EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

Options
«13456714

Replies

  • caroldavison332
    caroldavison332 Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    This believe that a calorie is a calorie?
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Robert Lustig is a known quack.

    Excess calories cause obesity.
  • caroldavison332
    caroldavison332 Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    How do you know that?
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,973 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,598 Member
    Options
    but excess any food causes obesity. meh.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    So a blog from 2 years ago is the proof we've all been waiting for.

    Who knew.
  • caroldavison332
    caroldavison332 Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    RGV, at least you read it. He was discussing this on PBS this weekend and what he said made perfect sense.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    RGV, at least you read it. He was discussing this on PBS this weekend and what he said made perfect sense.

    I've got a bookshelf full of books about how 9/11 was an inside job, UFOs, ancient aliens, people who met Death and other stuff. It all reads like it makes perfect sense too, because they word it that way.
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    Options
    He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:
    Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

    The study he cited says:
    RESULTS:
    The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.

    Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    data.jpg
  • Asher_Ethan
    Asher_Ethan Posts: 2,430 Member
    Options
    I went years with very very little sugar/no sugar in my diet and was always overweight. In February I started CICO and now I get sugar in my diet and I'm almost the thinnest I've ever been.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    kgeyser wrote: »
    He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:
    Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

    The study he cited says:
    RESULTS:
    The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.

    Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.

    Really, his claims are even ridiculous when taken as is. The inability to absorb some calories does not invalidate CICO. Else I could go and say "Olives make me retch and throw up, so I don't get the calories in them and also lose whatever was still in my stomach contents. Therefore they're negative calorie super foods. Checkmate CICOs!"
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
  • IsaackGMOON
    IsaackGMOON Posts: 3,358 Member
    Options
    How do you know that?

    Trust me... a lot of people on MFP can tell you that excess calories make you gain weight in retrospect...
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    In the simplest of questions....IF sugar causes a person to be obese, how is everyone who eats sugar not obese? Does anyone else not see the lack of logic?

  • IsaackGMOON
    IsaackGMOON Posts: 3,358 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    In the simplest of questions....IF sugar causes a person to be obese, how is everyone who eats sugar not obese? Does anyone else not see the lack of logic?

    Lol I see it ;)


    OP did you not know that the body can make protein into glucose... so protein can make you fat too right? No, that's just calories in surplus.... c'mon now.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Options
    nope.
This discussion has been closed.