3 ms·

Interesting, but a later paper that cites this one did not get the same result. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 https://www.nature.com/articl

by sp332 6y ago

Interesting, but a later paper that cites this one did not get the same result. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6

retypepassword 6y ago
I dunno. I’ve only read the abstract [1], but I feel like the second paper was like, “glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” And the first paper was just like, “glucose = bad” That is, the earlier paper noticed that consuming glucose/sucrose-containing beverages reduced cognitive performance compared to consuming beverages with no glucose, and the later paper was trying to figure out why. And to figure out why, the second paper compared glucose and isomaltulose (glucose-containing saccharides with different glycemic responses) to see whether a sugar’s predicted glycemic response could account for the differences in cognitive performance noticed in the earlier study between beverages with glucose and those without. [1] This second paper’s abstract doesn’t mention glucose vs. no glucose’s effects on cognitive performance like the earlier paper does.
- henearkr 6y ago
  I think you got it mixed up, because the second paper is not > "glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” but rather: “glucose = bad because of perceived sweetness? Nope!” There are sweeteners that do not activate insulin (like stevia). I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin). Their case in the paper is that fructose is not "bad" (like glucose is) despite of being very sweet-tasting.
  - retypepassword 6y ago
    We might be referring to different “second” papers :) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938417304328 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319... is about about perceived sweetness https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)
    - henearkr 6y ago
      Oops, my bad! :(
  - scns 6y ago
    Fructose might not have an effect on cognitive performance. It is still bad for you, since its effect on the body is similar to ethanol. The liver will transform it into fat, high fructose consumption will net you a fatty liver.
  - phonypc 6y ago
    >I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin). Pretty much any large, digestible carbohydrate. Starch being the prime example.

by sp332 6y ago

Interesting, but a later paper that cites this one did not get the same result. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6

retypepassword 6y ago

I dunno. I’ve only read the abstract [1], but I feel like the second paper was like, “glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” And the first paper was just like, “glucose = bad” That is, the earlier paper noticed that consuming glucose/sucrose-containing beverages reduced cognitive performance compared to consuming beverages with no glucose, and the later paper was trying to figure out why. And to figure out why, the second paper compared glucose and isomaltulose (glucose-containing saccharides with different glycemic responses) to see whether a sugar’s predicted glycemic response could account for the differences in cognitive performance noticed in the earlier study between beverages with glucose and those without. [1] This second paper’s abstract doesn’t mention glucose vs. no glucose’s effects on cognitive performance like the earlier paper does.

henearkr 6y ago
I think you got it mixed up, because the second paper is not > "glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” but rather: “glucose = bad because of perceived sweetness? Nope!” There are sweeteners that do not activate insulin (like stevia). I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin). Their case in the paper is that fructose is not "bad" (like glucose is) despite of being very sweet-tasting.
- retypepassword 6y ago
  We might be referring to different “second” papers :) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938417304328 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319... is about about perceived sweetness https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Oops, my bad! :(
- scns 6y ago
  Fructose might not have an effect on cognitive performance. It is still bad for you, since its effect on the body is similar to ethanol. The liver will transform it into fat, high fructose consumption will net you a fatty liver.
- phonypc 6y ago
  >I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin). Pretty much any large, digestible carbohydrate. Starch being the prime example.