Listen to my story. I was around pounds. I learned about carbohydrate restriction and went on an Atkins style diet. My caloric intake quadrupled. Did I gain or lose? I lost 6 pant sizes in 3 months. Yeah, screw caloric restriction. Continually citing anecdotal reports does not help further your cause. There may be limited research, but a recent study suggests that the ketogenic diet does not offer a metabolic advantage over a standard, reduced-calorie diet see: You can grab the same type of testimonials claiming the same results from the promoters of low fat diets like the Pritikin diet, Body for Life, or any diet for that matter.
Whatever it takes to get the person to stick with a calorie deficit is the right diet for that person. I agree with Leigh Peele that you have a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores individual differences. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect , and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.
The funny part is, the majority of long-term trials 12 months or more STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
For some folks, low-carb is warranted. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists. What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. From my plebeian point of view, Alan seems to have the most thought out stance on the subject that looks at the big picture.
Just an attack on the quality of your evidence and arguments. Always nice to see a debate going on. I am a specialist in East Asian international affairs and have spent a great deal of time in Japan for research purposes. Bakeries serving all variety of desserts both Western and Asian are ubiquitous, easily as ubiquitous as Starbucks is here in Seattle.
I would argue that fructose consumption through HFCS-loaded sweetened drinks and dessert products is even more common than it is in America. This tends to become quite the competitive endeavor amongst inebriated company men. Many restaurants encourage you to purchase both for a discount so you can drink and eat yourself sick at the same time. Workers in Osaka will typically get off work and begin their binge at 5: The major difference between Japan and America? The Japanese walk, and walk, and walk, and walk, and walk, and walk some more and can manage the calories in versus calories out issue far better than we Americans.
Anyone who believes that the Japanese, in daily practice, eat more healthfully than the average American needs to go abroad. As a parting thought, anyone familiar with Japanese cooking knows that nearly every single sauce used has a foundation consisting of soy sauce and sugar as syrup, honey, or straight-up cane sugar. Hopefully this will educate the people who are ignoring the realities of the Japanese diet in regards to sugar consumption.
I hope that Dr. Lustig does the responsible thing and comments further, perhaps with a modified stance based on the evidence discussed here. I have a bad feeling that he may have taken his ball and ran home. I hope not, though. This type of discussion just goes to show that anyone can have holes in his case, be it a doctor, professor, or both. I doubt you understand how complexe metabolism regulation is.
If it was just as simple as excess insulin, obesity would not be hard to treat. Well hot damn, this is good stuff. Thanks for the contributions, everyone. One thing that needs to be emphasized is that hashing these matters out facilitates learning for everyone involved. Lustig, please do me a favor and address some of the contentions leveled at you. Mr Aragon thanks for writing this article. Especially enjoyed the points you raised on context-dropping.
This is a very important point and what she is referring to is intrinsicism. This occurs when people treat value or non-value as a non-relational property of an object. Instead the value is seen as contained somewhere where? You took the words right out of my mouth. In addition to the forms you mentioned as being staple ingredients in traditional Japanese dishes, sucrose is also paired with sake rice wine in a liquid called mirin. Another staple ingredient is called ryori-shu or cooking alcohol. A piece of fish. Seasoning may be salt or teriyaki sauce combo soy sauce, sugar, mirin, and ryori-shu or A breaded and deep-fried paddy of ground meat or potato.
Seasoning is a sweet, brown sauce similar to BBQ sauce. Seasoning combo of soy sauce, sugar, mirin, and ryori-shu or Shredded cabbage that is companion to the breaded and deep-fried paddy. Eggs beaten with sugar, soy sauce and soup stock and then fried and rolled into a cube shape. The latter, is a soup made of a combo of soy sauce, sugar, mirin, and ryori-shu. The more fat on a cut of meat, the more expensive it is. I live near a restaurant that sells a steak dinner for USD of which the steak is more white than red.
Your inane ramblings, strawmen and anecdotal counter arguments do more to discredit yourself than anyone here could. Lustig is missing the forest and demonizing the tree. Thank you to both for sharing your thoughts. Good posts, but far too measured. Sorry folks, the days of a conservative bowl of rice, raw fish, and a bowl of miso are long gone. Is my rambling a sweeping generalization? Anyway, back to apples…. You asked for some decent evidence. It merely tells us that they contain a range of grams of carbohydrate per g serving.
Quoting my article above: Here is what has changed and continues to change since Crisco was introduced in — the consumption of processed foods. Fructose is part of that over-all picture that began years ago. We eat more, we move less. I look through my HS yearbook and can only find pictures of teenage men or women over weight, none obese. It was rare for parents to be more than a few pounds overweight until they were over Here is a study that suggests many of those extra calories are in beverages.
Though fructose is not an evil food, consuming it in large quantities easily while watching TV or playing video games contributes to the problem but the obestiy problem though not caused by fructose alone, is certainly aided by economic and social policy just as tobacco use was years ago. The decline in cancer rates is attributed to falls in the number of tobacco users.
If we want to do something meaningful to prevent a generation of youth growing up with NAFLD, then we need to do something about our policy regarding fructose production. Alan, ya got me. I did find The effect of a high consumption of apples or grapes on dental caries and periodontal disease in humans. That still leaves the problem of the metabolically-impaired. Metabolically-impaired people who eat lots of fruit can deteriorate into full-blown diabetics.
Nothing that you said above in any way changes the truth of anything that Alan wrote in his blog post. The other part of the picture that people are missing is that Americans have become MUCH lazier and rely much more heavily on a sedentary lifestyle. Furthermore, as stated above, Japanese foods and the trend of liking desserts is just as high there as in the USA.
However, among many favoring factors, they do walk more day-to-day compared to those living in the USA…most notably either in a car, behind a desk, in front of a TV or Playstation, in bed, no more Physical Education in schools, etc. I think it is clear that nobody is promoting suagry liquid consumption either from socrose or HFCS on any party in this debate, and it is definitely part of the puzzle to obesity. However, this is mainly because of the overconsumption from all foods as stated by Alan.
Furthermore, Jamie pointed out that there is a HUGE difference when it is consumed on a hypocaloric diet than compared to a hypercaloric diet. Factor in physical activity, and it makes even more of a difference. Mitch had a banana, orange, and blueberries for breakfast. For him to turn a recommendation of 2 servings of fruit a day into 20 servings, who knows what else he did to screw up dietary compliance. If you all agree that fructose at a certain level is damaging, then I challenge you to come up with a number. Try it, and you might see why Dr. Lustig does not, because it would be highly specific to the individual.
Some of you focus on calories, when the issue with fructose is really metabolic disorder which would cause you to regulate your body weight poorly. If your hormonal signals of insulin, leptin, etc. Yes, exercise and other can help you maintain this balance, which allows you to consume more fructose mentioned in the lecture during the biochemistry.
In addition, some populations including Japanese handle carbs better.
How fruit juice went from health food to junk food
Come up with a one-size-fits-all number for fructose now when you have to deal with diet, genetics, exercise, etc.? As for Japan, it should not be denied that less sugar is consumed overall, despite the existence of dessert shops and drinking houses. Some of the population obviously will go for that.
Japan does have over a million people after all. Lustig is not a lawyer, I can forgive him for that. If people are consuming enough fructose to cause metabolic disorders, they have more problems than just the soda.. And when you read the text books that fact slaps you in the face. JLB — You speak as if you have great client experience using different diets.
I know nothing more than that. I was asked last year by Dr. I run a gym that for the past 12 years has shed hundreds of pounds off of people and been on the T0day show twice, and oh I forget 2 dozen other major TV and radio shows including Oprah and friends with Dr. I can see that you work hard to whet your craft, so let me suggest that you pay more attention and learn from the real gurus, not the ones who are so attached to their dogma that their quality of info has stopped improving 15 years ago.
No insulin, no fat storage regardless of the calories ingested. Also, why is it that in studies where they used drugs to inhibit insulin secretion they showed no difference in weight loss? Why is it so hard to accept as true? All that you are doing is wishful thinking and showing once again how people are stubborn when it comes to changing their mind.
Anyway, the low-carb infatuation is fadding now, so you better take the train while you can. There are many reasons why this could be. Like the Barry Sears study that was mentioned here on this thread.
Quite flawed and biased. And if you think the low carb issue is fading you have not a clue of what is going on in the world of bariatric medicine. You are as wrong as wrong can be. Excess carbohydrate intake is the primary source for adipose tissue stores. Try to get fat on an all fat-meat diet. I dare any of you to try this. I guarantee you will will get leaner of you are somewhat over fat and more muscular if already lean and training. I bet you NONE of you will try.
Assuming it is using it rather than storing it. Hormones regulate fat storage. Why so many of you want to hold onto the age old calorie nonsense is frightening. What do you say to your clients — eat enough protein and the rest is up to you so long as you eat less calories than you are now? Eat two chicken large breasts a day and the rest in bagels, poptarts and cookies? Listen, no hard feelings. We all choose to help our clients as best as we can. I doubt if most people could keep that up. My guess is that most people would eventually lower their calorie intake as they get tired of eating just meat and eggs.
Although I admit that that would probably lead to weight loss! Most people who lose weight gain the weight back. I lost 65 pounds, plateaued, and then gained most of it back. This was on a diet where my main carb source was fruit and whipped cream… too much fructose, I guess! We need sustainable diets that people can adhere to. Do you have any studies to support this? This is quite an outrageous claim to make without having any form of evidence to back it up.
In this world of pseudo-science, someone should at least have some academic credibility if he wants to talk about science and research. Do you have this? Not an ad hominem here, just being realistic. So, what credibility do you have regarding this? Nobody has shot my theory down in flames yet. This speaks to your business acumen — not your knowledge. There is absolutely NO WAY that someone with such a hard-lined stances on nutrition could be looking at the scientific data objectively.
Lustig on your part. Lustig even confirmed what he meant on this thread and he still got called out for his BS. And who are you? Post a pic on my website big shot. Full of BS are you? You might even be denser than Fred. There are numerous hormones that are involved in the regulation of fat metabolism…..
You also seem very stuck on hormones, but you ignore the fact that there are many non-hormonal factors that are involved in the regulation of adipose tissue stores. There are also extremely complicated interactions between all of these factors, which ultimately lead to the regulation of body fat stores. The fact is, fat cells can and do take up glucose and fatty acids in the complete absence of insulin. Fat cells can and do create triglycerides in the complete absence of insulin. The body is full of redundant biochemical pathways which are involved in the increase of adipose tissue stores.
And there are people here who posted that they have. Do their anecdotes not count? No, what is mind-boggling is how you continue to adhere to a simplistic, grade-school level of understanding of adipose tissue regulation. After all, the guy has been on the Today Show twice. In reference to a direct comparison of fructose consumption by the Japanese in Japan vs. Diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications in Japanese migrants on the Island of Hawaii. Japanese migrants and their offspring on the island of Hawaii and Japanese living in Hiroshima were examined for diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications.
Death certificates of Japanese and Caucasians dying on the island during the past 26 yr were analyzed. This suggests that diabetes is more prevalent in Japanese in Hawaii than in Japan, although lack of knowledge about the total population of Japanese migrants in Hawaii makes this generalization uncertain. The proportion of deaths attributed to diabetes was much higher in Japanese migrants and their offspring in Hawaii than in Japan.
During the s, the proportional death rate from diabetes was about half as large in Japanese Hawaiians as in Caucasian Hawaiians, but it increased to become 1. A nutritional study revealed that the total caloric intake was similar in Japanese in Hawaii and Hiroshima, although the estimated level of physical activity was less in the Hawaiian subjects.
Consumption of animal fat and simple carbohydrates sucrose and fructose were at least twice as high in Hawaiian as in Hiroshima Japanese. Conversely, Hiroshima Japanese consumed about twice the amount of complex carbohydrate as the Hawaiian Japanese. The proportion of deaths attributed to ischemic heart disease was higher in both diabetic and nondiabetic Japanese Hawaiians than in diabetic subjects in Japan. The rates were similar for Japanese and Caucasians in Hawaii. There was no evidence of an environmental influence on the development of microangiopathy retinopathy in diabetes, as the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy stratified for diabetes duration was similar in Japanese subjects in Hawaii and in Japan, and it was similar to previous reports from England.
On the other hand, diabetes alone did not appear to account for the greater prevalence of macroangiopathy in Hawaiian Japanese than in Hiroshima. Thus environmental factors, possibly including diet, appear to be involved in the development of macrovascular complications of diabetes. Surely a study done in discounts the anecdotes of people that were there from the late 90s to the present day. Is being honest really so hard? I thought you had to pass ethics to be approved by the medical board.
You gotta love the soup of confounding variables that limits epidemiological research. You can't cite a purported increase in fructose while at the same time omitting a decrease in physical activity. Furthermore, correlational research simply cannot establish causal relationships in the first place, so good luck with resting your stance on it. Stick with me here, I'll cite more epidemiology to further illustrate my point. Here's a quote from a similar, but more recent correlational study [Diabet Med.
Instead, you lasered in on sugar while dismissing the other factors. All this, while relying on correlational research. Similarly, neither did you during your lecture. My final point is that you have neglected to address the error of stating that the Japanese diet is fructose-free aside from fruit, and that it has no added sugars. This is clearly an untenable claim, and it was the first, and one of the most memorable claims in your lecture. Aragon, since you seem to be unswayed by anything but randomized controlled trials in humans, and only those at fructose doses that are reasonable, and since you seem to like to journal quote, then here is just a sampling that demonstrates that fructose, and not just extra calories, is behind dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, visceral adiposity, and hepatic steatosis.
Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis DNL and the hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle-triglyceride and -cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption.
In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. Effects of short-term feeding with high- vs low- fructose isoenergetic diets on hepatic de novo lipogenesis, liver fat content and glucose regulation. We studied the effects of fructose on intrahepatic lipid accumulation.
Seven subjects were scanned at baseline and after each of two successive 7-day isocaloric diets, one high in fructose, one high in complex carbohydrates in a randomized crossover fashion. These results suggest that fructose is unique in increasing intrahepatic lipid accumulation. In addition, you have completely ignored the thread that by inducing insulin and leptin resistance, fructose increased and persistent food intake both at the hypothalamic and the nucleus accumbens level.
So while controlled and pair-feeding fructose consumption does not result in increased total aggregate weight gain vs. There are also new studies demonstrating changes in the nucleus accumbens by PET scan, which equate fructose with other substances of abuse. Evidence for sugar addiction: I shall not respond any further, as I have satisfied your criteria for objectivity and experimental and mechanistic rigor, and I have better things to do than engage in this continued puerile one-upsmanship. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [].
Pick a conclusion, cherry-pick til it looks right, and sell it to people without the scientific background to evaluate your claims. You have deftly evaded the acknowledgement of errors you made regarding the Japanese diet and the effect of fructose-containing sugars on satiety.
Please see my comments after your sections: Specifically, soft drinks are rarely sweetened exclusively with fructose, and rarely is there an all-glucose soft drink available through major commercial pipelines. Most nondiet soft drinks are sweetened with sucrose or similar ie, HFCS , which is roughly an even split of glucose and fructose. Achieving that total would require a daily intake of 7 cans of nondiet soda. You mean to tell me that drinking 7 cans of nondiet softdrinks per day is a bad idea?
Wow, thanks for the enlightenment. According to the text, the average intake of added sugars among Americans is This means that fructose intake is half of that, at 7.
Mais títulos a considerar
If anyone reading this even finds the abstract, please link me. Can you tell me what fructose dose was used here? Again, the same principles of my argument would apply in this case. PS — Thanks for participating in the discussion, even if your last post was your white flag.
This thread has become a vindication for those of us who carry the good fight against the predatory media alarmism made ubiquitous by the egos who fail to temper their practice with ethics. For me, this thread has become a glowing illustration of positive community. It makes me smile knowing that a groundswell of critical thought is emerging against the dominant pseudo-scientific mainstream. A man who has committed his life to solving the ailments of our civilization has cited his number of YouTube hits in response to a direct, contextual criticism of his work. This saddens me, but gives me hope knowing that people like Alan, and Jamie, and Leigh, and Lyle, and Mike, and James, and Roger, and JC, and everyone else who has built this rebellion are slowly making a name, making a dent into the rampant B.
Although his ignorance still shines bright, hopefully he will remember the day when Alan Aragon laid the smack down on his high fructose candy ass. Youtube hits to determine credibility? Only a few people on this board are experts regarding food, I suppose mr. Aragon is one of them, having watched the video of dr. Because, as they say he speaks more on the sensationalist side? Being passionate about a truthiness does not make him wrong. Lustig proven the theory about fructose, so that all doubt is removed?
Are there any arguments to consume more fructose? To go, as Alan put it, out of your way to get pure fructose and use it generously on everything you eat, and why not? Maybe you, who doubt dr. Seriously, what our good doctor proposes is NOT unhealthy, it seems so even to a non professional nutritionist such as myself. In my gym, evey guy I talked to knows that. Except that fat accumulation is in the individuals control based on calorie consumption and activity levels. One of the above situations is almost completely out of the control of the individual, and aside from malnutrition affecting final genetic potential, there is not much one can do to infuence and manipulate height.
That is completely the opposite of what is true for fat accumulation. Stop giving people excuses and acting like obesity is more of a disease than an eating disorder. Why would someone need to reduce saturated fat as much as possible? You clearly have missed the latest systematic reviews on the subject and the latest meta-analysis on the prospective studies regarding this issue.
Please say things as they are. Lustig failed to provide any studies suggesting that moderate fructose consumption is hazardous to your health. I really expected Lustig to come up with at least more than he has…. LOL the youtube hits, like everybody who watched it agreed with it. I can see how you would want to leave the debate. Who would want to stick around when they have little to nothing supporting their arguments?
You got your head handed to you. By folks with less advanced degrees than you. Where along the way does objective thought just disappear? In fact, it was a nearly perfect display of poor reasoning skills and denial of the research evidence. Alan was clear, logical, and evidence-based. You appeared confused, frustrated, and quite ignorant.
At least you got me to chuckle.
King Watermelon Gets Sick
I would suggest that you have your esteemed colleagues have a look at this discussion. Perhaps they can come across to you about how you fell short, as well as how you might improve your mindset and practice as a scientist and teacher. On a whim, I emailed Dr. Lustig thanking him for contributing, and I even praised him for his tenacity despite our disagreement. His initial response was cordial, but contentious. The last thing I want to do is spend my time in a private email debate with him.
I let him know that the point of our discussion in the first place is to educate the public, so I invited him to re-engage with me over here, for the learning benefit of the readers. His second response was less cordial, more contentious, and more bristling toward the idea of coming back here.
Lustig, who I asked to respond again, but probably will not: Furthermore, valid arguments against your claims were repeatedly ignored. The large gaps in the accuracy of your material were also repeatedly ignored. Or from having to actually evaluate and analyze research, as opposed to being an abstract-warrior that cherry-picks the data that supports his case, to the exclusion of the bigger picture. Lustig is smart enough to know that he lost this one pretty badly. His quick exit from the premises was probably the wisest option.
I watched the entire 1. I checked my hamburger buns and several other products in my kitchen and most contained HFCS it was often in the first five ingredients listed. So it would seem to me the dose comes in the form of the cumulative exposure we, by virtue of HFCS being added to a great many products, consume on a regular basis.
So I did not come away from watching the video with a fear of HFCS consumed in moderation, however, I did come away with a good appreciation for how difficult it is for the typical American to do so given how ubiquitous it is in food products. From what I understood of the biochemistry involved and forgive me if I misspeak, I am a layperson trying to grasp this , sugar sucrose is not as harmful by far as HFCS due to the difference in the way it is metabolized in the liver.
Therefore, that Japanese consume a lot of sweet products does not necessarily do away with the underlying argument made in the video if these products are sweetened with sugar and not HFCS as is the case in a great many products in the US. Ryan, can you speak to the the type of sweetener most commonly used in Japan? Are they not metabolized differently? Finally, I am disappointed with the responses from Dr.
I would have liked to have seen more discussion of, and links to reliable information on the pediatric obesity epidemic. This is consistent with what I believe. Why would you need artificial sweeteners? I never had a sweet tooth for anything sweet, and time I put sugar in my coffee, tea, or anything else is long gone. The proving and disproving part — get serious, we all know how this one goes. Also, I would like to see more discussion with dr.
Lustig, I hope he will come back regardless of what he said in his last post and e-mail. Scientifically, any theory should and must go through a process of evaluation, it must stand to be criticised, looked at and debated from any imaginable angle NO MATTER how obviously correct it seems to the scientist behind it. I have a few isssues with your comments. Also so it is not fair to compare the fructose in a starwberry or any other natural food that God created to the fructose in a fruit snack, juice, or any otehr food tha man creates!! Our country has an obesity problem because the additives in our foods are killing our metabolisms.
I am going to make a prediction. There will be signature lines wherein Dr. Lustig is either quoted or at least referenced by his comment about youtube video hits. This discussion will follow him for years. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener. There is little difference in the metabolism of HFCS versus sucrose. Good post on aspartame. I will probably make a blog post about this in the future. Also, I think one of the major points here is that we have so much more weight problems and accompanying diseases not because HFCS, but because sucrose or HFCS are ADDED to damn near everything that is processed, especially in America — this has got to be partly responsible for weight gains.
Sauces have grown immensely popular and all of them contain sugar, some to an almost obscene amount. Fact is, people love sugar and food industry loves to make money, connect the two and you get sugar everywhere. Again, why does everything you put in your mouth have to be sweet? The truth is probably as I can, with my modest knowledge, only sense it that there is not just one factor to be blamed for worldwide weight gains, there must be several. Sugar is only one of them, over processed foods may be another, perhaps denaturalization of foods pesticides, growth hormones in animals etc.
So maybe noone here is completely right, and noone is really wrong…. You are correct that the obesity epidemic is multifactorial, which is why it is erroneous for anyone to blame one factor for obesity. Notice how you implied a significant difference in sugar-sweetened foods versus HFCS-sweetened foods. Chronic overconsumption of either one is a bad idea. As for HFCS in various refined products, the amount will vary considerably.
How many buns will you be munching on today? Michael K — Your extremist stance on dietary intake is unproven and unproductive. It might even be detrimental. This is where experience comes in, and I can tell you that most people eventually react rebelliously to orders of strict food avoidance. Even the Okinawans have added sugar in their diets. Moderation is a good thing when it comes to dietary habits. Rigid food avoidance, false designation of food taboos, and a dichotomous all-or-nothing approach has a stronger association with adverse outcomes than a more flexible approach.
As for research funding source, it should be factored into perspective, but not viewed as a reason to dismiss research completely. Would it make sense to dismiss the large body of low-carb research funded by the beef industry? All the egg research funded by the egg industry? The fish oil research funded by the fishing industry? Take funding source into consideration, sure. The more we debate the minutiae, the farther we stray from solving the obesity problem in America. All — Couple things. I certainly hope he does, though. Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Even the alarmists — feel free to congregate here.
Oh, no, Alan…you said the bad pseudoscientific word…. Come to Asia and witness for yourself, Farmers who toil the land with little automation are hardly obese yet they have extremely high carb intake. And if you go into more developed country within Asia where more paper pushers are, the obesity level rises yet the diet is about the same. I asked a straight forward question…are they, or are they not, metabolized differently?
Whether that little bit of difference leads to the problems being hypothesized by Dr. Lustig or not is a completely different matter. Again, I was only trying get some clarity re: But the question would seem to be does one have more of a detrimental hit than the other. Once more, I was just trying to get a handle on if there is ANY difference, and what that difference is, re: You are completely mischaracterizing my statement.
I actually ate 2 right after I wrote my post. I eat a small amount of carbs during the day and I usually eat the majority of my carbs post workout I had just deadlifted before having my burgers. I do keep an eye on total carbs for the day, and other than my buns, tend to not eat processed foods. However, some people enjoy them more than unflavored water and they have not been shown to cause any harm.
In fact, artificial sweeteners are arguably beneficial in that they may encourage proper hydration. Thies F, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. Decrease of serum total and free testosterone during a low-fat high-fibre diet. Note that I am not suggesting that fish oil or fiber are harmful. On the contrary, both provide myriad health benefits. The only practical difference between sucrose and HFCS is in the bonding. The bonds in sucrose are quickly broken when sucrose hits the acid environment of the stomach. The fact is, HFCS and sucrose are identical as far as your body is concerned.
The funniest thing about this whole notion is that it leads to the idea that fruits are bad for you. When the fuck did fruits become a bad thing to have in your diet? If you over-eat anything, you get fat. Is the education system really this broken? If you people are postulating magic, you better damn well have research showing the magic wand. Alan, calling my stance extreme is a bit unfounded. Add olive oil and fish oil to your diet.
Why would someone need to do this? Again, dosage is important here as always. But by telling people to avoid SFA you, first, pertain a myth that must die now, and second, perpetuate extremist behavior of food avoidance, as Allan pointed out. Since my opinion on SFAs is in accord with most of what google finds when looking for saturated fats I must conclude what I think is not extreme, but mainstream unless you call mainstream opinion extreme-? I found this one http: Excellent resource, thanx for that. I suggest you read the entire abstract and if possible, the paper itself.
Both studies appear to be in accord with Lustig, rather than Aragon. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease.
Dietary Fat and Coronary Heart Disease: These are all systematic review of the literature, which are consider very high quality evidence, done by independant researchers. One of the least convincing arguments from the above is that HFCS is the same as table sugar. I understand this — but the argument does not stop there. These assertions come loaded with the implication that table sugar is safe over the long term in the ever-increasing dosage which human beings are consuming. If the metabolic pathways for fructose lead to a higher amount of undesirable end-products within the human body then it is irrelevant as to whether its source is HFCS or by pouring refined, white sugar down your gob.
So what of it? Is table sugar a long term health risk? Should we be consuming more, or less? What is the ideal daily dosage? How can we relate this to the rise of HFCS as an additive in almost all processed foods? This is a non-sequitur. Also, that other study you cited is correlational. That study you linked suggests the dangers of excess soft drink consumption combined with other typically bad lifestyle habits of the population at large.
You are in fact proving yourself to be an extremist by missing the point continually. In this case fat butter, lard, cream would be a better, more concentrated way to get more calories. In regards to your other questions, Sam actually addressed them quite well. There are no straightforward answers because they completely depend upon the context, which is something Alan has been pointing out both in his blog post and in the comments.
For example, too much sugar for a sedentary person is completely different from too much sugar for a marathon runner. People always want nice, simple answers to their dietary questions, but when it comes to the complexity of the human body, nice simple answers rarely exist. Do I feel that the U. No, because that is a question related to individual needs, which, again, require context.
Under other conditions, fructose is harmless and can even be beneficial. This is why context needs to be taken into consideration. Basically, the energy status of the body. This can be partly reflected by liver glycogen content. In fact, liver glycogen status is a powerful mediator of fructose metabolism in that it regulates the enzymes which are involved in fructose metabolism. If you are in an energy deficit, liver glycogen is not full. In this case, fructose is directed towards gluconeogenesis production of new glucose to be released into the blood and replenishment of liver glycogen.
If you are in an energy surplus, liver glycogen is full. You made me laugh with this. You then go on to cite USDA figures in an unusual way by simply subtracting the percentage of total diet from the percentage. Using the same method, fructose consumption see sugars tab and adjust for percentage fructose increased by It seems to me that what Lustig is actually saying is that fructose exerts a metabolic effect which results in the up-regulating of our appetite control system.
If that is correct then the result of that up-regulation would be a gradual increase in the amount of all food that we eat. You cite four studies as authority for that statement. Each of those studies comes to an identical conclusion: And while I doubt funding source changed what was an entirely predictable outcome, I think it would have been good to mention it when citing the articles. And if the biochemistry has not given you the result you predicted in the short term, why will it give you the result you predict in the long term? I doubt many people will read through all these comments and the world deserves to see the misinformation that Lustig is spreading and how he ran away from a logical argument after being defeated.
What she found was that subjects who drank the fructose solution ate less at a subsequent meal. Whether that was because fructose is satiating or because aspartame or glucose or both are not could not be determined from the studies. She also noted that elapsed time between the load and the meal affected the outcome. Studies on the appetite stimulating effects of aspartame are all over the shop, but a recent meta review and longitudinal study came down on the side that it could be.
Under that hypothesis surely any effect observable after one meal would be meaninglessly small and surely undetectable amongst the tidal shifts of insulin and glucagon occurring after ingestion of any food not just fructose, glucose and aspartame? He then spends the remainder of the scientific part of the paper comparing HFCS to sugar and concluding that they are surprisingly pretty much the same.
He then compares HFCS consumption to worldwide obesity rates and concludes there is no association. Does that sound like an extreme diet to you? You are right that people in Asia exercise more and stay thin despite a high carb intake. Lustig did not miss this point in the lecture — he stated that exercise increased the rate of, I believe, the citric acid cycle which keeps the liver from converting the glucose into fat and distributing it into the bloodstream.
So there is in fact a huge difference between an active Asian eating rice versus a sedentary American consuming fructose. The lecture never said HFCS is bad, sucrose is okay. In fact, it stated that the two are almost equivalent. I have no affiliation with Dr. I merely agree with his findings as most convincing, and most conforming to my own observations. In addition the research he cites and arguments he delivers seem to be in line with the latest science.
In the end, the alarmism of fructose really is about the disruption of hormone regulation. Some biochemistry will be convincing. Could you possibly be selling a book you wrote about how to be an alarmist sugarphobe? I hear what I want to hear, as long as it fits my personal beliefs about nutrition. Out of a cannon. I have reached a conclusion, and I will stick with it, unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument, backed up by clean, independent studies.
Roy Baty just helped you discover Pubmed within the last 2 days. What makes you think you can make heads or tails of scientific studies? Do me a favor, go back and reread what I wrote, and then show me where I stated Dr. Could simply be aging. Sorry, this is not how science works. We could generate hundreds or possibly even thousands of hypotheses as to why this is the case.
King Watermelon Gets Sick: A Fairy Tale Encourages Children to Love Fruit - Yang Lan - Google Книги
It is doubtful that any one variable is responsible. The fructose alarmists are the ones making a specific claim. IMHO you put the emphasis on the wrong side of the issue. Saturated fat phobia being a case in point. For corporations the risk from a backlash to this kind of activity is huge.
Put yourself in the position of an executive about to order a study and specify the results you want to see. How are you going to communicate that? How sure are you that no one you meet with is recording? Sure you have no disgruntled employees? The lawyers have too much to lose. If there were orders or threats to find a specific result these orders would be found, by, among others, CSPI. This obviously does not preclude wink and smirk activity, but threats, and even hints, of firing are out. Returning to that question: Fred Hahn, have you not come across Lex Rooker and other bloggers who are doing very carefully controlled self experiments, who gained weight on zero carb?
And yes, I could eat a plate of pork thops, piled to the ceiling, plus some bacon and eggs, plus some duck pate love that stuff no juice, no bread, no cereal no carbs every day. I used to have 32 ounces of steak and a small salad for dinner all the time. Also, you have to look at the totality of the evidence. Have a look at the following review, which objectively examines the gamut of research and shows that your alarmist stance on fructose is unfounded:. Evidence-based review on the effect of normal dietary consumption of fructose on development of hyperlipidemia and obesity in healthy, normal weight individuals.
The ASN publishes some of the highest quality nutrition-related research, in terms of both the investigators and the content. They hold high standards of rigor in the conflict-of-interest department, requiring transparency from all involved. In sum, the ASN is one of the most well-respected scientific information resources — for deserved reason.
The study I cited above is published by the CRC press, which publishes a range of scientific material, including engineering, physics, and medicine. But would that be a fair or logical dismissal? Not on those grounds. A better basis for skepticism towards your stance would be the fact that you fit the one-sided alarmist archetype to a stunning degree.
Did you skip over the research I linked regarding the association between rigid dieting and adverse behavioral outcomes? You on the other hand, are en route to doing just the opposite. Hey David, do you really think your crusade against every granule of sugar will get you closer to the right hand of God? I say that facetiously, but seriously, we are all adults here. David, I also want to add that in your promotional campaign, you use your own testimony as the major selling point for your book.
You let yourself get 88 lbs overweight. And sugar was to blame for this? Well, that sounds like a good enough reason to write a book. Get really fat, adopt a quasi-religious faith about the good and evil of various foods, then write a book about it. You should have stuck to being a corporate lawyer, because this new gig of yours as the Superhero Against Sugar is a joke.
Alan put forth a noble message against extremism, alarmism, and the labeling of foods as good or evil. Could it be that your job right now as a software guy is biasing your views? All the software guys I know drink lots of soft drinks, both diet and non. But they also eat a lot of whatever gets in front of their faces. Alan has plenty of experience with clients who used to have a crazy good-bad perspective of food.
I would even say that I had a mortal fear of some foods. Why was I so neurotic about food? Mainly because of books like yours, that give too much false power to a food, and take all the power away from the dieter. If I were you, I would think twice about pushing your own personal neurosis and limited personal experience onto everyone. He is also the father of six young children including one set of twins.
With such a lot of extra time on his hands, and 40 extra kilos on his waistline, he set out to investigate why he, like so many in his generation, was fat. He deciphered the latest medical findings on diet and weight gain and what he found was chilling. Being fat was the least of his problems. He needed to stop poisoning himself. Hey David I got fat from eating too much fried chicken, pizza, steak, and fries. I never go for the sugar, and I have no sweet tooth to speak of.
Am I not poisoning myself because I avoid sugar? While virtually absent in our diet a few hundred years ago, fructose has now become a major constituent of our modern diet. Our main sources of fructose are sucrose from beet or cane, high fructose corn syrup, fruits, and honey. Fructose has the same chemical formula as glucose C 6 H 12 O 6 , but its metabolism differs markedly from that of glucose due to its almost complete hepatic extraction and rapid hepatic conversion into glucose, glycogen, lactate, and fat.
Fructose was initially thought to be advisable for patients with diabetes due to its low glycemic index. However, chronically high consumption of fructose in rodents leads to hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure. The evidence is less compelling in humans, but high fructose intake has indeed been shown to cause dyslipidemia and to impair hepatic insulin sensitivity. Hepatic de novo lipogenesis and lipotoxicity, oxidative stress, and hyperuricemia have all been proposed as mechanisms responsible for these adverse metabolic effects of fructose.
The same US scientists who warned about the use of high-fructose corn syrup in fizzy drinks have now turned their attention to juice. So why is fruit juice still being pushed as a healthy option? It's embarrassing to admit they've made a mistake. Does she drink juice? Then over the last couple of years there has been more and more evidence that sweet juices are basically just fructose, and have a similar effect on the body to fizzy and soft drinks in terms of sugar. Anything to do with fruit, says Blythman, "has always been used to put a halo of health around dubious products that don't merit it.
In the early 20th century, juice was mainly sold in cans. During the second world war, the US government commissioned scientists to develop a product that would supply vitamin C to soldiers overseas. The discovery was too late for the war, but after the war that's when orange juice started to become really popular. Producers of pasteurised orange juice began storing their juice in vast tanks. In order to keep it "fresh", the product had to be stripped of oxygen. Once this had been done, the juice could be stored for up to a year.
The only problem was that this process also removed much of the taste. So, does she still drink juice? Juicing anything would not be my choice. As part of its end-of-year "top products" survey, the retail trade journal the Grocer found a mixed picture for juice brands. The leading brand, Tropicana, experienced a downturn in sales of 5. This, she says,"is one of the market's biggest selling points — if the market is not allowed to use that any more, that will definitely have an impact. Not everybody is racing to demonise juice just yet.
You get fluid and vitamin C but you need to be aware that it does contain sugar. If you can, always choose fresh fruit and veg [over juice]. Does she think the advice on juice being part of the five-a-day will change? Blythman, meanwhile, understands that the mixed messages about juice are perplexing for consumers. The simplest way to put it is: