
High refined sugar intake linked to a 23% higher risk of mental disorders - dtawfik1
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0717/27072017_sugar_mental
======
nessup
While 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
IIRC 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
I'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.

------
scottLobster
Related: Ketogenic Diets are used to treat medication-resistant epileptic
seizures. [http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-
epilepsy...](http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-
epilepsy/dietary-therapies/ketogenic-diet)

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...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-
blog/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/)

~~~
surrey-fringe
Animal products are bad for you.

Not me though, I'm just trying to reduce demand.

~~~
tzamora
I 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.

~~~
shlant
> If you have normal organic meat there is no problem at all

Source?

Because all of this seems to show otherwise:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306319](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306319)

[http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957](http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957)

[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/2/518.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/2/518.full)

[http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/can...](http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/canprevres/4/2/177.full.pdf)

> Likely we have been eating meat from the beginning of our existance

Just because we have evolved eating meat, doesn't necessarily mean it is the
most optimal. Appeal to Nature.

> The problem is that the anti meat lobby like peta or sugar-bread industry
> want us to buy more of their products

What "products" is PETA selling??? I have a lot of qualms with PETA, but I
have never seen them vindicated in this way...

> Keto is a really good healthy diet its just that requires that you educate
> yourself

You seem to be really invested in the diet. Maybe you have some bias?

~~~
nightski
Look, you can be on a ketogenic diet and not eat meat at all. I eat a few
ounces a day. I could easily not eat any at all and still maintain a high fat
ketogenic diet, but I enjoy the flavor.

I also have read plenty of studies that contradict the ones above. I'm not
saying they are necessarily wrong. But I find medical statistical studies very
hard to interpret because they don't control for all the factors and the data
is not super reliable. Often the conclusions seem excessive given the data
that is actually there.

~~~
shlant
> Look, you can be on a ketogenic diet and not eat meat at all.

For sure, but I doubt most people doing Keto are eating very little to no
meat.

> I find medical statistical studies very hard to interpret because they don't
> control for all the factors and the data is not super reliable

Ok so you are suggesting we throw out all studies because they may or may not
control for all the variables? That seems like a zero sum proposition that is
a bit overkill. Of course there are some studies that are less rigorously
controlled than others, but to conclude that no studies can be trusted because
"medical statistical studies very hard to interpret" and "the data is not
super reliable" just seems like an excuse to ignore what is very compelling
evidence.

~~~
nightski
Of course I don't want to throw the studies out. I'm suggesting the
conclusions are too strong and not necessarily justified.

------
kolinko
It 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.

~~~
wutbrodo
From 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
Mental disorders are also correlated with sleep problems; sleep-deprived
brains often crave sugar. This might also be another avenue for causation.

~~~
boombip
> 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.

~~~
tylerhou
Not if A => B for only a small population of A. But in that case, you still
might see a C => A link.

------
rybosome
I'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).

~~~
colechristensen
What bothers me is there's no magical "processing" that does anything to these
simple sugars. Fructose is... a 20 atom molecule? There's no magical
processing that makes that molecule any different inside a fruit or in honey
or in corn syrup.

So either the problem is the characteristics of a single food item (ratio of
sugar, fiber, fat, etc.), some magical byproduct of processing that makes up a
very tiny fraction of the food, or (more likely correct) the ratios that make
up the diet as a whole. Carb/fat/protein ratio seems important as does the
ratios of which carbs. Demonizing sugar or "refined" sugar seems ridiculous,
encouraging proportional consumption makes sense.

~~~
DiThi
Yep, fructose is exactly the same in an apple or in candy. It's not
"processing" it what makes it bad. Unless by "processing" you mean isolating
it so you eat it without the fiber of the apple.

Fructose doesn't satiate, while fiber does, and it slows down absorption of
fructose as well.

For the same reason, fruit juice is pretty much liquid candy with vitamins.

------
Regist
Seems 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
I 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
You'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.

------
Xeoncross
> "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.

~~~
wutbrodo
I 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
Men 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.

------
c3534l
Can 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?

------
acchow
How much longer until we stop pretending that population correlation studies
is science?

~~~
ekidd
This 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)

------
keenerd
Conversion 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
Thanks, all my teaspoons are stainless steel. I only have 8 though, so it
probably evens out.

