5 ms·

"Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (https://robertlustig.com/sugar-the-bitter-truth/ https://robertlustig.com/sugar-the-bitter-truth/) is a pretty long watch, but it's i

by dfltr 2y ago

"Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (https://robertlustig.com/sugar-the-bitter-truth/ https://robertlustig.com/sugar-the-bitter-truth/) is a pretty long watch, but it's incredibly eye-opening in terms of explaining in detail exactly why our current dietary sugar intake is so damaging to our bodies. Note: Robert Lustig is a professor of pediatric endocrinology at UCSF, I promise I wouldn't ask you (the reader) to watch a long-ass youtube video unless it contained extremely relevant science about how you (the biological machine) work.

jjav 2y ago
Seconded. Lustig's talks are extremely good and highly recommended for anyone who eats.
loeg 2y ago
Lustig is a crank with opinions well outside scientific consensus.
- bitwize 2y ago
  This is one of those areas where scientific consensus needs to catch up with the alarming facts that have been discovered. Scientific consensus was against handwashing for doctors and plate tectonics, and it still is in favor of "clearing amyloid plaques will totally fix Alzheimer's", but the facts just keep on being what they be.
  - loeg 2y ago
    No, this is an area where Lustig is probably wrong, and definitely making unsubstantiated statements.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      Can you elaborate a bit?
    - vixen99 2y ago
      As in? No examples so that we can look at the facts ourselves?
  - parineum 2y ago
    You can use that exact post to reply to anything. It's devoid of information relevant to this topic.
- raegis 2y ago
  This isn't true. He has books and lectures explaining the metabolic processes when eating refined sugar, and why it's bad for you. Nowadays it's pretty mainstream stuff. Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".
  - loeg 2y ago
    > Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus". Lustig specifically claims that sugar is addictive; that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose; that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss; that in fact, weight loss is somehow a function of insulin, not calories; that fructose is uniquely bad relative to other sugars; that fructose causes inflammation; that recent decades' increase in obesity is caused by increased sugar consumption; that statins are essentially useless; that some kinds of LDL cholesterol are good for longevity; that non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar; etc, etc, etc, etc. A few of these claims are wholly unsubstantiated by research; the rest have some research and the research does not support Lustig's claims.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig >sugar is addictive >>The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/ >that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose >>Dietary fiber (DF), especially viscous DF, can contribute to a reduction in the glycemic response resulting from the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736284/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736284/ >that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss >>Mechanisms smooth out the large day-to-day differences in energy consumption, decreasing the importance of the size of a meal. In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5639963/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5639963/ I'm not going to go on and on... UCSF, which is one of the most respected teaching hospitals in the country, isn't hiring cranks. He specialize in exactly this stuff. Yea, he's a bit more strident than would would expect from a scientist, yes, he deals with the extremes of childhood obesity, which isn't really relevant to most people's bodies, but christ, he's not a crank.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vixen99 2y ago
  When you make accusations like this why not offer a specific illustrative example to avoid suggestions of mere name calling. Scientific consensus?. Actually nutrition & medical science is replete with the abandonment of 'received opinion'. How about applauding researchers who have novel ideas outside the consensus while at the same time insisting they demonstrate their evidence or in problematic areas, convincing reasons for pursuing their path?

by dfltr 2y ago

jjav 2y ago

Seconded. Lustig's talks are extremely good and highly recommended for anyone who eats.

loeg 2y ago

Lustig is a crank with opinions well outside scientific consensus.

bitwize 2y ago
This is one of those areas where scientific consensus needs to catch up with the alarming facts that have been discovered. Scientific consensus was against handwashing for doctors and plate tectonics, and it still is in favor of "clearing amyloid plaques will totally fix Alzheimer's", but the facts just keep on being what they be.
- loeg 2y ago
  No, this is an area where Lustig is probably wrong, and definitely making unsubstantiated statements.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Can you elaborate a bit?
  - vixen99 2y ago
    As in? No examples so that we can look at the facts ourselves?
- parineum 2y ago
  You can use that exact post to reply to anything. It's devoid of information relevant to this topic.
raegis 2y ago
This isn't true. He has books and lectures explaining the metabolic processes when eating refined sugar, and why it's bad for you. Nowadays it's pretty mainstream stuff. Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".
- loeg 2y ago
  > Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus". Lustig specifically claims that sugar is addictive; that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose; that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss; that in fact, weight loss is somehow a function of insulin, not calories; that fructose is uniquely bad relative to other sugars; that fructose causes inflammation; that recent decades' increase in obesity is caused by increased sugar consumption; that statins are essentially useless; that some kinds of LDL cholesterol are good for longevity; that non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar; etc, etc, etc, etc. A few of these claims are wholly unsubstantiated by research; the rest have some research and the research does not support Lustig's claims.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig >sugar is addictive >>The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/ >that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose >>Dietary fiber (DF), especially viscous DF, can contribute to a reduction in the glycemic response resulting from the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736284/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736284/ >that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss >>Mechanisms smooth out the large day-to-day differences in energy consumption, decreasing the importance of the size of a meal. In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5639963/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5639963/ I'm not going to go on and on... UCSF, which is one of the most respected teaching hospitals in the country, isn't hiring cranks. He specialize in exactly this stuff. Yea, he's a bit more strident than would would expect from a scientist, yes, he deals with the extremes of childhood obesity, which isn't really relevant to most people's bodies, but christ, he's not a crank.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vixen99 2y ago
When you make accusations like this why not offer a specific illustrative example to avoid suggestions of mere name calling. Scientific consensus?. Actually nutrition & medical science is replete with the abandonment of 'received opinion'. How about applauding researchers who have novel ideas outside the consensus while at the same time insisting they demonstrate their evidence or in problematic areas, convincing reasons for pursuing their path?