I imagine, like myself, many of you glorious Food Envy readers are fond of their sweet things. As soon as sugar touches your tongue, your nervous system kicks into high gear. The tongue tells the brain’s “taste centre” that you ate something sweet, relaying a message to another part of your brain that eating sweet stuff is good.

This is a problematic process for anyone who’s ever tried to shed some pounds. Working out is great but it doesn't really get you anywhere if you treat yourself to a donut for "working so hard." In reality, you probably didn't work out hard enough to burn the calories the gym machine you used says you burnt. Unless your diet is on point, that extra-sugary dopamine hit you get from that donut will almost definitely do more harm than good.

Luckily for us lazy folk, scientists studying mouse brains have found a way to disrupt the neverending cravings. As researchers write in Nature earlier in the week - just because your brain senses sweetness doesn’t mean it has to conflate sweetness with pleasure.

In their study, the Columbia University researchers disrupted the brain region called the amygdala - responsible for the pleasant or unpleasant experience linked to taste - and found that the mice could still detect bitter and sweet flavours but didn’t express a distaste for one or a preference for the other.

This demonstrates that literal taste isn’t inherently linked to the pleasurable experience of the taste, the authors write. Rather, those two experiences seem to be processed in different brain regions. With this knowledge in mind, the team additionally found that they could hack mouse brains to alter the way mice processed taste, making plain water pleasurable or distasteful and reversing the way the mice experienced sweet and bitter tastes.

In one set of experiments, the researchers altered the way the mouse brain taste center - the “gustatory cortex” - communicated with the amygdala. The gustatory cortex has separate connection neurons that relay “sweet” and “bitter” signals. So, when the team activated the neurons associated with sweetness, the mice reacted to a neutral stimulus (plain water) as if it was sweet.

Likewise, when the neurons associated with bitterness were activated, the mice responded as if it the water was bitter. In this way, they found that this switch could even reverse the mice’s emotional reactions to sweet or bitter tastes. No one's saying we're mice, but I'm pretty sure you're all thinking of the rather trivial playground science experiment: "the salt shaker test".

In another experiment, researchers trained mice to taste water from a spout and identify it as sweet or bitter by going through a door. Then, they silenced the neurons in the amygdala that determine how pleasurable a taste is. These mice were able to identify sweet and bitter, but their appetite for sweetness wasn’t activated, showing that the pleasure-making process was indeed disrupted.

In a different test, mice were trained to lick when they tasted something bitter, and not lick when they tasted something sweet - the opposite of their natural response. Again, their amygdalae were silenced, and just like the mice in the previous test, they could still recognise sweet and bitter, but they didn’t exhibit an emotional response.

These weird experiments demonstrate that tasting and enjoying are governed by separate regions of the brain, at least in mice. If anything, it serves as a reminder that flavour and pleasure aren’t entirely linked, even though most of us take this relationship for granted.

By gaining a better understanding of these pathways, which the researchers say are similar in humans, they hope to gain insight into eating disorders, which appear to result from exaggerated responses to food input.

Losing weight is so tough, isn't it?

At face value - in terms of cold, hard numbers - losing weight is a matter of making sure the calories you intake are smaller than the calories you consume. But in reality, that means plenty of exercise, careful planning, and eating at the right time. Oh, and don't forget eating the right types of food in the right blend of nutrients.

All in all, it's a pain in the neck. But rather than thinking about moderation or a healthy lifestyle, most people prefer to think of eating right in terms of 'not making you fat'. I mean, I guess fatphobia is one way to motivate yourself , and studies all over the place are suggesting that there's one food group in particular responsible for your extra jiggle.

Credit: GettyFor the longest time, we've believed that you are what you eat; specifically, that if you eat a lot of fatty food, you in effect make yourself a fatty food for whatever sabre-toothed tiger or other animal wants to eat you. But that's a simplistic view of the entire thing, and science is beginning to show there's another target in this war against fat.

Aaron Carroll, professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, is just one of the many scientific minds out there who are looking at the different reasons we gain weight, and he's got some pretty interesting things to say about the role of fat in weight gain.

