6 ms·

The bitter truth about fructose alarmism

46 points by chipsy 17y ago

rue 17y ago
Sort of tangentially to this (fairly good) article, I have noticed a number of people recently somehow conflating all fructose with high-fructose corn syrup and other refined variants. I am not sure if this is just symptomatic of ignorance or a concerted effort of some kind.
- pohl 17y ago
  Could you be more specific? The two are not without similarities in how they are metabolized, so if we're to understand what you mean by "conflating" you should mention the way in which they should not be combined/confused. Since HFCS is a solution of fructose and glucose, there is overlap. (edited to correct brain fart mentioned below)
  - araneae 17y ago
    There is no HFCS "molecule"- high fructose corn syrup is a solution containing a certain percentage of fructose and glucose molecules, which are not attached to each other. You may be confusing it with sucrose (table sugar) which does consist of a fructose and glucose molecule with a glycosidic linkage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
    - pohl 17y ago
      I must remember to become fully awake before posting. Thank you. I refined my question.
lionhearted 17y ago
This author doesn't read his own studies or check his numbers. Here's the most glaring example: > One of Lustig’s opening assertions is that The Atkins diet and the Japanese diet share one thing in common: the absence of fructose. This is flat-out false because it implies that the Japanese don’t eat fruit. On the contrary, bananas, grapefruits, Mandarin oranges, apples, grapes, watermelons, pears, persimmons, peaches, and strawberries are significant staples of the Japanese diet [17]. Except the Japanese DON'T eat much fruit compared to Americans. It's in his own citation: Japan fruit consumption: 41.5 kg per person per year USA fruit consumption: 126.5 kg per person per year http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs0406/wrs0406h.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs0406/wrs0406h.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf Americans eat over 300% more fruit than Japanese. I don't know what a "significant staple" is, but from my time in Tokyo, Osaka, the rest of Kansai, and Hokkaido, Japanese have a heck of a lot less fructose than Americans do. It's mostly rice, meat, fish, and vegetables, and the main desserts are only semi-sweet like mochi and red bean.
- jerf 17y ago
  The most powerful argument Lustig makes is one he barely makes any fuss about in the video, but can't just be waved aside: "I use this information to craft diets that consistently cause obese children to lose weight." If you dig into actual dietary outcomes, "a person consistently loses weight on this diet" is a milestone hardly any diet reaches. Certainly not diets based on the idea that obesity is caused by eating too much and so the solution is to eat less; those have a terrible track record. The way to cut through the scientific fog is not to argue about mechanisms and causation; the way is to look at who makes correct predictions, and consequently in the case of diets, what works and what doesn't. Fructose may not be evil, it may merely be strongly correlated with something else that is evil, but that's good enough for me, for today.
- albemuth 17y ago
  He also left out the fact about the fibre, Lustig never said fruit was bad, but rather the fructose <b>without</b> the rest of the fruit
- paulbaumgart 17y ago
  I think the point was that the Atkins diet allows for far less fruit consumption than the Japanese have on average, so grouping the two diets together as "effectively fructose-free" is incorrect.
- dabent 17y ago
  I also didn't think the problem was fruit, but rather things like HFCS-sweetened sodas. A banana or an apple has about 100 calories, but a 12 ounce can of soda has about 150. I know people (I was one) that will drink 32 ounces (about a liter) of soda just at lunch but won't have more than 2 pieces of fruit a day. There's also the fact that the apple or banana have fiber and other nutrients the sodas are missing. The sodas (or often other HFCS-rich foods) don't have.
  - keltex 17y ago
    Agreed. If you actually watch the video it's the HFCS that's the major source of fructose, NOT fruit.
yanowitz 17y ago
Very interesting article. I continue to be amazed at how primitive our nutrition science is but I guess that's what happens when you combine a tough problem with market distortions. The tough problem: there are a million variables to control for, people's environment (work, health, happiness, etc.) confounds everything, accurate reporting is difficult, food quality varies (e.g., apple nutrients have changed over time), etc. The market distortions: huge subsidies and entrenched interests for factory farming with a heavy emphasis on grains, cereals and legumes, particularly wheat, corn, and soybeans. I've found that substituting lots of fat and protein for carbohydrates while emphasizing food quality (little processed foods) produces lots of satiety, and improvement in physical performance, a better lipid profile and loss of body fat. But YMMV.
- Watts 17y ago
  Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. I started eating this way in mid-January and have lost almost 30lbs since then.
- matrix 17y ago
  The science of nutrition and biochemistry in general is anything but primitive. Unfortunately though, there is probably no single field that has a greater amount of psuedo-scientific nonsense published about it in the mainstream media (not to mention crackpot blogs, books etc). Anyone can publish a book or a blog and pretend to have expertise on the topic. For example, I remember seeing one that was proudly emblazoned with the author's name appended with "PhD". It was complete fluff. Turns out her PhD was in English literature. Like all sensationalist issues, the fructose thing is more nuanced than the fruitcakes on either side would have you believe. But where's the fun in that? I've been considering starting some sort of site for publishing the real truth on this stuff, but I'm not sure how interesting it would be to other people. The truth just isn't link-baity and sensationalist enough, y'know?
  - nixme 17y ago
    > the fructose thing is more nuanced than the fruitcakes on either side would have you believe Can you enlighten us on these nuances? By "fruitcakes" I assume you're referring to Aragon and Lustig?
WilliamLP 17y ago
> Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake across the board, rather than an increase in carbohydrate in particular. Ok, but the Calories in/out argument is a silly oversimplification. Pregnant women gain weight because they consume more calories than they expend, but this isn't the most interesting level of causation. Let's say that one day I drink two cans of Coke in the morning, and measure how I feel for the next few hours. The next day I eat 320 calories worth of chicken breast. To say that an increase in caloric intake can be caused by a change in the kinds of foods consumed is not a contradiction. The author of this rant either completely misses, or tries to skate around this obvious point, as many do.
- skushch 17y ago
  I think the author's 'rant' contains an answer to your post: "I’m obviously not in favor of replacing anyone’s daily fluid intake with soft drinks, but I can already see a number of straw man arguments headed my way. This is because people have a tendency to think in either-or terms that strictly involve extremes." I think the main point of his post is that fructose is being demonized. He points out that we're taking in more calories while spending less. If anything is to be taken from the article is that moderation is the way.
nkohari 17y ago
I've done my best to understand the data, but with my limited understanding of natural science, I trust the man with the M.D. and a focus in metabolism more than the one with an MS in nutrition.
- grandalf 17y ago
  I agree. There is a lot of money to be made as a "nutritionist" who tells people they can eat junk food and not get fat.
- nixme 17y ago
  Really? Can't we evaluate these claims properly? Both sides here are citing sources and starting a healthy debate. Why must we resort to choosing a side based solely on authority? I always assumed the HN audience would never fall back on that since we've seen success and intelligence where least expected.
  - nkohari 17y ago
    On the contrary, I think it makes a lot of sense to accept the opinion of someone more educated on a topic than yourself. I'm a technologist, not a nutritionist. Likewise, if a doctor thought he knew more about software than me, he'd likely be mistaken.
    - nixme 17y ago
      If you know nothing about a topic, then yes, best to listen to someone that does. But both individuals here are at least knowledgeable enough to debate this without us automatically choosing a side. This isn't the case of a sales director arguing with a senior programmer. It's a junior programmer taking on a senior programmer. > Likewise, if a doctor thought he knew more about software than me, he'd likely be mistaken. Usually, but I would hope if a Con Kolivas offered an opinion on your code, you wouldn't brush him aside merely because he was a doctor :) Reminds me of this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=930117 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=930117
richcollins 17y ago
aking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake across the board, rather than an increase in carbohydrate in particular. Doesn't Lustig propose that a change in the proportion of fructose to other sugars in the diet causes a decrease in satiety, leading to more overall caloric intake?

46 points by chipsy 17y ago

rue 17y ago

Sort of tangentially to this (fairly good) article, I have noticed a number of people recently somehow conflating all fructose with high-fructose corn syrup and other refined variants. I am not sure if this is just symptomatic of ignorance or a concerted effort of some kind.

pohl 17y ago
Could you be more specific? The two are not without similarities in how they are metabolized, so if we're to understand what you mean by "conflating" you should mention the way in which they should not be combined/confused. Since HFCS is a solution of fructose and glucose, there is overlap. (edited to correct brain fart mentioned below)
- araneae 17y ago
  There is no HFCS "molecule"- high fructose corn syrup is a solution containing a certain percentage of fructose and glucose molecules, which are not attached to each other. You may be confusing it with sucrose (table sugar) which does consist of a fructose and glucose molecule with a glycosidic linkage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
  - pohl 17y ago
    I must remember to become fully awake before posting. Thank you. I refined my question.

lionhearted 17y ago

This author doesn't read his own studies or check his numbers. Here's the most glaring example: > One of Lustig’s opening assertions is that The Atkins diet and the Japanese diet share one thing in common: the absence of fructose. This is flat-out false because it implies that the Japanese don’t eat fruit. On the contrary, bananas, grapefruits, Mandarin oranges, apples, grapes, watermelons, pears, persimmons, peaches, and strawberries are significant staples of the Japanese diet [17]. Except the Japanese DON'T eat much fruit compared to Americans. It's in his own citation: Japan fruit consumption: 41.5 kg per person per year USA fruit consumption: 126.5 kg per person per year http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs0406/wrs0406h.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs0406/wrs0406h.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf Americans eat over 300% more fruit than Japanese. I don't know what a "significant staple" is, but from my time in Tokyo, Osaka, the rest of Kansai, and Hokkaido, Japanese have a heck of a lot less fructose than Americans do. It's mostly rice, meat, fish, and vegetables, and the main desserts are only semi-sweet like mochi and red bean.

jerf 17y ago
The most powerful argument Lustig makes is one he barely makes any fuss about in the video, but can't just be waved aside: "I use this information to craft diets that consistently cause obese children to lose weight." If you dig into actual dietary outcomes, "a person consistently loses weight on this diet" is a milestone hardly any diet reaches. Certainly not diets based on the idea that obesity is caused by eating too much and so the solution is to eat less; those have a terrible track record. The way to cut through the scientific fog is not to argue about mechanisms and causation; the way is to look at who makes correct predictions, and consequently in the case of diets, what works and what doesn't. Fructose may not be evil, it may merely be strongly correlated with something else that is evil, but that's good enough for me, for today.
albemuth 17y ago
He also left out the fact about the fibre, Lustig never said fruit was bad, but rather the fructose <b>without</b> the rest of the fruit
paulbaumgart 17y ago
I think the point was that the Atkins diet allows for far less fruit consumption than the Japanese have on average, so grouping the two diets together as "effectively fructose-free" is incorrect.
dabent 17y ago
I also didn't think the problem was fruit, but rather things like HFCS-sweetened sodas. A banana or an apple has about 100 calories, but a 12 ounce can of soda has about 150. I know people (I was one) that will drink 32 ounces (about a liter) of soda just at lunch but won't have more than 2 pieces of fruit a day. There's also the fact that the apple or banana have fiber and other nutrients the sodas are missing. The sodas (or often other HFCS-rich foods) don't have.
- keltex 17y ago
  Agreed. If you actually watch the video it's the HFCS that's the major source of fructose, NOT fruit.

yanowitz 17y ago

Very interesting article. I continue to be amazed at how primitive our nutrition science is but I guess that's what happens when you combine a tough problem with market distortions. The tough problem: there are a million variables to control for, people's environment (work, health, happiness, etc.) confounds everything, accurate reporting is difficult, food quality varies (e.g., apple nutrients have changed over time), etc. The market distortions: huge subsidies and entrenched interests for factory farming with a heavy emphasis on grains, cereals and legumes, particularly wheat, corn, and soybeans. I've found that substituting lots of fat and protein for carbohydrates while emphasizing food quality (little processed foods) produces lots of satiety, and improvement in physical performance, a better lipid profile and loss of body fat. But YMMV.

Watts 17y ago
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. I started eating this way in mid-January and have lost almost 30lbs since then.
matrix 17y ago
The science of nutrition and biochemistry in general is anything but primitive. Unfortunately though, there is probably no single field that has a greater amount of psuedo-scientific nonsense published about it in the mainstream media (not to mention crackpot blogs, books etc). Anyone can publish a book or a blog and pretend to have expertise on the topic. For example, I remember seeing one that was proudly emblazoned with the author's name appended with "PhD". It was complete fluff. Turns out her PhD was in English literature. Like all sensationalist issues, the fructose thing is more nuanced than the fruitcakes on either side would have you believe. But where's the fun in that? I've been considering starting some sort of site for publishing the real truth on this stuff, but I'm not sure how interesting it would be to other people. The truth just isn't link-baity and sensationalist enough, y'know?
- nixme 17y ago
  > the fructose thing is more nuanced than the fruitcakes on either side would have you believe Can you enlighten us on these nuances? By "fruitcakes" I assume you're referring to Aragon and Lustig?

WilliamLP 17y ago

> Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake across the board, rather than an increase in carbohydrate in particular. Ok, but the Calories in/out argument is a silly oversimplification. Pregnant women gain weight because they consume more calories than they expend, but this isn't the most interesting level of causation. Let's say that one day I drink two cans of Coke in the morning, and measure how I feel for the next few hours. The next day I eat 320 calories worth of chicken breast. To say that an increase in caloric intake can be caused by a change in the kinds of foods consumed is not a contradiction. The author of this rant either completely misses, or tries to skate around this obvious point, as many do.

skushch 17y ago
I think the author's 'rant' contains an answer to your post: "I’m obviously not in favor of replacing anyone’s daily fluid intake with soft drinks, but I can already see a number of straw man arguments headed my way. This is because people have a tendency to think in either-or terms that strictly involve extremes." I think the main point of his post is that fructose is being demonized. He points out that we're taking in more calories while spending less. If anything is to be taken from the article is that moderation is the way.

nkohari 17y ago

I've done my best to understand the data, but with my limited understanding of natural science, I trust the man with the M.D. and a focus in metabolism more than the one with an MS in nutrition.

grandalf 17y ago
I agree. There is a lot of money to be made as a "nutritionist" who tells people they can eat junk food and not get fat.
nixme 17y ago
Really? Can't we evaluate these claims properly? Both sides here are citing sources and starting a healthy debate. Why must we resort to choosing a side based solely on authority? I always assumed the HN audience would never fall back on that since we've seen success and intelligence where least expected.
- nkohari 17y ago
  On the contrary, I think it makes a lot of sense to accept the opinion of someone more educated on a topic than yourself. I'm a technologist, not a nutritionist. Likewise, if a doctor thought he knew more about software than me, he'd likely be mistaken.
  - nixme 17y ago
    If you know nothing about a topic, then yes, best to listen to someone that does. But both individuals here are at least knowledgeable enough to debate this without us automatically choosing a side. This isn't the case of a sales director arguing with a senior programmer. It's a junior programmer taking on a senior programmer. > Likewise, if a doctor thought he knew more about software than me, he'd likely be mistaken. Usually, but I would hope if a Con Kolivas offered an opinion on your code, you wouldn't brush him aside merely because he was a doctor :) Reminds me of this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=930117 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=930117

richcollins 17y ago

aking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake across the board, rather than an increase in carbohydrate in particular. Doesn't Lustig propose that a change in the proportion of fructose to other sugars in the diet causes a decrease in satiety, leading to more overall caloric intake?