6 ms·
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 righ
by latch 15y 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?
- dschleef 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y agoUhm.. But the sky IS falling. You can't argue that there's not an obesity epidemic.
- s8qnze982y 15y 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.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 15y agoPlease stop using the word epidemic in this way. Especially for a medical condition which is not contagious. I know what you mean but the wording makes it sound you can get obese by being around obese people. Thats tabloid vocabulary at best.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago>Especially for a medical condition which is not contagious. But the fact is, obesity is contagious. Habit and culture are huge factors in obesity, both of which are contagious to those who you share extended proximity with.
- andrewfelix 15y agoBut it's not an incorrect usage of the term. Epidemic is not exclusive to contagious conditions.
- ekianjo 15y agoI know. That's why I mentioned clearly "especially for a medical condition" - because then you use a figurative word associated with a medical term, while you would expect in that context the other meaning of "epidemic". If you were talking about "epidemic unemployment" there would be no ambiguity, but "epidemic obesity" is a very improper use of the word, ambiguous in this context. Anyway, most of the time if you use the figurative sense of the word, just replacing it with "growth/increase/spread" is good enough. Why use an overly dramatic word ?
- lukifer 15y agoThere's seldom such a thing as basic chemistry in complex biological systems. It's like conflating programming with arithmetic.