that regardless of the outcome, your binary choice had the opposite outcome for you in some other universe.
For me the "free will" question is a non-starter pragmatically because it would make my life untenable to act in a way that assumes I don't have free will.
It's purely an intellectual exercise (one that I find interesting), there's no way to actually *apply* a conclusion that I don't have free will and no clear template for how I would interact with others once I've concluded that they cannot control their actions.
Specifically for food: let's say I accept that I am not deciding what and how much I eat. What then? I don't understand the expected progression from there.
100%. Free will is a useful practical concept. Lack of free will . . . kinda isn't.1 -
The problem with these scare articles is they do not consider food in moderation they just label it "Western" or "Standard American" and then lead people to assume that if they are in this region they are poisoning themselves.
In reality I know of very few people that eat this way. Most people I know at least have a basic understanding that they need to include some things like vegetables and fruit in their diets and limit the food that has a less desirable nutrient to calorie ratio.
So to me the moral of the story is that you should not eat like an unsupervised teen too often and you will be fine.
Agreed, although I often do think -- in part from exposure on MFP and from some surveys -- that people in the US on average (and likely in the UK too) do eat quite a bit worse than those I talk to about such things and see eating most commonly, pretty much all of whom do eat vegetables and fruit and don't rely primarily on ultra processed foods and all the annoying stereotypes.
I also think "standard American diet" was bad enough as a term (I continue to think the real standard American diet is the one I grew up with, and it wasn't perfect but had nothing to do with filling the cart with ultraprocessed items or consuming loads of soda and fast food), but now it's the "western diet" or "western pattern diet"? Sigh.
I would also agree with you that it's basically just common sense. There's no nefarious "how did this happen to us"-- if you choose to eat mostly low nutrient foods and not eat your veg, that's a choice and everyone knows it's not a sensible one.
The odd thing to me is that the people that I do know personally that eat in way that is probably meant by whatever a Western or SAD is supposed to be have been more or less weight stable for decades. We are not talking obese either. We are talking healthy weight or slightly overweight. I can't say the same thing about people I know who eat Eastern/Southern/Northern, Up, Down, Left or Right Diets.
I wonder if the levels of obesity would change drastically if we took all of the food we have available now back in time 150 years.
I have a hard time imagining how you'd inject the modern food composition and unbiquity into 1870, given that most people (and things) stuck pretty close to one place. Mobility - for us and food - is a huge part of where we find ourselves now, and they didn't have it. It's complicated in other ways, too.
I'm old enough to remember when the ubiquity of ready-to-eat food was dramatically lower than it is now (and I was adult at the time). Because I had older parents, I also have some anecdata about how people lived going back into the 1920s. My father's family were largely subsistence farmers before WWII, and my dad was adult when the US got into WWII. I'd say that within that "mostly-subsistence" lifestyle, they were consuming calorie levels above what most of us would consume today (when they could get it, and they mostly needed to get it). The nutrition wasn't always great (my dad talked about going to school in later Winter at times with a lunch bucket full of just beans, because that was what they had). It was a big family, and they were slim, even skinny. They burned a boatload of calories every day - likely fewer in Winter, because not planting/cultivating/harvesting/preserving, but still lots of livestock care, laundry, cooking, hunting. etc., to be done.
If I can get past the logistics of getting modern food into their hands, I don't think the subsistence farmer side of the family would've gotten obese on a typical modern overweight-to-obese person's calorie intake of modern food. Would the nutrition have been worse on modern food? Not sure. In summer, probably yes. Overall, not sure.
My dad, b. 1917, had an active job until retirement (by the time I met him, he was 38, and worked as a carpenter/repair-maintenance person for the county park system. Lots of driving, but very active at the work locations. He was a good eater, of mostly nutritious food, as I was growing up. He was reasonably slim, probably normal BMI. He retired before age 65, and still had active hobby pursuits (gardening, carpentry, cutting trees, etc.), but got fat - certainly well up in the overweight BMI range, maybe lower obese. Seeing pictures of himself from one Christmas, he decided he was too fat, so he ate less (this would've been 1980s, calorie counting was not practical), lost weight back to what was probably the healthy BMI range, and stayed there for the rest of his life.
We read stories here all the time about people who were reasonably slim until they got a desk job (or variations on that theme). We talk about the food side of obesity all the time, not so much about the activity side.
I agree that many people don't understand how dramatically different the current culture of prepared-food ubiquity is from before (say) 1980. But, even though it's less talked about, I also think many people don't understand how different the routine daily activity level was before 1980, either. There have been huge changes in that realm many ways, certainly the automated-office/screen-based-entertainment being a fair fraction of the reason, but there's much more.
I kinda suspect the movement side affects the brain, too; and the obesity definitely does. Seems like I've read some research to support that (differences in cognitive capability among slim/active vs. overweight/inactive people; cognitive performance improvements from exercise regimens), but I don't have cites.
TL; DR: It's not just the food. It's the movement. All of it affects the brain.
It is funny how you spent an entire post agreeing with my premise but still managed to call me out on the logistics.
To be fair, it was (IMO) not at all clear what your premise was, based solely on the post to which I replied. It could've been that our ancestors would've gotten fat eating all that fast food, too.
I called out the logistics, because they sort of made me blow a circuit breaker, until I did a reset and forced myself to contemplate it despite the implausibility.
Side history note: There's long been a tradition of huge serving bowls of stuff, especially for company, in my subculture that we always assumed grew out of the farm-culture neighbor-ladies competing over who best could feed the traveling threshing crews, in terms of both quantity and quality. It was a point of pride.
Improve your brain function so you can read my mind better!2 -
Last post for the day and I'll get off of the control/free will side of this.
In the context of food, you can make the argument that free will does not exist or is severely impaired for people with Prader-Willi Syndrome where they can literally eat themselves to death. So if we are their parent, spouse... having this understanding would guide how we interact with them - hopefully in a more productive manner. Similarly with food or drugs that impair self control/free will, this understanding can guide interactions and legislation.
Practically, the view of an impaired free will/impaired self control can be used in society in many ways. To foster feelings of understanding, compassion, patience, to help us be less judgemental, help us be more humble, and to determine responsibility/punishment.
Our judicial system takes into account a lack of free will when determining responsibility/punishment for people with a mental disorders.
Personally, considering a lack of free will is useful when I direct it towards others and having free will when directed toward myself.
I think there's a big difference between recognizing when someone has a diagnosed condition that is clearly associated with reduced ability to control impulses and the blanket assumption that my husband (who has no conditions) doesn't have free will.
The first would be crucial to maintain a healthy relationship with that person. The second would erode my ability to form any kind of adult connection with my spouse. How can I have reasonable boundaries with someone who isn't accountable for any decision that they make? How do you build a home and financial life with someone when you've decided that no expectations or consequences are appropriate?2 -
Last post for the day and I'll get off of the control/free will side of this.
In the context of food, you can make the argument that free will does not exist or is severely impaired for people with Prader-Willi Syndrome where they can literally eat themselves to death. So if we are their parent, spouse... having this understanding would guide how we interact with them - hopefully in a more productive manner. Similarly with food or drugs that impair self control/free will, this understanding can guide interactions and legislation.
Practically, the view of an impaired free will/impaired self control can be used in society in many ways. To foster feelings of understanding, compassion, patience, to help us be less judgemental, help us be more humble, and to determine responsibility/punishment.
Our judicial system takes into account a lack of free will when determining responsibility/punishment for people with mental disorders.
Personally, considering a diminished free will is useful when I direct it towards others and having free will when directed toward myself.
I was trying to be very careful to carve out and acknowledge the idea that there are end-cases where so-called "free will" is impaired. (If I missed a spot where I should've reiterated that, I'm sorry for the unclarity.) Yes, it's good to recognize that. But, IMO and IME, it doesn't apply in a meaningful way for the majority of people.
Most of us have choices, and we make choices, and those choices have consequences. When the consequences are more distant from the choices; or when the consequences flow from aggregation of many tiny, not very mindful choices (like how big a handful of M&Ms to grab, when they taste good); we're probably less likely to perceive the "in the moment" importance of those choices, and may not experience them as choices at all.
Most of the people in my life don't have Prader-Willi, or anything close to that. It's much more common that they want to eat the whole basket of beer-battered onion rings with ranch dressing because they're yummy, and don't really connect (don't want to connect) the cumulative effect of consistent, repeated choices like that on health and body weight.
There are various realms where people choose the short-term pleasure over their own (more remote, theoretical) long-term good. I certainly do. Do parasites or gut microbiome or somesuch affect finances, for example? (I guess they maybe could, but I think the short-run happiness/long-run benefit tradeoff is a better fit for Occam's razor.)
Yes, we should make generous interpretations of other people's behavior. That can be taken overboard, too. If you think I'm haranguing my friends on the daily when they complain about their weight, and tell me they "can't lose" or "can't resist", I'm not doing that. Some of them posit magical reasons why I was able to lose weight, and they can't. If I dispute them, it's in mild terms, such as "that's not what I did, I just ate less": Just not letting false interpretations they make hang in the air. I'm not giving advice unless they ask for advice in very clear and specific terms. But inside my own head, I think that - in more cases than not - they are choosing their course, cumulatively, over time. I was. I'm not extra-special well adjusted or (heh) anti-hedonist. Far from it.3 -
So back to the article for a minute, they specifically chose high sugar and high fat options, which is relevant because of course "processed food" (which they keep referring to) is quite a bit more diverse. Plain old powdered peanuts, with nothing added, is one of the processed foods I've been eating a lot of lately, and as you are removing a significant part of the peanut (most of the fat), it fits any definition. Yet it's got no added sugar and is less high fat than peanuts themselves. I really wish more specific language would be used.
I found an earlier version of the study, over 4 days in 2016-17. Some aspects of it are quite similar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5322971/
From the study (as well as the article about the more recent one), the foods being tested were chosen because they were high in sugar and sat fat (and the so called Western style diet was defined as being high in sugar and sat fat -- HFS diets.
Given the discussions about what precisely is being referred to in the processed food group, I think that's important -- they were testing the supposed effect of increasing sat fat and added sugar in the diet. (I think this is really important to understand as people immediately jump to "it's the additives; all those words I cannot pronounce!")
In the prior study, they focused on breakfast and the non Western style diet people were given similar cal food that was also processed and similar palatability and food type, but lower added sugar and sat fat. For example, they each had milkshakes and toasted sandwiches, but one group's options were much higher in sugar and sat fat than the other.
At the beginning of the study, the participants found the options equally tasty.
During the experiment, the chocolate milkshake group consumed more at breakfast (and did worse on one of the tests), but not more during the day as a whole. Carb and sugar remained the same (despite elevated sugar at breakfast), but sat fat was higher in the milkshake group.
The conclusions note that they cannot tell if the reason for the worse performance is: (1) the breakfast specifically, and the higher added sugar and sat fat; (2) the increased sat fat for the day; or (3) increased sat fat and added sugar for the day but the chocolate milkshake people weren't accurately reporting their sugar intake. They said option (1) was mostly likely but (2) was consistent with other studies showing negative cognitive effects on animals when given a higher sat fat diet.1 -
I think the point of the article is "Consuming a western diet for as little as one week can subtly impair brain function and encourage slim and otherwise healthy young people to overeat". I'm guessing a western diet is defined as what the majority of the population eats on average.
The western diet seems to be defined as high sugar and high sat fat.
The WS diet group got breakfasts of "a toasted sandwich and a milk shake, high in saturated fat and added sugar (total KJ = 4023; 33% fat [19% saturated], 51% carbohydrate [29% sugar] and 16% protein)" on days 1 and 8, and then were instructed to eat "two Belgian waffles for breakfast or dessert on 4 days" and "to obtain a main meal and drink/dessert from a set of options from a popular fast-food chain on the other 2 days" for days 5-7. Otherwise, "participants were instructed to otherwise try and maintain their normal diet."
The control group, on the other hand, got "breakfast consisting of a toasted sandwich and a milk shake, low in saturated fat and added sugar (total KJ = 2954; 13% fat [5% saturated], 29% carbohydrate [10% sugar] and 58% protein)" and "[o]n Days 2–7, they were asked to maintain their normal diet."
Interesting, here are some of the conclusions:
"In our previous study [discussed in my past post], we observed that increases in blood glucose were greater across breakfast in the WS-diet group relative to controls, but this was not observed here."
"The reduction in HDLM" (one of the test measurements) "in the WS-diet group was strongly associated with change in performance on the wanting and liking test" -- in other words, the people in the WSD group who did worse were also the people who seemed to have a greater increase in their liking for sugary cereals.
"One week's exposure to a WS-diet caused a measurable weakening of appetitive control, as measured by the two key ratings on the wanting and liking test. Prior to the intervention, participants viewed palatable breakfast foods and judged how much they wanted to eat them, and then how much they liked their actual taste. This test was repeated after participants had eaten to satiety. Across these pre- and post-meal tests, wanting ratings declined far more than ratings of taste liking. This manifestation of appetitive control—that is the expectation that food is less desirable than it actually tastes—changed in participants following the Western-style dietary intervention. When sated, the WS-diet group reported an equivalent decline in wanting and taste liking."
My note: exactly how this would work/affect people in real life seems unclear.Deli/ bakery/ street food on average tasted better so I ate more of it and lost weight on each two week trip. The food I ate was unhealthy and my activity level was walking around 10+ miles per day. My guess is, lean countries have a more active lifestyle, less food options/less western food (i.e., smaller grocery stores), and smaller portion sizes.
I suspect that it's a combination of food customs (which likely were stronger and so lasted to a greater extent than in the US), portion size, and mobility. There are differences within subgroups in the US which I think often have to do with more walking/active lifestyles in particular.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »That, "Do parasites make us like cats," video that was posted above was about toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is something that is cleared from the body, it isn't an ongoing parasitic infection, unless it's acquired through the placenta - as far as I can ascertain by a quick Google search.
Now, gut biome to me is more interesting and could be called a sybiotic relationship, right? IF we concede that the gut biome is responsible in part for the production of certain neurotransmitters (which, I'm thinking that HAS been established) then we could make the connection between depression/anxiety/compusion and food. It's not that big of a leap. I know the research is not there yet, but it is there for rats and pigs (addictive behavior/compulsion due to neurotransmitter deficiency)...just a matter of time, really, until the connection is made in humans. At least it seems plausible to me based on my past food compulsions and my past food choices compared to how much better I am now on a varied diet with lots of different plants and different protein selections.
If we ate a varied diet, with all the building blocks for good neurotransmitters in the brain, we'd all be better off. That isn't what's being disputed though. We're saying that a Western diet - high in processed foods, is bad for the brain. Potato, potahto. Sounds legit, seriously.
"MEOW." WTH!🤨
Care to expand?
also, I didn't post that video, that was @jm_1234
AND I MEANT Symbiotic. ack
Bad joke. Oh, I know plenty about toxo. We have had cases in the immune suppressed. Never saw one act like a cat, but they did go kind of crazy.
Just to be clear, the claim isn't that toxo makes people act like cats, but causes people to become crazy cat ladies who really love cats.
(I read the article that YouTube seems to be based on.)1 -
There certainly must be something to it...I mean, just look at Trump 🤣4
-
I think the point of the article is "Consuming a western diet for as little as one week can subtly impair brain function and encourage slim and otherwise healthy young people to overeat". I'm guessing a western diet is defined as what the majority of the population eats on average.
I personally encounter this when I have my monthly cheat day/weekend, oh man, I have some severe cravings the week after. Regarding Italian portion control, that is the point of the article, certain foods impair the brain's ability for portion control. It's possible that non-western foods do not impair the brain as much so people can control their portions.
Off topic but since we're talking about Europe. From my recent trips to Italy and France, IMO the restaurant food on average was not tasty so I ate less. Maybe if Europe's food was more delicious they would be heavier?
Deli/ bakery/ street food on average tasted better so I ate more of it and lost weight on each two week trip. The food I ate was unhealthy and my activity level was walking around 10+ miles per day. My guess is, lean countries have a more active lifestyle, less food options/less western food (i.e., smaller grocery stores), and smaller portion sizes.
Thank you for this--it was the best laugh I've had in a while.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 923 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions