Scientific Review of LOLstig's Fat Chance

Acg67

Scientific Review of Lustig's Fat Chance by Dr. Mark Kern

bit.ly/10NV0Lz

CONCLUSION
Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food,
Obesity and Disease is the product of one individual’s point of
view – a perspective that is not supported by the vast majority of
scientific research on nutrition and metabolism. This review highlights
the critical need for the increased communication of weight management
strategies that are science-based and realistic. As we’ve witnessed in
the past several decades, blaming one particular food or ingredient for
the obesity and chronic disease rates in America is unsubstantiated;
restriction and avoidance of particular foods (especially those that are
most enjoyed by many consumers) is not a sustainable healthy eating
strategy. Numerous scientific authorities, including the Academy for
Nutrition and Dietetics, have acknowledged that the most effective
way to achieve and sustain a healthy weight is to exercise regularly
and eat a balanced, nutrient-dense diet that allows for the enjoyment
of all foods within individual calorie limits. Books like Fat Chance are
regressive and only serve to increase consumer confusion about nutrition,
rather than help create smarter consumers who are able to make informed
decisions about their health.

Sarauk2sf

In

iAMsmiling

Need to copy/paste that one in a bunch of threads.

pastryari

Yes.

danasings

cmeiron

Need to copy/paste that one in a bunch of threads.

^ Or just sticky.

Carnivor0us

I wonder if you'd be so kind as to define a 'balanced' diet. Is it 33/33/33?

SideSteel

In.

mustgetmuscles1

The truth could never make you money though. They still wont believe it. Its a sickness.

billsica

In

pspetralia

:flowerforyou:

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Need to copy/paste that one in a bunch of threads.

Amen

professorRAT

Iron_Feline

people still won't believe you though - because someone wrote a book on how it IS evil.

FunkyTobias

I wonder if you'd be so kind as to define a 'balanced' diet. Is it 33/33/33?

One that provides adequate protein, EFA's, and micronutrients. Macro goals will vary based on the individual's goals, preferences, and level of leanness.

MarisaDLS2

Dr. Mark Kern is hired by the Corn Refiner's Association.

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is the national trade association representing the corn refining (wet milling) industry of the United States. CRA and its predecessors have served this segment of American agribusiness since 1913. Corn refiners manufacture sweeteners, ethanol, starch, bioproducts, corn oil and feed products from corn components such as starch, oil, protein and fiber. You can find out more about the CRA on its website, Corn.org.

HFCS is made from refining corn.

Acg67

Dr. Mark Kern is hired by the Corn Refiner's Association.

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is the national trade association representing the corn refining (wet milling) industry of the United States. CRA and its predecessors have served this segment of American agribusiness since 1913. Corn refiners manufacture sweeteners, ethanol, starch, bioproducts, corn oil and feed products from corn components such as starch, oil, protein and fiber. You can find out more about the CRA on its website, Corn.org.

HFCS is made from refining corn.

Specifically which parts of his paper did you disagree with?

MarisaDLS2

Dr Kern's job with the Corn Refiners Association is to review articles in rebuttal to unbiased scientific inquiry that links HFCS to any kind of health problem.

A large study regarding the increased incidence of diabetes worldwide was published in November 2012.

Marion Nestle (author of "Food Politics") states:

"The latest study on the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) so annoys the Corn Refiners Association that it broke the study’s embargo.

Reporters were not supposed to write about the study until today, but the Corn Refiners issued a press release yesterday: “Caution: New Study Alleging HFCS-Diabetes Link is Flawed and Misleading.”

The New York Times quickly posted its own pre-embargo account.

Why the fuss? The study reports that countries with the highest levels of HFCS in their food supplies also have a 20% higher prevalence of diabetes in their populations. This is a correlation between HFCS and diabetes. It does not mean that HFCS causes diabetes—an important distinction.

But the authors’ press release (sent to me in an e-mail message) makes it sound like causation. They say (also see Dr. Goran’s comments added to this post below):

HFCS appears to pose a serious public health problem on a global scale,” said principal study author Michael I. Goran…The study adds to a growing body of scientific literature that indicates HFCS consumption may result in negative health consequences distinct from and more deleterious than natural sugar.

This conclusion is based on their observations that the amounts of other sugars in the food supplies of countries with high and low HFCS are about the same. But HFCS is a form of sugars that adds to total sugar availability.

The authors obtained information about diabetes and obesity prevalence and HFCS and other dietary factors in the food supply from existing sources of data, all of them questionable. The data do not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, for example, and the two different sources of data on diabetes prevalence give different results.

Inconsistencies abound. For example, Mexico has more diabetes than does the U.S., but rather low HFCS availability (Mexicans prefer sucrose in their sodas). Some countries with high diabetes rates report no HFCS availability at all.

As with all correlational studies, something else could be going on that causes HFCS, sugars of all types, and diabetes to increase.

That was the point I was trying to make when I spoke to Stephanie Strom of the New York Times:

“I think it’s a stretch to say the study shows high-fructose corn syrup has anything special to do with diabetes,” Dr. Nestle said. “Diabetes is a function of development. The more cars, more TVs, more cellphones, more sugar, more meat, more fat, more calories, more obesity, the more diabetes you have.”

She noted that the study “falls right in the middle of the Corn Refiners fight with the Sugar Association,” a reference to the legal war being waged between the two industry groups over the marketing of high-fructose corn syrup.

The Corn Refiners press release quotes its president, Audrae Erickson:

This latest article by Dr. Goran is severely flawed, misleading and risks setting off unfounded alarm about a safe and proven food and beverage ingredient. There is broad scientific consensus that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally and metabolically equivalent…The bottom line is this is a poorly conducted analysis, based on a well-known statistical fallacy, by a known detractor of HFCS whose previous attack on the ingredient was deeply flawed and roundly criticized.

Whew.

Yes, HFCS is sugar(s)—glucose and fructose. So is table sugar (sucrose).

But the bottom line goes for both: Everyone would be better off eating less sugar(s)."

MarisaDLS2

New York Times November 26, 2012

A new study that found a higher prevalence of diabetes in countries with a high level of fructose corn syrup in their food supplies came under attack before it was even released Monday, highlighting the rising controversy over sweeteners and the role they play in the nation’s health.

The study found that type 2 diabetes occurred 20 percent more often in countries where high-fructose corn syrup was in common use, compared with countries where it was rarely — or never — added to food.

The study’s authors reached their conclusion by evaluating existing statistics on body mass index, diabetes rates and global food consumption. But the correlation increased after adjustments were made for country level differences in body mass, population and gross domestic product.

“We’re not saying that high-fructose corn syrup causes diabetes or that it is the only factor or even the only dietary factor with a relation to diabetes,” said Dr. Michael I. Goran, a professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California and an author of the study. “But it does support a growing body of evidence linking high-fructose corn syrup and diabetes.”

The study included 43 countries where the availability of high-fructose corn syrup ranged from zero kilos per capita, like in India and 13 other countries, to 24.78 kilos (54.6 pounds) per capita in the United States.

Food makers have increased their use of high-fructose corn syrup as an alternative to sugar in sodas, breakfast cereals and baked goods, and its use is expanding globally, although it still is hard to find in foods in many European countries and India.

The study, co-authored by Stanley J. Ulijaszek, director of the Unit of Biocultural Variation and Obesity at the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford, and Emily E. Ventura, a research associate at the Childhood Obesity Research Center at U.S.C., was scheduled for publication Tuesday in the journal Global Public Health. But a copy reached the Corn Refiners Association, the industry group representing the companies that produce high-fructose corn syrup, which on Monday fired off a rebuttal. “This latest article by Dr. Goran is severely flawed, misleading and risks setting off unfounded alarm about a safe and proven food and beverage ingredient,” Audrae Erickson, president of the association, said in a statement.

Marion Nestle, the author of “Food Politics” and a blog of the same name and a professor at New York University, also was critical of the study. “I think it’s a stretch to say the study shows high-fructose corn syrup has anything special to do with diabetes,” Dr. Nestle said. “Diabetes is a function of development. The more cars, more TVs, more cellphones, more sugar, more meat, more fat, more calories, more obesity, the more diabetes you have.”

She noted that the study “falls right in the middle of the Corn Refiners fight with the Sugar Association,” a reference to the legal war being waged between the two industry groups over the marketing of high-fructose corn syrup.

Dr. Goran said he was prepared for criticism of the study, because the Corn Refiners attacked previous research he did on high-fructose corn syrup in soda.

At a two-day workshop earlier this month on clinical research strategies for fructose metabolism hosted by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Dr. Goran said representatives of industry groups and food companies participated along with the scientists. “There was definitely some electricity in the air,” Dr. Goran said.

“Scientists were around the tables, but industry people were in the galleries — corn refiners, soda people, sugar people — and they were able to make comments and ask questions. I got shouted down a few times, which made me uncomfortable.”

FunkyTobias

mycupyourcake

Happy to hear this. Although i don't think people should be eating all the sugar that they do I only skimmed Fat Chance and it was depressing. It left me with the impression that exercise does not help with weight loss and for the most part we are all stuck witht he body type we are given (some people are predisposed to being heavier while others are not).

Am I thinking about the wrong book here?

lporter229

Took me a minute, but that's funny.

HeidiCooksSupper

Dr. Kern is a Beverly Hills psychologist specializing in addictions who disagrees with alcoholics anonymous and advocates slow reduction in amounts of alcohol instead.

The corn industry is very concerned about studies showing that fructose is digested differently from glucose although they cannot dispute those studies.

Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist whose research is in the field of neuroendocrinology, with an emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system.

Look at Kern's own web page and then watch Lustig's university lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717) and decide who you think is better placed to provide the scientific evidence.

From Wikipedia: "Lustig has authored over 85 research articles and 45 book chapters. He is a former chairman of the Obesity Task Force of the Pediatric Endocrine Society, a member of the Obesity Task force of The Endocrine Society, and on the Steering Committee of the International Endocrine Alliance to Combat Obesity."

From Wikipedia: "Dr. Marc Kern is a Los Angeles based psychologist whose practice is focused on substance abuse and addiction treatment. In 2013 he and Adi Jaffe, Ph.D. founded Addiction Alternatives,[1] a Beverly Hills-based addiction treatment program. Kern began as a professional architect, then returned to college, becoming a licensed clinical psychologist in California. He is also a Certified Addiction Specialist, a Certified Rational Addictions Therapist, and is certified by the American Psychological Association in the Treatment of Alcohol and Other Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders. Dr. Kern was one of the founding members of SMART Recovery, Rational Recovery, and Moderation Management."

Personally, I avoid excess or added fructose. Since hubby's doctor didn't like his recent triglycerides numbers what did she ask him to cut back on? Fat? Red meat? Nope, fruits, fruit juice, and fruit juice concentrates.

I'm afraid with his sudden claims to be an expert on this topic, Kerns goes into my "Ducks like a Quack" Box with Dr. Oz.

craigmandu

This is an interesting read. I'm not a person that claims a specific food/drink etc.. is the :devil: .

I do find it interesting to see opposing viewpoints when someone is backed by industry to support their initiatives.

MarisaDLS2

In reply to cupcake:

I have read Lustig's book "Fat Chance" cover to cover a couple of times.

These are the main points of the book:

1. Exercise increases muscle, increased muscle mass helps you lose weight and keep the weight off.

2. Most people benefit from a diet high in vegetables and fruits, some proteins, dairy and whole grains. People who are predisposed to diabetes often benefit from a lower glycemic diet.

3. Stay away from processed food as much as possible, too much sugar is not good for you at all.

As a guide, food is divided into green, yellow and red groups.

Green - eat ad lib, yellow - limit to 3X weekly, red foods - eat no more than 1x week.

All of this seems pretty reasonable to me.

mistesh

Specifically which parts of his paper did you disagree with?

Haha, you big muscular men can't handle a tiny mouse?

Come now, Acg67 and SideSteel. Do your part first.

Sarauk2sf

Specifically which parts of his paper did you disagree with?

Haha, you big muscular men can't handle a tiny mouse?

Come now, Acg67 and SideSteel. Do your part first.

Random post is...random.

ninerbuff

In.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

magerum

In

magerum

In reply to cupcake:

I have read Lustig's book "Fat Chance" cover to cover a couple of times.

These are the main points of the book:

1. Exercise increases muscle, increased muscle mass helps you lose weight and keep the weight off.

2. Most people benefit from a diet high in vegetables and fruits, some proteins, dairy and whole grains. People who are predisposed to diabetes often benefit from a lower glycemic diet.

3. Stay away from processed food as much as possible, too much sugar is not good for you at all.

As a guide, food is divided into green, yellow and red groups.

Green - eat ad lib, yellow - limit to 3X weekly, red foods - eat no more than 1x week.

All of this seems pretty reasonable to me.

Acg67

Dr Kern's job with the Corn Refiners Association is to review articles in rebuttal to unbiased scientific inquiry that links HFCS to any kind of health problem.

A large study regarding the increased incidence of diabetes worldwide was published in November 2012.

Marion Nestle (author of "Food Politics") states:

"The latest study on the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) so annoys the Corn Refiners Association that it broke the study’s embargo.

Reporters were not supposed to write about the study until today, but the Corn Refiners issued a press release yesterday: “Caution: New Study Alleging HFCS-Diabetes Link is Flawed and Misleading.”

The New York Times quickly posted its own pre-embargo account.

Why the fuss? The study reports that countries with the highest levels of HFCS in their food supplies also have a 20% higher prevalence of diabetes in their populations. This is a correlation between HFCS and diabetes. It does not mean that HFCS causes diabetes—an important distinction.

But the authors’ press release (sent to me in an e-mail message) makes it sound like causation. They say (also see Dr. Goran’s comments added to this post below):

HFCS appears to pose a serious public health problem on a global scale,” said principal study author Michael I. Goran…The study adds to a growing body of scientific literature that indicates HFCS consumption may result in negative health consequences distinct from and more deleterious than natural sugar.

This conclusion is based on their observations that the amounts of other sugars in the food supplies of countries with high and low HFCS are about the same. But HFCS is a form of sugars that adds to total sugar availability.

The authors obtained information about diabetes and obesity prevalence and HFCS and other dietary factors in the food supply from existing sources of data, all of them questionable. The data do not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, for example, and the two different sources of data on diabetes prevalence give different results.

Inconsistencies abound. For example, Mexico has more diabetes than does the U.S., but rather low HFCS availability (Mexicans prefer sucrose in their sodas). Some countries with high diabetes rates report no HFCS availability at all.

As with all correlational studies, something else could be going on that causes HFCS, sugars of all types, and diabetes to increase.

That was the point I was trying to make when I spoke to Stephanie Strom of the New York Times:

“I think it’s a stretch to say the study shows high-fructose corn syrup has anything special to do with diabetes,” Dr. Nestle said. “Diabetes is a function of development. The more cars, more TVs, more cellphones, more sugar, more meat, more fat, more calories, more obesity, the more diabetes you have.”

She noted that the study “falls right in the middle of the Corn Refiners fight with the Sugar Association,” a reference to the legal war being waged between the two industry groups over the marketing of high-fructose corn syrup.

The Corn Refiners press release quotes its president, Audrae Erickson:

This latest article by Dr. Goran is severely flawed, misleading and risks setting off unfounded alarm about a safe and proven food and beverage ingredient. There is broad scientific consensus that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally and metabolically equivalent…The bottom line is this is a poorly conducted analysis, based on a well-known statistical fallacy, by a known detractor of HFCS whose previous attack on the ingredient was deeply flawed and roundly criticized.

Whew.

Yes, HFCS is sugar(s)—glucose and fructose. So is table sugar (sucrose).

But the bottom line goes for both: Everyone would be better off eating less sugar(s)."

I asked a simple question, specifically what parts of the paper did you disagree with. Why would you respond with a lengthy copy paste that did nothing to rebut anything in the paper. Also what is a circumstantial ad hominem?

And read the bottom

http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/what-journalists-should-know-before-writing-about-fructophobia/