8 ms·

This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calorie

This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but he will never, in a scientific study, demonstrate the ill-effects of consuming apples, while another group consumes the same equivalent amount of raw fructose extract.

fnord77 5y ago
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fig2/AS:839228233613324@1577099011826/Association-between-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-obesity-in-the-United-States-69.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fi...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cycrutchfield 5y ago
Why are you mischaracterizing Lustig's position? https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-fo... >Another nutrition expert, Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who has called sugar “toxic” at high doses and fructose the most “actionable” problem in our diet, is still a fan of fruit. “As far as I’m concerned, fiber is the reason to eat fruit,” since it promotes satiety and the slow release of sugar.
- knuthsat 5y ago
  I'm not. Fruit isn't apple. Apple is fruit with massive amounts of fructose.
deepnotderp 5y ago
Fruits are metabolized very differently than their extracted sugar content though
- knuthsat 5y ago
  Exactly, yet all of the studies blaming sugar concentrate on fructose and glucose concentrate studies.
serverholic 5y ago
There are lots of examples that support your argument. For example, there are hunter-gatherer tribes living today that consume a significant amount of sugar (up to 60% of their calories) and don't have the same problems with obesity, diabetes, etc. I'm no expert but it seems that the human body doesn't handle bodyfat very well. Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is calorie-dense and calorie-dense foods tend to make people fat. Especially in the hyper-palatable forms we have in America.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is calorie-dense and calorie-dense foods tend to make people fat. Sugar is less calorie dense than fat, and this kind of naive reductionist CICO thinking would tend to support the war on fat that preceded recognition of the problems associated with sugar. It’s true that humans are not well adapted to deal with persistent surplus, but sugary persistent surplus seems to be a particular problem.
  - serverholic 5y ago
    > Sugar is less calorie dense than fat Yes. I never said that it wasn't. > naive reductionist CICO thinking CICO is how the body works. If you absorb more calories than you burn you will gain weight. It also doesn't matter the source of the calories. We have metabolic ward studies that tell us that. > sugary persistent surplus seems to be a particular problem I agree. In fact one of the prevailing theories of diabetes is that fat molecules enter the cell and get in the way of insulin absorption. In other words, insulin resistance.
- cycrutchfield 5y ago
  Really, hunter-gatherer tribes eat 60% of their calories in refined sugars? Or are you conflating any form of sugar (specifically in fruit) and refined sugars such as in soft drinks?
  - serverholic 5y ago
dataflow 5y ago
> he will never, in a scientific study, demonstrate the ill-effects of consuming apples, while another group consumes the same equivalent amount of raw fructose extract. I can imagine lots of reasons for not running this study. Maybe there's no funding or interest in it. Or maybe it falls short of proving what you're hoping it proves. Or maybe he's busy with a dozen other things. I have no idea. It's certainly an effort that needs to be justified. Just saying he isn't doing something isn't particularly enlightening. Much better would be if you could link to some other study on this and show the results didn't match what he claims. > In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. No comment on Lustig in general, but 3 comments on your criticism: - He literally says in his talk that the Japanese diet "eliminates fructose". So it's not really that he doesn't mention what you're saying; he actually claims the opposite is true, so he addresses this head-on. Do you have a link or something (for those who don't know) that show's he's wrong about this you could share? You could try to shoot down down his argument if you show he's wrong on that basic fact. Make sure you get the details correct, though, like the time period (in case things have been changing). - "Healthier" is too vague. They could be doing better on lots of metrics but not the particular one he's talking about, but come out "healthier" overall. - Similarly, there could be a million and one other things that they do differently from Americans that could make up for whatever damage fructose is alleged to do. Just because the end result is that they're healthier and that they consumer more fructose doesn't mean fructose isn't having a negative effect on them. You haven't really provided any more support for your argument than he has at all, so it's hard to take your word over his (regardless of whose might be right). If you have something to support your position that would be super helpful.

fnord77 5y ago

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fig2/AS:839228233613324@1577099011826/Association-between-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-obesity-in-the-United-States-69.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fi...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cycrutchfield 5y ago

Why are you mischaracterizing Lustig's position? https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-fo... >Another nutrition expert, Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who has called sugar “toxic” at high doses and fructose the most “actionable” problem in our diet, is still a fan of fruit. “As far as I’m concerned, fiber is the reason to eat fruit,” since it promotes satiety and the slow release of sugar.

knuthsat 5y ago
I'm not. Fruit isn't apple. Apple is fruit with massive amounts of fructose.

deepnotderp 5y ago

Fruits are metabolized very differently than their extracted sugar content though

knuthsat 5y ago
Exactly, yet all of the studies blaming sugar concentrate on fructose and glucose concentrate studies.

serverholic 5y ago

There are lots of examples that support your argument. For example, there are hunter-gatherer tribes living today that consume a significant amount of sugar (up to 60% of their calories) and don't have the same problems with obesity, diabetes, etc. I'm no expert but it seems that the human body doesn't handle bodyfat very well. Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is calorie-dense and calorie-dense foods tend to make people fat. Especially in the hyper-palatable forms we have in America.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is calorie-dense and calorie-dense foods tend to make people fat. Sugar is less calorie dense than fat, and this kind of naive reductionist CICO thinking would tend to support the war on fat that preceded recognition of the problems associated with sugar. It’s true that humans are not well adapted to deal with persistent surplus, but sugary persistent surplus seems to be a particular problem.
- serverholic 5y ago
  > Sugar is less calorie dense than fat Yes. I never said that it wasn't. > naive reductionist CICO thinking CICO is how the body works. If you absorb more calories than you burn you will gain weight. It also doesn't matter the source of the calories. We have metabolic ward studies that tell us that. > sugary persistent surplus seems to be a particular problem I agree. In fact one of the prevailing theories of diabetes is that fat molecules enter the cell and get in the way of insulin absorption. In other words, insulin resistance.
cycrutchfield 5y ago
Really, hunter-gatherer tribes eat 60% of their calories in refined sugars? Or are you conflating any form of sugar (specifically in fruit) and refined sugars such as in soft drinks?
- serverholic 5y ago

dataflow 5y ago

> he will never, in a scientific study, demonstrate the ill-effects of consuming apples, while another group consumes the same equivalent amount of raw fructose extract. I can imagine lots of reasons for not running this study. Maybe there's no funding or interest in it. Or maybe it falls short of proving what you're hoping it proves. Or maybe he's busy with a dozen other things. I have no idea. It's certainly an effort that needs to be justified. Just saying he isn't doing something isn't particularly enlightening. Much better would be if you could link to some other study on this and show the results didn't match what he claims. > In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. No comment on Lustig in general, but 3 comments on your criticism: - He literally says in his talk that the Japanese diet "eliminates fructose". So it's not really that he doesn't mention what you're saying; he actually claims the opposite is true, so he addresses this head-on. Do you have a link or something (for those who don't know) that show's he's wrong about this you could share? You could try to shoot down down his argument if you show he's wrong on that basic fact. Make sure you get the details correct, though, like the time period (in case things have been changing). - "Healthier" is too vague. They could be doing better on lots of metrics but not the particular one he's talking about, but come out "healthier" overall. - Similarly, there could be a million and one other things that they do differently from Americans that could make up for whatever damage fructose is alleged to do. Just because the end result is that they're healthier and that they consumer more fructose doesn't mean fructose isn't having a negative effect on them. You haven't really provided any more support for your argument than he has at all, so it's hard to take your word over his (regardless of whose might be right). If you have something to support your position that would be super helpful.