EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

189111314

Replies

  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    So you'd eat some sources of something you consider poison? *sigh*

    You want to eat sugar, go for it. Eat as much as you like. In fact, you can have my share. Double up.

    giphy.gif
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.

    Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
  • 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: »
    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?
    It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.
    Let's do this in logical steps:
    1. Fructose is a molecule.
    2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
    3. Lustig said fructose is poison
    4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
    5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
    6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.

    If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.

    That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.
    He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."

    "as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.

    Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
    So why is the same molecule causing different health effects when it described as added to food, but fine when it occurs naturally in food?
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.
    Let's do this in logical steps:
    1. Fructose is a molecule.
    2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
    3. Lustig said fructose is poison
    4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
    5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
    6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.

    If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.

    That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.
    He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."

    "as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.

    Absolutely no, most of them will not.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Why is everything so black and white, When it comes to sugar consumption!?

    If someone thinks sugar is bad, they will post a link proving/stating this.

    Then along comes a sugar advocate and posts a link disproving the link the other person posted, and on and on it goes.

    You're either on one side or the other, there doesn't seem to any grey areas in people opinions when it comes to sugar consumption.

    Sugar is in just about every packaged food on the planet. I can't imagine a study coming out any time soon saying sugar is the cause of this or that. It would be not in the food/drink industries best interests if a study saying sugar is dangerous or whatever came to light.

    I'll stay in the middle, not too much and not none either :tongue:
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.

    Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
    So why is the same molecule causing different health effects when it described as added to food, but fine when it occurs naturally in food?

    She continues to ignore this question
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.

    Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.

    Explain how fructose should be treated as deadly but you shouldnt avoid all fructose
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,878 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    What I'd like to see is Lustig going to Brazil (one of the highest consumers of sugar) and preach this to all the normal size people over there.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    On my way to exercise last week, I heard a story on NPR about Brazil and obesity, which I can't find right now, but apparently the government in Brazil considers obesity there to be a health epidemic.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-015-0107-y#page-1

    5c7768bf0f01c2dfef6f8fca474b0517.png

    But their obesity rate is lower than the US is the point. If you lined up sugar consumption and obesity rates by country, the two graphs wouldn't show much correlation. That's the point.

    My point is niner mentioned that Brazil is one of the highest consumers of sugar and the Brazilian government is concerned about their obesity health epidemic.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.
    Let's do this in logical steps:
    1. Fructose is a molecule.
    2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
    3. Lustig said fructose is poison
    4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
    5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
    6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.

    If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.

    That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.
    He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."

    "as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.
    Can you give me a list of these doctors? I want to know who to avoid.
    Still fail to see how what makes up a lot of most fruit is suddenly deadly to humans in the brief evolutionary time span that we've stopped being frugivores.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.

    Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
    So why is the same molecule causing different health effects when it described as added to food, but fine when it occurs naturally in food?

    Amount, speed at which it is digested, presence of fiber or other substances that impact absorption, etc. There are a lot of reasons.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    What I'd like to see is Lustig going to Brazil (one of the highest consumers of sugar) and preach this to all the normal size people over there.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    On my way to exercise last week, I heard a story on NPR about Brazil and obesity, which I can't find right now, but apparently the government in Brazil considers obesity there to be a health epidemic.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-015-0107-y#page-1

    5c7768bf0f01c2dfef6f8fca474b0517.png

    But their obesity rate is lower than the US is the point. If you lined up sugar consumption and obesity rates by country, the two graphs wouldn't show much correlation. That's the point.

    My point is niner mentioned that Brazil is one of the highest consumers of sugar and the Brazilian government is concerned about their obesity health epidemic.

    Brazil's obesity epidemic is not just because of their sugar consumption. It is because of the nutrition transition (shift from traditional diets to Western-style diets). Overconsumption of ALL macronutrients are responsible for the obesity epidemic.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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?
    The non-edited continuous parts of the video are
    1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
    and
    2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation

    How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?

    He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.

    If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?

    no

    You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.

    Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
    So why is the same molecule causing different health effects when it described as added to food, but fine when it occurs naturally in food?

