16 ms·
High refined sugar intake linked to a 23% higher risk of mental disorders
- Xeoncross 9y ago> "The report, published today in Scientific Reports used data from the Whitehall II cohort and analysed the sugar intake from sweet food and beverages and occurrence of common mental disorders in over 5000 men and over 2000 women for a period of 22 years between 1983 and 2013" I don't eat refined sugar because it is harmful. However, I wonder how the study accounted for the MANY changes that took place between 1983 and 2013. Sugar consumption has gone up, so has US inflation, less overall exercise, social media consumption, and a variety of other possible negative factors.
- louthy 9y ago> so has US inflation, less overall exercise, social media consumption, and a variety of other possible negative factors. Quite. And job security for many has plummeted significantly. Which I would expect to be a major trigger for mental disorders.
- wutbrodo 9y agoI don't understand this complaint. The study didn't look at a total rise in sugar consumption and a total rise in mental disorders over this period and just lazily guess that they were linked. The claim is that, within the sample, those who consumed more sugar were more likely to have mental disorders, "independent of health behaviours, socio-demographic and diet-related factors, adiposity and other diseases".
- nessup 9y agoMen only. Quoting the article: > The study found no link between sugar intake and new mood disorders in women and it is unclear why. This, plus the fact that many socio-economic realities changed over the course of the study, makes it hard to believe there aren't other confounders at play here.
- rybosome 9y agoI'm curious if this includes unprocessed fructose, glucose, lactose, etc. I eat quite a bit of fruit, but my refined sugar intake is much lower than it used to be due to making an effort to cut sugary things out of my life (unless eaten with intention).
- jey 9y agoHeuristically, eating actual fruit (like a normal healthy primate) seems to be fine, but our metabolism isn't as ready for the man-made sweetened foods (e.g. juice, cake, bread, soda, etc).
- dahoramanodoceu 9y agoThe more refined the source the faster it enters your bloodstream. That said, You should eat the fruit rather than consuming a juice. At any rate the glucose uptake is generally lower with fruits, even if juiced (but whole fruits with fiber still intact are best). The rate at which simple sugars enter the blood is considered one of the primary problems, as this leads to a number of metabolic problems and higher generalized oxidation of body tissue. Unlike added sugars fruits also have antioxidants and a number of other compounds and nutrients that do a swell job at negating these effects and even providing benefits (i suppose because a lot of fruit has surplus of Anti-Oxidant to Sugar Burn.
- icanhackit 9y ago> At any rate the glucose uptake is generally lower with fruits, even if juiced Fruit is typically a source of fructose, which uses a different metabolic pathway to glucose. Fructose is processed via the liver and converted into glycogen for energy storage. That said, juice is definitely worse than whole fruit as you typically use several serves of fruit for a single serve of juice. Rarely would anyone eat 3-5 whole oranges in a single sitting. The sugars in a serve of fruit are also locked in a cellulose matrix (fibre) which limits the rate of release, whereas juice is effectively predigested food lacking the slow-release mechanism of the fibre. You're going to be loading your liver with an unnatural amount of sugar, not unlike pouring a jar of honey down your gullet. It's a reason you should avoid mixing strong alcohol and juice or fructose-heavy soft drinks - you're hitting your liver with both barrels. Add paracetamol to the mix, which in even relatively low doses is toxic to the liver, to cure the morning headache and you're going to feel very unwell.
- kolinko 9y agoIt might be just as well that increased sugar intake is caused by mental disorders, as a form of self-medication. In my case for example, my sugar consumption fell drastically since I received ADHD medications. It turns out I was using sugar as a stimulant/calming agent for years, and no doctor properly figured it out.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wutbrodo 9y agoFrom the beginning of the article... > Although previous studies have found an increased risk of depression with higher consumption of added sugars, none examined the role of ‘reverse causation’. If people with anxiety and/or depression tended to consume more sugary foods and drinks, this could be the real reason why a link between sugar intake and poorer mental health is observed. Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar. As a result, the evidence that mental health is adversely affected by a high sugar intake is strengthened.
- QuercusMax 9y agoMental disorders are also correlated with sleep problems; sleep-deprived brains often crave sugar. This might also be another avenue for causation.
- boombip 9y ago> This might also be another avenue for causation. If people with mental disorders were more sleep-deprived and then consumed more sugar, wouldn't that also show up in the data? > Although the study looked for this link, it was not seen in the data: men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar. A causal A > B > C link would look similar (data-wise) to a A > C link.
- 9y ago
- keenerd 9y agoConversion to dumb american: 16 teaspoons of sugar per day was considered high. (If you don't enjoy cooking from scratch, try a mass-based recipe instead of a traditional volume-based recipe. It is so much faster and more convenient.)
- joshuas 9y agoThanks, all my teaspoons are stainless steel. I only have 8 though, so it probably evens out.
- scottLobster 9y agoRelated: Ketogenic Diets are used to treat medication-resistant epileptic seizures. http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy/dietary-therapies/ketogenic-diet http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy... There's also substantial evidence that the ketogenic diet is useful for treating other mental disorders: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat...
- surrey-fringe 9y agoAnimal products are bad for you. Not me though, I'm just trying to reduce demand.
- tzamora 9y agoI guess you are talking processed, adultered meat. If you have normal organic meat there is no problem at all. Likely we have been eating meat from the beginning of our existance. The problem is that the anti meat lobby like peta or sugar-bread industry want us to buy more of their products. Keto is a really good healthy diet its just that requires that you educate yourself and also is really hard to mantain because we are really very addicted to bread, flour and sugar.
- cageface 9y agoEven organic meat and fish has a lot of downsides. Animal fat and protein is not good for us. Check the videos at nutritionfacts.org for details.
- shirro 9y agonurtitionfacts.org is run by Michael Greger who is a vegan animal welfare crusader. Many of the articles have a factual basis but there is cherry picking to promote animal free diets so it is not an unbiased source.
- acchow 9y agoHow much longer until we stop pretending that population correlation studies is science?
- ekidd 9y agoThis sounds like a snarky remark, but it does have a point. Many large-scale nutrition studies rely on surveying thousands of people about their diet and lifestyles. Unfortunately, this works best for detecting very dramatic health effects, like the link between smoking and lung cancer. For smaller health effects, any meaningful signal in the data can be overwhelmed by other correlations. One famous example is hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women: https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/EBM_Study_Bias_e.htm https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/EBM_Study_Bias_e.htm
- nessup 9y agoWhile I am all for reducing sugar consumption, this one sentence lead me to completely distrust this paper: > The study found no link between sugar intake and new mood disorders in women and it is unclear why. More research is needed to test the sugar-depression effect in large population samples. There is literally no further comment on why this effect was not observed in women. Why? To me, this means it's possible that some confounder is at play here. I'm also with Xeoncross (another commenter here) who observed that this study took place from 1983 to 2013. Quoting him: > Sugar consumption has gone up, so has US inflation, less overall exercise, social media consumption, and a variety of other possible negative factors. So you're telling me that the link was not observable in women, AND that many social/economic realities changed in the course of the study, and we're supposed to believe there was little room left for confounders? This reeks.
- stevenwoo 9y agoIIRC the study that led to people carbo loading for endurance events was first only done with males and that follow up studies found no effect in women. So we don't know the reason for the gender response difference but it exists. For a separate semi tangential on gender differences, the presence of testosterone in males appears to increase the red blood cell count and oxygen carrying ability slightly (versus testosterone deficient or females who doped in a prior era without testing versus clean females) so there is definite precedent for there being a difference in response to diet/ability due to gender/gender specific hormones.
- nessup 9y agoI'm with you there -- it's possible there could be some gender difference and it could be environmental/genetic/etc. But the author spent no more than a single sentence on what is a very glaring issue. That's sketch.
- Regist 9y agoSeems like a pretty worthless study that indicates almost nothing. Lazy journalists, who are honestly worse than worthless, pick these lame correlation studies up and propegate weird misconceptions about increasing "risk factors". It's intellectually dishonest to even call the correlation increased "risk" when the cause of the link cannot be feasibly confirmed. The sane assumption from this study is that depression or addiction prone people are more likely to look for satisfaction in glutany. Unfortunately that doesn't generate as much fear/ad rev.
- skylark 9y agoI think you worded it a bit strongly, but I tend to agree with you. Science: Aspartame consumption is correlated with weight gain. Journalists: Does aspartame cause weight gain? Readers: Aspartame causes weight gain. I know it's up to the readers to draw the correct conclusions, but it feels a little bit dishonest for journalists to "let the cards fall where they may" so to speak.
- Regist 9y agoYou're right my comment was a bit brusque. By "worse than worthless" I meant actively detrimental to the public's knowledge. Personaly I'm just getting a bit tired of sloppy journalism causing me to waste time with these bait pieces. IMO journalists are the ones who are supposed to be wading through the crap to find me the valuable information instead of shoveling the crap onto me.
- GirlsCanCode 9y agoObesity, too, is correlated.
- c3534l 9y agoCan someone explain to me how you can find that people with mental disorders are no more likely to consume high sugar than people without, but also find that people with high sugar intake are more likely to develop mental disorders?