"There is one thing we know about fats," he wrote in his book, titled The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully. "Fat consumption does not cause weight gain. To the contrary, it might actually help us shed a few pounds." So, feel free to chow down on salmon, avocado and other fatty foods, because they're not to blame for your belly.

[[instagramwidget||https://www.instagram.com/p/BpjVkuwF1QL/?tagged=bacon]]

Instead, studies suggest that maybe it's time to take a closer look at your sugar intake. While fatty foods might've gotten some bad PR for those trying to lose weight, studies have shown time and again that your intake of refined carbs and sugar have a direct effect on how many pounds you put on.

In a review of 50 studies carried out on the effects of refined carbs and sugar on weight gain, they found that on average, people who consumed more sugary foods tended to gain more weight. In fact, people on low-fat diets tended to eat more sugary foods, which only exacerbated the problem.

"Suggestive evidence was found for high intake of refined grains, and sweets and desserts in predicting more weight gain, and for refined (white) bread and high energy density in predicting larger increases in WC [waist circumference]."

[[instagramwidget||https://www.instagram.com/p/BphkygDHj8p/?tagged=sugar]]

The review, posted in the Food and Nutrition Research journal, shows that if you're struggling to shed those pounds, it's time to double down on the bacon, and maybe skip the granola bar.

Although you've probably got a whole host of things to worry about when looking at your plate and deciding what to add and what to take off, diabetes makes the challenge of eating healthily that little bit more pressing. It's not a great disease to have, not one bit: and if you're living with the disease, you're one of four million people in the United Kingdom alone.

If you've been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, then you know how terrible it can be to pick yourself up and adapt to a new diet. Sugary foods are, of course, out of the question: but rather than looking at what they should avoid, how should a person living with type 2 diabetes actually eat?

It wasn't really a question we knew the answer to, but a new study from the University of South Australia wanted to look in more detail as to the best diet to maintain weight and blood glucose levels while living with type 2 diabetes. Between April 2015 and September 2017, PhD student Sharayah Carter conducted a year-long clinical trial with 137 people who had been diagnosed with the disease.

These trial subjects were split into two groups: one would consume between 1,200 and 1,500 calories a day for the 12-month period, while the other half would undertake what's known as the 5:2 diet; where dieters eat normally for five days a week, before undergoing two non-consecutive days of extreme calorie restriction at around 25 percent of their usual intake (500 calories for women, 600 for men).

This study is the first-ever long term trial comparing the diets of people who've been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and the results showed that the 5:2 diet resulted in not only improved weight loss, but the glucose control for these test subjects was also much better than those who had simply lived on a restricted diet.

"The continuous energy restriction group found weight loss maintenance more difficult because, if they were not following the diet on a daily basis, they would regain weight owing to increased energy intake."

It's a big discovery, but in her findings, Carter was quick to mention that these results were largely geared toward those living with diabetes that were controlling their blood sugar with their food intake. For those who depended largely on insulin shots, blood glucose levels need to be monitored and doses changed accordingly.

“It is the 21st century’s health epidemic and the biggest challenge confronting Australia’s health system,” says Carter's supervisor, Professor of Nutrition Peter Clifton. “Conventional weight-loss diets with daily energy restrictions are difficult for people to adhere to so we must look for alternative solutions," he added, noting that healthcare costs relating to diabetes have risen, setting back the United States about $673 billion each year.

Living with type 2 diabetes can't be easy, but hopefully with this study's results in the back of your mind, it might be worth trying out a 5:2 diet, to see if you notice a difference.

If, like the majority of people, you have attempted to shift some pounds at some point, it's more than likely that you were told to cut out carbs. On average, we're told roughly 1,000,000,000,000,000 times a day that carbs are bad for us. A quick swipe on social media and you'll be inundated with bloggers, vloggers and influencers who all preach the gospel about cutting out the carbs and 'going keto.'

But, while the results we see on Instagram are undoubtedly impressive, a new study suggests that cutting out carbs might not be the key to success.

The research, published in Cell Metabolism, comes from The University of Aberdeen and the Chinese Academy of Sciences and revealed that mice who ate high-fat diets gained more weight over a three-month period than mice who ate high-carbohydrate diets.

Even more surprisingly, however, the study found that the mice on high-carbohydrate diets did not gain any weight at all. Because of this, the research concluded that eating fat was the only thing that made the mice gain weight.

The research lasted for three months - or nine mice years - and was conducted by John Speakman. Speakman and his band of lab nerds studied how the mice responded to 30 different diets, which varied in their fat and carb content. The food was also readily available to the animals, meaning that they could eat whenever they wanted.

The results showed that the mice put on "50-60 per cent fats" diet were the heaviest. The research goes against common theories that suggest fats keep you satiated and Speakman suggests that the high-fat diet triggered the mice to consume more calories.

That said, however, the researchers also noticed that mice put on a diet that consisted of 80 percent fat gained less weight and weighed 15 percent less than the mice who were put on the diet that contained 50-60 percent fat. Speakman isn't entirely sure why this is, but it does adhere to the idea that keeping to an extremely high-fat, low carb diet can lead to greater weight loss than moderately high-fat, low-carb diets.

Naturally, humans are much different from mice, making it hard to know exactly how this study will impact the way we diet. Because the study was performed on mice, it's possible that there are no ramifications on humans at all: "It’s often really difficult to translate mice studies to humans," Spaniolas tells MensHealth.com.

That said, Spaniolas does admit that he is surprised by the fact that mice on a high-carbohydrate diet did not gain any weight at all.  "A high-carbohydrate diet is not a recommendation for weight loss," he says.

Despite the findings of the results, Spaniolas still asserts that "there is no question that ketosis does work in the short term" for humans, and says that there is plenty of data to support that. While the research doesn't pour water on the keto-diet hype train, it does show that carbs may not be the be all and end all when it comes to weight gain.

In the months building up and throughout summer, plenty of people tend to diet. Whether you go on a juice cleanse, cut out carbs or try and tone down the fats, most of us have attempted to get a little healthier and be "beach body ready". However, for those of you who have adopted a low-fat diet as your preferred method of weight loss, I have some bad news for you: low-fat diets could increase the risk of an early death by one quarter, according to a major study. The Lancet study, which included 135,000 adults, found that those who chose to cut back on fats had a far shorter life than those who were enjoying plenty of butter, cheese and meat (result!!) Researchers said that the study was at odds with the repeated health warnings regarding the amount of fats that we consume that come from various different medical sources. Those people who decided to cut down on fats were instead eating higher levels of stodgy foods such as bread, pasta and rice and the experts who conducted the study said that this meant that they were missing out on vital nutrients. Participants who were eating the highest level of carbohydrates and refined sugars such as fizzy drinks, faced a 28 per cent higher risk of early death. Despite the NHS constantly giving out cautions surrounding having too many saturated fats as it raises cholesterol levels, increasing the risk of heart disease, the latest research goes against this. The research, which was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress in Barcelona, revealed that those with a low intake of saturated fat increased their chances of an early death by 13 per cent compared to those who were getting plenty of them. The research also found that consuming high levels of all types of fat cut mortality by up to 23 per cent. The study tracked the eating patterns and death rates of people across 18 different countries and Dr Andrew Mente, one of the researchers, said: "Our data suggests that low fat diets put populations at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Loosening the restriction on total fat and saturated fat and imposing limits on carbohydrates when high to reduce intake to moderate levels would be optimal." Mente said that 35 per cent of calories should be coming from fats, which is in line with NHS guidelines. However, health officials are still warning people to cut down their consumption of saturated fats in order to protect their hearts. In light of the results of the study, consultant cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra said it was time "for a complete U-turn" in Britain's approach to diet and the demonisation of fats that is currently commonplace in British society. The sooner we do that the sooner we reverse the epidemic in obesity and diabetes and the sooner start improving health." Professor Jeremy Pearson, from the British Heart Foundation said that health officials should re-examine dietary advice, to ensure the public get the best message regarding diet as possible: "This study suggests we should perhaps pay more attention to the amount of carbohydrate in our diet than we have in the past and we may need to revise the guidelines. What I don’t think people should do is get excited and think 'I can eat as much saturated fat as I like'". Alright Jeremy, you spoil sport; I was getting ready to go home and consume my body weight in cheese and pork until you said that.