Why Did We Evolve a Taste for Sweetness?

HappyStack

I don't know if this has been posted before. I was just looking up whether there was an evolutionary benefit to humans liking "hyperpalatable" foods and ran across this...

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/03/why-did-we-evolve-a-taste-for-sweetness/

There are a couple (literally, two) references to the article and I haven't yet bothered to look at them in their entirety (they are both free, here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721271/ and here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1265871/), but I was just wondering what you learned knights of the MFP roundtable thought.

Some of the things in it trouble me (fructose is labelled a toxin, paleo-advocacy, and just... Seth Roberts) but there's a little bit about "sweetness activators" in there, too, that I'd never read before. Apparently New World Monkeys don't find aspartame sweet (from the Wiki page, not the article)...

I'll only post a small portion of the article here because longread.

Sweetness activators

It turns out that the sweetness receptors are complex; many things activate them, and they appear to serve multiple functions.

Wikipedia (“Sweetness”) notes:

A great diversity of chemical compounds, such as aldehydes and ketones, are sweet.

Some of the amino acids are mildly sweet: alanine, glycine, and serine are the sweetest. Some other amino acids are perceived as both sweet and bitter.

The sweetness of some amino acids would seem to support Tomas’s assertions that sweetness detect meat: perhaps it is detecting amino acids. But this seems a bit odd: there is another taste, umami, that detects protein. Would we really need two taste receptors for protein? And lean meats don’t taste sweet.

A possible clue is that the sweet tasting amino acids are hydrophobic, while hydrophilic (or polar) amino acids are not sweet.

Proteins that are hydrophobic end up lodging in cell membranes alongside lipids; proteins that are hydrophilic dissolve in water and reside apart from the fat. Glutamate and nucleotides, which are detected by the umami taste, are hydrophilic and water-soluble.

So maybe the umami taste detects proteins that aren’t associated with fat, while the sweet taste detects proteins that are associated with fat.

Beet_Girl

My first thought is that breast milk is sweet

HappyStack

My first thought is that breast milk is sweet

I have honestly never tasted breast milk :laugh:

But I know that powdered baby formula is sweet, so that makes sense.

taekwondo_bitch

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

HappyStack

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

There was a study to suggest this, but it's not just sugar. Complex carbs have been found to have the same effect, as do - I believe - dairy products and other sources of protein.

Basically, feeding stimulates dopamine production.

SteveJWatson

Three words: Optimal Foraging Theory.

taekwondo_bitch

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

There was a study to suggest this, but it's not just sugar. Complex carbs have been found to have the same effect, as do - I believe - dairy products and other sources of protein.

Basically, feeding stimulates dopamine production.

But vegetables and things don't? Interesting.

chezjuan

The following is totally based on nothing but my thoughts on the matter, not any particular science (studies) that I have read. I have seen an article or two in popular science magazines like Discover that seem to say this, but I haven't really investigated any of it. So anything that follows this is just conjecture that may or may not be backed by science.

Since carbohydrates, and especially simple sugars, are quick and easily available energy sources, and the fact that glucose is the default energy source for our brain and cells, it would be evolutionarily advantageous for our ancestors to have a taste for foods that supply them. It would lead them to eat foods that supply quick energy so they could then do the things that require the energy, like hunting, gathering, and generally being nomadic. Kind of like how endurance athletes tend to eat lots of carbs while training.

The problem is that now we have figured out how to get tons of the sweet stuff without needing it to fuel the essentials of life, but we're programmed to want to eat it because of the historical energy needs of the species.

HappyStack

But vegetables and things don't? Interesting.

Some. Some others stimulate serotonin production. And some sweet things, like chocolate.

There's probably a list somewhere of foods and how they affect neurotransmitters... I can't say I remember many examples off the top of my head.

Three words: Optimal Foraging Theory.

Is this valid human behavioural theory, though? particularly since hunter-gatherer instinct has been mooted by widespread availability of a huge range of produce.

SteveJWatson

Since carbohydrates, and especially simple sugars, are quick and easily available energy sources, and the fact that glucose is the default energy source for our brain and cells, it would be evolutionarily advantageous for our ancestors to have a taste for foods that supply them. It would lead them to eat foods that supply quick energy so they could then do the things that require the energy, like hunting, gathering, and generally being nomadic. Kind of like how endurance athletes tend to eat lots of carbs while training.

This is basically optimal foraging theory - it is evolutionarily advantageous to gain the most energy for the least effort.

chezjuan

Since carbohydrates, and especially simple sugars, are quick and easily available energy sources, and the fact that glucose is the default energy source for our brain and cells, it would be evolutionarily advantageous for our ancestors to have a taste for foods that supply them. It would lead them to eat foods that supply quick energy so they could then do the things that require the energy, like hunting, gathering, and generally being nomadic. Kind of like how endurance athletes tend to eat lots of carbs while training.

This is basically optimal foraging theory - it is evolutionarily advantageous to gain the most energy for the least effort.

I saw your post after I wrote mine, looked it up, and noticed that it was basically the same. Took me a lot more words to basically say what you did :laugh:

geebusuk

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

Pretty sure I also get this for a nice steak.
And cheese.
And plenty of other non-carb foods .

magerum

Deliciousness.

chezjuan

But vegetables and things don't? Interesting.

Some. Some others stimulate serotonin production. And some sweet things, like chocolate.

