10 ms·

Sugar and Health: Interview with UCSF professor Robert Lustig

108 points by kqr2 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
adorton 16y ago
I heard this today on Sirius, but couldn't catch the whole thing. Thanks for the link.
kenjackson 16y ago
Thank you. I found this a lot more useful than the NYTimes article.
symptic 16y ago
Lustig makes a few great points, but it's important to keep in mind there are some who argue he is a "fructose alarmist" and argue it's not as simple as "blaming fructose alone." A good quote from Alan Aragon: "I would add that fiber is only one of the numerous phytochemicals in fruit that impart health benefits. Thus, it’s not quite as simple as saying that fructose is evil, but once you take it with fiber, you’ve conquered the Dark Side." Some links: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-ta... I personally don't take sides with either. Like most things in the nutritional field, a healthy balance is more effective for me than trending behaviors and ideologies (i.e.: no-fat diet, "slow carb" diet, Atkins diet, etc.).
- jerf 16y ago
  Did you listen to the linked MP3? If so, I'm not sure how you can listen to that and conclude he's "blaming fructose alone". I'm up to at least three times he's clearly explained why that's not the case. And I don't mean "mouthing words about it then blaming it anyhow", I mean, explaining the ways in which things work together to cause obesity, and how fructose is only the most effective member of a group of 4 foods, and so on. I really think people really ought to go primary sources and stop listening to people summarizing summaries and then launching devastating assaults on strawmen.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    And Lustig, in this podcast, talks about how fiber and fructose tend to go together in nature, which is why whole foods are good as they usually have both. He gives two examples where they don't though... grapes and honey. But he says that honey is protected by bees. But no answer for why grapes make it easy to get fructose without fiber.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - zach 16y ago
      Grapes have been domesticated for thousands of years, and at every step the goal has been to maximize fructose and minimize fiber, most notably in making the seedless varieties that comprise the vast majority of table grapes sold today. At this point, who knows what grapes were originally like? Of course, we know they had real seeds and I'm guessing they weren't so plump and thin-skinned. So maybe they had a much more commendable fiber-to-fructose ratio. Today, table grapes are just glucose and fructose water balloons.
      - thaumaturgy 16y ago
        Wild grapes tend to have large bunches of really small fruit with a few seeds, if I remember right. We had some in our backyard in Livermore years ago.
        GeneralMaximus 16y ago
        Are you guys talking about the huge, swollen, purple grapes that are incredibly sweet and juicy? In New Delhi, you only find those grapes at large supermarkets. Most grapes sold here are exactly what you described: large bunches of really small fruit. No seeds, though.
        dangrossman 16y ago
        Yes, very large red/purple/green grapes without seeds are the common variety in stores in the US.
- Saavedro 16y ago
  Eating a fruit is not the same as drinking the equivalent amount of fruit juice along with some fiber for the same fructose load, because when eating a fruit the fact that the sugars are bound up in the fibers and must be broken down acts as a rate control. It's a dose issue, but dose is both volume and absorption rate, and the absorption rate of fructose from free sugar is very fast, as it is not rate-regulated in the liver like glucose metabolism. This means it doesn't require as much refined sugar compared to sugar from fruit in order for your liver to spend some time with a dangerous fructose load; -Refined- sugars are -especially- problematic, because of the absorption pattern. Simply combining free sugar with supplemental fiber mitigates some of the metabolic issues, but doesn't alleviate the problem. If you watch Lustig he -does- say the fruit is fine, for this reason. Whenever we find the chemical in a particular plant that is the one we like the most (and in rats, it's been shown that sugar&cocaine addicted rats prefer their sugar hit to their cocaine hit), extract it, and crystalize it, it's not surprising that it may be problematic.
espeed 16y ago
Last summer I did a 14-day juice fast (primarily organic vegetable juice). After about 3 days of no carbs your body burns off most of the sugar in your body (the liver's glycogen stores) and you go into ketosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis) where your body switches its fuel source from sugar and starts burning body fat for fuel. Some people who go on these types of fasts talk about the mental clarity they receive after a few days into it. I can attest to it -- the best way I can describe it is going from ADD to no ADD. When this happens I have assumed it has something to do with the change in the brain's fuel source. I don't know if this is related to sugar being toxic, but I have suspected it might be.
- staktrace 16y ago
  I'm curious about this: do you mean you drank only organic vegetable juice for 14 days?
  - espeed 16y ago
    Yes -- I bought a juicer and stared out making it myself, but this quickly became a PITA so instead I went to Whole Foods and stocked up on Bolthouse Farms "The Vedge," which is like V8 only organic (and pretty good). After about day 3, when all the sugar burns out of your system, you aren't really hungry anymore. Psychologically you may feel the urge to eat because you're used to doing it so often, but you don't really experience the "hunger pangs" like when you miss lunch. This is because "hunger," as most of us experience it, has more to do with your brain craving sugar than it is you being truly hungry.
    - smhinsey 16y ago
      Did you do this under a doctor's supervision or just on your own?
    - bretthopper 16y ago
      I hope people aren't reading this and thinking about doing this crazy diet especially with all this misinformation. Hunger is not just your "brain craving sugar". I get hungry every single day and I eat virtually no sugar. Yes, insulin response has been known to cause some cravings, but that isn't the only factor in hunger. Fat and protein also satiate you more than carbohydrates which means you shouldn't experience as much hunger.
staktrace 16y ago
Here's a 1.5 hour lecture by him on the exact biochemical pathways that make fructose a poison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
bgentry 16y ago
I'm going to reiterate this again on this thread: Yes, this interview is long, as was the Youtube video from Lustig. But it is worth every minute of listening time. Watch the original video (linked in this thread) for a more in-depth technical explanation of the cellular processes at work. It's truly fascinating material.
sklivvz1971 16y ago
Fact check here: in short - the claim is debunked. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/370/96 http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/370/96
- bgentry 16y ago
  I don't see how that post in any way contradicts what Lustig has argued. It's not just about the amount of fructose, it's also about the way that the fructose is carried into our system. EDIT: care to explain why this was worthy of a downvote?
- 1053r 16y ago
  In short - Wrong. Your link claims exactly the opposite if you dig deeper. The top stack exchange answer links to an article which states that fructose is in fact a chronic toxin in quantity, but that high fructose corn syrup is no worse than sugar or honey or maple syrup or many other common sweeteners. This is consistent with Lustig's claims. Read it for yourself. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501 Lustig claims that consuming a glucose only sweetener, such as maltose or dextrose or glucose should be lead to better health and weight loss when compared to a fructose glucose mix, such as sugar or high fructose corn syrup. Speaking from my personal experience, I lost 3 inches off my waist while exercising less over a period of 2 months after switching all fructose sources EXCEPT whole fresh fruit out for dextrose.
- eco 16y ago
  The top reply is addressing whether HFCS is more dangerous than other sweeteners rather than the claims Lustig makes. Lustig agrees that it's not more dangerous than something like table sugar. What he is saying is that fructose (whether from HFCS, sucrose, agave nectar, etc.) is toxic in sufficient quantities. So this isn't really debunking anything and it's actually in line with what Lustig says.
jyu 16y ago
Cliff Notes: Drinking soda makes you fatter. Also orange juice, cookies, and any other highly processed drinks/foods. Avoid these to lose weight.
- daniel-cussen 16y ago
  Also fruit and some other unprocessed things.
  - jmtame 16y ago
    he said fruit is okay because it has more fiber content. also to go along with this: he said we don't know enough about artificial sweeteners to conclude whether they're a healthy alternative yet.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - hristov 16y ago
    That is not correct. If you listen to his talk Lustig said something to the effect of "wherever god put the poison, he also put the anitdote." Thus, anywhere in nature where fructose appears there is also fiber. And fiber if it is processed at the same time and similar quantities as fructose allows the liver to process fructose properly. So there should not be anything in its natural state that is problematic. The only exception to that may be honey.
    - bostonpete 16y ago
      > The only exception to that may be honey. Well, that's because God didn't put it there -- the bees did. :-)
    - Saavedro 16y ago
      If you personally have to brave FREAKING BEES to get to it then you'll probably moderate your consumption enough ;]
tremendo 16y ago
I felt let down by the interviewer interrupting and changing the topic at least two times when I was eager to hear more. The first when Lustig tries to address Alan Aragon's criticisms, he even insists that it is important to follow on it, and the second when he begins talking about the externalities of using public policy to counter the effects of increased consumption. In both cases the interviewer abruptly changed the topic and the arguments were left incomplete. The rest was not news if for anyone that has seen his youtube video.
blakeweb 16y ago
I just watched the mentioned video[1] the other day and made some notes, so thought I'd share them since this hit the front page. - Fructose is metabolized similarly to ethanol. Both can only mostly be metabolized in the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized throughout the body. Both result in a storage as fat of a significant portion of the calories, possibly in the liver, where the fat causes long-term harm. Most of glucose on the other hand is stored in the liver as glycogen, which is not harmful long-term, and is the main source when you're eating a bunch of white pasta (glucose) storing up for a big race. - If we just ate fructose from fruits we'd eat 10-20% as much as we do today. Plus fiber is protective against many of the negative effects associated with fructose. So fruit is probably on the balance still good for you or neutral in terms of the negative effects from fructose mentioned here. - Fructose seems to suppress the post-eating dip in ghrelin levels, where ghrelin is thought to be important in encouraging us to eat--the "hunger hormone". - Fructose doesn't cause a spike in insulin and reduces leptin, which he views as a negative, as it goes along with not discouraging further eating. - He gave no evidence that glucose is good or beneficial, or reasons why glucose isn't a threat to increased risk of diabetes, etc. He's just chosen his battle as against fructose, as it's more winnable than against all sugar. That last bullet is my conclusion/wrapup of his perspective. I think his points are valid, and his recommendations are good for an overweight person (ie, your average American), but he oversimplifies things to make his case simpler and stronger. If you're really trying to stay healthy, eating a ton of glucose is not a good thing--an issue he mainly skirts to keep the focus on fructose. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- merloen 16y ago
  Listen to the presentation - he mentions glucose specifically, and explains why he thinks it's a toxin, as opposed to glucose, which he calls the fuel of life. He also mentions that while eating a ton of glucose may make you obese, eating fructose will push you toward metabolic syndrome, which is where most of the health problems lie.
- Egregore 16y ago
  >fiber is protective against many of the negative effects associated with fructose. Sorry for my ignorance in the subject, but isn't fiber the non digestible part of food? I've read that it absorbs some toxins, but how it can have such a big impact?
chipsy 16y ago
I recommend this video as a sort of sequel to the points presented by Lustig: http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/insulin-body-weight-and-energy-production.tpl http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/insulin-body-weight-and-... Dr. Connelly expresses broader and more extreme opinions(he doesn't care about fiber, and essentially recommends you drown yourself in protein before touching carbs), but also has a good technical overview of the biochemistry.

108 points by kqr2 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

adorton 16y ago

I heard this today on Sirius, but couldn't catch the whole thing. Thanks for the link.

kenjackson 16y ago

Thank you. I found this a lot more useful than the NYTimes article.

symptic 16y ago

Lustig makes a few great points, but it's important to keep in mind there are some who argue he is a "fructose alarmist" and argue it's not as simple as "blaming fructose alone." A good quote from Alan Aragon: "I would add that fiber is only one of the numerous phytochemicals in fruit that impart health benefits. Thus, it’s not quite as simple as saying that fructose is evil, but once you take it with fiber, you’ve conquered the Dark Side." Some links: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-ta... I personally don't take sides with either. Like most things in the nutritional field, a healthy balance is more effective for me than trending behaviors and ideologies (i.e.: no-fat diet, "slow carb" diet, Atkins diet, etc.).

jerf 16y ago
Did you listen to the linked MP3? If so, I'm not sure how you can listen to that and conclude he's "blaming fructose alone". I'm up to at least three times he's clearly explained why that's not the case. And I don't mean "mouthing words about it then blaming it anyhow", I mean, explaining the ways in which things work together to cause obesity, and how fructose is only the most effective member of a group of 4 foods, and so on. I really think people really ought to go primary sources and stop listening to people summarizing summaries and then launching devastating assaults on strawmen.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  And Lustig, in this podcast, talks about how fiber and fructose tend to go together in nature, which is why whole foods are good as they usually have both. He gives two examples where they don't though... grapes and honey. But he says that honey is protected by bees. But no answer for why grapes make it easy to get fructose without fiber.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - zach 16y ago
    Grapes have been domesticated for thousands of years, and at every step the goal has been to maximize fructose and minimize fiber, most notably in making the seedless varieties that comprise the vast majority of table grapes sold today. At this point, who knows what grapes were originally like? Of course, we know they had real seeds and I'm guessing they weren't so plump and thin-skinned. So maybe they had a much more commendable fiber-to-fructose ratio. Today, table grapes are just glucose and fructose water balloons.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      Wild grapes tend to have large bunches of really small fruit with a few seeds, if I remember right. We had some in our backyard in Livermore years ago.
      - GeneralMaximus 16y ago
        Are you guys talking about the huge, swollen, purple grapes that are incredibly sweet and juicy? In New Delhi, you only find those grapes at large supermarkets. Most grapes sold here are exactly what you described: large bunches of really small fruit. No seeds, though.
        dangrossman 16y ago
        Yes, very large red/purple/green grapes without seeds are the common variety in stores in the US.
Saavedro 16y ago
Eating a fruit is not the same as drinking the equivalent amount of fruit juice along with some fiber for the same fructose load, because when eating a fruit the fact that the sugars are bound up in the fibers and must be broken down acts as a rate control. It's a dose issue, but dose is both volume and absorption rate, and the absorption rate of fructose from free sugar is very fast, as it is not rate-regulated in the liver like glucose metabolism. This means it doesn't require as much refined sugar compared to sugar from fruit in order for your liver to spend some time with a dangerous fructose load; -Refined- sugars are -especially- problematic, because of the absorption pattern. Simply combining free sugar with supplemental fiber mitigates some of the metabolic issues, but doesn't alleviate the problem. If you watch Lustig he -does- say the fruit is fine, for this reason. Whenever we find the chemical in a particular plant that is the one we like the most (and in rats, it's been shown that sugar&cocaine addicted rats prefer their sugar hit to their cocaine hit), extract it, and crystalize it, it's not surprising that it may be problematic.

espeed 16y ago

Last summer I did a 14-day juice fast (primarily organic vegetable juice). After about 3 days of no carbs your body burns off most of the sugar in your body (the liver's glycogen stores) and you go into ketosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis) where your body switches its fuel source from sugar and starts burning body fat for fuel. Some people who go on these types of fasts talk about the mental clarity they receive after a few days into it. I can attest to it -- the best way I can describe it is going from ADD to no ADD. When this happens I have assumed it has something to do with the change in the brain's fuel source. I don't know if this is related to sugar being toxic, but I have suspected it might be.

staktrace 16y ago
I'm curious about this: do you mean you drank only organic vegetable juice for 14 days?
- espeed 16y ago
  Yes -- I bought a juicer and stared out making it myself, but this quickly became a PITA so instead I went to Whole Foods and stocked up on Bolthouse Farms "The Vedge," which is like V8 only organic (and pretty good). After about day 3, when all the sugar burns out of your system, you aren't really hungry anymore. Psychologically you may feel the urge to eat because you're used to doing it so often, but you don't really experience the "hunger pangs" like when you miss lunch. This is because "hunger," as most of us experience it, has more to do with your brain craving sugar than it is you being truly hungry.
  - smhinsey 16y ago
    Did you do this under a doctor's supervision or just on your own?
  - bretthopper 16y ago
    I hope people aren't reading this and thinking about doing this crazy diet especially with all this misinformation. Hunger is not just your "brain craving sugar". I get hungry every single day and I eat virtually no sugar. Yes, insulin response has been known to cause some cravings, but that isn't the only factor in hunger. Fat and protein also satiate you more than carbohydrates which means you shouldn't experience as much hunger.

staktrace 16y ago

Here's a 1.5 hour lecture by him on the exact biochemical pathways that make fructose a poison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

bgentry 16y ago

I'm going to reiterate this again on this thread: Yes, this interview is long, as was the Youtube video from Lustig. But it is worth every minute of listening time. Watch the original video (linked in this thread) for a more in-depth technical explanation of the cellular processes at work. It's truly fascinating material.

sklivvz1971 16y ago

Fact check here: in short - the claim is debunked. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/370/96 http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/370/96

bgentry 16y ago
I don't see how that post in any way contradicts what Lustig has argued. It's not just about the amount of fructose, it's also about the way that the fructose is carried into our system. EDIT: care to explain why this was worthy of a downvote?
1053r 16y ago
In short - Wrong. Your link claims exactly the opposite if you dig deeper. The top stack exchange answer links to an article which states that fructose is in fact a chronic toxin in quantity, but that high fructose corn syrup is no worse than sugar or honey or maple syrup or many other common sweeteners. This is consistent with Lustig's claims. Read it for yourself. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501 Lustig claims that consuming a glucose only sweetener, such as maltose or dextrose or glucose should be lead to better health and weight loss when compared to a fructose glucose mix, such as sugar or high fructose corn syrup. Speaking from my personal experience, I lost 3 inches off my waist while exercising less over a period of 2 months after switching all fructose sources EXCEPT whole fresh fruit out for dextrose.
eco 16y ago
The top reply is addressing whether HFCS is more dangerous than other sweeteners rather than the claims Lustig makes. Lustig agrees that it's not more dangerous than something like table sugar. What he is saying is that fructose (whether from HFCS, sucrose, agave nectar, etc.) is toxic in sufficient quantities. So this isn't really debunking anything and it's actually in line with what Lustig says.

jyu 16y ago

Cliff Notes: Drinking soda makes you fatter. Also orange juice, cookies, and any other highly processed drinks/foods. Avoid these to lose weight.

daniel-cussen 16y ago
Also fruit and some other unprocessed things.
- jmtame 16y ago
  he said fruit is okay because it has more fiber content. also to go along with this: he said we don't know enough about artificial sweeteners to conclude whether they're a healthy alternative yet.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- hristov 16y ago
  That is not correct. If you listen to his talk Lustig said something to the effect of "wherever god put the poison, he also put the anitdote." Thus, anywhere in nature where fructose appears there is also fiber. And fiber if it is processed at the same time and similar quantities as fructose allows the liver to process fructose properly. So there should not be anything in its natural state that is problematic. The only exception to that may be honey.
  - bostonpete 16y ago
    > The only exception to that may be honey. Well, that's because God didn't put it there -- the bees did. :-)
  - Saavedro 16y ago
    If you personally have to brave FREAKING BEES to get to it then you'll probably moderate your consumption enough ;]

tremendo 16y ago

I felt let down by the interviewer interrupting and changing the topic at least two times when I was eager to hear more. The first when Lustig tries to address Alan Aragon's criticisms, he even insists that it is important to follow on it, and the second when he begins talking about the externalities of using public policy to counter the effects of increased consumption. In both cases the interviewer abruptly changed the topic and the arguments were left incomplete. The rest was not news if for anyone that has seen his youtube video.

blakeweb 16y ago

I just watched the mentioned video[1] the other day and made some notes, so thought I'd share them since this hit the front page. - Fructose is metabolized similarly to ethanol. Both can only mostly be metabolized in the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized throughout the body. Both result in a storage as fat of a significant portion of the calories, possibly in the liver, where the fat causes long-term harm. Most of glucose on the other hand is stored in the liver as glycogen, which is not harmful long-term, and is the main source when you're eating a bunch of white pasta (glucose) storing up for a big race. - If we just ate fructose from fruits we'd eat 10-20% as much as we do today. Plus fiber is protective against many of the negative effects associated with fructose. So fruit is probably on the balance still good for you or neutral in terms of the negative effects from fructose mentioned here. - Fructose seems to suppress the post-eating dip in ghrelin levels, where ghrelin is thought to be important in encouraging us to eat--the "hunger hormone". - Fructose doesn't cause a spike in insulin and reduces leptin, which he views as a negative, as it goes along with not discouraging further eating. - He gave no evidence that glucose is good or beneficial, or reasons why glucose isn't a threat to increased risk of diabetes, etc. He's just chosen his battle as against fructose, as it's more winnable than against all sugar. That last bullet is my conclusion/wrapup of his perspective. I think his points are valid, and his recommendations are good for an overweight person (ie, your average American), but he oversimplifies things to make his case simpler and stronger. If you're really trying to stay healthy, eating a ton of glucose is not a good thing--an issue he mainly skirts to keep the focus on fructose. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

merloen 16y ago
Listen to the presentation - he mentions glucose specifically, and explains why he thinks it's a toxin, as opposed to glucose, which he calls the fuel of life. He also mentions that while eating a ton of glucose may make you obese, eating fructose will push you toward metabolic syndrome, which is where most of the health problems lie.
Egregore 16y ago
>fiber is protective against many of the negative effects associated with fructose. Sorry for my ignorance in the subject, but isn't fiber the non digestible part of food? I've read that it absorbs some toxins, but how it can have such a big impact?

chipsy 16y ago

I recommend this video as a sort of sequel to the points presented by Lustig: http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/insulin-body-weight-and-energy-production.tpl http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/insulin-body-weight-and-... Dr. Connelly expresses broader and more extreme opinions(he doesn't care about fiber, and essentially recommends you drown yourself in protein before touching carbs), but also has a good technical overview of the biochemistry.