EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

1568101114

Replies

  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?

    Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.

    You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    edited August 2015
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
    Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

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

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

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

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

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

    No, they don't.

    They do. In many, many, many people they do. This is currently an area of active study for a very good reason...many in the field think there is something to it, and millions of people deal with it every day.
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?

    Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.

    You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.

    Mind read much?
    I mean honestly, I'm just glad I didn't put sugar in my arsenic pie!
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?

    Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.

    You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
    No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?

    Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.

    You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
    No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.

    You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
    Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

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

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

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

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

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

    No, they don't.

    They do. In many, many, many people they do. This is currently an area of active study for a very good reason...many in the field think there is something to it, and millions of people deal with it every day.
    Most of the studies show that the cravings have little to do with the composition of the food, and instead have to do with the emotional association the food has for people. To date, there is no real evidence for physical dependency created by any kind of food.
    If you want to say food is addictive in the same sense people talk about gambling addiction, fine, but now you're talking about the same kind of mental chemistry that can describe any behavior people can anticipate having a reward.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?

    Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.

    You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
    No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.

    You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
    So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
    Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

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

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

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

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

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

    No, they don't.

    They do. In many, many, many people they do. This is currently an area of active study for a very good reason...many in the field think there is something to it, and millions of people deal with it every day.

    Your link to the proof? As this was discussed, in great length, in a fabulous thread the other day, and there is no scientific proof to show that there is any food that causes cravings or addictions in humans.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
    Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

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

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

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

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

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

    No, they don't.

    They do. In many, many, many people they do. This is currently an area of active study for a very good reason...many in the field think there is something to it, and millions of people deal with it every day.
    Most of the studies show that the cravings have little to do with the composition of the food, and instead have to do with the emotional association the food has for people. To date, there is no real evidence for physical dependency created by any kind of food.
    If you want to say food is addictive in the same sense people talk about gambling addiction, fine, but now you're talking about the same kind of mental chemistry that can describe any behavior people can anticipate having a reward.

    That is very different from what I have read. I dispute your assertion that "most" studies say cravings have nothing to do with the composition of the food. That is a small minority of the studies I have read. Most say the composition is the MAIN factor.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?

    Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.

    You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
    No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.

    You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
    So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.

    He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Acg67 wrote: »
    This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?

    No, not really. Lots of "there is no consensus because scientists keep sciencing!" Though.
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    edited August 2015
    Without even opening the link, I see 2 problems:
    it's HuffPo
    it uses the word "toxic" linked to a food

    Looking at the opinion piece, there are more problems.
    .
    you get sick from inappropriate energy storage (in your liver and muscle)
    That is not 'inappropriate energy storage', it's normal and necessary.
    Very strange that an MD wouldn't know this. :confused:

    First source of energy for the body is glucose - blood sugar. Quick access.
    Next is glycogen. That's the carb that's stored in muscles & the liver. Slower access.
    Then fat.

    Then muscle. This is a _distant_ 4th for 2 reasons.
    1 - it's an inefficient conversion (protein --> glucose) which he points out in his writing
    2 - it's a hail Mary, hoping you'll find & eat food before your skeletal muscles, diaphragm, & heart stop working
    (Hint: using muscle for energy is 'starvation mode'.)

    .
    "a calorie is a calorie" continues to be promulgated by the food industry as their defense against their culpability for the current epidemic of obesity and chronic metabolic disease
    But he also admits:
    A calorie is a measurement of energy (a matter of physics)
    Then he goes back to his original idiocy:
    protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
    What does the processing energy have to do with the calories in the food?
    What does satiety have to do with the calories in the food? (Feeling full is determined by your stomach feeling
    weight &/or stretching. So having a large salad or several apples or some carrots would be low-calorie,
    high-water, stretching the stomach.)

    And do you think that maybe, just perhaps, when the calories in food are determined, the scientists take into
    account the fact that not all the calories actually in the food are absorbed into the body?

    The only "culpability" the food industry has for obesity is that they make food more tasty, so people want to eat
    more. If people didn't eat so much, didn't put so much food into their own bodies, they wouldn't be so fat. The
    food industry doesn't force people to eat. In fact, they label foods as to calories, ingredients, etc. so consumers
    can make informed choices.

    .
    omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
    Non sequitor.
    The fact that fats act differently in/on the body does not mean that they don't contain the same energy (calories).

    .
    fructose is not glucose. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
    Water is not lead. Because a mile is not a mile.
    Makes exactly the same amount of sense (zero).


    .
    only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide
    OK. That still doesn't mean that a pound is not a pound, or that sugar _causes_ obesity.
    Eating more than you burn causes obesity.
    It's easy to eat lots of calories when drinking sugar or eating fat.

    .
    the industry uses 56 other names for sugar on the label
    Or maybe they're being accurate in reporting what's in the food?
    You know, like the FDA requires them to do?
    I'm willing to bet that they're not allowed to say "sugar", when really they're using glucose, fructose, galactose,
    and probably several other "oses". (Hint: things ending in "ose" are sugars.)

    .
    if you're fat, it's your fault
    True.
    Unless someone is forcing you to eat, or shoving food down your throat (like a goose being fattened for foie
    gras [sp?]), the only thing responsible for you being fat is you eating too much.

    .
    Sugar in excess is a toxin
    Well, yeah. Anything in excess is a toxin. Oxygen. Water.

    .
    The UK and Australia have just this past week laid down stricter guidelines for sugar consumption. The people and scientists of the United States are onto them as well. It's just a matter of time before the politicians follow.
    WHOA!!! :angry: :anguished:
    Those countries don't have the history of personal freedom & responsibility that the USA does.
    The nanny state is nearly always a Very Bad Idea. (Other than common-sense public health protections like
    fluoridated water, mandatory vaccinations, quarantine of infectious people, drug-free workplaces, etc.)

    Telling people what to eat, or what not to eat, REQUIRING them to eat a certain way, is right out.

    .
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
    Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

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

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

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

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

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

    No, they don't.

    They do. In many, many, many people they do. This is currently an area of active study for a very good reason...many in the field think there is something to it, and millions of people deal with it every day.

    Your link to the proof? As this was discussed, in great length, in a fabulous thread the other day, and there is no scientific proof to show that there is any food that causes cravings or addictions in humans.

    Sigh
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Acg67 wrote: »
    This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

    In humans. That states in the opening paragraph that it's a review of animal models.
  • MsJulesRenee
    MsJulesRenee Posts: 1,180 Member
    edited August 2015
    Let 'em think sugar makes you obese, more for us :cookie:
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Let 'em think sugar makes you obese, more for us :cookie:

    You can't see me, but I'm giving you a thumbs up.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Acg67 wrote: »
    This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

    Rats are not human beings.
This discussion has been closed.