16 ms·

Sugar 50x more potent than total calories in explaining diabetes [video]

102 points by fhoxh 14y ago

rollypolly 14y ago
Many of us love sugary drinks, and sit inordinate amounts of time[1]. Things aren't looking up if we don't change attitude. We all feel indestructible in our 20s, but soon enough, we'll have to pay the Pied Piper. I hope the next generation of startups will offer healthier perks than redbulls, soft drinks, and sugary snacks. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3874024 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3874024
- wonnage 14y ago
  My startup (WellnessFX) is one of those with healthier perks. Granted, we're a health company, so it'd be a little hypocritical if we were snacking on Doritos all day... Most of our snack cabinet consists of bulk nuts and dried fruits - probably not much more expensive (if at all) than the usual junk. We've also replaced the soda with coconut water, kombucha, and a water filter on the sink. Coming from a previous job with weekly Mountain Dew and Costco snack pack shipments, the transition was a bit jarring. I still hate kombucha. But I've found most of the snacking I do while working is fairly mindless, anyway - might as well snack on pistachios instead of popcorn. Anyways, enough shilling from me - just wanted to let people know there are alternatives!
  - rollypolly 14y ago
    Kudos on the filtered water over bottled water. It's both economical and environmentally friendly.
- mahyarm 14y ago
  I agree. I would of been very interested in a startup that offered ketogenic meal options and treadmill desks. Right now a treadmill desk would be too disturbing to my coworkers, and I got to do the meals myself since they're so specific. Instead of sugary drinks, you can try creamy drinks and butter coffee/tea (it sounds gross, but is actually very tasty). That and a sparkling water dispenser would satisfy most my desire for drinks to be honest. http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/ http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulle... http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2011/12/brilliantly-simple-idea-treadmill-desk.html http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2011/12/brilliantly-si...
  - doktrin 14y ago
    I'm a big fan of lemon water. I personally use a lemon press to squeeze half a lemon into a tall glass of water. It tastes great and is quite refreshing, and often does the trick when fighting a sweet tooth craving.
    - Produce 14y ago
      Wouldn't this result in the dentin on your teeth being eroded all day?
      - doktrin 14y ago
        I think anything in excess (lemon water included) is probably going to have unpleasant side effects. I personally don't drink more than 1-2 glasses a day. I certainly wouldn't encourage that anyone replace water with lemon water - but it's really just lemonade without the added sugar. Lemonade is of course not particularly great for your teeth in excess - but no worse than gatorade. Sugar is also famously not great for teeth, and therefore lemon water is less damaging - in equal volume - than lemonade. What's also particularly important with regards to dental health is how long a given substance lingers in the mouth. Drinking a glass of lemon juice isn't the same as swishing it around for 20 seconds. TLDR; No.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Carbonated water is still acidic and not that great for your teeth.
fragsworth 14y ago
What does this mean exactly? How can you say something is (n)x more potent than something else in "explaining a disease"? I find this quote to be very confusing.
- latch 14y ago
  Pretty sure he's talking about the correlation between increase intake in fructose to increase rates in diabetes. The popularized view is that high rates of diabetes (and various other health issues) are broadly caused by an increase in overall calories. This research breaks down caloric-intake into what those calories are and correlates these individual components to diabetes. That's how I understand it anyways.
- tikhonj 14y ago
  I haven't read the article and I have no experience in the relevant field, but I think it's a simple idea: P(disease|sugar) = 50 * P(disease|calories from sugar). That is, if all you know is that you've consumed n calories, we think you probably you have probability p of getting the disease; if you've consumed n calories' worth of sugar, we think you have probability 50p of getting the disease.
  - monkeypizza 14y ago
    The problem is that you can't just multiply probabilities like that... How about: P(disease|calories) = P(disease|calories from sugar) + P(disease|calories not from sugar) So it might mean: P(disease|calories from sugar) =0.05 P(disease|calories not from sugar)=0.01
- drucken 14y ago
  The professor specifically meant the statistical inference, e.g. that accounting for all other factors that some factor X1 (in this case sugar) is Y times more correlated with Z observation (diabetes) than X2 (total calories). The main issue I would have would this video is the excessive focus on sugar the product and its direct sweetness associates rather than blood sugar levels which is far more directly relevant to diabetes and obesity in general. For example, common wheat bread and many sodas have a higher glycemic index than granulated table sugar! Therefore, they are converted into higher levels of blood sugar while at the same time being incredibly easy to over-consume (compared to trying to eat sugar directly). There is an excellent documentary created three years ago which explained in simple terms a huge amount to laymen about current scientific understanding and the unbelievable lengths to which industry and governments have gone to "encourage" a specific type of modern agriculture and associated food industry regardless of its health effects or consistent scientific evidence, especially in the US. It also covers why the Lipid Hypothesis is completely unvalidated, if not provably wrong. It is called "Fat Head (2009)" and it was available in full on Youtube until copyright notices removed it. It starts a little slowly and actually begins with a deep criticism of the logical fallacies in "Supersize Me" the movie, uses at one point slightly silly comic imagery, but by the second half there is excellent up-to-date food science and historical explanation as to why society is at is now. I am very grateful to another HN user that referred it to me about a year go. Anther superb and complementary programme was a Feb 2009 BBC Horizon episode called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat?" which is available on iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hbsk2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hbsk2). It is almost two programmes side-by-side. One sub-programme is a loose experiment to attempt to make a random group of young adults fat and why in some cases it effectively failed. The other sub-programme covers the summary results and science behind a deep, long and published study of a large number of obese people at a specialist clinic which profoundly contributed to scientific understanding of how obesity develops and what makes it so difficult to reverse beyond a certain point. I highly recommend both programmes. They will change they way you think, even if you have absolutely no interest in changing your food or lifestyle, and in some cases are surprisingly uncommon "common sense". But the kind of common sense only your grandparents and all those who were born before the 1970s would implicitly understand.
moonlighter 14y ago
It's easy to miss, but if you care to watch the video, you also want to read the comment on that same page by Professor Richard Feinman. In summary, he concludes that while it's a nicely presented video, it is factually incorrect. http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23591&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150658918813898_22971402_10150763387093898#f20916dc78 http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23591&fb_c...
- oomkiller 14y ago
  The actual quote: "This is incorrect. Increase in diabetes and obesity correlate not just with sugar but with all carbohydrates. Fructose is metabolized through pathways that are most similar to the way glucose is processed, notwithstanding the important differences. Alcohol is metabolized by a completely different pathway. At high levels, alcohol is metabolized through a different pathway, the cytochrome P450 -- in other words, detoxification. Whereas part 1 emphasized how fructose does not turn to glycogen, I am flattered the Lustig has learned that it does in fact lead to glycogen, sometimes preferentially. The presentation is terrific (I wish I could speak as well) but the content is the kind of thing that makes professors shake their head at lunch over how screwy student presentations are. The very detrimental effects of fructose occur at high levels of total carbohydrate intake and whereas it is good to point out that low fat has been bad advice, the label from the low-fat food was on screen long enough to see that flour was the second ingredient. Frequently, it is the first. Reducing carbohydrate is the best strategy for improving diabetes and obesity -- you can do it by emphasizing sugar but if you keep those healthy high starch fibers high, you will still have a problem. Lustig is nice guy and we try hard to avoid personal things, but the CONTENT of this talk is dishonest, biased, inaccurate and, again has the danger that it will continue to encourage high consumption of starch with or without grains. On the other hand, I have elsewhere suggested that it would be great to hear some sugar-eater jokes, like drunk jokes. Two sugar-eaters go into a Dunkin' Donuts...."
  - latch 14y ago
    This boggles my mind. I understand that much of our knowledge around nutrition (both at a micro and macro level) is still vague..but... Surely he's either right or he's wrong. Either the ingestion of fructose leads to 3x the number of calories that must be phosphorylated or it doesn't (versus glucose). The need for this extra phosphor either leads to more uric acid, or it doesn't. So on and so forth. It's like watching 1 politician argue "This budget will save $X billion over 5 years", while the opposition argues that "No, it will COST $X Billion over 5 years". Isn't this shit basic chemistry for these professional?
tferris 14y ago
I don't get it: he claims that sugar is bad because the fructose in sugar is bad leading to dozen disease including diabetes. But fructose is is the core of many fruits which are considered as healthy. Nutrition/metabolism is still a black box and this video confuses more than it clarifies.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Fructose in five oranges: 16g Fructose in one can of Coke: 39g
  - aaronblohowiak 14y ago
    Also, fiber in five oranges: 15g Fiber in a can of coke: 0g
    - pja 14y ago
      Plus the coke has salt and caffeine in it, so shortly afterwards you'll want to drink more: Another can of coke perhaps?
      - mistercow 14y ago
        The sodium (not actually salt – or at least, not sodium chloride) in a coke might make you thirstier, but the caffeine probably won't. While caffeine is a diuretic, studies have not supported the idea that it causes dehydration, and it's generally accepted that the amount of water in coffee (which has a far higher caffeine density than coke) is enough to offset what you lose to its diuretic effects.
        pja 14y ago
        You're right. Scratch that evil influence then :)
  - watmough 14y ago
    And there's a lot of stuff to digest in those oranges. I'm full up after one. That's maybe a tsp of sugar.
SpaceDragon 14y ago
Can we just shut up about sugar already? Yeah, it's freaking terrible, even though I eat sugar every day of my life and I have no health issues. Drop the agenda. P.S. I'm not bragging that I'm superman or anything, and I'm grateful for my health. I just want to make the point that this stupid propaganda fear mongering has to stop.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Congratulations on your good health. Not everybody is you. Also: what's (inherently) wrong with agendas? We've all got 'em.
Klinky 14y ago
I think he could have simply said "overeating fructose is bad for you, just like overeating practically anything else is". The lengths he went to vilify fructose as a poison, despite it naturally occurring in a very likely primate food source(fruit), just makes him seem to come off as an anti-fructose zealot - an anti-fructite. Edit: Looking at other materials from him, it sounds like he's against the over consumption of fructose rather than fructose itself. This video does a pretty poor job expressing that though.
- CMay 14y ago
  The first words spoken in the video: "Now I am not against sugar when it's appropriate and rare." It might have been nice for him to spend a little more time focusing on appropriate sugar intake scenarios and what makes them appropriate. In previous videos he discussed the importance of fiber in more depth.
  - Klinky 14y ago
    >Now I am not against sugar when it's appropriate and rare. Yes and later goes on to say it's a poison, unless you just finished a race or exercised. I don't think that's how poisons work. Sugar is not rare either, as pointed out by the video itself our bodies run on sugars. We require it. I am not sure you can say that about real poisons. Carbs we eat breakdown to sugars. Given how he classifies fructose as a poison, anything we eat could be classified as a poison, if we ate too much of it.
    - CMay 14y ago
      He did refer to it as a poison and a dose-dependent toxin. There's room to quibble over their definitions and whether he's exaggerating a bit for effect, but he's very clear on his message that it's a substance which requires serious moderation that can lead to death in various ways. Sure, if you don't take water in moderation it can kill you, but in this case the dosage required in order to produce negative effects is low enough that its side effects have become commonplace. You are confusing all sugar as meaning "glucose", but there are a number of sugars. Fructose is the sugar he takes issue with, because it's much more common in products than it should be due to the body's limited ability to cope with it. When he just calls it sugar, he's making it easier for people to relate with. And yes, with him calling fructose a poison a large number of products available could be a serious issue if you eat too much of them. Unfortunately, what constitutes "too much" is very little and fluctuates a bit depending on your rate of digestion which can be slowed by taking in more soluble fiber at the same time. It's been added to products as a flavor compensation too liberally, because it's cheap, addictive, legal and increases sales. This is used as the basis for why the issue is widespread, it's been put into so many products.
dschleef 14y ago
Lustig's premise (from this and other sources) is essentially: (translated for a techie audience) 1. There is a clean pathway and dirty pathway for converting fructose to glycogen in the liver. The clean pathway is easily overloaded by consuming a lot of fructose at once. ("A lot" being more than 12 oz of soda, roughly.) The key bit is that the bad effects are non-linear. 2. The dirty pathway produces metabolites that cause the body's metabolism to switch to an imbalanced state, which if not corrected, leads to metabolic syndrome and type-II diabetes. 3. The dirty pathway is similar to alcohol consumption, with similar long-term effects. This is why he calls fructose a poison. 4. Dietary fiber slows down absorbtion of fructose, thus giving the liver more time to process fructose using the clean pathway. So an apple (fiber!) causes less of a fructose overload problem than a similar quantity of apple juice. From this, Lustig hypothesises that metabolic syndrome is primarily caused by overconsumption of fructose, and that a diet that has low or zero fructose and high in fiber will correct metabolic syndrome. This is a testable hypothesis, and should be relatively easy to test, even by individuals. My added notes: 1. There's lots of talk about "sugar", which is dumb, because "sugar" means different things to different people. Lustig means "fructose", which is present in sugar, HFCS, agave nectar, honey, all sweet fruits, fruit juices, etc. 2. Everyone's body, lifestyle, eating habits, exercise habits, and metabolic syndrome level is different, thus everyone will respond to fructose (and indeed any food) differently. If you care, learn how food works in your body and create a diet that fits your needs. And especially, don't extrapolate from your own experience to all people. 3. Several fad diets of recent years fit rather neatly into Lustig's recommendation, including Atkins, South Beach, mediterranean, raw vegan. If you care, find one that works for you.
- waveman 14y ago
  > should be relatively easy to test, even by individuals. I did this. I cut my fructose consumption to the equivalent of two pieces of fruit a day and easily lost weight after years of struggling. My cholesterol fell from 255 to 160 mg/dl with an inprovement in the good/bad cholesterol ratios and a fall in triglycerides and uric acid. Also my inflammatory markers fell dramatically in some cases to unmeasurably low levels. Lustig is spot on. A lot of people are heavily invested in the old orthodoxy and react accordingly. Fructose is a carbohydrate, but in any but small quantities it is metabolically a fat.
peterwwillis 14y ago
Some people will make the claim that alcohol is treated "just like fat" in the body, and that this is why people have beer bellies. While at the same time studies show that people with high-alcohol diets and low carb intake actually weigh less than their non-drinking counterparts. The metabolism of alcohol is quite complex, so it becomes silly to make over-generalizations like "alcohol metabolizes to fat" (ex. http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/642alcoholmetab.gif http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/642alcoholmeta...). I think a lot of people end up taking this as gospel, such as the people who parrot that "alcohol kills braincells." Well yes it does, but not much more than will die naturally or due to other causes, more studies have shown. The real danger lies in permanently damaging or killing your liver from which there is no coming back. When I see television pieces done telling me there is a single simple culprit for a huge problem like obesity, my brain tells me that this is probably not the case. In fact, most of the people I know who are obese don't seem to be eating handfulls of cupcakes or sodas. They're eating chicken wings and burgers and fries and nachos and big macs. Not to say fat is another single cause of obesity, but it's clear that an overabundance of fat, or perhaps simply just over-eating, is another simple cause for obesity which needs to be weighed with all the rest. Technically just drinking alcohol could lead to diabetes as it lowers the blood sugar and insulin swoops in to fill the gap. Sure, sugar can be very detrimental to your health, but let's not make it out to be the devil. Promoting nutritional balance and moving away from non-fresh foods would probably go a lot farther towards preventing diabetes than never eating sugar.
- Sapient 14y ago
  > chicken wings and burgers and fries and nachos and big macs Thats loads of carbs. And they are probably also eating a lot of crisps, along with all the sodas and sweetened drinks they are drinking. What I am trying to say, is that its not the fat in those meals which is making them fat, its the carbs. I am on a diet which has cut out all carbs entirely, and increased the amount of fat I eat drastically. I lost a large amount of weight fairly quickly on this diet, and the loss continues. Edit: Americanized chips to crisps.
  - bad_user 14y ago
dbbolton 14y ago
Regardless of the controversy issued herein, I firmly assert that one has nothing to gain by consuming fructose, the sole exception being if that fructose just so happens to come bundled with some other necessary nutrient.
- nasmorn 14y ago
  Exactly. It is especially odd considering that not adding extra sugar to ones diet quickly makes lots of things taste sweet that one formerly hasn't thought of sweet. Fruit is now about as sweet to me as cake used to be and candy or cake I cannot eat anymore. Fast food also tastes more disgusting since the added sugar is too prominent for me.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bad_user 14y ago
My father used to tell me that I shouldn't eat so much sugar as it causes diabetes. This was happening 20 years ago. My grandmother also used to tell me that, above all else, sugar and starch makes people fat. My country also has lots of traditional recipes for food that are rich in meats and fats. We eat more pork than beef or fish combined and some dishes would make anyone that's concerned about high cholesterol scream. On every national holiday, we celebrate by preparing lots of food and eating like pigs. That didn't stop my grandfather from dying at 99 years old, even though he was a total raw bacon junkie (when I say raw, I actually mean it, as in not smoked, not cured). It seems to me that when it comes to nutrition, you're better off listening to the wisdom of older people. On sugar ... a friend works for a local tobacco factory and he was describing to me how they add sugar in the mix, because when it comes to dependency, sugar is even better than nicotine. I'm from Europe and while visiting the U.S. there's one thing I immediately noticed straight from the airport at arrival ... I have never seen so many fat people in one place. In fact this was the first time I ever saw people that are so fat they needed a wheelchair to move around. I hope I don't offend anyone by this, but seriously consider eating real food, instead of sweetened junk or diet bars or low-fat milk. Also drink water or herbal tea, instead of soda.
- napierzaza 14y ago
  Sugar in chewing tobacco? Or does burning sugar in a cigarette get into the blood stream? Because I imagine it wouldn't be sugar at that point.
- guga31bb 14y ago
  >instead of sweetened junk or diet bars or low-fat milk Likening milk to the other two seems odd. What's wrong with milk?
  - bad_user 14y ago
    Milk is good. The problem with low-fat milk is that the process for pulling the fat out leaves this liquid without taste. Therefore, for regaining the right texture and taste, companies producing low-fat milk actually add milk powder and other chemicals. Also the process doesn't just remove fat, so just like with refined carbohydrates, low-fat milk or yogurt loses nutritional value. Do a test sometimes with your favorite yogurt for instance. Leave it on the table for a few days. If it doesn't grow mold, then it has no nutritional value in it. It can also happen to have the same taste after a week (I don't know if ever noticed this, but I did, especially with products from Danone). Few people these days drink real milk straight from a cow. The difference in taste is huge. And do you know what happens when you leave such natural milk on the table for a few days? It goes sour and turns to yogurt ... has a great taste and is really healthy. Really, you don't have to do anything else, other than just leaving it there. Cheese is also easy to make from such milk and you won't find such great-tasting cheese in the supermarket ;-) Try doing that with bottled milk, especially the low-fat variety. You'll have a surprise. What's worrying me is that a lot of mothers are giving their toddlers low-fat milk these days, without considering the process of producing it, taking it as a given that it's healthier than normal milk because it has less fat. Well actually, giving low-fat milk to children is just as irresponsible as exposing them to passive smoking. Our stomach and metabolism is used to digesting normal high-fat milk. If you're concerned with the high-fat, just drink less of it and concentrate on quality, not quantity. My point was that people shouldn't put processed crap in their mouth. The more natural it is, the better.
bcowcher 14y ago
If anyone is interested in a more informative video from Lustig, I'd recommend this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wSu6U8OzPk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wSu6U8OzPk Its long, but it covers a lot more information and history of this fine mess we're in..

102 points by fhoxh 14y ago

Many of us love sugary drinks, and sit inordinate amounts of time[1]. Things aren't looking up if we don't change attitude. We all feel indestructible in our 20s, but soon enough, we'll have to pay the Pied Piper. I hope the next generation of startups will offer healthier perks than redbulls, soft drinks, and sugary snacks. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3874024 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3874024

wonnage 14y ago
My startup (WellnessFX) is one of those with healthier perks. Granted, we're a health company, so it'd be a little hypocritical if we were snacking on Doritos all day... Most of our snack cabinet consists of bulk nuts and dried fruits - probably not much more expensive (if at all) than the usual junk. We've also replaced the soda with coconut water, kombucha, and a water filter on the sink. Coming from a previous job with weekly Mountain Dew and Costco snack pack shipments, the transition was a bit jarring. I still hate kombucha. But I've found most of the snacking I do while working is fairly mindless, anyway - might as well snack on pistachios instead of popcorn. Anyways, enough shilling from me - just wanted to let people know there are alternatives!
- rollypolly 14y ago
  Kudos on the filtered water over bottled water. It's both economical and environmentally friendly.
mahyarm 14y ago
I agree. I would of been very interested in a startup that offered ketogenic meal options and treadmill desks. Right now a treadmill desk would be too disturbing to my coworkers, and I got to do the meals myself since they're so specific. Instead of sugary drinks, you can try creamy drinks and butter coffee/tea (it sounds gross, but is actually very tasty). That and a sparkling water dispenser would satisfy most my desire for drinks to be honest. http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/ http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulle... http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2011/12/brilliantly-simple-idea-treadmill-desk.html http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2011/12/brilliantly-si...
- doktrin 14y ago
  I'm a big fan of lemon water. I personally use a lemon press to squeeze half a lemon into a tall glass of water. It tastes great and is quite refreshing, and often does the trick when fighting a sweet tooth craving.
  - Produce 14y ago
    Wouldn't this result in the dentin on your teeth being eroded all day?
    - doktrin 14y ago
      I think anything in excess (lemon water included) is probably going to have unpleasant side effects. I personally don't drink more than 1-2 glasses a day. I certainly wouldn't encourage that anyone replace water with lemon water - but it's really just lemonade without the added sugar. Lemonade is of course not particularly great for your teeth in excess - but no worse than gatorade. Sugar is also famously not great for teeth, and therefore lemon water is less damaging - in equal volume - than lemonade. What's also particularly important with regards to dental health is how long a given substance lingers in the mouth. Drinking a glass of lemon juice isn't the same as swishing it around for 20 seconds. TLDR; No.
- pyre 14y ago
  Carbonated water is still acidic and not that great for your teeth.

fragsworth 14y ago

What does this mean exactly? How can you say something is (n)x more potent than something else in "explaining a disease"? I find this quote to be very confusing.

latch 14y ago
Pretty sure he's talking about the correlation between increase intake in fructose to increase rates in diabetes. The popularized view is that high rates of diabetes (and various other health issues) are broadly caused by an increase in overall calories. This research breaks down caloric-intake into what those calories are and correlates these individual components to diabetes. That's how I understand it anyways.
tikhonj 14y ago
I haven't read the article and I have no experience in the relevant field, but I think it's a simple idea: P(disease|sugar) = 50 * P(disease|calories from sugar). That is, if all you know is that you've consumed n calories, we think you probably you have probability p of getting the disease; if you've consumed n calories' worth of sugar, we think you have probability 50p of getting the disease.
- monkeypizza 14y ago
  The problem is that you can't just multiply probabilities like that... How about: P(disease|calories) = P(disease|calories from sugar) + P(disease|calories not from sugar) So it might mean: P(disease|calories from sugar) =0.05 P(disease|calories not from sugar)=0.01
drucken 14y ago
The professor specifically meant the statistical inference, e.g. that accounting for all other factors that some factor X1 (in this case sugar) is Y times more correlated with Z observation (diabetes) than X2 (total calories). The main issue I would have would this video is the excessive focus on sugar the product and its direct sweetness associates rather than blood sugar levels which is far more directly relevant to diabetes and obesity in general. For example, common wheat bread and many sodas have a higher glycemic index than granulated table sugar! Therefore, they are converted into higher levels of blood sugar while at the same time being incredibly easy to over-consume (compared to trying to eat sugar directly). There is an excellent documentary created three years ago which explained in simple terms a huge amount to laymen about current scientific understanding and the unbelievable lengths to which industry and governments have gone to "encourage" a specific type of modern agriculture and associated food industry regardless of its health effects or consistent scientific evidence, especially in the US. It also covers why the Lipid Hypothesis is completely unvalidated, if not provably wrong. It is called "Fat Head (2009)" and it was available in full on Youtube until copyright notices removed it. It starts a little slowly and actually begins with a deep criticism of the logical fallacies in "Supersize Me" the movie, uses at one point slightly silly comic imagery, but by the second half there is excellent up-to-date food science and historical explanation as to why society is at is now. I am very grateful to another HN user that referred it to me about a year go. Anther superb and complementary programme was a Feb 2009 BBC Horizon episode called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat?" which is available on iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hbsk2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hbsk2). It is almost two programmes side-by-side. One sub-programme is a loose experiment to attempt to make a random group of young adults fat and why in some cases it effectively failed. The other sub-programme covers the summary results and science behind a deep, long and published study of a large number of obese people at a specialist clinic which profoundly contributed to scientific understanding of how obesity develops and what makes it so difficult to reverse beyond a certain point. I highly recommend both programmes. They will change they way you think, even if you have absolutely no interest in changing your food or lifestyle, and in some cases are surprisingly uncommon "common sense". But the kind of common sense only your grandparents and all those who were born before the 1970s would implicitly understand.

moonlighter 14y ago

It's easy to miss, but if you care to watch the video, you also want to read the comment on that same page by Professor Richard Feinman. In summary, he concludes that while it's a nicely presented video, it is factually incorrect. http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23591&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150658918813898_22971402_10150763387093898#f20916dc78 http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23591&fb_c...

oomkiller 14y ago
The actual quote: "This is incorrect. Increase in diabetes and obesity correlate not just with sugar but with all carbohydrates. Fructose is metabolized through pathways that are most similar to the way glucose is processed, notwithstanding the important differences. Alcohol is metabolized by a completely different pathway. At high levels, alcohol is metabolized through a different pathway, the cytochrome P450 -- in other words, detoxification. Whereas part 1 emphasized how fructose does not turn to glycogen, I am flattered the Lustig has learned that it does in fact lead to glycogen, sometimes preferentially. The presentation is terrific (I wish I could speak as well) but the content is the kind of thing that makes professors shake their head at lunch over how screwy student presentations are. The very detrimental effects of fructose occur at high levels of total carbohydrate intake and whereas it is good to point out that low fat has been bad advice, the label from the low-fat food was on screen long enough to see that flour was the second ingredient. Frequently, it is the first. Reducing carbohydrate is the best strategy for improving diabetes and obesity -- you can do it by emphasizing sugar but if you keep those healthy high starch fibers high, you will still have a problem. Lustig is nice guy and we try hard to avoid personal things, but the CONTENT of this talk is dishonest, biased, inaccurate and, again has the danger that it will continue to encourage high consumption of starch with or without grains. On the other hand, I have elsewhere suggested that it would be great to hear some sugar-eater jokes, like drunk jokes. Two sugar-eaters go into a Dunkin' Donuts...."
- latch 14y ago
  This boggles my mind. I understand that much of our knowledge around nutrition (both at a micro and macro level) is still vague..but... Surely he's either right or he's wrong. Either the ingestion of fructose leads to 3x the number of calories that must be phosphorylated or it doesn't (versus glucose). The need for this extra phosphor either leads to more uric acid, or it doesn't. So on and so forth. It's like watching 1 politician argue "This budget will save $X billion over 5 years", while the opposition argues that "No, it will COST $X Billion over 5 years". Isn't this shit basic chemistry for these professional?

tferris 14y ago

I don't get it: he claims that sugar is bad because the fructose in sugar is bad leading to dozen disease including diabetes. But fructose is is the core of many fruits which are considered as healthy. Nutrition/metabolism is still a black box and this video confuses more than it clarifies.

mistercow 14y ago
Fructose in five oranges: 16g Fructose in one can of Coke: 39g
- aaronblohowiak 14y ago
  Also, fiber in five oranges: 15g Fiber in a can of coke: 0g
  - pja 14y ago
    Plus the coke has salt and caffeine in it, so shortly afterwards you'll want to drink more: Another can of coke perhaps?
    - mistercow 14y ago
      The sodium (not actually salt – or at least, not sodium chloride) in a coke might make you thirstier, but the caffeine probably won't. While caffeine is a diuretic, studies have not supported the idea that it causes dehydration, and it's generally accepted that the amount of water in coffee (which has a far higher caffeine density than coke) is enough to offset what you lose to its diuretic effects.
      - pja 14y ago
        You're right. Scratch that evil influence then :)
- watmough 14y ago
  And there's a lot of stuff to digest in those oranges. I'm full up after one. That's maybe a tsp of sugar.

SpaceDragon 14y ago

Can we just shut up about sugar already? Yeah, it's freaking terrible, even though I eat sugar every day of my life and I have no health issues. Drop the agenda. P.S. I'm not bragging that I'm superman or anything, and I'm grateful for my health. I just want to make the point that this stupid propaganda fear mongering has to stop.

lukifer 14y ago
Congratulations on your good health. Not everybody is you. Also: what's (inherently) wrong with agendas? We've all got 'em.

Klinky 14y ago

I think he could have simply said "overeating fructose is bad for you, just like overeating practically anything else is". The lengths he went to vilify fructose as a poison, despite it naturally occurring in a very likely primate food source(fruit), just makes him seem to come off as an anti-fructose zealot - an anti-fructite. Edit: Looking at other materials from him, it sounds like he's against the over consumption of fructose rather than fructose itself. This video does a pretty poor job expressing that though.

CMay 14y ago
The first words spoken in the video: "Now I am not against sugar when it's appropriate and rare." It might have been nice for him to spend a little more time focusing on appropriate sugar intake scenarios and what makes them appropriate. In previous videos he discussed the importance of fiber in more depth.
- Klinky 14y ago
  >Now I am not against sugar when it's appropriate and rare. Yes and later goes on to say it's a poison, unless you just finished a race or exercised. I don't think that's how poisons work. Sugar is not rare either, as pointed out by the video itself our bodies run on sugars. We require it. I am not sure you can say that about real poisons. Carbs we eat breakdown to sugars. Given how he classifies fructose as a poison, anything we eat could be classified as a poison, if we ate too much of it.
  - CMay 14y ago
    He did refer to it as a poison and a dose-dependent toxin. There's room to quibble over their definitions and whether he's exaggerating a bit for effect, but he's very clear on his message that it's a substance which requires serious moderation that can lead to death in various ways. Sure, if you don't take water in moderation it can kill you, but in this case the dosage required in order to produce negative effects is low enough that its side effects have become commonplace. You are confusing all sugar as meaning "glucose", but there are a number of sugars. Fructose is the sugar he takes issue with, because it's much more common in products than it should be due to the body's limited ability to cope with it. When he just calls it sugar, he's making it easier for people to relate with. And yes, with him calling fructose a poison a large number of products available could be a serious issue if you eat too much of them. Unfortunately, what constitutes "too much" is very little and fluctuates a bit depending on your rate of digestion which can be slowed by taking in more soluble fiber at the same time. It's been added to products as a flavor compensation too liberally, because it's cheap, addictive, legal and increases sales. This is used as the basis for why the issue is widespread, it's been put into so many products.

dschleef 14y ago

Lustig's premise (from this and other sources) is essentially: (translated for a techie audience) 1. There is a clean pathway and dirty pathway for converting fructose to glycogen in the liver. The clean pathway is easily overloaded by consuming a lot of fructose at once. ("A lot" being more than 12 oz of soda, roughly.) The key bit is that the bad effects are non-linear. 2. The dirty pathway produces metabolites that cause the body's metabolism to switch to an imbalanced state, which if not corrected, leads to metabolic syndrome and type-II diabetes. 3. The dirty pathway is similar to alcohol consumption, with similar long-term effects. This is why he calls fructose a poison. 4. Dietary fiber slows down absorbtion of fructose, thus giving the liver more time to process fructose using the clean pathway. So an apple (fiber!) causes less of a fructose overload problem than a similar quantity of apple juice. From this, Lustig hypothesises that metabolic syndrome is primarily caused by overconsumption of fructose, and that a diet that has low or zero fructose and high in fiber will correct metabolic syndrome. This is a testable hypothesis, and should be relatively easy to test, even by individuals. My added notes: 1. There's lots of talk about "sugar", which is dumb, because "sugar" means different things to different people. Lustig means "fructose", which is present in sugar, HFCS, agave nectar, honey, all sweet fruits, fruit juices, etc. 2. Everyone's body, lifestyle, eating habits, exercise habits, and metabolic syndrome level is different, thus everyone will respond to fructose (and indeed any food) differently. If you care, learn how food works in your body and create a diet that fits your needs. And especially, don't extrapolate from your own experience to all people. 3. Several fad diets of recent years fit rather neatly into Lustig's recommendation, including Atkins, South Beach, mediterranean, raw vegan. If you care, find one that works for you.

waveman 14y ago
> should be relatively easy to test, even by individuals. I did this. I cut my fructose consumption to the equivalent of two pieces of fruit a day and easily lost weight after years of struggling. My cholesterol fell from 255 to 160 mg/dl with an inprovement in the good/bad cholesterol ratios and a fall in triglycerides and uric acid. Also my inflammatory markers fell dramatically in some cases to unmeasurably low levels. Lustig is spot on. A lot of people are heavily invested in the old orthodoxy and react accordingly. Fructose is a carbohydrate, but in any but small quantities it is metabolically a fat.

peterwwillis 14y ago

Some people will make the claim that alcohol is treated "just like fat" in the body, and that this is why people have beer bellies. While at the same time studies show that people with high-alcohol diets and low carb intake actually weigh less than their non-drinking counterparts. The metabolism of alcohol is quite complex, so it becomes silly to make over-generalizations like "alcohol metabolizes to fat" (ex. http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/642alcoholmetab.gif http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/642alcoholmeta...). I think a lot of people end up taking this as gospel, such as the people who parrot that "alcohol kills braincells." Well yes it does, but not much more than will die naturally or due to other causes, more studies have shown. The real danger lies in permanently damaging or killing your liver from which there is no coming back. When I see television pieces done telling me there is a single simple culprit for a huge problem like obesity, my brain tells me that this is probably not the case. In fact, most of the people I know who are obese don't seem to be eating handfulls of cupcakes or sodas. They're eating chicken wings and burgers and fries and nachos and big macs. Not to say fat is another single cause of obesity, but it's clear that an overabundance of fat, or perhaps simply just over-eating, is another simple cause for obesity which needs to be weighed with all the rest. Technically just drinking alcohol could lead to diabetes as it lowers the blood sugar and insulin swoops in to fill the gap. Sure, sugar can be very detrimental to your health, but let's not make it out to be the devil. Promoting nutritional balance and moving away from non-fresh foods would probably go a lot farther towards preventing diabetes than never eating sugar.

Sapient 14y ago
> chicken wings and burgers and fries and nachos and big macs Thats loads of carbs. And they are probably also eating a lot of crisps, along with all the sodas and sweetened drinks they are drinking. What I am trying to say, is that its not the fat in those meals which is making them fat, its the carbs. I am on a diet which has cut out all carbs entirely, and increased the amount of fat I eat drastically. I lost a large amount of weight fairly quickly on this diet, and the loss continues. Edit: Americanized chips to crisps.
- bad_user 14y ago

dbbolton 14y ago

Regardless of the controversy issued herein, I firmly assert that one has nothing to gain by consuming fructose, the sole exception being if that fructose just so happens to come bundled with some other necessary nutrient.

nasmorn 14y ago
Exactly. It is especially odd considering that not adding extra sugar to ones diet quickly makes lots of things taste sweet that one formerly hasn't thought of sweet. Fruit is now about as sweet to me as cake used to be and candy or cake I cannot eat anymore. Fast food also tastes more disgusting since the added sugar is too prominent for me.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bad_user 14y ago

My father used to tell me that I shouldn't eat so much sugar as it causes diabetes. This was happening 20 years ago. My grandmother also used to tell me that, above all else, sugar and starch makes people fat. My country also has lots of traditional recipes for food that are rich in meats and fats. We eat more pork than beef or fish combined and some dishes would make anyone that's concerned about high cholesterol scream. On every national holiday, we celebrate by preparing lots of food and eating like pigs. That didn't stop my grandfather from dying at 99 years old, even though he was a total raw bacon junkie (when I say raw, I actually mean it, as in not smoked, not cured). It seems to me that when it comes to nutrition, you're better off listening to the wisdom of older people. On sugar ... a friend works for a local tobacco factory and he was describing to me how they add sugar in the mix, because when it comes to dependency, sugar is even better than nicotine. I'm from Europe and while visiting the U.S. there's one thing I immediately noticed straight from the airport at arrival ... I have never seen so many fat people in one place. In fact this was the first time I ever saw people that are so fat they needed a wheelchair to move around. I hope I don't offend anyone by this, but seriously consider eating real food, instead of sweetened junk or diet bars or low-fat milk. Also drink water or herbal tea, instead of soda.

napierzaza 14y ago
Sugar in chewing tobacco? Or does burning sugar in a cigarette get into the blood stream? Because I imagine it wouldn't be sugar at that point.
guga31bb 14y ago
>instead of sweetened junk or diet bars or low-fat milk Likening milk to the other two seems odd. What's wrong with milk?
- bad_user 14y ago
  Milk is good. The problem with low-fat milk is that the process for pulling the fat out leaves this liquid without taste. Therefore, for regaining the right texture and taste, companies producing low-fat milk actually add milk powder and other chemicals. Also the process doesn't just remove fat, so just like with refined carbohydrates, low-fat milk or yogurt loses nutritional value. Do a test sometimes with your favorite yogurt for instance. Leave it on the table for a few days. If it doesn't grow mold, then it has no nutritional value in it. It can also happen to have the same taste after a week (I don't know if ever noticed this, but I did, especially with products from Danone). Few people these days drink real milk straight from a cow. The difference in taste is huge. And do you know what happens when you leave such natural milk on the table for a few days? It goes sour and turns to yogurt ... has a great taste and is really healthy. Really, you don't have to do anything else, other than just leaving it there. Cheese is also easy to make from such milk and you won't find such great-tasting cheese in the supermarket ;-) Try doing that with bottled milk, especially the low-fat variety. You'll have a surprise. What's worrying me is that a lot of mothers are giving their toddlers low-fat milk these days, without considering the process of producing it, taking it as a given that it's healthier than normal milk because it has less fat. Well actually, giving low-fat milk to children is just as irresponsible as exposing them to passive smoking. Our stomach and metabolism is used to digesting normal high-fat milk. If you're concerned with the high-fat, just drink less of it and concentrate on quality, not quantity. My point was that people shouldn't put processed crap in their mouth. The more natural it is, the better.

bcowcher 14y ago

If anyone is interested in a more informative video from Lustig, I'd recommend this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wSu6U8OzPk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wSu6U8OzPk Its long, but it covers a lot more information and history of this fine mess we're in..