5 ms·

This ignores all research already done on the brain and nutrition, and also common sense. Its pretty well understood that the brain runs on glucose. Now of co

This ignores all research already done on the brain and nutrition, and also common sense. Its pretty well understood that the brain runs on glucose. Now of course if you eat too much or eat shitty food, you're going to have an insulin spike and sugar crash, and if you're eating too much you probably have other health problems that aren't helping. Healthy eating, good body weight, and regular exercise sharpens the brain. Edit: The number of people jumping on board with this "theory" in his blog comments makes me despair for the state of nutrition and health education. Learn you a physiology: http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html

napierzaza 16y ago
I'll probably be voted down for this, but Scott Adams is constantly making unfounded and usually wrong statements on his blog. He tries to push out big ideas on his blog and usually overreaches. But he has a big following.
- vidar 16y ago
  I am pretty sure he is aware of this.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  Adams is a great observer and he has great talent of bringing things to attention of the rest of the world. His analysis may be lacking. Well, that part is cheap, you may do it yourself. Edit: i didn't mean that he is unable to analyze. I meant that analysis, whatever he presents, if any, isn't the primary thing in his blogs, and isn't really there for the analysis purposes per.se. It is more of unspecified association lines thrown in to hyperbolise the possibility of real and interesting connections between the things and to trigger you to look for them yourself.
- mrtron 16y ago
  I found the blog post unique and an interesting perspective from someone sharing their honest thoughts. There is no hidden motive here, he is just sharing an observation he has. Everyone has crazy ideas that are often unfounded and incorrect - I find it interesting to see them shared. What point are you trying to make with your comment? Yes, he is making an unfounded and probably wrong statement. He readily admits this in the post. What is the problem?
- smithbits 16y ago
  Has anyone got a convenient phrase for this style of blogging? I love having these kinds of BS sessions with my friends, propounding crack-pot theories and generally playing fast and loose with the facts, but it often bugs me when I see it in a blog post. There's absolutely no reason it should bug me, blogging is whatever the blogger wants it to be, but I think if I had a name for it I could quickly go "Oh, this is just a [blank] post" and not feel the need to take it seriously. Sort of like the way Godwin's law helps you filter the worst comment threads into /dev/null. I bet it would be all kinds of fun to have dinner with Scott Adams, I just don't want to mentally peer review his after-dinner conversation.
  - dgallagher 16y ago
    I'll throw this one out there: "Barstool Blogging" It's like conversations you have with some random person in the barstool section of a bar. Subject matter varies, but generally it ends with you both talking like "experts" about some random subject neither of you really knows much about, besides maybe a few "factoids" here and there.
- amitvjtimub 16y ago
  "I'll probably be voted down for this but .." Best way to polarize people. When you say that "I might get down-voted", people agreeing with you are forced to up-vote. Edit : Wording
- Browserguy2000 16y ago
  Why do you assume that he's the one who is wrong? Is that the conclusion you arrived at with your vast and infallible brain? By the way, Adams would have said, "continuously making" and not "constantly making." Your grammar error doesn't prove that you're the one who is "usually wrong," but it's the only data point I have. Just sayin'.
unignorant 16y ago
> Its pretty well understood that the brain runs on glucose Actually, most of the brain's energy needs can also be met with ketone bodies, which come from fat (either stored or dietary). So it's possible that he may be running on ketones in the morning, after a night's fast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Diet That said, I agree with you that his theory is based almost entirely on speculation, and should be treated as such.
- anon-e-moose 16y ago
  Farther down in that diet you can see that its not considered healthy as a general practice: "The ketogenic diet is not a benign, holistic or natural treatment for epilepsy; as with any serious medical therapy, there may be complications." "Long-term use of the ketogenic diet in children increases the risk of retarded growth, bone fractures, and kidney stones. " In other words, it does not seem that the body should be run this way long term.
  - icegreentea 16y ago
    Indeed. In fact, this was the whole deal with the Atkin's diet (remember that??) a while ago. Zero carbs, but craploads of protein and fat will force the body into long term ketone usage. Basically, your body runs on glucose. Everything else is a stop gap for you to get more glucose.
    - Evgeny 16y ago
      Basically, your body runs on glucose. Everything else is a stop gap for you to get more glucose. But don't forget that the body can make quite a lot of the glucose using a process called gluconeogenesis. And substances like amino acids, glycerol or products of fatty acid oxidation are used as precursors. So, in essence - yes, it runs on glucose, but glucose does not necessarily come from dietary carbohydrates.
  - robchez 16y ago
    I believe that study of the diet was also severely caloric restrictive, and the food the kids were given were vegetable franken-oils etc. You can go on a ketogenic diet and eat plenty of healthy fats and some vegetable produce.
fharper1961 16y ago
Adams' theory on this may be completely wrong. But I completely agree with his observations. On a an empty stomach I'll be alert and loaded with energy. After a carb laden lunch it'll be nap time.
- anon-e-moose 16y ago
  You make a good case for trying a lunch that isn't (simple) carb laden then. =)
Evgeny 16y ago
Learn you a physiology: http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html I searched this page for "gluconeogenesis" but did not find it. So basically they completely ignore the fact that the body can produce glucose from amino acids, products of fatty acid oxidation etc? Edit: Also, the brain only needs a certain amount of glucose - somewhere in the 30-60g per day area. And if the blood sugar is low, the brain will have priority uptaking glucose from blood. So yes, it needs glucose, but one does not need to consume half of his calories or more from carbs - a mere 100g per day or even less would probably be enough.
- robchez 16y ago
  Exactly right. 100g (or about 400 calories) should be the upper limit of your carbohydrate consumption. Your body will run fine on it.
terra_t 16y ago
Let's put it this way. If people wanted something naturally, the government and industry wouldn't have to run ads incessantly promoting it. Personally, I've made the discovery that breakfast is the only meal of the day I can skip. By the morning, my body is adapted to running off my stored energy reserves and it's not screaming at me that I need to eat. The fact that so many authorities are constantly screaming "eat breakfast", "eat breakfast" suggests to me that there's a hidden agenda to push breakfast foods, just like the U.S.D.A tries to push cheese on people.
- anon-e-moose 16y ago
  I must not consume enough advertising, as I haven't noticed this campaign =P I personally tend to have trail mix and a low calorie sports drink for breakfast, but I'm weird like that.
dgallagher 16y ago
Edit: The number of people jumping on board with this "theory" in his blog comments makes me despair for the state of nutrition and health education. Most people on the internet have no idea what they're taking about when it comes to food, nutrition, and diets. The same applies to medical advice. Many people read one thing and repeat it elsewhere, which is an issue if the source was incorrect. Also people love talking about their personal experiences. That's a problem seeing as it's not scientific (no control experiment, only one individual involved, etc...). A big part of this is that the nutritional industry is not regulated by any body, such as the FDA. You end up with lots of products and advice that adds up to little more than snake oil. Hence fad diets. What's the best advice to take? That from a doctor, dietitian, or nutritionist. Not some yahoo on the internet.
- Evgeny 16y ago
  What's the best advice to take? That from a doctor, dietitian, or nutritionist. Not some yahoo on the internet. Well, that's a good advice in theory, but did you notice how many doctors, dietitians and nutritionists have contradicting points of view?
  - dgallagher 16y ago
    Good point. I'm not sure how many do, but it does happen. I'd love to see data regarding this (e.g. how widespread is it?). Most doctors are essentially statisticians doing something like this: 1) Formulate a list of patient symptoms, ensuring credibility (e.g. are you lying/hiding/unaware-of something?). 2) Match those up with whatever diagnosis is statistically most likely. 3) Take "medicine X" and see what happens. 4) Cured? If not, go to step 2, repeat. Step 2 can be subjective, especially if there are several likely causes. This can lead to different doctors giving different diagnosis. The more times a doctor has seen the same problem, the more likely he/she will be correct the first time. Specialists come in handy here, gathering lots of experience regarding only specific conditions. For rare diseases, hard to diagnose, or those which aren't fully understood, repeating steps #2 - #4 is going to be more likely. This is where you'll find the greatest differences of "opinion". Step #1 can be repeated too if conditions change, of course. -------------------- Regarding dietitians/nutritionists, I'm not sure how they work. I'd imagine most of their disagreements come from studies contradicting one another. Results of studies can be questioned as well. There is some overlap with the statistical nature of doctors, though. Pinpointing food allergies/intolerances requires eliminating foods, one-at-a-time, from your diet and seeing what happens. I'm sure there are blood tests which can be done too. -------------------- In general though, it's not wise to discredit professionals just because they may disagree on certain things in their field. Unless the field is fully understood (I'm not aware of one which is!), you'll see that. Perhaps I should rephrase my advice: What's the best advice to take? That from "multiple" doctors, dietitians, or nutritionists. Not some yahoos on the internet. A second or third opinion reduces the likelihood of errors, while limiting received advice only from those educated and qualified to give it.
robchez 16y ago
This ignores all research already done on the brain and nutrition, and also common sense. On Common Sense: The human brain/body evolved to run on minimal glucose. Of the past 2million years of human evolution, only 10,000(from the agrarian revolution) of those years have we consumed excess carbohydrates in the forms of grains etc. Prior to that we were hunter gatherers and ate copious amounts of fat and meat with some vegetables (very low in carbohydrates) and every now and then fruits when they were in season. We also didnt have the luxury of eating as soon as we woke up, we had to hunt for our food, so missing breakfast would have happened more times than not. Again our bodies adapted to that. On All Research: As mentioned in comments below our bodies run perfectly well in states of ketosis. With ketone-bodies providing a much more efficient longer energy burn than carbohydrates. (Think of carbohydrates as kindling and ketones as the logs). Many athletes (particularly the CrossFit athletes) run on ketogenic diets and get better performance. Here are some papers/articles etc. I dug up quickly, but there are many more. [1] Your brain on ketones [2] Weston price Foundation, Lots of references [3] Ketogenic Diets and Physical Performance [4] The metabolic effects of low-carbohydrate diets and incorporation into a biochemistry course [5] Report picking apart the latest dietry guidelines. [1] http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/08/your-brain-on-ketones.html http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/08/your-brai... [2] http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/ [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.2005.494033022445/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403302... [5] http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fu... edit: formatting
- anon-e-moose 16y ago
  Very interesting. However, the time frame doesn't work in this example, those studies showed reduced performance for a week, and then back to baseline or slightly above.
  - robchez 16y ago
    You are right, for the first week or two, your do feel like crap. As your body switches to using ketone bodies as energy, you go through a real down phase. However when you come out, you feel great. Anecdotally (I hate anecdotes about health, but argh) I used to need to eat constantly to keep my energy up. I'd have breakfast, and by the time lunch came around I had to eat, or face passing out. These days I can skip breakfast (or just have a coffee with lots of cream) and that will keep my going until 2-3pm where I will have a lunch. You have no idea how liberating it is not to always be thinking about food.
Qz 16y ago
To be fair, the article starts off with: I have many crackpot theories. Today is no exception. Let's test today's theory, unscientifically.
beagle3 16y ago
> makes me despair for the state of nutrition and health education. You should despair for it. It's mostly a religion somehow connected to pseudoscience, and definitely a far cry from science. The two basic axiom that almost everything is founded on (weight diff = calories in - calories out; and prot=4Kc/g, carb=4Kc/g, fat=9Kc/g, alc=7Kc/g) are disproved every other day, in the sense that even though they do apply in many cases, there is at least one robust study in which they do not apply to every 4 in which they do apply. Something fundamental is being totally ignored. It's like saying "it is scientific that people go to work and school every day", and ignoring the existence of weekends.

napierzaza 16y ago

I'll probably be voted down for this, but Scott Adams is constantly making unfounded and usually wrong statements on his blog. He tries to push out big ideas on his blog and usually overreaches. But he has a big following.

vidar 16y ago
I am pretty sure he is aware of this.
VladRussian 16y ago
Adams is a great observer and he has great talent of bringing things to attention of the rest of the world. His analysis may be lacking. Well, that part is cheap, you may do it yourself. Edit: i didn't mean that he is unable to analyze. I meant that analysis, whatever he presents, if any, isn't the primary thing in his blogs, and isn't really there for the analysis purposes per.se. It is more of unspecified association lines thrown in to hyperbolise the possibility of real and interesting connections between the things and to trigger you to look for them yourself.
mrtron 16y ago
I found the blog post unique and an interesting perspective from someone sharing their honest thoughts. There is no hidden motive here, he is just sharing an observation he has. Everyone has crazy ideas that are often unfounded and incorrect - I find it interesting to see them shared. What point are you trying to make with your comment? Yes, he is making an unfounded and probably wrong statement. He readily admits this in the post. What is the problem?
smithbits 16y ago
Has anyone got a convenient phrase for this style of blogging? I love having these kinds of BS sessions with my friends, propounding crack-pot theories and generally playing fast and loose with the facts, but it often bugs me when I see it in a blog post. There's absolutely no reason it should bug me, blogging is whatever the blogger wants it to be, but I think if I had a name for it I could quickly go "Oh, this is just a [blank] post" and not feel the need to take it seriously. Sort of like the way Godwin's law helps you filter the worst comment threads into /dev/null. I bet it would be all kinds of fun to have dinner with Scott Adams, I just don't want to mentally peer review his after-dinner conversation.
- dgallagher 16y ago
  I'll throw this one out there: "Barstool Blogging" It's like conversations you have with some random person in the barstool section of a bar. Subject matter varies, but generally it ends with you both talking like "experts" about some random subject neither of you really knows much about, besides maybe a few "factoids" here and there.
amitvjtimub 16y ago
"I'll probably be voted down for this but .." Best way to polarize people. When you say that "I might get down-voted", people agreeing with you are forced to up-vote. Edit : Wording
Browserguy2000 16y ago
Why do you assume that he's the one who is wrong? Is that the conclusion you arrived at with your vast and infallible brain? By the way, Adams would have said, "continuously making" and not "constantly making." Your grammar error doesn't prove that you're the one who is "usually wrong," but it's the only data point I have. Just sayin'.

unignorant 16y ago

> Its pretty well understood that the brain runs on glucose Actually, most of the brain's energy needs can also be met with ketone bodies, which come from fat (either stored or dietary). So it's possible that he may be running on ketones in the morning, after a night's fast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Diet That said, I agree with you that his theory is based almost entirely on speculation, and should be treated as such.

anon-e-moose 16y ago
Farther down in that diet you can see that its not considered healthy as a general practice: "The ketogenic diet is not a benign, holistic or natural treatment for epilepsy; as with any serious medical therapy, there may be complications." "Long-term use of the ketogenic diet in children increases the risk of retarded growth, bone fractures, and kidney stones. " In other words, it does not seem that the body should be run this way long term.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  Indeed. In fact, this was the whole deal with the Atkin's diet (remember that??) a while ago. Zero carbs, but craploads of protein and fat will force the body into long term ketone usage. Basically, your body runs on glucose. Everything else is a stop gap for you to get more glucose.
  - Evgeny 16y ago
    Basically, your body runs on glucose. Everything else is a stop gap for you to get more glucose. But don't forget that the body can make quite a lot of the glucose using a process called gluconeogenesis. And substances like amino acids, glycerol or products of fatty acid oxidation are used as precursors. So, in essence - yes, it runs on glucose, but glucose does not necessarily come from dietary carbohydrates.
- robchez 16y ago
  I believe that study of the diet was also severely caloric restrictive, and the food the kids were given were vegetable franken-oils etc. You can go on a ketogenic diet and eat plenty of healthy fats and some vegetable produce.

fharper1961 16y ago

Adams' theory on this may be completely wrong. But I completely agree with his observations. On a an empty stomach I'll be alert and loaded with energy. After a carb laden lunch it'll be nap time.

anon-e-moose 16y ago
You make a good case for trying a lunch that isn't (simple) carb laden then. =)

Evgeny 16y ago

Learn you a physiology: http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html I searched this page for "gluconeogenesis" but did not find it. So basically they completely ignore the fact that the body can produce glucose from amino acids, products of fatty acid oxidation etc? Edit: Also, the brain only needs a certain amount of glucose - somewhere in the 30-60g per day area. And if the blood sugar is low, the brain will have priority uptaking glucose from blood. So yes, it needs glucose, but one does not need to consume half of his calories or more from carbs - a mere 100g per day or even less would probably be enough.

robchez 16y ago
Exactly right. 100g (or about 400 calories) should be the upper limit of your carbohydrate consumption. Your body will run fine on it.

terra_t 16y ago

Let's put it this way. If people wanted something naturally, the government and industry wouldn't have to run ads incessantly promoting it. Personally, I've made the discovery that breakfast is the only meal of the day I can skip. By the morning, my body is adapted to running off my stored energy reserves and it's not screaming at me that I need to eat. The fact that so many authorities are constantly screaming "eat breakfast", "eat breakfast" suggests to me that there's a hidden agenda to push breakfast foods, just like the U.S.D.A tries to push cheese on people.

anon-e-moose 16y ago
I must not consume enough advertising, as I haven't noticed this campaign =P I personally tend to have trail mix and a low calorie sports drink for breakfast, but I'm weird like that.

dgallagher 16y ago

Edit: The number of people jumping on board with this "theory" in his blog comments makes me despair for the state of nutrition and health education. Most people on the internet have no idea what they're taking about when it comes to food, nutrition, and diets. The same applies to medical advice. Many people read one thing and repeat it elsewhere, which is an issue if the source was incorrect. Also people love talking about their personal experiences. That's a problem seeing as it's not scientific (no control experiment, only one individual involved, etc...). A big part of this is that the nutritional industry is not regulated by any body, such as the FDA. You end up with lots of products and advice that adds up to little more than snake oil. Hence fad diets. What's the best advice to take? That from a doctor, dietitian, or nutritionist. Not some yahoo on the internet.

