EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!
Replies
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?
He's working for the sugar industry. That's what the Corn Refiner's Association is....they make sweeteners. Who is paying his bills...the sugar industry.0 -
*sniff*, I ate 50g above my recommended sugar nearly every day for the last 11 months, and now someone is telling me I am going to regain all the weight I lost and become obese?0
-
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
That's not peer reviewed science either, it's the blog of an asshat that I won't be visiting to add to his statistics.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!0 -
Need2Exerc1se 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.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.
Upper limit, yes, of course. Not sure what you mean by "the problem with carbs now".0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
0 -
"Carbs make us obese!!" can't be because of the difference in what calories it has in a lab vs. what our body can use.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.
Upper limit, yes, of course. Not sure what you mean by "the problem with carbs now".
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »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?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?
He's working for the sugar industry. That's what the Corn Refiner's Association is....they make sweeteners. Who is paying his bills...the sugar industry.
In what way is the piece deficient ? The conflict of interest is apparent, but that doesn't mean he made the whole thing up. His day job appears to be at a University, would he want to make stuff up for a few bucks and trash his reputation ?
Everyone has an axe to grind one way or the other, Lustig and the Corn Refiners Association are both financially conflicted. The truth should be visible in the analysis.
Personally I find Lustig weak on evidence for his position but there's a thread of logic in the effect of fructose being somewhat different to other carbohydrates.0 -
Simply put: if sugar was the reason for obesity, nearly everyone would be obese.
Yes, there are weird instances where the actual caloric number given may be incorrect (like with some cooled and recooked starches) but it simply is NOT the reason people become fat. It is in nearly every single case: Calories in, calories out. That's science.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.
You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
It's not to debunk the Huff Po article. I'm looking for some substance behind all the Lustig bashing I see here.
This too:MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.
You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.0 -
He has one reference and it's a paper he co-wrote. That's a red flag right there. If you're going to make a claim damning sugar you better back it up with more than one reference.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.
You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.
Can you answer the question?
And he isn't a scientist.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
"Carbs make us obese!!" can't be because of the difference in what calories it has in a lab vs. what our body can use.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.
Upper limit, yes, of course. Not sure what you mean by "the problem with carbs now".
Oh, I got ya now. But it could be a difference, maybe a big one. If a person eats a lot of carbs that are all absorbed vs. a lot of carbs which are only partially absorbed the CI side of the CICO equation goes up.
But what may be even more important is that satiety may go down. The rapid rise and fall of blood sugar may cause hard to ignore cravings for more fast digesting carbs, whereas fiber may lessen/eliminate those cravings by slowing digestion.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »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?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?
He's working for the sugar industry. That's what the Corn Refiner's Association is....they make sweeteners. Who is paying his bills...the sugar industry.
In what way is the piece deficient ? The conflict of interest is apparent, but that doesn't mean he made the whole thing up. His day job appears to be at a University, would he want to make stuff up for a few bucks and trash his reputation ?
Everyone has an axe to grind one way or the other, Lustig and the Corn Refiners Association are both financially conflicted. The truth should be visible in the analysis.
Personally I find Lustig weak on evidence for his position but there's a thread of logic in the effect of fructose being somewhat different to other carbohydrates.
The poster is calling Lustig a "quack" and offered that link as evidence of said quackery. The person who wrote that has a very blatant conflict of interest. What the poster linked to is not even a study. And it is published on an industry website. I think people evaluating this so called quackery should have all the facts.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.
You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.
He is a quack though, that clearly makes up claims that have no scientific backing. Can you please share which studies he's authored that sugar causes obesity?0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)0 -
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
the dose must come into it somewhere, especially as the thread title references Excess sugar.
Perhaps people eating more than 100 grams of free sugars are more prone to obesity, or sedentary people eating more than 50 grams, or .........
0 -
I read down to #4. 'The Big Kuhuna' should I keep reading? Is Gidget or Moon Dogie going to enter the blog post?0
-
Even the statement that "excess sugar may cause obesity" is a far cry from "sugar causes obesity", no?As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
the dose must come into it somewhere, especially as the thread title references Excess sugar.
Perhaps people eating more than 100 grams of free sugars are more prone to obesity, or sedentary people eating more than 50 grams, or .........
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.
You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.
Can you answer the question?
And he isn't a scientist.
He's a pediatric endocrinologist...that is a scientist. He's a medical doctor with a highly specialized and relevant fellowship in endocrinology. Not some guy with a fitness blog.
Nothing is 100% in nutrition or health. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades who never get cancer, but that does not disprove the established fact that smoking causes cancer.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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?
Is that like Coke sponsoring scientists to promote the message that people needn't drink less soda, but just exercise more?
I'm sure someone will link that as proof that sugary drinks don't increase risk of obesity next time one of those threads comes up.0 -
I would suggest people read Alan's blog. It's not just a blog post. It's sourced with a lot of links and researched and the man has a Master's degree.
The one instance I can give as a lay person observing something where Lustig makes you side-eye him was when I researched the topic of hypothalamic obesity. He is the ONLY doctor to describe the mechanics behind it in a certain way. Every other scientific source I could find on the issue cited another process. Things that make you go hmmmm....
Now of course, I'm not a peer reviewed journal, but he's not the only pediatric endocrinologist out there. And he's a pediatric endocrinologist with an agenda. The findings of those without agendas on the condition were different.0 -
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
the dose must come into it somewhere, especially as the thread title references Excess sugar.
Perhaps people eating more than 100 grams of free sugars are more prone to obesity, or sedentary people eating more than 50 grams, or .........
Adipose tissue contains energy, energy that has to come from somewhere. Unless eating x amount of sugar makes your TDEE drop by a few hundred calories so you'd suddenly be at a surplus, there's no way for your body to get that energy from unless you're eating too much total.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)
It debunks nothing.
While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.
You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.0 -
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Adipose tissue contains energy, energy that has to come from somewhere. Unless eating x amount of sugar makes your TDEE drop by a few hundred calories so you'd suddenly be at a surplus, there's no way for your body to get that energy from unless you're eating too much total.
yep, and if the sugar caused the fat storage to increase then you would be driven to overeat by hunger, which I guess is his line of thought, or the presence of sugar makes the food irresistible or whatever. I find Lustig too evangelical to take seriously, and he is dishonest about fruit, so to me he's a charlatan.
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions