My understanding was that when humans learned to cook, this essentially allowed us to outsource our digestion to fire, use fewer calories digesting, and thus dramatically increase the net number of calories we got from eating (or something like that), and that this energy jackpot played a big role in our evolution of larger brains.
Anyway, interesting post. RomeoStevens suggested consuming foods high in glucose the other day when I was complaining about being tired, and that actually seemed to work pretty well. So I’m eager to hear about research along these lines. Maybe someone could design a device that monitors your bloodstream for nutrients and injects new ones in order to optimize nutrient ratios or a new food that contains nutrients, hormones, etc. in exactly the ratio your brain needs them?
suggested consuming foods high in glucose the other day when I was complaining about being tired, and that actually seemed to work pretty well.
If you’re getting hypoglycemic, sugar will certainly help and sugar highs are real. However I don’t think this is a good idea long-term as there is considerable amount of evidence that eating a lot of refined carbs tends to lead to a variety of unpleasant diseases, most prominently the metabolic syndrome.
Perhaps sugar and glucose only cause problems in those who can’t metabolize it effectively, for other reasons (or when consumed in excess of your capacity to metabolize them). I used to think high glucose intake caused metabolic syndrome but I can’t reconcile that with the existence of large groups of people (Kitavans, fruitarianism, etc.) that have very high carb diets and don’t develop metabolic syndrome.
In mice, high sugar diets don’t cause metabolic problems or liver damage unless also coupled with high polyunsaturated fat intake. Populations of people with high carbohydrate diets and no metabolic syndrome seem to have very low polyunsaturated fat intake. Could carb restriction protect against the symptoms of metabolic disease, without addressing the underlying cause?
Fructose seems to increase T3 production in the liver, which could be a mechanism behind the sugar high. I am not sure if this is “good” or “bad.”
Perhaps sugar and glucose only cause problems in those who can’t metabolize it effectively
What do you mean by “metabolize effectively”? People who have problems with metabolizing glucose are usually known as “dead” and things like insulin resistance are a problem with signalling, not a problem with cells’ aerobic metabolism.
I used to think high glucose intake caused metabolic syndrome but I can’t reconcile that with the existence of large groups of people (Kitavans, fruitarianism, etc.) that have very high carb diets and don’t develop metabolic syndrome.
The metabolic syndrome is clearly multi-factor, there is no single cause we can point to. I am not sure PUFAs (or fructose) are the magic ingredient either, and it looks quite likely that the amount of physical exercise plays a fairly major role in all this—but the whole thing is pretty messy at the moment. Sorting out all the causal connections leading to the metabolic syndrome is probably Nobel material :-/
There can be damage or defects in the mitochondria that inhibit it’s ability to respond to hormones, for example per-oxidation of cardiolipin. Cells don’t always die when they have a mitochondrial defect. An extreme example is cancer, where there is major damage to the mitochondria, but the cells continue to live via anaerobic fermentation (aka the Warburg Effect).
Some review articles that talk about these theories:
There can be damage or defects in the mitochondria that inhibit it’s ability to respond to hormones, for example per-oxidation of cardiolipin. Cells don’t always die when they have a mitochondrial defect.
Sure, but what’s the prevalence of this kind of problems? Sugar and/or glucose can cause problems in a significant chunk of population, maybe even the majority. Are you saying all these people have damaged mitochondria?
I need to learn more about this, I don’t have a strong belief. If I understand correctly, this is basically the idea behind the free radical theory of aging (FRTA). One interesting variant of that idea is in the article I linked above, which suggests that the focus should be on “mitochondrial membrane peroxidizability index” rather than antioxidant activity or free radical production.
It seems weird that sugar seems to cause problems in certain populations of people, but not others.
Plain sugar is sucrose which consists of equal number of glucose and fructose molecules. It is absorbed from your gut as glucose and fructose. Starch, by the way, is basically a polymer of glucose (technically, a polysaccharide) and is absorbed from your gut mostly as glucose, though your gut flora is an active participant in the process.
Dried apricots are largely sugar (53% by weight is sugars), carrots are mostly water with some fiber and a bit of starch, not much, and with hummus it depends, but it’s a mix of carbs, proteins, and fat.
It doesn’t make sense to call things good or bad without the context of the person’s diet. Certainly the average person could stand to eat less sugar. Some people are on very low carb diets though and could stand to eat a bit more.
Without going into personal recommendations which should be personal—the rules for an 8%-body-fat marathoner are different from the rules for a couch potato who is a potato both in activity levels and in shape—I still don’t think it’s a good idea to get into the habit of treading tiredness and low energy with sugary snacks.
It may have worked well in the preindustrial times when we had to run ten miles in the snow uphill both ways just to get to our shoes. But nowadays when there is a noticeable surplus of tasty sugar and a noticeable shortage of physical exertion, getting used to snacking on carbs for a boost of energy doesn’t sound wise to me.
I object to the framing. I suggested that someone who did not currently eat the recommended 5 servings of fruits to up their fruit intake. They did so and felt better. But we’ve already had this argument.
That was about fructose, this one is about glucose :-D
By the way, why do you consider the whole “recommended servings” things to be anything more than nonsense? As far as I know these recommendations are written by the agriculture and food industry lobby with the idea of shaping consumption preferences.
I only care about servings to the extent that they are used as the increments in studies on health. They are then used as recommendations because food packaging is sold in those units, making it easier on the end user. Most people don’t want to weigh their food.
My understanding was that when humans learned to cook, this essentially allowed us to outsource our digestion to fire, use fewer calories digesting, and thus dramatically increase the net number of calories we got from eating (or something like that), and that this energy jackpot played a big role in our evolution of larger brains.
Anyway, interesting post. RomeoStevens suggested consuming foods high in glucose the other day when I was complaining about being tired, and that actually seemed to work pretty well. So I’m eager to hear about research along these lines. Maybe someone could design a device that monitors your bloodstream for nutrients and injects new ones in order to optimize nutrient ratios or a new food that contains nutrients, hormones, etc. in exactly the ratio your brain needs them?
If you’re getting hypoglycemic, sugar will certainly help and sugar highs are real. However I don’t think this is a good idea long-term as there is considerable amount of evidence that eating a lot of refined carbs tends to lead to a variety of unpleasant diseases, most prominently the metabolic syndrome.
Perhaps sugar and glucose only cause problems in those who can’t metabolize it effectively, for other reasons (or when consumed in excess of your capacity to metabolize them). I used to think high glucose intake caused metabolic syndrome but I can’t reconcile that with the existence of large groups of people (Kitavans, fruitarianism, etc.) that have very high carb diets and don’t develop metabolic syndrome.
In mice, high sugar diets don’t cause metabolic problems or liver damage unless also coupled with high polyunsaturated fat intake. Populations of people with high carbohydrate diets and no metabolic syndrome seem to have very low polyunsaturated fat intake. Could carb restriction protect against the symptoms of metabolic disease, without addressing the underlying cause?
Fructose seems to increase T3 production in the liver, which could be a mechanism behind the sugar high. I am not sure if this is “good” or “bad.”
What do you mean by “metabolize effectively”? People who have problems with metabolizing glucose are usually known as “dead” and things like insulin resistance are a problem with signalling, not a problem with cells’ aerobic metabolism.
The metabolic syndrome is clearly multi-factor, there is no single cause we can point to. I am not sure PUFAs (or fructose) are the magic ingredient either, and it looks quite likely that the amount of physical exercise plays a fairly major role in all this—but the whole thing is pretty messy at the moment. Sorting out all the causal connections leading to the metabolic syndrome is probably Nobel material :-/
There can be damage or defects in the mitochondria that inhibit it’s ability to respond to hormones, for example per-oxidation of cardiolipin. Cells don’t always die when they have a mitochondrial defect. An extreme example is cancer, where there is major damage to the mitochondria, but the cells continue to live via anaerobic fermentation (aka the Warburg Effect).
Some review articles that talk about these theories:
Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics
Life and Death: Metabolic Rate, Membrane Composition, and Life Span of Animals
Role of cardiolipin peroxidation and Ca2+ in mitochondrial dysfunction and disease
Sure, but what’s the prevalence of this kind of problems? Sugar and/or glucose can cause problems in a significant chunk of population, maybe even the majority. Are you saying all these people have damaged mitochondria?
I need to learn more about this, I don’t have a strong belief. If I understand correctly, this is basically the idea behind the free radical theory of aging (FRTA). One interesting variant of that idea is in the article I linked above, which suggests that the focus should be on “mitochondrial membrane peroxidizability index” rather than antioxidant activity or free radical production.
It seems weird that sugar seems to cause problems in certain populations of people, but not others.
Glucose != sugar. Romeo recommended dried apricots and carrots w/ hummus.
Plain sugar is sucrose which consists of equal number of glucose and fructose molecules. It is absorbed from your gut as glucose and fructose. Starch, by the way, is basically a polymer of glucose (technically, a polysaccharide) and is absorbed from your gut mostly as glucose, though your gut flora is an active participant in the process.
Dried apricots are largely sugar (53% by weight is sugars), carrots are mostly water with some fiber and a bit of starch, not much, and with hummus it depends, but it’s a mix of carbs, proteins, and fat.
It doesn’t make sense to call things good or bad without the context of the person’s diet. Certainly the average person could stand to eat less sugar. Some people are on very low carb diets though and could stand to eat a bit more.
Although I don’t know the context of your original recommendation, using sugar rushes as pick-me-uppers really doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
Snacking on fruits doesn’t induce sugar rushes unless you have a completely messed up insulin response.
Without going into personal recommendations which should be personal—the rules for an 8%-body-fat marathoner are different from the rules for a couch potato who is a potato both in activity levels and in shape—I still don’t think it’s a good idea to get into the habit of treading tiredness and low energy with sugary snacks.
It may have worked well in the preindustrial times when we had to run ten miles in the snow uphill both ways just to get to our shoes. But nowadays when there is a noticeable surplus of tasty sugar and a noticeable shortage of physical exertion, getting used to snacking on carbs for a boost of energy doesn’t sound wise to me.
I object to the framing. I suggested that someone who did not currently eat the recommended 5 servings of fruits to up their fruit intake. They did so and felt better. But we’ve already had this argument.
That was about fructose, this one is about glucose :-D
By the way, why do you consider the whole “recommended servings” things to be anything more than nonsense? As far as I know these recommendations are written by the agriculture and food industry lobby with the idea of shaping consumption preferences.
I only care about servings to the extent that they are used as the increments in studies on health. They are then used as recommendations because food packaging is sold in those units, making it easier on the end user. Most people don’t want to weigh their food.
Huh? Fruits and vegetables are sold in serving-size units..? What are you talking about?
Fruit comes in discrete units. It’s generally advisable to give people an idea what 5 servings per day looks like.
I agree if you’re thinking of apples or oranges, but ADBOC if you mean all fruit, including cherries or watermelons.