Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results
Just a quick search. Don't really have time to go through the studies, but it doesn't seem to be outside of the realm of possibilities.
Hey @moe0303 if I click your link, it brings me back to this post. If I copy/paste it, then it takes me to a blank search form. You didn't quote anyone, so I don't know who/which point you're trying to address.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?4 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Pray tell, what's the mechanism by which fructose becomes toxic when refined? Why is it suddenly unsafe when removed from whole foods in nature? What dosage makes it toxic?5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.1 -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/fructose-fruit_b_3694684.htmluniTelling people fructose is toxic except when it’s in fruit, or carbs are the enemy unless they are in lentils, is a bit like telling people that calories are poisonous (since an excess of them is driving the obesity epidemic) except when found in plain and wholesome food, necessary for survival. Well, then, maybe that first message was just plain wrong! We have decades of experience to teach us that messages needing immediate corrective caveats cultivate nothing but confusion, and forestall the objectives of public health.6
-
KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Just to play devil's advocate here . . . everything is toxin in the right dosage. I believe part of the point is that by removing, refining, and concentrating it you close in on the toxic dosage.
You're still not close enough to do actual harm, but you are closer.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/fructose-fruit_b_3694684.htmluni
Telling people fructose is toxic except when it’s in fruit, or carbs are the enemy unless they are in lentils, is a bit like telling people that calories are poisonous (since an excess of them is driving the obesity epidemic) except when found in plain and wholesome food, necessary for survival. Well, then, maybe that first message was just plain wrong! We have decades of experience to teach us that messages needing immediate corrective caveats cultivate nothing but confusion, and forestall the objectives of public health.
I agree, it is confusing. People want easy answers, simple explanations, all or nothing, black or white... maybe it all comes down to lazy thinking, certainty, control, superiority? I don't know. Clearly (as the "debunking" video inadvertently shows), it's not about fructose being all bad or all good. It's about the refinement and processing of food to the point of toxicity... at what point in processing does food become toxic? That's a great question to consider, and something I personally consider when I make my daily food choices for myself and my family.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.6 -
The point is that it's not or shouldn't be confusing. Katz believes that we know what a healthful diet is and it's not that complicated. Demonizing one food group after another is part of how it becomes unnecessarily confusing.
Oh, it's the fructose, it's toxic, but not in fruit, then it's not, is part of this problem.
Dosage is the issue, and overall diet.7 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php2 -
If not Lustig, do you trust the Mayo Clinic?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129132918.htm
Recent studies have shown that added sugars, particularly those containing fructose, are a principal driver of diabetes and pre-diabetes, even more so than other carbohydrates. Clinical experts writing in Mayo Clinic Proceedings challenge current dietary guidelines that allow up to 25% of total daily calories as added sugars, and propose drastic reductions in the amount of added sugar, and especially added fructose, people consume.
From the May Clinic proceedings:
Added Fructose
A Principal Driver of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Its Consequences
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00040-3/abstract1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.4 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
2 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
I noticed that 28% figure too. They then limited sugar to 10%, and the kids reported feeling much fuller eating the same amount of calories. That might have surprised the kids, but it shouldn't have surprised the adults.
Plus, these were kids that were already showing health problems related to their high sugar diet. If anything, the improvement in health markers shows that health can improve while consuming a moderate amount of sugar and that too much sugar is the problem.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.4 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
Here's another epidemiological study he was involved in. Funny thing about this one: he didn't force feed anyone extremely high levels of fructose. Nope, just collected data
Sugar is behind global explosion in type 2 diabetes, study finds
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/27/sugar-obesity-type-2-diabetes
The study:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.00578730 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.3 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
To coin a phrase: "And cognitive dissonance will forever prevail
" 6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!
Interesting logic there. (And why all the added emphasis?) In my experience, people don't really drop dead from too many things (and I have watched and cared for many dying people).
I mean, chemotherapy, for example, is extremely toxic. I have to wear special protective garments to administer it. However, if it spilled on me, I certainly would not "drop dead."
Sometimes I wonder why I take the time to type this stuff...3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!
Interesting logic there. (And why all the added emphasis?) In my experience, people don't really drop dead from too many things (and I have watched and cared for many dying people).
I mean, chemotherapy, for example, is extremely toxic. I have to wear special protective garments to administer it. However, if it spilled on me, I certainly would not "drop dead."
Sometimes I wonder why I take the time to type this stuff...
Oh, I didn't realize you were concerned with people bathing in diet soda.
Yeah, that's probably not the best idea. Consumption on the other hand, meh.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!
Interesting logic there. (And why all the added emphasis?) In my experience, people don't really drop dead from too many things (and I have watched and cared for many dying people).
I mean, chemotherapy, for example, is extremely toxic. I have to wear special protective garments to administer it. However, if it spilled on me, I certainly would not "drop dead."
Sometimes I wonder why I take the time to type this stuff...
The definition of toxic is poisonous. If you consume poisonous drink/food it doesn't take long before something starts to happen and in some instances it only takes several seconds.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.5 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice. 0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice.
Just like water.8 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice.mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
Yes, look at that, I've said that twice in response to you already. Who was that saying something about going back and reading...?9 -
both oxygen and water are toxic as well when the dosage is too high, what is your point?7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions