Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
To coin a phrase: "And cognitive dissonance will forever prevail
" 6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!
Interesting logic there. (And why all the added emphasis?) In my experience, people don't really drop dead from too many things (and I have watched and cared for many dying people).
I mean, chemotherapy, for example, is extremely toxic. I have to wear special protective garments to administer it. However, if it spilled on me, I certainly would not "drop dead."
Sometimes I wonder why I take the time to type this stuff...3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!
Interesting logic there. (And why all the added emphasis?) In my experience, people don't really drop dead from too many things (and I have watched and cared for many dying people).
I mean, chemotherapy, for example, is extremely toxic. I have to wear special protective garments to administer it. However, if it spilled on me, I certainly would not "drop dead."
Sometimes I wonder why I take the time to type this stuff...
Oh, I didn't realize you were concerned with people bathing in diet soda.
Yeah, that's probably not the best idea. Consumption on the other hand, meh.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
If it becomes toxic, then why aren't people dropping dead from consuming them?? Why??? Because it's NOT TRUE!!!
Interesting logic there. (And why all the added emphasis?) In my experience, people don't really drop dead from too many things (and I have watched and cared for many dying people).
I mean, chemotherapy, for example, is extremely toxic. I have to wear special protective garments to administer it. However, if it spilled on me, I certainly would not "drop dead."
Sometimes I wonder why I take the time to type this stuff...
The definition of toxic is poisonous. If you consume poisonous drink/food it doesn't take long before something starts to happen and in some instances it only takes several seconds.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.5 -
mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice. 0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice.
Just like water.8 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice.mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
Yes, look at that, I've said that twice in response to you already. Who was that saying something about going back and reading...?9 -
both oxygen and water are toxic as well when the dosage is too high, what is your point?7
-
aqsylvester wrote: »
Not at all. Context and dosage are highly relevant and important concepts. Nobody has advocated for a diet of 100% sugar or fructose, nor has anybody said that it would be a good thing to do.9 -
and nobody on this thread is arguing that a diet high in fructose (or any other kind of sugar) is good either...6
-
I feel pretty confident that most people aren't anywhere close to taking in too much oxygen. Likewise, I would imagine that most people out there (and certainly there are exceptions though) aren't overdosing on water.
Now, as for the percentage of people that are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, that's probably a different story. Lol, if there were no health consequences whatsoever of doing so I don't think I'd have that much trouble eating that much sugar, as I do have a sweet tooth.6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because my dear, it is not. It is hardly ever the food, it's is usually the user.
Even Lustigs example of the fat kid drinking Gatorade while sitting on the couch. The kid has no business drinking the stuff. Now on the other hand, the athlete, the weight lifter or even the weekend warrior, the same "toxic" substance is by far the best tool to refill liver glycogen. So again, not the food that is no good, but the user...3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I feel pretty confident that most people aren't anywhere close to taking in too much oxygen. Likewise, I would imagine that most people out there (and certainly there are exceptions though) aren't overdosing on water.
Now, as for the percentage of people that are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, that's probably a different story…
Just because people overconsume sugar doesn't make sugar inherently bad. It makes our nutrition education, personal choices, and sedentary lifestyles bad.
I'm out for a while, I'd like to keep my job. Have fun kids.4 -
I just found this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632450/
Excess sugar consumption may promote adverse changes in hepatic and total body insulin resistance. Debate continues over the effects of sugars at more typically consumed levels and whether the identity of the sugar consumed is important. In the present study participants (20–60 years old) were randomly assigned to one of five groups, three that consumed low fat milk with added fructose containing sugars in amounts equivalent to the 50th percentile of fructose consumption (US), one which consumed low-fat milk sweetened with glucose, and one unsweetened low-fat milk control group. The intervention lasted ten weeks. In the entire study population there was less than 1 kg increase in weight (73.6 ± 13.0 vs. 74.5 ± 13.3 kg, p < 0.001), but the change in weight was comparable among groups (p > 0.05). There were no changes in fasting glucose (49 ± 0.4 vs. 5.0 ± 0.5 mmol/L), insulin (56.9 ± 38.9 vs. 61.8 ± 50.0 pmol/L), or insulin resistance, as measured by the Homeostasis Model Assessment method (1.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.5, all p > 0.05). These data suggest that added sugar consumed at the median American intake level does not produce changes in measures of insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance and that no sugar has more deleterious effects than others.
I love that this study took the approach of what the average person in the US consumes for added sugar. Anyone consuming 28% of their calories from sugar has way more problems than simply eating too much sugar.5 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I feel pretty confident that most people aren't anywhere close to taking in too much oxygen. Likewise, I would imagine that most people out there (and certainly there are exceptions though) aren't overdosing on water.
Now, as for the percentage of people that are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, that's probably a different story…
Which is why moderation should be taught, not necessarily abstinence (although that's fine for those who choose it).1 -
mskessler89 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I feel pretty confident that most people aren't anywhere close to taking in too much oxygen. Likewise, I would imagine that most people out there (and certainly there are exceptions though) aren't overdosing on water.
Now, as for the percentage of people that are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, that's probably a different story…
Just because people overconsume sugar doesn't make sugar inherently bad. It makes our nutrition education, personal choices, and sedentary lifestyles bad.
I'm out for a while, I'd like to keep my job. Have fun kids.ForecasterJason wrote: »I feel pretty confident that most people aren't anywhere close to taking in too much oxygen. Likewise, I would imagine that most people out there (and certainly there are exceptions though) aren't overdosing on water.
Now, as for the percentage of people that are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, that's probably a different story…
Which is why moderation should be taught, not necessarily abstinence (although that's fine for those who choose it).
And I do agree with those points.1 -
Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions