5 ms·

Robert Lustig, despite his considerable bona-fides, is an alarmist who uses hack science and a number of unsupported suppositions to make his (telegenic) points

by jpxxx 15y ago

Robert Lustig, despite his considerable bona-fides, is an alarmist who uses hack science and a number of unsupported suppositions to make his (telegenic) points. When you call something like fructose 'toxic', you are doing the public a disservice.

alecco 15y ago
With the epidemic of child obesity getting out of control alarms are necessary. And your ad-hominem is very pitiful.
cgh 15y ago
Can you elaborate on his specific use of "hack science"?
- jpxxx 15y ago
  Yes. Here's the argument being put forth: Fructose in the diet must be metabolized by the liver, which creates excessive amounts of palmitic acid which induces fat to deposit in the liver which causes abnormal insulin response which leads to metabolic syndrome (an umbrella term including diabetes and obesity) which leads to poor personal health which means poor social health which means fructose is toxic. The science available can support this: fructose in the diet is metabolized by the liver, which at some point of saturation (in animal studies, at outrageous levels of pure fructose intake) causes excessive creation of palmitic acid which is deposited into the liver as a fat. This liver fat is moderately to strongly implicated in abnormal insulin response which can progress to diabetes which is comorbid with obesity. Thus, actual science is a long long long long way from ~Fructose is Toxic And Must Be Removed From The Foodstream~. There's also the problem of sucrose, which immediately decomposes into… drumroll… fructose and glucose. Glucose in this story is beyond reproach - it is the foundation of animal life. Which means that the Fructose Is Toxic hypothesis needs to take into account sucrose consumption. Which his argument doesn't. This guy isn't completely full of shit, and I don't think his heart is in the wrong place. But he's screaming fire in a very crowded theater.
  - alecco 15y ago
    > But he's screaming fire in a very crowded theater. That doesn't make any sense.
    - jpxxx 15y ago
      I agree it needs work but I got bored of typing on a phone and hit send. How about "OUR FOOD IS POISONED" in a crowded newscast?
  - DocSavage 15y ago
    You are imagining his explanation of the biochemical pathways is the sole supporting science. That's incorrect. There are many studies supporting the direct effects of sugar, including measured lipids in students who are asked to drink sugar-laden soda vs controls. Given the many studies, he gives his hypothesis on the pathways that contribute to metabolic syndrome. Full-blown diabetes does not have to be present for there to be bad effects. Studies on the effects of hyperinsulinemia and increased insulin receptors suggest a whole list of bad outcomes, including a cellular environment that fosters cancers. He does not claim obesity is the main disease. It's another sequella of the underlying issue: excessive fructose metabolism.
    - jpxxx 15y ago
      I like what you're saying. I'll investigate his claims with more patience and read around some more. Thank you.
Florin_Andrei 15y ago
It all depends on the amount. Water is toxic, beyond a certain intake level. Sugar is a nutrient, provided that intake is within acceptable ranges. But most people in the West are eating way too much of it, due to lack of information, lack of will power, etc. When something causes heart disease and diabetes, what do you call it? "Healthy food"? Not at this intake level, no - it's become a toxin.
vetinari 15y ago
Fructose is 'toxic' the same way as alcohol. The metabolising process in liver is quite similar. You should really be careful about your fructose without fibre intake.
DocSavage 15y ago
His contention is that it's as toxic as alcohol, although alcohol has immediate effect on the brain and therefore is more self-limiting. You can also check out his video where he goes through the biochemical pathways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM At one point, he asks what you call a substance that primarily gets metabolized in the liver and when presented in excess (not an extreme excess either), gets metabolized into products considered harmful to the body. I should also note that every objection you make is unsupported and ad hominem ('alarmist', 'hack science'). If you want to counter his claim, point to a study where fructose is shown not to be correlated with the diseases in question. There are certainly a lot of studies as far back as the 50s that support his claims. I personally am on the hunt for well-controlled studies with reasonable duration (years to a decade) that involve sugar/fructose.
- jpxxx 15y ago
  Fine, you're right. Let me de-hominenize. His claims are alarmist and the word toxic is unsupported by the available science and opens him up to claims of media-seeking hackery. He's probably on the right path in untangling the effects of the godawful modern diet but to single out a specific sugar and call for its regulation is still a big stretch.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
Exactly. I wonder when we'll get the 'water is toxic' meme going. After all thousands of people have died from water over doses [1]. And what is worst, the younger people are the more likely they are to succumb. Think of the children! [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=death+by+drowning http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=death+by+drowning
- alanfalcon 15y ago
  Stop the spread of Dihydrogen Monoxode!

by jpxxx 15y ago

alecco 15y ago

With the epidemic of child obesity getting out of control alarms are necessary. And your ad-hominem is very pitiful.

cgh 15y ago

Can you elaborate on his specific use of "hack science"?

jpxxx 15y ago
Yes. Here's the argument being put forth: Fructose in the diet must be metabolized by the liver, which creates excessive amounts of palmitic acid which induces fat to deposit in the liver which causes abnormal insulin response which leads to metabolic syndrome (an umbrella term including diabetes and obesity) which leads to poor personal health which means poor social health which means fructose is toxic. The science available can support this: fructose in the diet is metabolized by the liver, which at some point of saturation (in animal studies, at outrageous levels of pure fructose intake) causes excessive creation of palmitic acid which is deposited into the liver as a fat. This liver fat is moderately to strongly implicated in abnormal insulin response which can progress to diabetes which is comorbid with obesity. Thus, actual science is a long long long long way from ~Fructose is Toxic And Must Be Removed From The Foodstream~. There's also the problem of sucrose, which immediately decomposes into… drumroll… fructose and glucose. Glucose in this story is beyond reproach - it is the foundation of animal life. Which means that the Fructose Is Toxic hypothesis needs to take into account sucrose consumption. Which his argument doesn't. This guy isn't completely full of shit, and I don't think his heart is in the wrong place. But he's screaming fire in a very crowded theater.
- alecco 15y ago
  > But he's screaming fire in a very crowded theater. That doesn't make any sense.
  - jpxxx 15y ago
    I agree it needs work but I got bored of typing on a phone and hit send. How about "OUR FOOD IS POISONED" in a crowded newscast?
- DocSavage 15y ago
  You are imagining his explanation of the biochemical pathways is the sole supporting science. That's incorrect. There are many studies supporting the direct effects of sugar, including measured lipids in students who are asked to drink sugar-laden soda vs controls. Given the many studies, he gives his hypothesis on the pathways that contribute to metabolic syndrome. Full-blown diabetes does not have to be present for there to be bad effects. Studies on the effects of hyperinsulinemia and increased insulin receptors suggest a whole list of bad outcomes, including a cellular environment that fosters cancers. He does not claim obesity is the main disease. It's another sequella of the underlying issue: excessive fructose metabolism.
  - jpxxx 15y ago
    I like what you're saying. I'll investigate his claims with more patience and read around some more. Thank you.

Florin_Andrei 15y ago

It all depends on the amount. Water is toxic, beyond a certain intake level. Sugar is a nutrient, provided that intake is within acceptable ranges. But most people in the West are eating way too much of it, due to lack of information, lack of will power, etc. When something causes heart disease and diabetes, what do you call it? "Healthy food"? Not at this intake level, no - it's become a toxin.

vetinari 15y ago

Fructose is 'toxic' the same way as alcohol. The metabolising process in liver is quite similar. You should really be careful about your fructose without fibre intake.

DocSavage 15y ago

His contention is that it's as toxic as alcohol, although alcohol has immediate effect on the brain and therefore is more self-limiting. You can also check out his video where he goes through the biochemical pathways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM At one point, he asks what you call a substance that primarily gets metabolized in the liver and when presented in excess (not an extreme excess either), gets metabolized into products considered harmful to the body. I should also note that every objection you make is unsupported and ad hominem ('alarmist', 'hack science'). If you want to counter his claim, point to a study where fructose is shown not to be correlated with the diseases in question. There are certainly a lot of studies as far back as the 50s that support his claims. I personally am on the hunt for well-controlled studies with reasonable duration (years to a decade) that involve sugar/fructose.

jpxxx 15y ago
Fine, you're right. Let me de-hominenize. His claims are alarmist and the word toxic is unsupported by the available science and opens him up to claims of media-seeking hackery. He's probably on the right path in untangling the effects of the godawful modern diet but to single out a specific sugar and call for its regulation is still a big stretch.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

Exactly. I wonder when we'll get the 'water is toxic' meme going. After all thousands of people have died from water over doses [1]. And what is worst, the younger people are the more likely they are to succumb. Think of the children! [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=death+by+drowning http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=death+by+drowning

alanfalcon 15y ago
Stop the spread of Dihydrogen Monoxode!