There's probably a list somewhere of foods and how they affect neurotransmitters... I can't say I remember many examples off the top of my head.

Three words: Optimal Foraging Theory.

Is this valid human behavioural theory, though? particularly since hunter-gatherer instinct has been mooted by widespread availability of a huge range of produce.

I think while our brains may know that food is easy to get, our bodies are still adapting and the systems that have been in place for millions of years are taking a while to catch up with the more recent developments.

eric_sg61

Grok stomach growl
Grok find deer
Deer run away
Grok chase deer
Grok get tired
Grok find berry bush
Berry bush no run away
Grok eat
Grok get taste for sweet
Grok see bee nest dripping with sweet
Grok never seen again..................

PikaKnight

Grok stomach growl
Grok find deer
Deer run away
Grok chase deer
Grok get tired
Grok find berry bush
Berry bush no run away
Grok eat
Grok get taste for sweet
Grok see bee nest dripping with sweet
Grok never seen again..................

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

geebusuk

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

Pretty sure I also get this for a nice steak.
And cheese.
And plenty of other non-carb foods .

TX_Rhon

Deliciousness.

^^This

bpotts44

I've been following Perfect Health Diet for almost a year now and believe it to be exactly what the title says. It is a little similar to primal/paleo, but no gimmicky marketing like Grok or any of that stuff. Everytime I have heard the author in an interview, Dr. Paul Jamine, it confirms he's the smartest guy around in the diet space.

HappyStack

Grok stomach growl
Grok find deer
Deer run away
Grok chase deer
Grok get tired
Grok find berry bush
Berry bush no run away
Grok eat
Grok get taste for sweet
Grok see bee nest dripping with sweet
Grok never seen again..................

Oh. I don't mean to be rude, but it's sorta hard to take you seriously when you're saying junk like grok and junk. :laugh:

Love4fitnesslove4food2

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

There was a study to suggest this, but it's not just sugar. Complex carbs have been found to have the same effect, as do - I believe - dairy products and other sources of protein.

Basically, feeding stimulates dopamine production.

But vegetables and things don't? Interesting.

Many vegetables are complex carbohydrates...so some would if the above is true.

tennisdude2004

I've been following Perfect Health Diet for almost a year now and believe it to be exactly what the title says. It is a little similar to primal/paleo, but no gimmicky marketing like Grok or any of that stuff. Everytime I have heard the author in an interview, Dr. Paul Jamine, it confirms he's the smartest guy around in the diet space.

Just out of interest what is the difference between your diet and primal? Also what's the end goal behind it?????

Slacker16

Because sugar releases dopamine, or "pleasure signals". That why humans crave it over other foods.

There was a study to suggest this, but it's not just sugar. Complex carbs have been found to have the same effect, as do - I believe - dairy products and other sources of protein.

Basically, feeding stimulates dopamine production.

But vegetables and things don't? Interesting.

Actually, I will go on record stating that I have more than once binged on fresh figs, cherries (especially sour cherries), corn on the cob and salted almonds. Chocolate, not so much...

I think that everything that you find delicious but not especially filling can be the object of a binge.

bpotts44

I've been following Perfect Health Diet for almost a year now and believe it to be exactly what the title says. It is a little similar to primal/paleo, but no gimmicky marketing like Grok or any of that stuff. Everytime I have heard the author in an interview, Dr. Paul Jamine, it confirms he's the smartest guy around in the diet space.

Just out of interest what is the difference between your diet and primal? Also what's the end goal behind it?????

The Perfect Health Diet is designed to give you all the nutrients you need and optimize your immune systems. There is a lot of life style things to include even a chapter on working with your circadian rhythms. It includes recommendations for stock, organ meats, seafood, omega 3 vs omega 6, etc. It is very detailed. The vast majority of the recommendations are on their website www.perfecthealthdiet.com. I would say it is more specifically detailed out compared to primal, although Mark Sisson did write the preface. The goal is to optimize human health.

phred_52

Dang, I knew I should've read more so I could be smart :ohwell: . As best as I can figure, I evolved a taste for sweetness from my birthday cakes. Maybe 4 or 5?

ndj1979

did we evolve a taste for them, or were they always there? Fruit, in some kind of form, would of been available to the earliest humans and I am sure that as they came across it and ate it, that they liked the taste of it. So I am thinking it is not an "evolved" taste, it is just something that has always been around and tasted good…

I guess it a chicken and egg type scenario….

ndj1979

Grok stomach growl
Grok find deer
Deer run away
Grok chase deer
Grok get tired
Grok find berry bush
Berry bush no run away
Grok eat
Grok get taste for sweet
Grok see bee nest dripping with sweet
Grok never seen again..................

Grok now addicted to sugar….

cwsreddy

because fruit.

SunofaBeach14

Because throughout human history, today in developing countries, and among the true poor even in developed nations, there is this thing called scarcity. Sweet, like fat, means calories, which mean survival.

parys1

I'm too lazy to do the research, but isn't there a generalization that sweet = edible and bitter = poisonous? Of course, there are exceptions.

RECowgill

The question seems to imply that since these things are supposedly bad for you why would your body want them at all. Of course sweet things aren't completely bad for you, in moderation they are good. Sugar is part of breast milk and part of an important stage of human development. Sodium is the same thing, it's good to have some of it and too much is bad for you. So it seems to me the question itself is flawed, it comes from the perspective of a 21st century human who may be concerned about dietary health from an "after the fact" POV.