EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!
Replies
-
Can you give me a list of these doctors? I want to know who to avoid.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.
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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
"as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.
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.
0 -
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?MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
Amount, speed at which it is digested, presence of fiber or other substances that impact absorption, etc. There are a lot of reasons.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 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
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
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Except grapesMoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
Amount, speed at which it is digested, presence of fiber or other substances that impact absorption, etc. There are a lot of reasons.
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-1890343290 -
Bronan_The_Brobarian 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.0 -
Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »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.0 -
Strong ad hominem when unable to address the science.Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »Strong herd mentality in this thread
0 -
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.
0 -
Next he'll use rats to show humans aren't meant to be herd animals.mantium999 wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian 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.
0 -
It's weird, as if there was a consensus among people about the science. Damn scientists always coming to agreeing conclusions instead of disagreeing just to be different.Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »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.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
Amount, speed at which it is digested, presence of fiber or other substances that impact absorption, etc. There are a lot of reasons.
And you assume a lot about what food is being eaten with what. What if naturally occurring fructose in a strawberry is combined with the added fructose in cake mix baked into a cake? The horror!0 -
It's weird, as if there was a consensus among people about the science. Damn scientists always coming to agreeing conclusions instead of disagreeing just to be different.Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »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.
It's almost as if we were arguing science vs. cult.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?
Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.
This one is quite thorough:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
Oh, now you're coming with major health organizations. The same ones who are NOT claiming it's "plain bad for you". The ones who are simply saying it's got calories and you shouldn't have too many calories to prevent weight gain.
If it's simply calories, then why not target fat instead? After all, gram for gram fat has more calories. There is much more that goes in to recommendations like that. And most doctors will tell you sugar is not good for you.
Not my doctor. She told me to cut my calories. Your doctor only told you to watch your sugar?
0 -
Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »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.
I didn't realize this was one of those three science is settled debates like global warming
Again, what point are you trying to make here? That we agree on doing our research? If you disagree with us, where are your links to proven research on what you've said?0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
Amount, speed at which it is digested, presence of fiber or other substances that impact absorption, etc. There are a lot of reasons.
So frosted mini wheats are ok to eat?0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
Oh, now you're coming with major health organizations. The same ones who are NOT claiming it's "plain bad for you". The ones who are simply saying it's got calories and you shouldn't have too many calories to prevent weight gain.
If it's simply calories, then why not target fat instead? After all, gram for gram fat has more calories. There is much more that goes in to recommendations like that. And most doctors will tell you sugar is not good for you.
Not my doctor. She told me to cut my calories. Your doctor only told you to watch your sugar?
Yes, they did. Both my primary care doctor and my obgyn who is extremely chatty and apparently has a personal interest in the subject due to his own family history. And I've had conversations on this with a friend who is an endocrinologist and deals with a lot of this in his work.
To be clear, they never said "calories don't matter at all". Neither have I, for the record. But I believe, and so do they, that there is more to it than just calories.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.stevencloser wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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.
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.
Foods themselves don't create the cravings in the way you're implying. The response is hedonic, it's not physiological, though of course your body responds when you eat food. This is a chicken and egg thing here, but behavioral scientists know in this case which came first. The mind connection with the food is leading the charge here, not the body one.
The belief that they cause the cravings physiologically is fostered by those demonizing the foods themselves. They take the signs of a natural physiological response to the ingestion of a food and try to cobble something together to proof that the result is the cause. It's not.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
Really, his claims are even ridiculous when taken as is. The inability to absorb some calories does not invalidate CICO. Else I could go and say "Olives make me retch and throw up, so I don't get the calories in them and also lose whatever was still in my stomach contents. Therefore they're negative calorie super foods. Checkmate CICOs!"
What'd olives ever do to you?!
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?
Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.
This one is quite thorough:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.
That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.
