EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

mantium999

Fruit has fructose. You defended his stance of treating fructose as a poison.

PeachyCarol

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Please, post the human studies since these authors were obviously remiss in their review. In your opinion.

Even the authors of the Yale Food Addiction Scale won't go so far as to say that they've proven food addiction exists yet, but since you're sure, I'd like to see the research you've seen that they've missed.

MoiAussi93

PeachyCarol wrote: »

show previous quotes

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig is also selling a book. Arguably with more of an agenda since it's basically "Here's why you're REALLY getting fat!"

How is that MORE of an agenda? Makes no sense.

It's a lot like the "She's 68 but looks like 20 thanks to this one trick The Man doesn't want you to know" clickbait ads.
It goes very against any scientific consensus of how weight loss and gain works, with a title that makes it sound like he has answers that no one else wants you to know etc.
I've seen all that before, I collect conspiracy theory books.

There is no scientific consensus. That is why there are constantly new studies being published in the area of nutrition as it related to obesity or health in general. It is an area that has many open questions at this point.

And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.

Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.

Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. But you are greatly oversimplifying something that is extremely complicated. If you don't want to have a serious discussion, then why bother?

Says the one dismissing a published scientist as a blog guy.

You said there's no consensus on weight loss. There is, based on pretty much highschool physics. Sugar alone without creating a calorie surplus is incapable of making anyone obese. Lustig seemingly goes against this.

There is no consensus. People don't spend their lives in a lab under controlled conditions. WHAT you eat influences many things...such as blood sugar. Certain foods create cravings to eat more. Certain foods are more filling making it less likely you will overeat due to hunger. To ignore these things and pretend we are machines that simply eat what some calorie counter program tells us to eat is ridiculous.

Saying things like that is not at all helpful to anyone struggling. What you eat matters. For weight, and for health. Pretend otherwise if you like, but I won't.

Foods themselves don't create the cravings in the way you're implying. The response is hedonic, it's not physiological, though of course your body responds when you eat food. This is a chicken and egg thing here, but behavioral scientists know in this case which came first. The mind connection with the food is leading the charge here, not the body one.

The belief that they cause the cravings physiologically is fostered by those demonizing the foods themselves. They take the signs of a natural physiological response to the ingestion of a food and try to cobble something together to proof that the result is the cause. It's not.

I disagree, and there are contradictory studies on this. I never demonized foods. For years, I ate them in moderation (or tried to). I never thought I was "bad" when I had some ice cream. I just assumed I was fat because I liked to eat too much of everything...tried to eat a little less of everything, still had constant cravings, and failed. But this time around, when I finally tried eliminating added sugar and highly processed carbs, it made all the difference in the world. So while I realize my experience is not proof, my experience combined with a lot of studies I have read in the past two or three years leads me to believe there is something to this sugar addiction thing. If you believe otherwise, that's fine. Rational people can disagree on their interpretation of the same data.

I posted a study to support my position though. Can you support one study on humans to support your stance on sugar addiction?

Your position flies in the face of the scientists who say there is no addiction to a food substance who have combed through research, you know. They bring more to the table when making that judgement than you do.

You can think all you want, but the current stance of the scientific community does not support your position. The research review I posted above shows that.

You provided one study I haven't read yet so can't critique.

There have been human studies posted in various threads...many of which I have seen you participate in. They are out there. There are many scientists who say believe sugar is addictive, or may be addictive. If you don't believe that, that's your right. There's not much I can do about that. Nor do I want to...we all need to make our own evaluations.

MoiAussi93

PeachyCarol wrote: »

show previous quotes

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

Oh, now you're coming with major health organizations. The same ones who are NOT claiming it's "plain bad for you". The ones who are simply saying it's got calories and you shouldn't have too many calories to prevent weight gain.

If it's simply calories, then why not target fat instead? After all, gram for gram fat has more calories. There is much more that goes in to recommendations like that. And most doctors will tell you sugar is not good for you.

Not my doctor. She told me to cut my calories. Your doctor only told you to watch your sugar?

Yes, they did. Both my primary care doctor and my obgyn who is extremely chatty and apparently has a personal interest in the subject due to his own family history. And I've had conversations on this with a friend who is an endocrinologist and deals with a lot of this in his work.

To be clear, they never said "calories don't matter at all". Neither have I, for the record. But I believe, and so do they, that there is more to it than just calories.

I have four doctors. Well five, I need to visit my gyn soon, but I digress. Every last one of them? All about the calories. Including the endocrinologist.

Then our doctors, including our endocrinologists, disagree. Shocking.

Acg67

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

MoiAussi93

PeachyCarol wrote: »

show previous quotes

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Please, post the human studies since these authors were obviously remiss in their review. In your opinion.

Even the authors of the Yale Food Addiction Scale won't go so far as to say that they've proven food addiction exists yet, but since you're sure, I'd like to see the research you've seen that they've missed.

Again, I don't keep a file to publish on demand. "Winning" internet arguments is not important enough to me to make that effort. And even I have never claimed it's been 100% proven. But there is evidence that is compelling.

MoiAussi93

Acg67 wrote: »

show previous quotes

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

FatFreeFrolicking

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Acg67 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Christine_72

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

If everyone had the attitude I bolded, these debates would be much more pleasant and informative. People are digging their heels and point blank refusing to have an open mind.

MoiAussi93

shell1005 wrote: »

The constant resistance to help those with a differing opinion with the information you say you know and have, but will not share is mind boggling. Of course that is assuming that information actually exists.

Think whatever you like. What you believe doesn't really impact me one way or the other.

PeachyCarol

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Please, post the human studies since these authors were obviously remiss in their review. In your opinion.

Even the authors of the Yale Food Addiction Scale won't go so far as to say that they've proven food addiction exists yet, but since you're sure, I'd like to see the research you've seen that they've missed.

Again, I don't keep a file to publish on demand. "Winning" internet arguments is not important enough to me to make that effort. And even I have never claimed it's been 100% proven. But there is evidence that is compelling.

Are you the same person who wanted someone else to prove their opinion?

If you're not going to back yours, what's your point at this juncture?

Also, if you're not going to bother reading what I posted, a research review which refutes your position, how do you even know it didn't include reviews of the research you read and that they drew a different conclusion than you did?

I'm going to go to sleep right now, this is fruitless, obviously.

No pun intended.

Serah87

thorsmom01 wrote: »

show previous quotes

shell1005 wrote: »

This thread is why in these forums....we can't have nice things.

Yep...there's always a few that wreck it for everyone.... They come into every thread , argue their woo and the sad part is that they actually believe the woo..

Scary isn't it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Acg67

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Acg67 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

Actual quote from you, " I still am not eating sugar"

So who is confused?

Also adding any carb to an recipe or dish would be adding sugar. Sugar encompasses much more than sucrose, fructose, glucose etc.

MoiAussi93

PeachyCarol wrote: »

show previous quotes

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Please, post the human studies since these authors were obviously remiss in their review. In your opinion.

Even the authors of the Yale Food Addiction Scale won't go so far as to say that they've proven food addiction exists yet, but since you're sure, I'd like to see the research you've seen that they've missed.

Again, I don't keep a file to publish on demand. "Winning" internet arguments is not important enough to me to make that effort. And even I have never claimed it's been 100% proven. But there is evidence that is compelling.

Are you the same person who wanted someone else to prove their opinion?

If you're not going to back yours, what's your point at this juncture?

Also, if you're not going to bother reading what I posted, a research review which refutes your position, how do you even know it didn't include reviews of the research you read and that they drew a different conclusion than you did?

I'm going to go to sleep right now, this is fruitless, obviously.

No pun intended.

I have said several times that the studies contradict and there is evidence on both sides of the issue. This can't be "proven" at this point. I said I believe one side, find one side more convincing than the other. What exactly is there to prove?

And I'm sorry I don't drop everything to read your link. I'm doing other things while I post here. Actually reading something carefully requires attention I don't have to give right now. I was straight forward and told you I hadn't read it but would sometime soon. It's a bit unfair to say I am not going to bother.

Have a good night.

MoiAussi93

christinev297 wrote: »

show previous quotes

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

If everyone had the attitude I bolded, these debates would be much more pleasant and informative. People are digging their heels and point blank refusing to have an open mind.

It's always the same story. LOL!

FatFreeFrolicking

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

show previous quotes

christinev297 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

If everyone had the attitude I bolded, these debates would be much more pleasant and informative. People are digging their heels and point blank refusing to have an open mind.

It's always the same story. LOL!

Yes, it's always the same story with you.

This is generally how it goes in every single thread you post in:

1) You make a statement that has yet to be proven by science
2) EVERYONE tells you you are misinformed
3) You say numerous times that there's studies/evidence that claims otherwise
4) People ask for the studies/evidence
5) You refuse to post the studies/evidence because you "don't keep them on hand"

Unknown

This content has been removed.

rushfive

Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »

show previous quotes

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.

Do you have a non rat study proving this?

Don't keep it on Hand...........
(couldn't resist)lol

kk_inprogress

Read the whole thing...and all it did was make me want to do a human study: you avoid sugar and I'll go eat some ice cream and well see who dies first. Clearly no one is giving in, so

/endthread

FatFreeFrolicking

Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »

show previous quotes

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.

Do you have a non rat study proving this?

Your body cannot tell the difference between natural sugar and added sugar. Both are chemically identical. It's basic science.

mccindy72

Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »

show previous quotes

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mantium999 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Bronty3 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

here is another.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

"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.

So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

This one is quite thorough:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.

I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

Must be hard to eat zero carb

Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.

Do you have a non rat study proving this?

Says the person who posted a rat study.

mccindy72

It is baffling, Moiaussi, that you continue to argue and battle in this thread to try and 'win' your side of the argument, while accusing everyone else of wanting to win the argument. Not one of us has claimed to 'win' anything, but asked you to simply read our links to evidence contrary to your claims, which you then refuse to read on the basis that you refute the scientific merit of the authors. When we ask you for links to any evidence to support your claims, so we can read it (as we are all trying to have an open mind and wanting to read this evidence you say you've read multiple times over the years), you keep saying you don't keep a file of it. That's fine, if you don't have it on file, Google it up and link it for us. You've read it, it can't be that hard to find. I (and I know many of my compatriots here) will be happy to read it. Don't you see the problem here?