    Amount, speed at which it is digested, presence of fiber or other substances that impact absorption, etc. There are a lot of reasons.
    Except grapes
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/walmart-red-seedless-grapes-219265089
    versus cheesecake bar:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/fiber-one-strawberry-cheesecake-bar-189034329
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    Strong herd mentality in this thread

    Care to expand the discussion beyond posting a link to a study that was precisely not what was requested? Asked for a human study, post rat study, then accuses of herd mentality.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Strong herd mentality in this thread

    If being educated and knowledgeable, including doing my research in this area makes me one of this herd, I'm in.

    Not sure where name-calling is going to get you anywhere, or what your point is.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Strong herd mentality in this thread
    Strong ad hominem when unable to address the science.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Caitwn wrote: »
    Arguments like this are endless because people want science to be black and white. Definite. Absolute.

    Often it's not. Science is grey. It's a continuum. NUTRITIONAL science is grey.

    I don't think Lustig is a quack. But it makes me crazy that he draws such absolutist, stark conclusions. Just like it makes me crazy that the OP posted a thread with a hysterical title in ALL CAPS with EXCLAMATION POINTS and MUST READ as though that somehow makes it all valid.

    From what I can tell, Lustig is a competent researcher who has over-reached in his conclusions either because he's got some sort of passion for the subject that has blinded him to a more nuanced approach, or he's an opportunist. I don't know which is true, and it likely doesn't matter either way.

    What matters is that he does something that doesn't work for me when I'm trying to educate myself and make reasonable judgments about how and what to eat. He pulls out one nutrient and focuses on it as The Problem. But that doesn't work because foods are a palette of nutrients, delivered in countless different ways, all within the context of my own preferences, any emotional issues I have that impact the way I eat, my genetics, my activity level, and social context variables like my income level, the influence of advertising and marketing, and food availability. And there's more, but you're probably already tired of the list.

    The point is, things start to get pretty grey.

    And that's why I can't take people seriously when they make blanket recommendations like how I should 'eliminate added/processed sugars'. It's like recommending I use a sledgehammer on my desk when all I want to do is rearrange my study to let more light in. It's crude and careless thinking, and misses the forest for the trees.

    Here's an example of thinking that's more nuanced. It's from the conclusion to the second article that @yarwell links above (care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/4/957.full)

    "If there are any adverse effects of sugar, they are due entirely to the calories it provides, and it is therefore indistinguishable from any other caloric food. Excess total energy consumption seems far more likely to be the cause of obesity and diabetes. Although many individuals can lose a substantial amount of weight and thereby also delay the onset of diabetes, to do so has relied on an overall reduction in energy consumption. Thus, if reduced energy intake is desirable, all caloric foods are candidates. A reduction in consumption of added sugars should head the list because they provide no essential nutrients."

    That's reasonable. It's thoughtful. If you read it, you can see that it actually offers some support to each of the extreme sides of the 'sugar wars'. It's grey, so it's less likely to generate clicks or book sales.

    And just to further ruffle the feathers of those of you who imagine that science is "tainted" depending on who sponsors it...note that the study I just quoted from was supported in part by Coca-Cola. But also note that the nature of that support was an "investigator-initiated unrestricted grant". Yes, big corporations with vested interests do sponsor research. But they tend to benefit more from unrestricted research because the quality of that research is better. Instead of forcing the research to have a particular slant, they let the investigator research a question that they have interest in. They don't manipulate the conclusions. They DO cherry-pick and manipulate the way they report on results in mainstream media. But it isn't the research itself that's "tainted".

    Coca-Cola and others don't need to "cook" the research. They can rely on the fact that most people don't know squat about how to interpret research and that science illiteracy is increasing in this country, not decreasing. They know they can trap people based on the fact that people want science to be black-and-white and provide absolute answers.

    Maybe it's my own bias operating here, but I just feel like a lot of clarity can result from conversations and exchanges that are comfortable with "grey". And we could have a lot more of those if people could stop asking science to be black-and-white.



    giphy.gif


  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »
    Strong herd mentality in this thread

    Care to expand the discussion beyond posting a link to a study that was precisely not what was requested? Asked for a human study, post rat study, then accuses of herd mentality.
    Next he'll use rats to show humans aren't meant to be herd animals.
This discussion has been closed.