Study: High-Fat Diet May Make You Stupid & Lazy

PB67

However, for years and years, we humans have started experimenting first on 'lower' species and gradually moved to human studies. This is a standard that can move forward into 'higher' mammals and eventually humans. Many medications have been discovered this way. Granted, there are limitiations to every study, but should we discount them because they were started on rats?

Rodent studies are useful as PRELIMINARY studies. But as you said yourself, we then progress to HUMAN studies.

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

kyle4jem

Read at least half the article before you comment, please.

Well, I tried but the blinking popup adds blocked the screen... if this was a serious scientific site it wouldn't indulge superfluous popups and crass web-ads..

In the end I did wade my way through the article and it was as informative as a blank piece of paper. It was found in a small study of rats. The study seems quite superficial in terms of what was studied and doesn't offer any peer-reviewed evidence to back this up.

Regurgitating pseudo-science and psycho-babble as scientific fact may make you look stupid.

But that's just my opinion... not a criticism.

oswaldbowser

I think it depends on what fats you or they are talking about !

I did not do a study. "They" are referring to a diet such as french fries, pizza, etc. as mentioned in the article.

Well the Sri lankans diet is full of one of the most saturated fat foods out "Coconut Oil " and they dont seem to be stupid or suffer from obesity, heart disease etc.......another lot spring to mind is the eskimo's who seem to live off of blubber and fat etc.

Having read the article I cannot see any where in it that it mentions Pizza french fries etc that you say they are referring to.....thats why I said it depends what fats you are talking about

sunkisses

I didn't see the link to the actual study but I follow a blog written by a psychiatrist who examined either this study or a similar one. They use standard rat chow- not a natural diet for rats whether high fat or low fat. What effect does that have on mental and physical performance? That's one variable, second, different fats do different things in the body. Which fat did they use? Would a different fat have a similar or different effect? That's the problem with some of these studies (aside from the fact that they are rat studies)- there's really more variables involved than they claim to be controlling against.

Thank you!

I wondered how they were able to tell the rats were stupider because you can't really measure whether a creature is stupid or not when he can't take the same tests as you. And even then it's still really subjective.

True. I think the measure of their intelligence is maze tests- how quickly they figure out where to go, how quickly the memorize the right route, etc. I don't know how they could measure stupid vs. not feeling good, either. Not feeling 100% could affect performance too and make them appear lazy or stupid. But as I don't really know what they do to measure the performance, I can only speculate that those measures aren't controlling against a single variable either.

Exactly, because after I eat these "high fat foods" I feel sluggish and slow (lazy?) and I do feel ill. Maybe I wouldn't do as well on an assignment. But I don't know if that would make me stupid. And then, are they saying that we're permanently stupid? Like our intelligence would decline infinitely or just during the time we eat high fat food? Can we recover?

Anyway, thanks for discussing the article. Clearly I don't agree with it either. I don't know enough about the study itself so that leaves lots of questions.

sunkisses

I think it depends on what fats you or they are talking about !

I did not do a study. "They" are referring to a diet such as french fries, pizza, etc. as mentioned in the article.

Well the Sri lankans diet is full of one of the most saturated fat foods out "Coconut Oil " and they dont seem to be stupid or suffer from obesity, heart disease etc.......another lot spring to mind is the eskimo's who seem to live off of blubber and fat etc.

Having read the article I cannot see any where in it that it mentions Pizza french fries etc that you say they are referring to.....thats why I said it depends what fats you are talking about

Good points. Thank you.

sunkisses

Regurgitating pseudo-science and psycho-babble as scientific fact may make you look stupid.

Who is regurgitating pseudo-science and psycho-babble as scientific fact?

DrG3n3

So my only contributions are such:

In my department, we have a mouse/rat research group down the hall. Some of them do research on obesity etc in mice. One thing that they have recently attributed to mouse/rat obesity,fatness, etc, is that depending on the age of the animal when fed the high fat diet, the results differ greatly.

Second, you can not draw conclusions on 'lazy and stupid' unless you read the original journal article as this is not a 'true' scientific website. Merely an article written to draw in the crowds with some ooh's and aahs, seeing as we bite like fish when we see any inkling that the foods we eat caused us to be fat more than our eating habits.

Thirdly, it does state int he article that some of the flaws are that they are rats and the effects may not be the same in humans (which we have already pointed out.)

Fourthly, they did not distinguish what types of fats were fed to the rats (again, we've pointed this out.)

Again, I'd need to find the actual journal article, but it doesn't mention sample size.

And lastly, it looks more at short term effects of eating a high fat diet. I'm sure after we all have a day of binging on pizza and fries (they mention such) that we'd probably want a long nap, but the person that eats the occasional crappy food but turns back around to the healthy side probably isn't 'more lazy and stupid' than they would be after a night of drinking.

HMonsterX

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

Gigi_licious

A new study on rats

Stopped reading right there.

You are not a rat.

You don't know that.

sunkisses

I read the whole thing and I have to admit that it sounds like a bit of rubbish.

One reason is that I would not read a study by scientists that conclude that a study may make you "stupid." That's not a scientific conclusion.

This was the same problem I had with the study as well. Actually, I'm not sure if the study is at fault because they don't let us see the study. It could be the sensationalizing done for the blog, or the misinterpretations of the person writing the article. I don't know.

DrG3n3

If you can, here is the actual article:

http://www.fasebj.org/content/23/12/4353.full.pdf+html?sid=02a09d58-e9d8-4530-b07d-e81dade6e69a

sunkisses

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Gigi_licious

I think it depends on what fats you or they are talking about !

I did not do a study. "They" are referring to a diet such as french fries, pizza, etc. as mentioned in the article.

Oh...so they were talking about a high CARB high fat diet. Yes, yes, must have been the fat. Carbs have zero negative affect on the HUMAN body. Riiiiight.

sunkisses

I think it depends on what fats you or they are talking about !

I did not do a study. "They" are referring to a diet such as french fries, pizza, etc. as mentioned in the article.

Oh...so they were talking about a high CARB high fat diet. Yes, yes, must have been the fat. Carbs have zero negative affect on the HUMAN body. Riiiiight.

TOTALLY!

sunkisses

If you can, here is the actual article:

http://www.fasebj.org/content/23/12/4353.full.pdf+html?sid=02a09d58-e9d8-4530-b07d-e81dade6e69a

Oh *kitten* that site has a big pop up ad! I hope that other guy doesn't click on it! LOL Thank you for the link. I wonder how much the livescience article missed in its presentation.

HMonsterX

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

sunkisses

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

Or we can be willfully obtuse.

LorinaLynn

A new study on rats

Stopped reading right there.

You are not a rat.

I stopped reading right there because I'm too stupid and lazy to continue. :embarassed:

DrG3n3

I have to say, if you are so against people 'not contributing to a discussion' as you say it, you are merely fueling the fire. Let them say what they want, read it, ignore it, and move on. They are merely stating a fact that should be considered in any discussion of the article. At this point, I almost don't want to discuss anymore because I have to read so much bickering.

Tiggerrick

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

HMonsterX

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

Or we can be willfully obtuse.

Who's being obtuse? I'm being honest! It was conducted on rats, the results were observed on rats, therefore, it's about rats. I'll take notice when it's done on humans. THOSE results would be interesting.

DrG3n3

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Kudos for sharing this! Definitely need more people in the study, and women as well, possibly younger adults, but it does offer up something to think about.

sunkisses

I have to say, if you are so against people 'not contributing to a discussion' as you say it, you are merely fueling the fire. Let them say what they want, read it, ignore it, and move on. They are merely stating a fact that should be considered in any discussion of the article. At this point, I almost don't want to discuss anymore because I have to read so much bickering.

Go back and re-read the progression of the thread, if this interests you so greatly.

Here's the Cliffsnotes version:

- I post the article without any bias in one direction or the other to allow for varying viewpoints, despite the fact that I disagree with this article. I ask that people just read at least half of the article before commenting.

- The first comment is from someone who openly admits to not reading the article and tells me I'm not a rat.

- The following couple of comments also indicate that they have not bothered to read, yet - they can't bear to NOT comment, despite not having the full story.

Pretty sure this thread was fck'd from the start. I'm all for adding fuel to fires. I never said I don't like arguing. I LOVE arguing, but only when there's sufficient material. And unfortunately, there was nothing to argue - I AGREE WITH YOU.

sunkisses

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

Or we can be willfully obtuse.

Who's being obtuse? I'm being honest! It was conducted on rats, the results were observed on rats, therefore, it's about rats. I'll take notice when it's done on humans. THOSE results would be interesting.

Your generalizations about what can be discussed with regard to the article are obtuse. For you, the article is narrowed down to just being about rats and how that affects rats. However, there are other things to discuss.

sunkisses

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Amazing! A rat study prompting humans to possibly do similar tests on themselves! Crazy! I wonder if that was their intent?

PB67

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Better, but still problematic. Not only is the sample size small, the trial only lasted 7 days.
It has already been well-established that the adaptation to a ketogenic diet takes longer than 7 days, and up to 3-4 weeks, so I fail to see how this study brings anything new to the table.

PB67

Amazing! A rat study prompting humans to possibly do similar tests on themselves! Crazy! I wonder if that was their intent?

The intent of the researchers? Probably.

The intent of the alarmist hack that wrote the article? Doubtful.

Jorra

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Better, but still problematic. Not only is the sample size small, the trial only lasted 7 days.
It has already been well-established that the adaptation to a ketogenic diet takes longer than 7 days, and up to 3-4 weeks, so I fail to see how this study brings anything new to the table.

Yea, the purpose of this study was to see the short-term effects. However, sensationalizing these short term effects may prevent people from starting a diet they could adapt to and gain benefit from.

OP: we're having a discussion now, your further complaining about the original comments are the only thing derailing us now.

hamncheese67

Did you know that if you lodge a grape down a rat's throat, it could choke and die? So it's possible that grapes can be harmful.

Rilke

Did you know that if you lodge a grape down a rat's throat, it could choke and die? So it's possible that grapes can be harmful.

Hahaha!