Slashdot Mirror
Fatty Foods Affect Memory and Exercise Performance
Death Metal writes "Eating fatty food appears to take an almost immediate toll on both short-term memory and exercise performance, according to new research on rats and people. Other studies have suggested that that long-term consumption of a high-fat diet is associated with weight gain, heart disease and declines in cognitive function. But the new research shows how indulging in fatty foods over the course of a few days can affect the brain and body long before the extra pounds show up."
Anecdotal evidence everyone is probably familiar with seems to confirm this. When you're at the office all day and decide to eat a pizza for lunch it seems very obvious that you're at least half way out of commission for the rest of the day. I had always assumed it was simply because one gets so stuffed from pizza, but apparently the high fat content played a big role too.
... although an occasional blunder feels SO good! Not while working though, this study clearly showed that.
Needless to say, I'm sticking to my low-fat diet with even more fervor henceforth
... erm, i forgot.
Must be early onset alzheimers
Eating unhealthy foods causes health problems. News at 11. Try the new octo cheese burger while you're waiting.
On top of all that fatty food leaves you feeling bloated.
That is why for my short-term memory loss and performance hit in physical activities I prefer marijuana.
Hmmm, what was I going to say? Oh well, back to eating.
Switching your intake to a low-carb-high-fat diet involves a grace period a week or so. This is to allow the body to "reshape" itself to use the fat as an energy source instead of the previous intake of carbonhydrates.
Symptoms of switching away from carbs to fat include; fatigue, dizzyness, high irritability and headache.
"After only a few days on the high-fat diet, the rats performed 30 percent worse on the treadmill. After five days of testing, the treadmill performance of the rats eating fatty foods had declined by half."
Any bells? So, nothing previously unknown to the lowcarbers here.
Personally, I tried the lowcarb-highfat diet about half a year ago, and actually did lose a few kilos, but the most interesting change for me was that I felt more awake, my stomach stopped producing funny amounts of gas, and never ever felt hungry. I got tired of it after a while though - I kinda missed the occasional potato and pasta - so I've taken back the lost kilos again. These days I just don't shun fat and avoid sugary stuff. Both me and my previously upset stomach feels great now.
More fat is bad rubbish. I am supposed to believe that eating saturated fat is bad but of course eating lots of carbs is good. Of course the first thing the body does to excess carbs is to convert them to saturated fat in the liver. Why not just eat fat directly and give the liver a break, whilst maintaining my insulin sensitivity? If any one still believes the lipid hypothesis I suggest you log onto Hyperlipid and spend some time reading.
However how does it compare when you drop almost all carbohydrates and bring your body into ketosis? I always feel really energetic then, after "fat" food too. This doesn't include such fatty food than pizza and deep fried fries, but high-fat and high-protein meat, fish, ground beef and so on. Pizza and such is completely different, I think it comes from when you mix fat and carbohydrates (either "good" or "bad" ones) together.
Also my stomach feels a lot better when eating high-fat/protein food with next to nothing carbs. I also get much more work done that way when I feel great after eating too.
So definitely there is differences in body when eating fat together with carbs, and when eating fat but without carbs.
No-one seems to have spotted the fact that the rats who were being fed fatty food may have had less motivation for completing the maze, given that the reward was more food. Am I missing something or is this entire study invalid?
because while I can chow down on an ounce, usually more, of almonds which are high in fat it does not "seem" to affect me as much as if I am eating foods the pizza you mentioned.
I am curious what the break down is. As in, which fats are good/bad for the tests they performed. Now I will state in my case I bloat less from fatty foods compared to carb laden food and I have far less trouble with my sugar levels as well. I think we are missing some key information from this article.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And then later, some of the rats had their diet changed to a high-fat diet and others kept the same diet as before. But perhaps they just performed worse because the diet differed from what they were used to? To make a fair experiment there should also be a group of rats who were fed on a high-fat diet for two months during training, and then switched to low-fat for tests. Perhaps their performance would worsen too.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I'm assuming these are saturated or trans-fats, which are known to cause disease and are already suspected to contribute to neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease, rather than polyunsaturated fats are supposedly good for you. Neither TFA nor the study abstract indicate what they actually fed the rats.
It's very surprising that these scientists don't read basic articles in their field.
Anyone who read at least one article at this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index knows that eating 50% fat, 50% carbohydrates will make your insulin spike like hell, much worse than just eating all that fat and carbs but separately separated by 2-3 hours.
Insulin spike will cause direct hit on your glucose levels to the point of hypoglycemia, hence the fatigue and slow brain + longterm increased body fat. As a result you're hungry very fast and still have no energy.
Just eat them separately.
Or take more powerful approach with carb cycle diet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carb_cycling
It works. I feel great all the time. Was not the case on Atkin's or any other food plan I ever been on (was obese since childhood, now not).
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
.. all the participants were rats.
Make what you will of how that applies to Americans...
(Although applying the results of animal studies to humans is always best done with caution.)
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
I'm always amused when this kind of research comes out, talking about how fats are bad for you. Its much more complex than that. You really should be measure total calorie amount not just fat content. Too many calories is bad full stop. As other posters have mentioned the lack of energy is probably only a short term effect of switching to fat as a fuel source. I've switched over to a high fat/low carb diet (F50/P30/C20) and have no issues with lethargy or lack of concentration. I've got no problems with day to day programming tasks and haven't encountered any strength or endurance degradation in the gym.
I'm of the option that fat - esp saturated fat - is a much heather macro nutrient that carbs. The only carbs that the human digestive system can process in a raw state is sugar (think fruit), starch can be converted to sugar also but most of the other so called healthy carb sources needs processing before humans can consume them. Potatoes have to be cooked (try eating raw potatoes and see what happens), as does rice, wheat and grains have to be ground down into a powder. Fat on the other hand can be eaten straight off the animal. Humans aren't evolved to eat significant amounts of carbs.
I can't think of anything witty right now
Polyunsaturated fats - Good
monounsaturated fat - Good
Staturated fats - Bad
Trans-fats - Very Bad
Almonds mostly contain monounsaturated fat which can lower your cholesterol ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
on (takes long drag) ... on...what was that again? Fatty foods, right, right...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
This is typical of the sorts of studies that try to support the low-fat hypothesis. In this case, the problem is that they didn't give sufficient time to adjust to the new diet. It appears that the rats were only given 4 days to adjust to the high-fat diet, compared with weeks on the low-fat diet. The problem is that when the body switches from burning carbohydrates to fats, the fuel the brain uses changes from glucose to ketone bodies. As anyone who has tried a low-carb diet can tell you, for the first several days (a week or two for some people--no idea what it would be for rats) you feel rather dull and drained for several days. Then one day the "brain fairy" arrives and you have more energy, physically and mentally, than you've had in years.
I spent years as a near-vegetarian on a very low-fat diet and what it got me was literally 200 lbs. overweight and type 2 diabetes. I've now lost 46 lbs. on a low carb diet getting about 60% of my calories from FAT, my type 2 diabetes is basically cured, and I feel better than I've felt in at least ten years. My lipid profile has also improved dramatically.
Every study done thus far looking at low-carb vs. low-fat has shown that low-fat is a failure (read the studies, not just the blurbs or the conclusions). Think about it... over the past 20 years, Americans have reduced their fat intake by 25% and type 2 diabetes has increased by 1000%, heart disease has become MORE prevalent, strokes have become MORE prevalent. The Low Fat experiment is a failure. And make sure to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I already knew that there was a link between consuming high quantities of fatty foods and prevalence of low intelligence, but I thought that was because the kind of lard-arsed troglodyte who shovels burgers, fries, and extra large pizzas down their excessively jowled chins do so in front of the television.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
References?
I read articles about nutrition and cognition some time ago. In general high energy expenditure and low energy intake have about the same effect (however rather long-term as far as I recall). "Exercise and the brain: something to chew on" listed this food as potentially beneficial (though effects are not well-studied yet):
- omega-3 fatty acid (e.g. fish oil),
- some teas,
- fruits,
- folate (vitamin B9),
- spices, and
- other vitamins.
In another article, "Impact of Energy Intake and Expenditure on Neuronal Plasticity", I found that saturated fats and cholesterol increase the risk of cognitive decline.
In the 80's, the 'health food' movement was, for the most part, focused on 'low fat' diets. We've since learned that not all fats are created equal; some (your almonds for example) are incredibly beneficial to the body, actually among the most nutritious things you can consume (some other foods that come to mind are avacados and flax seeds, which are incredible healthy [i]because[/i] of their fat).
Obviously in addition to fats we also need proteins, vitamins, minerals... but what we DON'T need are the grains (in general; refined flour in particular), dairy and low-grade cooking oils (I'm going to leave the whole vegetarian thing for another day)... and you've experienced first hand what inundating your system with that shit will do to you. The fact of the matter is that we humans just began eating grains and dairy products yesterday, in evolutionary terms, and our bodies don't have a fucking clue what to do with them (there's evidence that letting some of these products be fermented by beneficial bacteria - yogurt, tempeh in the case of soy - allows our systems to process them better).
I've developed a simple method for determining whether or not I think something might be appropriate for me (i.e. let me feel and perform my best): I try to picture a chimp or gorilla chowing down on it in the wild; if I can't, I assume it's probably not the best thing for me to eat. As for whether or not my willpower allows me to avoid eating it... that tends to vary. ;)
That's a good point. More than once, early research and nutritional advice on "fats" has been shaded by later research which distinguishes between kinds of fats. The heart dangers of "fat" turned out to be for saturated fats. Then we decided that trans fats, which are unsaturated, are even worse. Then we decided that conjugated linoleic acid, is good, and that's a trans fat.
I suspect that fats are the one nutrient where the "organic" movement got it right. Foods naturally high in fat are probably better than foods manipulated to increase their fat content. Free range beef is not only leaner than feedlot beef, it has more of the omega 3 fatty acids that we associate with fish; fats that seem to have heart, blood pressure and possibly cognitive benefits. Fats are as different from each other as a poodle from a pit bull.
So the research, while important, isn't enough to make any kind of dietary adjustments that haven't been warranted by prior research. It seems almost certain that if it can be replicated, it will not be replicated with all kinds of fats.
Additionally, I see a flaw in the methodology -- as reported of course. We can't trust the media to get it right. The researcher was performed on rats who were rewarded by food for performing tasks. Unless the researchers controlled for the greater satiety value of fat, you'd expect the fat fed rats to perform less well. You could get the same results by testing rats who had just eaten versus ones that had been fasting for a short time.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Among all the other flaws with this study, I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out that this study was performed with rats who have a vastly different diet than humans. Freshly hunted meat certainly is not a primary portion of a rat's diet, whereas historically speaking, it is for humans.
is like punching your pancreas: it spikes sugars in the blood, abusing your insulin making mechanisms
a high protein diet
can destroy your kidneys, put you in ketoacidosis, etc., etc., and other such nonsense scare tactics
did you know water can KILL you!?
look: eat carbs: complex unprocessed grains, so your blood sugars rise and fall slowly
eat protein: good sources like fish and egg that have biotin and omega-3s for brain health
and eat fat: good fats like olive oil. you actually want fats in your bloodstream, that's what hdl is. ldl deposits plauqes, hdl sweeps them up
so what do you do about the food you eat? you eat wholesome complex little processed foods, you eat them in moderation, and you get exercise
that's it, that's the magic
for those of you slurping down mountain dew at 3 am and eating bacon cheeseburgers all day: you're taking years off your life. which might be fine with you. in which case, when you read articles like this, toast a cheer your devil-may-care lack of interest in taking care of yourself, and congratualtions on less women being interested in you and your health problems in your 30s and 40s
life is short, take care of your body. it hardly means much now, but you will hate yourself in your 60s if you treat your body so badly. or, you could feel like you are in your 30s when you are in your 60s. its up to you. no pain (temporary, addiction like withdrawal from unhealthy foods now), no gain (a longer, richer life)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it