In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.0 -
I disagree, and there are contradictory studies on this. I never demonized foods. For years, I ate them in moderation (or tried to). I never thought I was "bad" when I had some ice cream. I just assumed I was fat because I liked to eat too much of everything...tried to eat a little less of everything, still had constant cravings, and failed. But this time around, when I finally tried eliminating added sugar and highly processed carbs, it made all the difference in the world. So while I realize my experience is not proof, my experience combined with a lot of studies I have read in the past two or three years leads me to believe there is something to this sugar addiction thing. If you believe otherwise, that's fine. Rational people can disagree on their interpretation of the same data.PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.stevencloser wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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.
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.
Foods themselves don't create the cravings in the way you're implying. The response is hedonic, it's not physiological, though of course your body responds when you eat food. This is a chicken and egg thing here, but behavioral scientists know in this case which came first. The mind connection with the food is leading the charge here, not the body one.
The belief that they cause the cravings physiologically is fostered by those demonizing the foods themselves. They take the signs of a natural physiological response to the ingestion of a food and try to cobble something together to proof that the result is the cause. It's not.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
"as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.
No, no they wouldn't.
I can't think of many doctors who would consider fruit to be a problem. You know, that stuff that has fructose in it.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?
Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.
This one is quite thorough:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.
That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.
In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.
Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
Oh, now you're coming with major health organizations. The same ones who are NOT claiming it's "plain bad for you". The ones who are simply saying it's got calories and you shouldn't have too many calories to prevent weight gain.
If it's simply calories, then why not target fat instead? After all, gram for gram fat has more calories. There is much more that goes in to recommendations like that. And most doctors will tell you sugar is not good for you.
Not my doctor. She told me to cut my calories. Your doctor only told you to watch your sugar?
Yes, they did. Both my primary care doctor and my obgyn who is extremely chatty and apparently has a personal interest in the subject due to his own family history. And I've had conversations on this with a friend who is an endocrinologist and deals with a lot of this in his work.
To be clear, they never said "calories don't matter at all". Neither have I, for the record. But I believe, and so do they, that there is more to it than just calories.
I have four doctors. Well five, I need to visit my gyn soon, but I digress. Every last one of them? All about the calories. Including the endocrinologist.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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.
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.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
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.
"as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.
No, no they wouldn't.
I can't think of many doctors who would consider fruit to be a problem. You know, that stuff that has fructose in it.
I'm not a Lustig expert, I've read things he's written at various points but don't claim to have a photographic memory. Does he actually say that you should not eat fruit? Because I don't recall reading that from him.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I disagree, and there are contradictory studies on this. I never demonized foods. For years, I ate them in moderation (or tried to). I never thought I was "bad" when I had some ice cream. I just assumed I was fat because I liked to eat too much of everything...tried to eat a little less of everything, still had constant cravings, and failed. But this time around, when I finally tried eliminating added sugar and highly processed carbs, it made all the difference in the world. So while I realize my experience is not proof, my experience combined with a lot of studies I have read in the past two or three years leads me to believe there is something to this sugar addiction thing. If you believe otherwise, that's fine. Rational people can disagree on their interpretation of the same data.PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.stevencloser wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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.
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.
Foods themselves don't create the cravings in the way you're implying. The response is hedonic, it's not physiological, though of course your body responds when you eat food. This is a chicken and egg thing here, but behavioral scientists know in this case which came first. The mind connection with the food is leading the charge here, not the body one.
The belief that they cause the cravings physiologically is fostered by those demonizing the foods themselves. They take the signs of a natural physiological response to the ingestion of a food and try to cobble something together to proof that the result is the cause. It's not.
I posted a study to support my position though. Can you support one study on humans to support your stance on sugar addiction?
Your position flies in the face of the scientists who say there is no addiction to a food substance who have combed through research, you know. They bring more to the table when making that judgement than you do.
You can think all you want, but the current stance of the scientific community does not support your position. The research review I posted above shows that.
As for the cravings, we can agree to disagree. If you want to put the cart before the horse and believe that the result is the cause, that's up to you, but if you'd do research for two seconds on Google scholar on the cause of cravings, you'd get some behavioral science links to read that might be enlightening.
0 -
I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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 advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?
Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.
Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.
Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?
Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.
This one is quite thorough:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.
That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.
In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.
Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions