4 ms·
The actual quote: "This is incorrect. Increase in diabetes and obesity correlate not just with sugar but with all carbohydrates. Fructose is metabolized through
by 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 agoThis 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?
- dschleef 14y agoThey are technically both correct, but in different situations. If you drink a glass of orange juice, you get Feinman's case and no problems. If you drink a 72 oz soda, you get Lustig's case. Lustig goes into details about the differences in other videos, and makes the point that the 72-oz soda case is very common in America.
- latch 14y agoThanks, and if that's true (which I believe you), then I'd argue that Feinman is out of touch with reality. It seems like Lustig is both a researcher and an actual MD, while Feinman is pure research. This is possibly what is keeping Lustig in better touch with the realities of western nutrition. Quickly going Feinman's blog, he seems like a bit of an ass too.. "Avoiding ad hominem is tough. Lustig’s Nature paper contains the single stupidest line in the history of the journal..."
- dschleef 14y agoMeh. I generally assume people have good motives, unless proven otherwise. Lustig is screaming "the sky is falling!" Feinman is responding in a perfectly natural fashion, "If they sky were falling, we would have noticed by now."
- skyfex 14y agoUhm.. But the sky IS falling. You can't argue that there's not an obesity epidemic.
- s8qnze982y 14y agoWatch out, you can't easily assume that it's not caused by general bad nutrition and lifestyle. Assuming that you're probably from the USA, where obesity is ramping up, from a (especially southern) European perspective, the eating culture of USA is very, very bad.