Evgeny 16y ago
What's the best advice to take? That from a doctor, dietitian, or nutritionist. Not some yahoo on the internet. Well, that's a good advice in theory, but did you notice how many doctors, dietitians and nutritionists have contradicting points of view?
- dgallagher 16y ago
  Good point. I'm not sure how many do, but it does happen. I'd love to see data regarding this (e.g. how widespread is it?). Most doctors are essentially statisticians doing something like this: 1) Formulate a list of patient symptoms, ensuring credibility (e.g. are you lying/hiding/unaware-of something?). 2) Match those up with whatever diagnosis is statistically most likely. 3) Take "medicine X" and see what happens. 4) Cured? If not, go to step 2, repeat. Step 2 can be subjective, especially if there are several likely causes. This can lead to different doctors giving different diagnosis. The more times a doctor has seen the same problem, the more likely he/she will be correct the first time. Specialists come in handy here, gathering lots of experience regarding only specific conditions. For rare diseases, hard to diagnose, or those which aren't fully understood, repeating steps #2 - #4 is going to be more likely. This is where you'll find the greatest differences of "opinion". Step #1 can be repeated too if conditions change, of course. -------------------- Regarding dietitians/nutritionists, I'm not sure how they work. I'd imagine most of their disagreements come from studies contradicting one another. Results of studies can be questioned as well. There is some overlap with the statistical nature of doctors, though. Pinpointing food allergies/intolerances requires eliminating foods, one-at-a-time, from your diet and seeing what happens. I'm sure there are blood tests which can be done too. -------------------- In general though, it's not wise to discredit professionals just because they may disagree on certain things in their field. Unless the field is fully understood (I'm not aware of one which is!), you'll see that. Perhaps I should rephrase my advice: What's the best advice to take? That from "multiple" doctors, dietitians, or nutritionists. Not some yahoos on the internet. A second or third opinion reduces the likelihood of errors, while limiting received advice only from those educated and qualified to give it.

robchez 16y ago

This ignores all research already done on the brain and nutrition, and also common sense. On Common Sense: The human brain/body evolved to run on minimal glucose. Of the past 2million years of human evolution, only 10,000(from the agrarian revolution) of those years have we consumed excess carbohydrates in the forms of grains etc. Prior to that we were hunter gatherers and ate copious amounts of fat and meat with some vegetables (very low in carbohydrates) and every now and then fruits when they were in season. We also didnt have the luxury of eating as soon as we woke up, we had to hunt for our food, so missing breakfast would have happened more times than not. Again our bodies adapted to that. On All Research: As mentioned in comments below our bodies run perfectly well in states of ketosis. With ketone-bodies providing a much more efficient longer energy burn than carbohydrates. (Think of carbohydrates as kindling and ketones as the logs). Many athletes (particularly the CrossFit athletes) run on ketogenic diets and get better performance. Here are some papers/articles etc. I dug up quickly, but there are many more. [1] Your brain on ketones [2] Weston price Foundation, Lots of references [3] Ketogenic Diets and Physical Performance [4] The metabolic effects of low-carbohydrate diets and incorporation into a biochemistry course [5] Report picking apart the latest dietry guidelines. [1] http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/08/your-brain-on-ketones.html http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/08/your-brai... [2] http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/ [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.2005.494033022445/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403302... [5] http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fu... edit: formatting

anon-e-moose 16y ago
Very interesting. However, the time frame doesn't work in this example, those studies showed reduced performance for a week, and then back to baseline or slightly above.
- robchez 16y ago
  You are right, for the first week or two, your do feel like crap. As your body switches to using ketone bodies as energy, you go through a real down phase. However when you come out, you feel great. Anecdotally (I hate anecdotes about health, but argh) I used to need to eat constantly to keep my energy up. I'd have breakfast, and by the time lunch came around I had to eat, or face passing out. These days I can skip breakfast (or just have a coffee with lots of cream) and that will keep my going until 2-3pm where I will have a lunch. You have no idea how liberating it is not to always be thinking about food.

Qz 16y ago

To be fair, the article starts off with: I have many crackpot theories. Today is no exception. Let's test today's theory, unscientifically.

beagle3 16y ago

> makes me despair for the state of nutrition and health education. You should despair for it. It's mostly a religion somehow connected to pseudoscience, and definitely a far cry from science. The two basic axiom that almost everything is founded on (weight diff = calories in - calories out; and prot=4Kc/g, carb=4Kc/g, fat=9Kc/g, alc=7Kc/g) are disproved every other day, in the sense that even though they do apply in many cases, there is at least one robust study in which they do not apply to every 4 in which they do apply. Something fundamental is being totally ignored. It's like saying "it is scientific that people go to work and school every day", and ignoring the existence of weekends.