Self-reported intake of high-fat and high-sugar diet is not associated with cognitive stability and flexibility in healthy men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal studies indicate that a high-fat/high-sugar diet (HFS) can change dopamine signal transmission in the brain, which could promote maladaptive behavior and decision-making. Such diet-induced changes may also explain observed alterations in the dopamine system in human obesity. Genetic variants that modulate dopamine transmission have been proposed to render some individuals more prone to potential effects of HFS. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of HFS with dopamine-dependent cognition in humans and how genetic variations might modulate this potential association. Using a questionnaire assessing the self-reported consumption of high-fat/high-sugar foods, we investigated the association with diet by recruiting healthy young men that fall into the lower or upper end of that questionnaire (low fat/sugar group: LFS, n = 45; high fat/sugar group: HFS, n = 41) and explored the interaction of fat and sugar consumption with COMT Val158Met and Taq1A genotype. During functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning, male participants performed a working memory (WM) task that probes distractor-resistance and updating of WM representations. Logistic and linear regression models revealed no significant difference in WM performance between the two diet groups, nor an interaction with COMT Val158Met or Taq1A genotype. Neural activation in task-related brain areas also did not differ between diet groups. Independent of diet group, higher BMI was associated with lower overall accuracy on the WM task. This cross-sectional study does not provide evidence for diet-related differences in WM stability and flexibility in men, nor for a predisposition of COMT Val158Met or Taq1A genotype to the hypothesized detrimental effects of an HFS diet. Previously reported associations of BMI with WM seem to be independent of HFS intake in our male study sample.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".