Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0 (Dr. Robert Lustig)

AlabasterVerve

Four years later and Lustig updates his Sugar: The Bitter Truth talk. If you weren't interested in what he had to say about sugar the first time there's no need to watch this new video but I thought it was worthwhile.

Of note was the focus on leptin and his research on sugar and diabetes. Lustig claims that "26% of all diabetes in America today is due to sugar and sugar alone. Not due to obesity, not due to total calories, sugar and sugar alone". He claims his research on sugar shows causation and not just a correlation. It was an interesting talk.

Dr. Robert Lustig, UCSF Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, updates his very popular video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth." He argues that sugar and processed foods are driving the obesity epidemic, which in turn affects our endocrine system. Series: "UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine presents Mini Medical School for the Public" [10/2013] [Health and Medicine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y

And if you haven't read it yarwell but together an excellent sugar FAQ for MFP that answers the multitude of questions and concerns people have regarding sugar.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1017237-so-what-s-with-this-sugar-then-faq

Please keep in mind the forum rules so this topic isn't locked again:
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting

delicious_cocktail

The topic of this thread references Dr. Robert Lustig and his video.

Without attacking, insulting, hijacking, or trolling, I can say that Lustig is an alarmist whose research does not substantiate his strident claims. Thus he is less effective as a scientist than he is as a demagogue.

_Zardoz_

The topic of this thread references Dr. Robert Lustig and his video.

Without attacking, insulting, hijacking, or trolling, I can say that Lustig is an alarmist whose research does not substantiate his strident claims. Thus he is less effective as a scientist than he is as a demagogue.

This. I'd trust Kermit the frog more than Lustig his research has been shot down by reputable Research multiple times

in_the_stars

Again?

Maybe sugar is protective?

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml

SchroederNJ

:noway:

delicious_cocktail

Since we're quoting community guidelines . . . if this topic has already been posted and locked, I think there's fairly objective proof it's a divisive issue:

15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums

Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/9637-the-skinny-on-obesity

The above group is dedicated to sugar alarmism and you will find many like-minded folks with whom to reinforce your beliefs.

AlabasterVerve

And at the suggestion of the moderator who thought more science was warranted here's a new review of the research from June of 2013 which concludes that there are plausible mechanisms for the claims Lustig makes in his University of California YouTube videos.

Adverse metabolic effects of dietary fructose: results from the recent epidemiological, clinical, and mechanistic studies.
Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Havel PJ.

Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

The effects of dietary sugar on risk factors and the processes associated with metabolic disease remain a controversial topic, with recent reviews of the available evidence arriving at widely discrepant conclusions.

RECENT FINDINGS:

There are many recently published epidemiological studies that provide evidence that sugar consumption is associated with metabolic disease. Three recent clinical studies, which investigated the effects of consuming relevant doses of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup along with ad libitum diets, provide evidence that consumption of these sugars increase the risk factors for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Mechanistic studies suggest that these effects result from the rapid hepatic metabolism of fructose catalyzed by fructokinase C, which generates substrate for de novo lipogenesis and leads to increased uric acid levels. Recent clinical studies investigating the effects of consuming less sugar, via educational interventions or by substitution of sugar-sweetened beverages for noncalorically sweetened beverages, provide evidence that such strategies have beneficial effects on risk factors for metabolic disease or on BMI in children.

SUMMARY:

The accumulating epidemiological evidence, direct clinical evidence, and the evidence suggesting plausible mechanisms support a role for sugar in the epidemics of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23594708

Cindyinpg

Since we're quoting community guidelines . . . if this topic has already been posted and locked, I think there's fairly objective proof it's a divisive issue:
15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/9637-the-skinny-on-obesity

The above group is dedicated to sugar alarmism and you will find many like-minded folks with whom to reinforce your beliefs.

What a festive sounding group to join for the holidays.... :noway:
I'll stick with this one and continue having ice cream everyday.:drinker:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/16819-eat-pizza-lose-weight-easy

BrainyBurro

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/9637-the-skinny-on-obesity

The above group is dedicated to sugar alarmism and you will find many like-minded folks with whom to reinforce your beliefs.

i find echo chambers to be the absolute best sources of accurate and reliable information to support my beliefs. :drinker:

ThickMcRunFast

in for epistemic closure!

rml_16

Didn't you post this already and it got locked?

delicious_cocktail

And at the suggestion of the moderator who thought more science was warranted here's a new review of the research from June of 2013 which concludes that there are plausible mechanisms for the claims Lustig makes in his University of California YouTube videos.

I cannot discuss that study in much depth. I tried to access the study but don't have access to OVID or LWW. I tried through my university library but it is not within the breadth of our collection. Have you had the opportunity to read the meta analysis or are you only citing the abstract? How deeply swayed are your beliefs by the suggestion of plausibility?

The effects of dietary sugar on risk factors and the processes associated with metabolic disease remain a controversial topic. Recent reviews of the available evidence arrive at widely discrepant conclusions.

AlabasterVerve

Didn't you post this already and it got locked?

I asked if I could repost the topic before I did and considering that there's nothing wrong with the topic itself -- just the behavior of the people replying -- I thought I'd try again.

Safiyandi

And at the suggestion of the moderator who thought more science was warranted here's a new review of the research from June of 2013 which concludes that there are plausible mechanisms for the claims Lustig makes in his University of California YouTube videos.

....Three recent clinical studies, which investigated the effects of consuming relevant doses of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup along with ad libitum diets....

There is nothing in that review summary that is in debate among the posters in any of these threads.

Nobody here is advocating a 'free-feeding' diet, nobody is advocating the high amount of sugars that are being given in those studies.

What is being argued is Lustig's claim that fructose, in any amount, is a poison and is the root cause of obesity.

e - University of California, School of Veterinary Medicine? :huh:

Achrya

And at the suggestion of the moderator who thought more science was warranted here's a new review of the research from June of 2013 which concludes that there are plausible mechanisms for the claims Lustig makes in his University of California YouTube videos.

Adverse metabolic effects of dietary fructose: results from the recent epidemiological, clinical, and mechanistic studies.
Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Havel PJ.

Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

The effects of dietary sugar on risk factors and the processes associated with metabolic disease remain a controversial topic, with recent reviews of the available evidence arriving at widely discrepant conclusions.

RECENT FINDINGS:

There are many recently published epidemiological studies that provide evidence that sugar consumption is associated with metabolic disease. Three recent clinical studies, which investigated the effects of consuming relevant doses of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup along with ad libitum diets, provide evidence that consumption of these sugars increase the risk factors for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Mechanistic studies suggest that these effects result from the rapid hepatic metabolism of fructose catalyzed by fructokinase C, which generates substrate for de novo lipogenesis and leads to increased uric acid levels. Recent clinical studies investigating the effects of consuming less sugar, via educational interventions or by substitution of sugar-sweetened beverages for noncalorically sweetened beverages, provide evidence that such strategies have beneficial effects on risk factors for metabolic disease or on BMI in children.

SUMMARY:

The accumulating epidemiological evidence, direct clinical evidence, and the evidence suggesting plausible mechanisms support a role for sugar in the epidemics of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23594708

Recent clinical studies investigating the effects of consuming less sugar, via educational interventions or by substitution of sugar-sweetened beverages for noncalorically sweetened beverages, provide evidence that such strategies have beneficial effects on risk factors for metabolic disease or on BMI in children.

Yeah. Duh? Subbing drinks with calories for drinks with no calories (thus calorie cutting) is going to have beneficial effects. Isn't that the whole point of, for example, MFP?

AlabasterVerve

And at the suggestion of the moderator who thought more science was warranted here's a new review of the research from June of 2013 which concludes that there are plausible mechanisms for the claims Lustig makes in his University of California YouTube videos.

....Three recent clinical studies, which investigated the effects of consuming relevant doses of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup along with ad libitum diets....

There is nothing in that review that is in debate among the posters in any of these threads.

Nobody here is advocating a 'free-feeding' diet, nobody is advocating the high amount of sugars that are being given in those studies.

What is being argued is Lustig's claim that fructose, in any amount, is a poison and is the root cause of obesity.

I don't have another hour and a half to re-watch his latest video but I don't believe he's ever said that considering he supports eating a whole food based diet which includes fruit.

As for what people are advocating, here the majority of responses seem to be that sugar doesn't matter as long as you're within your carb goal which can easily be 100's of grams of sugar and that that is fine and safe to do. I think the newest research is calling that belief (that sugar is harmless in the amounts we're consuming it today) into question.

Safiyandi

He wrote an article titled "Fructose: the poison index". In it, he doesn't mention fruit at all. At all. He also calls it a poison in his Bitter Truth video. Clearly he's fine with eating fruit from his other discussions - it's just manufactured fructose he has an issue with, despite the fact that it's the same as fruit fructose, just in differing proportions with other sugars.

Just about everyone here would tell you to get balanced nutrition. Despite what you may be reading into the conversation, nobody wants you to eat all of your carbs by sitting down with a box of Domino's brown sugar and a spoon. But if you've consumed all your micronutrients and hit your macro minimums, there is no reason not to indulge yourself afterwards, within your limits. That's what the great majority of people here are about. Furthermore, a lot of people here understand that obsessively restricting something like sugar can easily lead to a counterproductive binging cycle.

Otterluv

IN! Because I totally missed out on the last one.

mmapags

Lolz for Lolstig! :drinker:

stealthq

And at the suggestion of the moderator who thought more science was warranted here's a new review of the research from June of 2013 which concludes that there are plausible mechanisms for the claims Lustig makes in his University of California YouTube videos.

I cannot discuss that study in much depth. I tried to access the study but don't have access to OVID or LWW. I tried through my university library but it is not within the breadth of our collection. Have you had the opportunity to read the meta analysis or are you only citing the abstract? How deeply swayed are your beliefs by the suggestion of plausibility?

The effects of dietary sugar on risk factors and the processes associated with metabolic disease remain a controversial topic. Recent reviews of the available evidence arrive at widely discrepant conclusions.

+1

OP, what you should understand is that the number of confounding factors for these kinds of studies is astronomical, which makes them highly suspect - the studies would need to be controlled for the standard age, race, starting BMI (or %BF), health status, plus keeping the diets between the high sugar and low sugar groups as similar as possible in regards to micros, macros, and calorie intake, with the sole exception of sugar consumption. This isn't generally possible with humans, and when it is, it's done with a pathetically small sample size due to the expense and difficulty of finding compliant test subjects.

So, they then turn to animal models (which may or may not reflect the reality in humans). There you can control for these factors, and still you will find the majority fail to do so, or use so much sugar it is a ridiculous extreme. The lack of critical thought when planning the studies is pretty embarrassing, really. Lots of money wasted on studies that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

PikaKnight

Four years later and Lustig updates his Sugar: The Bitter Truth talk. If you weren't interested in what he had to say about sugar the first time there's no need to watch this new video but I thought it was worthwhile.

Of note was the focus on leptin and his research on sugar and diabetes. Lustig claims that "26% of all diabetes in America today is due to sugar and sugar alone. Not due to obesity, not due to total calories, sugar and sugar alone". He claims his research on sugar shows causation and not just a correlation. It was an interesting talk.

Dr. Robert Lustig, UCSF Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, updates his very popular video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth." He argues that sugar and processed foods are driving the obesity epidemic, which in turn affects our endocrine system. Series: "UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine presents Mini Medical School for the Public" [10/2013] [Health and Medicine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y

And if you haven't read it yarwell but together an excellent sugar FAQ for MFP that answers the multitude of questions and concerns people have regarding sugar.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1017237-so-what-s-with-this-sugar-then-faq

Please keep in mind the forum rules so this topic isn't locked again:
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting

And please keep in mind that duplicate posting is also against the Community Guidlelines

llstacy

Just about everyone here would tell you to get balanced nutrition. Despite what you may be reading into the conversation, nobody wants you to eat all of your carbs by sitting down with a box of Domino's brown sugar and a spoon. But if you've consumed all your micronutrients and hit your macro minimums, there is no reason not to indulge yourself afterwards, within your limits. That's what the great majority of people here are about. Furthermore, a lot of people here understand that obsessively restricting something like sugar can easily lead to a counterproductive binging cycle.

That's not what everyone says at all. They say that sugar doesn't matter so when someone asks they tell them it to track something else and the only people who need to worry are people with diabetes. And you have people here eating 120+ grams of sugar a day, most of it added to their "healthy" yogurts, cereals and juices and that's people who care and are watching what they eat. And what makes it worse is they say stuff like "I'm over on sugar but it's from fruit so I don't even track it anymore, don't worry about it" but most of it's added sugar which we've been warned for years now causes health problems.

Maybe that amount of sugar is fine, maybe it's not. Maybe it's fine for some people but not for others. There's a huge gap between obsessively restricting sugar and what the majority of people are actually doing. Threads like this are good to raise awareness so people can take a look at what they're eating and decide for themselves if it's too much.

I missed this newest video so I can't comment on that but I'll be sure to watch it sometime this weekend.