The bitter truth about fructose alarmism.

Excellent stuff, as usual, Alan.

I do have a quick question with relation to high fructose corn syrup, and perhaps you could share your quick thoughts(admittedly I don’t have a massive knowledge in this area, so the question stems strictly from a claim I often hear bandied about, which may or may not be true….or perhaps somewhere in between).

A common indictment of HFCS is that it is derived from GMO corn. While there’s absolutely no debate in terms of sucrose versus HFCS given their ratios of fructose and glucose, is there any merit at all (based upon what is currently known) about whether or not this is a problem to one degree or another? Based upon the types of folks who tend to make that claim, it is tempting to say it is more alarmism, but I figured it would be best to just ask someone knowledgeable like you than simply accepting what those folks are saying.

I just want to say thanks Alan.

Hi, Alan, here is SturmBG from Lyle’s forum (the falesly accused paleotard).
When I was watching the video (some time ago) I was thinking about pretty much the same points you did.
But there is something else – this guy is obviously trying to sound cogently and he is doing it good while actually advocating some correct points. How about the possibility that he knows that he is exxagerating for the sake of being more interesting?
If I had to speak in front of an audience that is not exceptionaly knowledgeble about the topic, I would speak something like him.
What do you think about that?

Fine, Sturm, you’re not a paleotard. You’re justa fucking retard apologist for groups like the paleo fucks and Lustwig. How about the possibility that he’s just an alarmist dipshit who should be ignored completely because he can’t even get basic concepts right?

Or do you have to constantly make excuses for EVERYONE making bullshit claims like him, the paleo cult fucks, Dean Peat, etc. Because that’s what you seem to constantly do. “Oh, they make some good points.”

Yeah, a broken clock is right twice a day too. Because someone makes one good point doesn’t change the fact that EVERYTHING ELSE THEY ARE SAYING IS COMPLETELY FUCKING RETARDEDLY WRONG.

Lyle

Do you think that consuming a lot of modern fruits e.g. Pink Lady, Braeburn & Fuji apples (which have been selectively bred to have a very high sugar content) could be a problem? Pardon the Daily Mail link. The British Dental Association claims that the Pink Lady, Braeburn and Fuji contain so much sugar that they cause tooth decay.

Hey Alan, great stuff. From your post on the mean forum I thought you migth do something like this.

grammar suggestion for you:

“he also errors enough to warrant significant”

I don’t know if it IS wrong, but it doesn’t sound right to me – either of these

“he makes enough errors to …”
“he errs enough to …”

@ Matt Stone:

Um yeah, I’m sure we are all eating more calories all because of fructose in our foods.

~shakes head~

Did you even bother to read through Alan’s article, or do you just hear the things that sound good to you and block out the rest?

Sometimes I wonder how Alan has the patience for you types.

Hi,
I preach the treachery of HFCS so my mission/bias is clear. “HFCS is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function.” In my humble opinion it is the “nearly identical” that is killing us. Have you
considered the ratios of fructose:glucose in sucrose and HFCS?
HFCS is 55%fructose:45%glucose. This appears to be close to the 50:50 ratio found in sucrose, until you do the math. 55%:45% = 55/45 =1.22.
This means that in every can of Coke (bottled in the USA) there is,
compared to glucose, 22% extra fructose. In everyday terms this means
that drinking 5 HFCS-55 sweetened beverages is equivalent to drinking
4 1/4 cans of sucrose sweetened be beverage plus 3/4 can of pure fructose sweetened beverage. Considering that the average teen chugs one of two cans a day, that’s a lot of extra fructose. I’ve always wondered why the CRA, Corn Refiners Assoc., chose that ratio. Were they just trying to find a ratio that simulated sucrose-like sweetness, or were they looking for something extremely sweet so end manufacturers could use less, or perhaps they wanted something a little more addictive? At any rate, they chose the ratio, not mother nature.
Back to the facts:
Sucrose is a disaccharide.The fructose and glucose are chemically linked. Our gut has the enzyme sucrase. It’s responsibility is to cleave the disaccharide so the simple sugars, fructose and glucose, can enter the bloodstream. Enzymes function as biological catalysts and also serve as gatekeepers; they regulate entry of sugars into the bloodstream.
In contrast, HFCS is only a gemisch, a mixture of fructose and glucose, not requiring sucrase control. The fructose is shunted directly to the liver for metabolism. When you drink something with
HFCS-55 you might as well have an I.V. to your portal vein.
btw: Food manufacturers are always trying to stay one step ahead of
the consumer. I was reading the ingredients on a bottle of low cal
fruit water. No HFCS, good; no fructose, good; but wait there’s
levulose…levulose is fructose.

You’ve made some good points, but you’re skirting the issue as
to the basic reasons of our obesity, type II diabetes crisis. Two thirds of our intake of HFCS comes through sweetened beverages. It
is estimated that per capita intake of HFCS is about 70 lbs per year. That’s a lot of extra fructose assaulting our livers. If you look at
CDC’s obesity vs. HFCS and sucrose chart, you will notice that obesity
really started to climb in 1984-1985. That was the year that
the big boys, Coke and Pepsi, switched to HFCS-55.

Ditch HFCS, especially HFCS-55. To your health

Pikku, people get a “sweet tooth” from a very young age due to being fed sweet foods & drinks (rusks, baby formula, fruit juice etc) as babies and they can acquire a dependence. See Psychotherapist Jonathan Christie’s findings.

If sweet foods & drinks aren’t alluring, how come Americans are spending over $70,000,000,000 per annum on sweet drinks and over $20,000,000,000 per annum on sweet foods (1999 figure, probably higher now)?

@Nigel, of course theyre alluring.. so are many food items. That doesnt change the problem though. People witha ‘sweet tooth’ still have a choice as to what goes in their mouth and how much. It’s too easy to blame a food/drink, rather than blaming yourself for getting fat. (note: not saying taste/craving doesnt contribute, but its stupid to put the cause of overweight/obesity down to one ingredient)

Sam — I fixed that, thanks.

Peter — I’ve done many lectures for layfolks, & can’t recall a single one where I exaggerated the data to make the lecture more interesting. That’s called BS-ing. However, I once told an audience member that I wanted to feed her some cheesecake.

Matt — Blaming the nation’s increased caloric intake now versus 1970 on fructose’s purported appetite-stimulatory effect is a leap of speculation. But the kicker is, your speculations are contrary to ample controlled evidence which is NOT speculative. Also, in reviewing the vid, you’re in complete denial if you’re saying that he does not paint a very black/white picture of the evils of frutose, rather than a dose-dependent one.

Cynthia — you’re talking about a difference of about 4g less fructose per can if sucrose was used instead of HFCS-55. Percentages are one thing, but the actual amount is another. I still think you’re going ape-shit over rabbit pellets. Also, there’s no evidence that a mix of free fructose & glucose causes any different metabolic effects than sucrose. This is an idea you’ve fabricated without proof. As for blaming the mid-80’s marked obesity hike to soda companies’ switch to HFCS-55, let me remind you that correlation =/= causation. I could easily do the same thing and blame the widespread use of the internet that started in the mid 80’s.

Nigel — let me quote that link you posted, and you’ll see why I’m gonna call BS: “After a week or so, all my hypoglycemic patients had to be steered away from some explosively glycemic food such as Grape Nuts, rice cakes, café latte, rolled oats or soy milk which they mistakenly perceived as wholesome. It helps to think “carbohydrate addiction” because this process is akin to counseling substance abusers.”

All — Thanks for the feedback.

Mr. Aragon, I suggest it is you who should take a better look at the data.

1. Despite documented increases in daily caloric intake in the last 30 years, total dietary fat intake has remained relatively stable (5.3 gm decrease in men, 5 gm increase in women), while the percentage of calories from saturated fat has decreased. Although high-fat feeding can induce overnutrition and metabolic syndrome in experimental animal and human models, it does so only in the presence of concomitant carbohydrate . However, carbohydrate intake has skyrocketed during this same period.
Centers for Disease Control. Trends in intake of energy and macronutrients–United States, 1971-2000. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 53, 80-82 (2004).
Chanmugam, P. et al. Did fat intake in the United States really decline between 1989-1991 and 1994-1996? J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 103, 867-872 (2003).

2. The Japanese diet does have fructose; but it is only in fruit. There are no added sugars in their diet. That is what we are talking about here; added dietary sugars; not endogenous ones. Indeed, I am not alone; the American Heart Association has revised their recommended consumption of added sugars down from 22 tsp/day to 6 or 9 tsp/day.
Johnson, R.K. et al. Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 120, 1011-1020 (2009).

3. It is about dose, and it is about context. I say so in the video, please do not misquote me. Hard spirits do not cause metabolic syndrome, but beer and shochu do; because the ethanol is delivered along with glucose. Same with fructose in soda or juice; as the only way to get fructose is with glucose combined (HFCS or sucrose); so they are congruent. Fructose always comes with glucose; and the two together overwhelm the liver’s capacity to process either one, generating metabolic syndrome through the pathways described in the video.
Athyros VG, Liberopoulos EN, Mikhailidis DP, Papageorgiou AA, Ganotakis ES, Tziomalos K, Kakafika AI, Karagiannis A, Lambropoulos S, Elisaf M. Association of drinking pattern and alcohol beverage type with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease in a Mediterranean cohort. Angiology. 2007;58(6):689-697.

After viewing your critique, I will maintain my position, and I suggest you rethink yours.

Sincerely,
Robert Lustig, M.D.

@Pikku: Most of the studies showing that sweet food/drink is more desirable than cocaine have been done on rats. See Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward. “Discussion

First, our findings seem to run counter to seminal research in monkeys showing that the large majority of individuals prefer high doses of intravenous cocaine over dry food, regardless of the amount of food available and even despite severe weight loss. However, in most previous studies, except one, the food option contained no or only modest concentrations of sweet tastants, which probably explains why it was neglected in favor of high doses of cocaine. In addition, in those studies that employed lightly sweetened food pellets, the amount of effort required to obtain the food option was ten times higher than to obtain cocaine, thereby favoring drug choices. However, in one choice study, all monkeys clearly preferred, ceteris paribus, the highest dose of cocaine over a 1-g sucrose pellet. The discrepancy between this latter study and the present study may suggest either that sweetened beverages are more rewarding than sweetened dryfoods (which may induce thirst in addition to reward) and/or that one 1-g sucrose pellet is not enough to surmount the rewarding effects of the highest doses of cocaine*. Finally, one cannot rule out the possibility that this discrepancy could also reflect an interspecific gap between rodents and primates, the latter being hypothetically more susceptible to cocaine reward than the former. Future research is needed to tease apart these different hypotheses.”

*1g of sucrose doesn’t do much for me. 1g of coke, on the other hand… ;-D

@Alan: What about my comment about certain varieties of apple having a very high sugar content?

Where does Lustig state or imply that the negative effects of fructose are not dose-dependent?

Obviously people don’t keel over after a can of Tab, nor do they doom themselves to diabetes or obesity.

@ Dr Lustig:

I think the point is that the most memorable message you sent through your speech as that fructose matters more than calories. Alan can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but if you think that you communicated that dosage and context were important in those 90 minutes, you’re wrong. You DID NOT COME ACROSS WITH THAT MESSAGE.

I watched the video once (but very carefully and with some rewind), and I thought Dr. Lustig communicated dose and context of fructose adequately during the 90 minutes. It was not headlined for you, but it was covered. You should also be able to draw the same conclusions from his other topics. I suspect the issue is the sheer amount of info in 90 minutes and short attention spans of some of these posters.

I don’t have an exact moment for you. Probably late in the video. I also don’t see why you are hung up on dosage, as the biochemistry speaks for itself. Fructose would not be the first chemical that humans can tolerate in low amounts but is damaging in high doses. Florine in water? Mercury? Omega-6 fats?

Dr. Lustig did not enumerate a specific amount, and rightly so, as it is specific to individuals, as Alan pointed out. Along with his discussion of fiber, he generalized that fructose occurring in nature come in safe amounts with benefits that override the fructose dangers.

Considering that just about everything is dose-dependent in the world of nutrition/pharmacology/toxicology, unless he explicitly says fructose isn’t, why jump to that conclusion?

If fructose is indeed “poison”, as he claims, it clearly can only be so in the chronic, dose-dependent sense, or else we would all be quite sick or even dead already.

This is really a mountain being made out of a molehill. Scrutinize his actual publications if you really think you have a legitimate gripe against Lustig’s theses.

Nicholas said:

“I don’t have an exact moment for you. Probably late in the video.”

… or earlier, or maybe it was somewhere in the middle… on second thought – maybe he didn’t say it at all.

Nicholas:

“I also don’t see why you are hung up on dosage, as the biochemistry speaks for itself.”

Because the dose makes the poison, Nicholas – the very point Alan hammered home and the very point that you insist Dr. Lustig agreed with.

Nicholas:

“Fructose would not be the first chemical that humans can tolerate in low amounts but is damaging in high doses. Florine in water? Mercury? Omega-6 fats?”

A fanciful red herring. ANYTHING in a high enough dose can be deleterious to health – even foods that are considered healthy and nutrient dense. If we are going to make comparison’s can we at least make them somewhat relevant?

If Dr. Lustig were being honest, he would state that fructose consumption within the context of an otherwise healthy and hypocaloric diet would not likely do jack squat to anyone’s health. If he feels otherwise, he ought to show evidence of this.

“It is refreshing to hear you say “we don’t know if it’s calories or carbs/sugar”. The thing is, though that metabolic ward studies HAVE been done and the majority show that it IS in fact calories that make the biggest difference in weight. Which leaves your only supportive evidence as “I know it’s the carbs because I’ve seen it”.

****That’s not exactly what I am saying Mike. And would you be so kind as to list the references for these studies you say have been done? As far as I am aware they have not. The only ward studies I know of were not ketogenic vs standard USDA fare and not maintenance level calorically. And I gave several references as to other studies that do show a metabolic advantage to truly low carb diets on that godforsaken message board.

When you see a 7 foot tall 13 year old at a table eating a huge portion of food do you think even for a second that his height is caused by his eating enormous amounts of calories? No. Of course not. You know the child has a hormonal abnormality. Why then if you see a fat person eating an enormous amount of food do you blame his obesity on his caloric consumption?

Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Let that sink in deep.

“I agree that it would be ideal to have more RTC’s including metabolic ward studies, but let’s seek some middle ground here for a minute. Nobody is suggesting you just eat x number of calories – without any regard for macro composition. But when protein is matched and adequate, the fat and carb chips can fall where they may and people will lose weight – provided they are in a deficit.”

****Provided they are in a deficit. And when they are in a deficit, they are always eating less carbohydrate usually significantly less on their new found diets. The conventional wisdom is to say “See it’s the calories.” But all lower calories diets decrease total carbohydrate intake.

And no one can keep up eating a low calorie diet for long. We’re talking ad libitum diet composition. If you were to match protein intake and assuring adequate protein intake for both groups, do you really think that if the subjects were fed maintenance level calories (if there is such a thing) one group getting pure fat and the other pure sugar there would be no difference in body composition after say a 6 month period? Not I.

Fred you stated –

“When you see a 7 foot tall 13 year old at a table eating a huge portion of food do you think even for a second that his height is caused by his eating enormous amounts of calories? No. Of course not. You know the child has a hormonal abnormality. Why then if you see a fat person eating an enormous amount of food do you blame his obesity on his caloric consumption?”

This is a constant argument point you use. In fact, I have seen you use this stance at least 3 times. It seems you and guys like Taubes have a common theme. Your theme is to pull out circus sideshow cases and make them relevant for the general population.

It couldn’t possibly be the average client I track and monitor is usually 25% under what their recommend caloric intake due to their lifestyle and work habits. It couldn’t possibly be the 2000 calorie meals, of both fat and carbohydrates, people are eating in one sitting.

Yes, there is room for discussion on why people overeat and how to better optimize diets. The majority of us fall in a close line to what a proper macro distribution should be. No one ever says to mainline fructose. What we do say, or I should say for myself, is there is a fundamental base of energy distribution and it is king. It is possible and frequent due to genetics and lifestyle habits, that energy and apdatation has a large margin to move around in, but energy demand is the base to build everything on.

Your 7ft 13 year old boy isn’t the middle line, he is the top of the scale. The rest of the people fall closer to the middle of that line. While he may not be normal, he isn’t void of following those same principles. His body functions on energy demand the exact same way mine does, it is just at a higher level of energy demand.

You are adjusting the wrong line. Instead of placing the movement into freak hormonal response you need to place it in energy needs and demands. Then and only then will you start to make a genuine change in client response because you base is starting off with common sense and something measurable.

Mike — I’ll interject my feedback to your quotes:

• HFCS contains approximately equal ratios of fructose and glucose, similar
to sugar (sucrose, cane sugar), honey, or invert sugar.
^^^Yes, this is true for the most common types of HFCS on the market.

• Many parts of the world, including Australia, Mexico and Europe, have
rising rates of obesity and diabetes despite having little or no HFCS in
their foods and beverages.
^^^It’s true that HFCS is not used extensively outside of the US, and yet obesity has been on the rise worldwide.

• U.S. Department of Agriculture data show that per capita consumption of
HFCS has been declining in recent years, yet the incidence of obesity and
diabetes in the United States remains on the rise.
^^^This is not true. While added sugars as a whole are decreased as a percentage of total calories, HFCS consumption has increased significantly.

• HFCS has not increased the amount of fructose in the U.S. diet since being
introduced. While HFCS use has increased, the use of sucrose has
significantly decreased. Since HFCS and sucrose share basically the same
composition, the amount of fructose in use has remained nearly the same for
the last 30 years.”
^^^This doesn’t sound too far off, according to the latest ERS/USDA data.

About the modern day fruit debate – I don’t think that we need research to know that apples are sweeter than before. It is quite obvious that all sorts popular today are selected with the sweetness as a first priority.
But it probably has little to do with the obesity.

I’m dog tired so this will be a short post.

I’m glad Dr. Lustig has made it clear here that there is context and dose-response but he continues to obfuscate – not commenting on the context of calories or dose ranges. If you watch the video, the message seems pretty clear – fructose is TOXIC. Context is an afterthought. This is what is disingenuous and perhaps what Alan (and others) are objecting to. To quote Lustig himself in this video;

(At about the 20:15 mark) “Sugar and HFCS are both the same – they are both equally bad. They’re both dangerous… they’re both poison… I said it – poison. My charge before the end of tonight is to convince you that fructose is poison”.

Hmmm… sounds like his thesis may have something to do with… oh, I don’t know… convincing us that fructose is poison?

In terms of caloric context, Lustig proclaims (at about the 21 min. mark) “It has nothing to do with calories, it’s poison by itself”.

These are caustic statements – statements that demand immediate qualification. By not contextualizing these bold proclamations it makes Lustig sound agenda-driven. This is contrary to scientific thought and in my mind, reduces his message to some good points mixed in with a lot of noise.

That’s all for tonight folks.

“Um, wrong. This is not correct. This isn’t even a little bit correct. There is a major problem with the credibility of anything else that gets said after something this blatantly inaccurate.”

Give is the accurate information then.

Another little bit that makes me question Lustig’s nutritional knowledge… he claims that the sodium content of coke – at 55mg is like “drinking a pizza” and claims it makes us more thirsty. Hmmmm…. last I checked, single slices of pizza were in th neighborhood of 500-1000mg of sodium. If you’re getting thirsty by ingesting 55mg of sodium (about 2-3% of the daily recommended limit), you’ve got bigger problems than fructose.

“In studies directly comparing the effect of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake, one showed no difference [7], while another showed it was actually the fructose preload that resulted in lesser food intake than the glucose preload [8]. A recent review of the literature on fructose’s effect on satiety found no compelling case for the idea that fructose is less satiating than glucose, or that HFCS is less satiating than sucrose [9]. So much for Lustig’s repeated assertion that fructose and fructose-containing sugars increase subsequent food intake. I suppose it’s easier to sensationalize claims based on rodent data.” Alan, you smashed that claim. In addition, other factors influence hunger, appetite, and subsequent food intake; these factors include neurochemical factors (e.g. serotonin, endorphins, dopamine etc.), gastric signals (e.g. peptides, stomach distention), hedonistic qualities of food (e.g. taste, texture, smell), genetic, environmental (e.g. food availability, cost, etc.), and emotional factors (stress, depression, etc.) (Freedman et al., 2001). When considering food consumption in everyday life it is important to consider the above-mentioned factors. It is impractical to consider one nutrient’s impact, while ignoring other factors that influence satiety.

“Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest.” Agreed. When discussing the benefits or dangers of a substance it’s important to consider dosage. “A chemical can’t simply be classified as “dangerous” or “safe”: it always depends on the amount, or dose, received. The effects of a chemical will change with different amounts, so that below a certain dose it may be harmless or beneficial and at a higher dose it may be toxic. We all know that a little aspirin is good for us, whereas 50 tablets could cause acute renal failure, coma, and heart failure from salicylate poisoning” (Sense About Science, Making Sense of Chemical Stories).

“One of Lustig’s opening assertions is that The Atkins diet and the Japanese diet share one thing in common: the absence of fructose.” Really? I wonder why he would make a claim that is so easily refuted? Who knows? On another note, let’s say this assertion (fantasy) was correct. So what? Does he assume the absence of fructose in a hypercaloric diet results in weight loss? Does he assume fructose consumption in a hypocaloric diet results in weight gain? Does he assume that everyone following the Atkins and Japanese Diet are lean? Does he understand correlation doesn’t mean causation? Keith Stanovich, cognitive scientist, says “There is no excuse for making causal inferences on the basis of correlational evidence when it is possible to manipulate variables in a way that would legitimately justify a causal inference.” There are two major classes of ambiguity present in a simple correlation between two variables (Stanovich, 2007): the directionality problem, and the third-variable problem. Directionality problem: before deciding that a correlation between A and variable B is due to changes in A causing changes in B, we must consider the direction of causation may be the opposite, from B to A. Third- variable problem: the two variables may not indicate a causal path in either direction, but occurs because both variables are related to a third variable.

“However, I disagree (as does the bulk of the research) with his myopic, militant focus on fructose avoidance.” So do basic logic and a plethora of scientific evidence.

“Pointing the finger at fructose while dismissing dosage and context” is utter nonsense.

Cynthia- Please re-read my comments on correlation and causation. Please refer to any basic manual on logic. Other good references include Stanovich- How to Think Straight About Psychology, Patten- Understanding Research Methods, Aragon- Girth Control. There is an ample amount of data explaining the difference between correlation and causation.

Mr. Lusting- “The Japanese diet does have fructose; but it is only in fruit. There are no added sugars in their diet. That is what we are talking about here; added dietary sugars; not endogenous ones.” Apparently, you are under the assumption that natural sugars are always safer than laboratory made sugars (never mind their molecular structures are identical, cannot be distinguished). This false assumption is generally derived from the idea that processes performed by living things are fundamentally different than ones created through chemical laboratory processes. Ok, never mind that every living process is fundamentally a chemical process. Would you be surprised if I told you some of the world’s most dangerous toxins are all natural? They include ricin, abrin, botulinum, and strychnine—highly evolved chemical weapons used by organisms for self-defense and territorial expansion. Indeed, every plant and microbe carries a variety of mostly uncharacterized, more or less toxic attack chemicals, and synthetic chemicals are no more likely to be toxic than natural ones (Silver, 2006). Other examples of dangerous natural substance include water hemlock, arsenic and mercury.

The chemical reality- whether a substance is manufactured by people, copied from nature or extracted directly from nature, tells us little at all about its properties. To reiterate, in terms of chemical safety, “industrial”, “synthetic”, “artificial” and “man-made” are not necessarily more damaging and “natural” does not necessarily mean better.

Lee Silver, Professor of Biology at Princeton Univ & Author of Challenging Nature, discussing natural food myths- http://bigthink.com/ideas/16346

Peter- “but still in most cases people need to see something exxagarated to actually find it interesting.” So, that makes it all right to perpetuate fallacious information? Where do we draw the line and how can we ever expect to gain any real knowledge if interesting info takes precedence over evidence-based claims?

Nicholas- You said “I watched the video once (but very carefully and with some rewind), and I thought Dr. Lustig communicated dose and context of fructose adequately during the 90 minutes. It was not headlined for you, but it was covered.” When asked to specify where it occurred you said “I don’t have an exact moment for you. Probably late in the video. I also don’t see why you are hung up on dosage, as the biochemistry speaks for itself.” How about you watch the video again and locate the moment Lustig communicated dose. Your comment is like saying a study says xx but I can’t tell you exactly where or when I saw it, it was in Obesity Research or the Journal of Nutrition or one of those things. Not sure, but I know I saw it. Why get hung up on dosage? Once again, “[a] chemical can’t simply be classified as “dangerous” or “safe”: it always depends on the amount, or dose, received. The effects of a chemical will change with different amounts, so that below a certain dose it may be harmless or beneficial and at a higher dose it may be toxic. We all know that a little aspirin is good for us, whereas 50 tablets could cause acute renal failure, coma, and heart failure from salicylate poisoning” (Sense About Science, Making Sense of Chemical Stories).

JLB- “This is where you’re copping out. you’re implying that Dr. Lustig was clear about context and dosage, yet, you dance around the fact that he did not specify any threshold below which adverse effects are not seen to any degree of concrete significance. The message to most who view this video is clear, and it is alarmist against fructose. Deny all you want, but at least support your argument with more than a mess of excuses.” I agree. Nicholas puts forth a pitiful argument.

Nicholas again- “There may not be absolute zero fructose, but you are being nit picky. Bottom line is that Japanese eat less sugar.” Why not just say they eat less sugar? Is that nit picky? Saying the Japanese diet is absent- not present, not existing- of fructose means no fructose. Actually, this lack of nit pickiness is one of the most common problems with communication. Japanese eat less sugar, so what? Please refer to the info I posted above discussing correlation and causation.

Mike Howard- “Sugar and HFCS are both the same – they are both equally bad. They’re both dangerous… they’re both poison… I said it – poison. My charge before the end of tonight is to convince you that fructose is poison”. Thanks Mike for pointing that out. Seems like when he comments on the blog he is trying to wiggle his way out of some of the assertions made on the video. I would recommend he look at the scientific data- maybe all of the available data, distinguish the strengths of different types of evidence, invest some time into studying logic (science of reason), admit he is fallible, pay credit where credit is due- to Alan Aragon, and if he has a team of research data associates get rid of them and get some new ones.

Alan- “After viewing your response, I will maintain my position, and I suggest you rethink the content and delivery of your next lecture. Let me suggest that you place a little more emphasis on dose-dependence rather than painting a black-white picture of fructose that crucially downplays the importance of context. I also suggest that you re-check your claims concerning the Japanese diet if you’re going to use them as a salient introductory point of the lecture.” As I said previously, I would recommend he look at the scientific data- maybe all of the available data, distinguish the strengths of different types of evidence, invest some time into studying logic (science of reason), admit he is fallible, pay credit where credit is due- to Alan Aragon, and if he has a team of research data associates get rid of them and get some new ones.

Mike Howard again- “Another little bit that makes me question Lustig’s nutritional knowledge… he claims that the sodium content of coke – at 55mg is like “drinking a pizza” and claims it makes us more thirsty.” It sounds like this guy definitely needs to spend some time researching nutrition.

Final comments:

Numerous studies have shown that sugar-containing liquids, when consumed in place of usual meals, may lead to significant and sustained weight loss (Drewnowski, A & Bellisle, F 2007)

“The hypothesis that fructose, HFCS, and caloric beverages play a unique role in obesity and type 2 diabetes beyond their inherent energy contributions has generated tremendous attention from scientists and the media, but no credible scientific support” says John S. White, Ph.D. and President of White Technical Research (White, 2008)

“The American Medical Association helped put to rest a common misunderstanding about high fructose corn syrup and obesity, stating that ‘high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners.’ Even former critics of high fructose corn syrup dispelled myths and distanced themselves from earlier speculation about the sweetener’s link to obesity in a comprehensive scientific review published in the December 2008 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition” (Science Blog, 2009).

The addition of HFCS to a negative energy diet does not cause weight gain. You don’t have to get rid of all the sodas in your pantry just make sure to drink in moderation.

Leigh – I don’t want to hijack Alan’s blog with our discussion any further but I’d be happy to continue the debate on my forum http://seriousstrength.yuku.com/

You’ll have to explain why some people who eat more calories then maintenance do not gain fat and why some do.

Hormones regulate fat storage. No insulin, no fat storage regardless of the calories ingested.

Your thinking on the matter is 2 dimensional. We can discuss this at length on my site if you wish.

And there is no slack for you to pick up. ALL my clients who follow my recommended low carb ad libitum plan lose fat quite well.

Have you ever tried it? I doubt it.

Fred H. –

Continually citing anecdotal reports does not help further your cause. There may be limited research, but a recent study suggests that the ketogenic diet does not offer a metabolic advantage over a standard, reduced-calorie diet (see: “Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.”). Regardless of your personal experience, the results of controlled scientific studies seem to indicate that specific macronutrient composition is largely irrelevant when comparing calorie- *and* protein-matched diets.

-Mike L.

Nice blog post. From my plebeian point of view, Alan seems to have the most thought out stance on the subject that looks at the big picture. Lustig appears to be overly alarmist on the relationship between increasing fructose consumption and obesity while Fred Hahn is a terrible arguer any day (this isn’t a personal attack. Just an attack on the quality of your evidence and arguments). Always nice to see a debate going on.

Excellent information Ryan. Hopefully this will educate the people who are ignoring the realities of the Japanese diet in regards to sugar consumption.

@Fred Hahn

Drop Good Calorie Bad Calorie, and start reading biochemistry/endocrinology books and peer-reviewed studies.

You’ll probably have much more clever thing to say. I doubt you understand how complexe metabolism regulation is. If it was just as simple as excess insulin, obesity would not be hard to treat.

Well hot damn, this is good stuff. Thanks for the contributions, everyone. One thing that needs to be emphasized is that hashing these matters out facilitates learning for everyone involved. Including me.

Dr. Lustig, please do me a favor and address some of the contentions leveled at you. Thanks in advance.

Interesting comments. Mr Aragon thanks for writing this article. Especially enjoyed the points you raised on context-dropping.

Jamie Hale wrote the following:

“…The chemical reality- whether a substance is manufactured by people, copied from nature or extracted directly from nature, tells us little at all about its properties. To reiterate, in terms of chemical safety, “industrial”, “synthetic”, “artificial” and “man-made” are not necessarily more damaging and “natural” does not necessarily mean better.”

This is a very important point and what she is referring to is intrinsicism. This occurs when people treat value (or non-value) as a non-relational property of an object. In this case, the good is not determined objectively by the metaphysical (in this case biological) *relationship* between the food and the person eating it with their life being the standard. Instead the value is seen as contained somewhere (where?) in non man-made substances and to the extent to which man applies his mind to modify these substances or create new ones, he destroys this “good”.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Intrinsicism.html

@ Fred Hahn,

I think you’re doing a great job in showing everybody here you have not a clue (other than what you read in GCBC) on the subject. Your inane ramblings, strawmen and anecdotal counter arguments do more to discredit yourself than anyone here could.

Carry on. It’s hilarious.

RG and Ryan,

Good posts, but far too measured. I tuned out from this thread long ago when posters who clearly have never been to Japan started discussing the merits of the “Japanese diet.”

Sorry folks, the days of a conservative bowl of rice, raw fish, and a bowl of miso are long gone.

Pastries, Starbucks, every fast food imaginable, and a insane amount of “snacks” purchased from vending machines designed for the starship Enterprise are the norm for the 21st century.

Let’s not forget the alcohol. It is EVERYWHERE, even on the train platforms- and no, not just a conservative shot of sake. Best of luck finding a train at 9pm that didn’t have a couple of hopelessly inebriated salary men passed out in the corner or butchering “Sweet Caroline.”

Is my rambling a sweeping generalization? Absolutely. But so are the inferences that every one of Japan’s 175 million residents follows a Spartan, zero-sugar, non-processed diet.

Please don’t make the egregious error of justifying or advocating a particular dietary protocol based on what is ostensibly a cultural stereotype.

Blimey! This thread’s grown like Topsy….it must be the HFCS ;-p
I think that slim/active/healthy people can eat what they damn well like whereas fat/inactive/metabolically-impaired people can’t. Anyway, back to apples…

“The fruit’s sugar content has risen by up to 50 per cent over the last decade” (from ~10% to ~15%). You asked for some decent evidence. Here’s all I could find on PubMed under Apple “Sugar Content”:- Sugar-, acid- and phenol contents in apple cultivars from organic and integrated fruit cultivation.
“RESULTS: The total sugar content of most cultivars from integrated cultivation ranged between 115 and 160 g/kg.”

Here is what has changed and continues to change since Crisco was introduced in 1913 – the consumption of processed foods. Fructose is part of that over-all picture that began 100 years ago.
We eat more, we move less. But I believe if we were eating food that way we did in just the 1950’s on our farm, we would have less of a problem. I look through my HS yearbook and can only find 2-3 pictures of teenage men or women over weight, none obese. It was rare for parents to be more than a few pounds overweight until they were over 60.
Here is a study that suggests many of those extra calories are in beverages. Though fructose is not an evil food, consuming it in large quantities easily while watching TV or playing video games contributes to the problem but the obestiy problem though not caused by fructose alone, is certainly aided by economic and social policy just as tobacco use was years ago. The decline in cancer rates is attributed to falls in the number of tobacco users. If we want to do something meaningful to prevent a generation of youth growing up with NAFLD, then we need to do something about our policy regarding fructose production. It isn’t fructose, but the societalpolicy of profit before people that creates these problems.
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/nutrans/publications/Beverage%20trends-BP-Samara%202004.pdf

@Bruce:

1. Nothing that you said above in any way changes the truth of anything that Alan wrote in his blog post. In fact, you are supporting the main point–that the modern obesity “epidemic” has been caused by an increase in total calories consumed without a corresponding increase in activity.

Also, you’re a menopause mentor? Seriously? Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa….

Nigel — I’ll quote that blog post you linked:

“However, Mitch somehow failed to follow our restriction on fruit, which we limit to no more than two 4 oz servings per day, preferably berries. He thought we said “Eat all the fruit you want.” And so he did.

Mitch had a banana, orange, and blueberries for breakfast. For lunch, along with some tuna or soup, he’d typically have half a melon, a pear, and red grapes. For snacks, he’d have an apple or nectarine. After dinner, it wasn’t unusual for Mitch to have another piece of fruit for dessert.”

^^^Based on the above, it appears the subject in this case study not only has a metabolic impairment, but also a mental one. For him to turn a recommendation of 2 servings of fruit a day into 20 servings, who knows what else he did to screw up dietary compliance. Again, anything in chronic excess = not a good idea.

I see Nicholas is of the “because I say so” school of thought.

Who needs evidence? Losers, that’s who.

“Drop Good Calorie Bad Calorie, and start reading biochemistry/endocrinology books and peer-reviewed studies. You’ll probably have much more clever thing to say. I doubt you understand how complexe metabolism regulation is. If it was just as simple as excess insulin, obesity would not be hard to treat.”

Excess circulating insulin/insulin insensitivity is the major aspect of fat storage. And when you read the text books that fact slaps you in the face.

JLB – You speak as if you have great client experience using different diets. Do you? I do.

ATZ you said:

“I think you’re doing a great job in showing everybody here you have not a clue (other than what you read in GCBC) on the subject. Your inane ramblings, strawmen and anecdotal counter arguments do more to discredit yourself than anyone here could.”

Yes ATZ you’re right – GCBC is the only book I’ve ever read on the subject. I know nothing more than that. I was asked last year by Dr. Mary Vernon of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians to speak at an upcoming conference. I’ve written 2 book on the subject and have over 70 hours of continuing ed on the subject. I run a gym that for the past 12 years has shed hundreds of pounds off of people and been on the T0day show twice, and oh I forget 2 dozen other major TV and radio shows including Oprah and friends with Dr. Mehemt Oz.

But yes your’re right, I’ve no clue. I should just shut up.

Carry on – you’re giving me a good laugh too.

Fred,

I’m not going to pretend that I’m a guru or some sort of authority on fitness. I’m just a student taking notes. However, I’m keen enough to know who’s who in the fitness industry. I’m educated enough to know who respects the real science, and who puts out the pseudoscience.

It’s obvious that you have a ways to go before you get to the level of Alan or Lyle. And that’s not a personal dig at you, it’s just that very few people in the entire industry, in my opinion, are at their level. Can’t even fit them on one hand.

I can see that you work hard to whet your craft, so let me suggest that you pay more attention and learn from the real gurus, not the ones who are so attached to their dogma that their quality of info has stopped improving 15 years ago.

“This subject has been beaten to death by Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon and Anthony Colpo.”

All of whom don’t get it – not fully at least. But there in good company.

“Also, why is it that in studies where they used drugs to inhibit insulin secretion they showed no difference in weight loss?”

I’d need to read the studies to see if they are in fact done well. There are many reasons why this could be. Like the Barry Sears study that was mentioned here on this thread. Quite flawed and biased.

“You’re doing a diservice to your client by ignoring this. ”

I don’t think my clients who are losing body fat extremely effortlessly and improving their internal health markers dramatically are feeling ‘disserviced.’

“Anyway, the low-carb infatuation is fadding now, so you better take the train while you can. I know it ain’t easy after telling so many ppl that low-carb is magic but hey… they will trust you much more if they see that you can change your mind when the evidences tell you to do so!”

I never said LC was ‘magic.’ Quite the contrary. I’ve said what the physiology textbooks say – that the hormone insulin regulates body fat storage and keeping insulin under control is key to getting leaner an staying lean and certainly key for not becoming obese.

And if you think the low carb issue is fading you have not a clue of what is going on in the world of bariatric medicine. You are as wrong as wrong can be. Watch the show Face OFF this coming Feb. 22 at 11:35 PM.

Excess carbohydrate intake is the primary source for adipose tissue stores. Try to get fat on an all fat-meat diet. You’ll fail. Do the experiment. I dare any of you to try this. Eat 3500 calories of pure fatty meat/fish and eggs for one month. I guarantee you will will get leaner of you are somewhat over fat and more muscular if already lean and training. I bet you NONE of you will try.

“It’s not possible to gain weight when your body is using more energy than you give to it.”

Assuming it is using it rather than storing it. Hormones regulate fat storage. When hormones are screwed with you can indeed store more fat than ‘usual.’ And they are screwed with when you eat too much sugar.

Why most of you can’t understand this is truly mind boggling. Why so many of you want to hold onto the age old calorie nonsense is frightening. What do you say to your clients – eat enough protein and the rest is up to you so long as you eat less calories than you are now? Eat two chicken large breasts a day and the rest in bagels, poptarts and cookies?

Listen, no hard feelings. We all choose to help our clients as best as we can. I have yet to fail a client by a combo of strength training and low sugar/don’t count caloire dieting.

“Excess carbohydrate intake is the primary source for adipose tissue stores. Try to get fat on an all fat-meat diet. You’ll fail. Do the experiment. I dare any of you to try this. Eat 3500 calories of pure fatty meat/fish and eggs for one month. I guarantee you will will get leaner of you are somewhat over fat and more muscular if already lean and training. I bet you NONE of you will try.”

Do you have any studies to support this? This is quite an outrageous claim to make without having any form of evidence to back it up. This type of extreme diet would work for people that are in excess of 500 lbs, but that’s about it…plus there is no balance to this ridiculous all fatty meat diet, so it is not a realistic option for anybody. I’m more interested about the effects of an all fatty meat diet with zero fiber…doesn’t seem like it would be too pleasant. 😉

Wow….nearing 100 comments on this blog post!

Carry on

I’ve left comments on blogs belonging to Metabolic Advantage believers (Michael Eades, Kurt Harris & James Carlson) pointing out that Taubes has got his biochemistry wrong re Glycerol-3-phosphate. See I have a theory, Enzymes and Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Nobody has shot my theory down in flames yet.

@ Fred – I find it ultimately ironic that you accuse others of “not getting it” or being narrow-minded when it would appear that it is you who has the absolutist views on nutrition and strength training. So far all you’ve delivered is conjecture, anectdote and horn-tooting about your radio and TV appearances. Jim Karras, David Kirsh, Jorge Cruize, Tony Little – heck even Richard Simmons have all been on those shows too. That doesn’t make them authorities on matters of nutrition or fitness. This speaks to your business acumen – not your knowledge.

There is absolutely NO WAY that someone with such a hard-lined stances on nutrition could be looking at the scientific data objectively.

FRED,

Please define “excess carbohydrate intake”? And, at what point does this occur?

Also, please show research showing the following in a hypocaloric state causes fat gain:

You stated:
“Assuming it is using it rather than storing it. Hormones regulate fat storage. When hormones are screwed with you can indeed store more fat than ‘usual.’ And they are screwed with when you eat too much sugar.”

Even diabetics who are Insulin-Dependant lose weight when calories are below maintenance.

Fred Hahn knows that a classic Bro-down is how you win an argument

He damn sure doesn’t use evidence or basic reasoning abilities, lol

Where Fred Hahn goes…entertainment follows 🙂

Thanks Fred!

******************
that the hormone insulin regulates body fat storage and keeping insulin under control is key to getting leaner an staying lean and certainly key for not becoming obese.
**********************

Fred, this is a key statement that you continue to make, but it’s a statement that is overly simplistic and ignores the highly complicated realm of adipose tissue regulation.

I’ve pointed this out to you before, but you always ignore it because it doesn’t conveniently fit with the Taubes hypothesis. There are numerous hormones that are involved in the regulation of fat metabolism…..catecholamines, IL-6, growth hormone, leptin, etc. You also seem very stuck on hormones, but you ignore the fact that there are many non-hormonal factors that are involved in the regulation of adipose tissue stores. There are also extremely complicated interactions between all of these factors, which ultimately lead to the regulation of body fat stores.

The fact is, fat cells can and do take up glucose and fatty acids in the complete absence of insulin. Fat cells can and do create triglycerides in the complete absence of insulin. The body is full of redundant biochemical pathways which are involved in the increase of adipose tissue stores.

**************
Try to get fat on an all fat-meat diet.
**************

And there are people here who posted that they have. I know you’re a fan of anecdotes. Do their anecdotes not count?

***************
You’ll fail.
******************

Yeah, they’ll fail because they’ll get sick of eating meat & eggs all the time and they won’t be able to eat enough in the first place. I remember trying Di Pasquale’s “Anabolic Diet” years ago, which involved 5 days of ketogenic eating and a 2-day weekend carb load. I could barely get in 2000 – 2500 calories per day during the ketogenic cycle, partly because I didn’t have the appetite and partly because I got mentally sick of constantly eating meat.

************
Why most of you can’t understand this is truly mind boggling
*************

No, what is mind-boggling is how you continue to adhere to a simplistic, grade-school level of understanding of adipose tissue regulation.

In reference to a direct comparison of fructose consumption by the Japanese in Japan vs. Japanese in Hawaii:

Diabetes Care. 1979 Mar-Apr;2(2):161-70.
Diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications in Japanese migrants on the Island of Hawaii.

Kawate R, Yamakido M, Nishimoto Y, Bennett PH, Hamman RF, Knowler WC.

Japanese migrants and their offspring on the island of Hawaii and Japanese living in Hiroshima were examined for diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications. the same methods and investigators were used in both locations. Death certificates of Japanese and Caucasians dying on the island during the past 26 yr were analyzed. Diabetes, defined as a venous serum glucose concentration of at least 200 mg/dl 2 h after a 50-g oral glucose load, was significantly more common in the Hawaiian Japanese than in the Hiroshima Japanese subjects. This suggests that diabetes is more prevalent in Japanese in Hawaii than in Japan, although lack of knowledge about the total population of Japanese migrants in Hawaii makes this generalization uncertain. The proportion of deaths attributed to diabetes was much higher in Japanese migrants and their offspring in Hawaii than in Japan. During the 1950s, the proportional death rate from diabetes was about half as large in Japanese Hawaiians as in Caucasian Hawaiians, but it increased to become 1.6 times the Caucasian rate during the 1970s. A nutritional study revealed that the total caloric intake was similar in Japanese in Hawaii and Hiroshima, although the estimated level of physical activity was less in the Hawaiian subjects. Consumption of animal fat and simple carbohydrates (sucrose and fructose) were at least twice as high in Hawaiian as in Hiroshima Japanese. Conversely, Hiroshima Japanese consumed about twice the amount of complex carbohydrate as the Hawaiian Japanese. These observations support the hypothesis that a high fat, high simple carbohydrate, low complex carbohydrate diet and/or reduced levels of physical activity increase risk of diabetes. The proportion of deaths attributed to ischemic heart disease was higher in both diabetic and nondiabetic Japanese Hawaiians than in diabetic subjects in Japan. The rates were similar for Japanese and Caucasians in Hawaii. There was no evidence of an environmental influence on the development of microangiopathy (retinopathy) in diabetes, as the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (stratified for diabetes duration) was similar in Japanese subjects in Hawaii and in Japan, and it was similar to previous reports from England. On the other hand, diabetes alone did not appear to account for the greater prevalence of macroangiopathy in Hawaiian Japanese than in Hiroshima. Thus environmental factors, possibly including diet, appear to be involved in the development of macrovascular complications of diabetes.

“Thus environmental factors, possibly including diet, appear to be involved in the development of macrovascular complications of diabetes.”

Well that confirms it doesn’t it! It must be diet!

Dr. Lustig,

You gotta love the soup of confounding variables that limits epidemiological research. I don’t need to tell you that correlational research is useful for generating hypotheses, but not cause-and-effect relationships (a task achievable only through randomized controlled trials). This is a point I already made in my previous post, which I’ll re-quote since it didn’t sink in the first time [Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2007;47(6):561-82]:

“The evidence that HFCS consumption uniquely increases the risk of weight gain is very weak. Few studies directly explore the relationship between HFCS, body weight, and BMI. The only evidence directly linking HFCS consumption and weight gain is ecological data. Ecological data are widely recognized as insufficient for establishing cause-effect relationships. HFCS consumption and weight gain have major gaps. The hypothesis that the increasing levels of HFCS in the food supply has increased the F:G ratio is not supported by the USDA ERS food availability data.

The impact of HFCS consumption on BMI must be put in context with other broad economic and societal changes during the past several decades. Many other plausible explanations for rising overweight and obesity rates exist, including a decrease in smoking; an increase in sedentary occupations; an increase in two-income households and single-parent households; transportation and infrastructure changes that discourage physical activity; a decrease in PE classes and extracurricular sports programs in schools; an increase in sedentary forms of entertainment (i.e. TV/movie viewing, video games, etc.); demographic changes (i.e. aging population, immigration, etc.); a decrease in food costs with increase in food availability and changes in food consumption patterns.”

^^^In light of the above, I’ll quote the study you posted to illustrate my point [Diabetes Care. 1979 Mar-Apr;2(2):161-70]: “These observations support the hypothesis that a high fat, high simple carbohydrate, low complex carbohydrate diet and/or reduced levels of physical activity increase risk of diabetes.” << Notice how the energy in & energy out side of the equation aren't separated. You can't cite a purported increase in fructose while at the same time omitting a decrease in physical activity. Furthermore, correlational research simply cannot establish causal relationships in the first place, so good luck with resting your stance on it. Stick with me here, I'll cite more epidemiology to further illustrate my point.

Here's a quote from a similar, but more recent correlational study [Diabet Med. 1996 Sep;13(9 Suppl 6):S133-42]: "A high incidence of NIDDM is clearly observed in the population of Japanese-Americans, who are genetically indistinguishable from native Japanese; causes of this increase, from the survey results, are suspected to include westernization of lifestyle, particularly the reduction in the level of physical activity, conversion to a diet containing markedly more animal fat, simple carbohydrates, and less complex carbohydrates.”

Here’s an even more recent correlational study in this same vein [Biomed Pharmacother. 2004 Dec;58(10):571-7]: “Japanese-Americans were highly exposed to a westernized lifestyle ; in other words, a relatively high fat and simple carbohydrate diet with low physical activity as compared to native Japanese.”

^^^Okay, now take a look at a common thread among those epidemiological studies (see the bold): a reduction in physical activity is never separate from the other variables. If you’re going to use epidemiology to point the finger at sugar, you need to be consistent and point the finger at increased dietary fat and decreased physical activity as well, but you don’t. Instead, you lasered in on sugar while dismissing the other factors. All this, while relying on correlational research. C’mon, Doc. That’s being selective about the findings in order to support the alarmist stance about fructose.

Here’s the other point I want to make about the study you cited, and the available epidemiological data on Japanese dietary intake in general: it does not specify safe dosage thresholds for fructose and/or sugar intake. Similarly, neither did you during your lecture.

My final point is that you have neglected to address the error of stating that the Japanese diet is fructose-free aside from fruit, and that it has no added sugars. This is clearly an untenable claim, and it was the first, and one of the most memorable claims in your lecture.

Ah, okay Alan. Sorry about that. i’m going through all the comments now. =]

Mr. Aragon, since you seem to be unswayed by anything but randomized controlled trials in humans, and only those at fructose doses that are reasonable, and since you seem to like to journal quote, then here is just a sampling that demonstrates that fructose, and not just extra calories, is behind dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, visceral adiposity, and hepatic steatosis.

J Clin Invest. 2009 May;119(5):1322-34.
Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans.

Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Keim NL, Griffen SC, Bremer AA, Graham JL, Hatcher B, Cox CL, Dyachenko A, Zhang W, McGahan JP, Seibert A, Krauss RM, Chiu S, Schaefer EJ, Ai M, Otokozawa S, Nakajima K, Nakano T, Beysen C, Hellerstein MK, Berglund L, Havel PJ.
Department of Molecular Biosciences, UCD, Davis, California 95616, USA.

Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. Fasting plasma triglyceride concentrations increased by approximately 10% during 10 weeks of glucose consumption but not after fructose consumption. In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and the 23-hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle-triglyceride and -cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption. In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. These data demonstrate that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults.

Schwarz JM, Noworolski SM, Lee GA, Wen M, Dyachenko A, Prior J, Weinberg M, Herraiz L, Rao M, Mulligan K. Effects of short-term feeding with high- vs low- fructose isoenergetic diets on hepatic de novo lipogenesis, liver fat content and glucose regulation. Diabetes 1476P (2009).
We studied the effects of fructose on intrahepatic lipid accumulation. Seven subjects were scanned at baseline and after each of two successive 7-day isocaloric diets, one high in fructose, one high in complex carbohydrates in a randomized crossover fashion. All subjects had higher intrahepatic lipid after the high fructose diet versus the complex carbohydrate diet, regardless of diet order (median increase = 133%, median lipids/water = 0.021 vs. 0.018, respectively; p=0.031). Visceral and subcutaneous fat were measured in 5 of these subjects, resulting in an average VAT/SAT ratio of 114% ± 16% for the high fructose diet versus the complex carbohydrate diet. These results suggest that fructose is unique in increasing intrahepatic lipid accumulation.

In addition, you have completely ignored the thread that by inducing insulin and leptin resistance, fructose increased and persistent food intake both at the hypothalamic and the nucleus accumbens level. So while controlled and pair-feeding fructose consumption does not result in increased total aggregate weight gain vs. glucose (as shown in the Stanhope article), the signals of starvation and reward cause individuals to overeat, generating obesity in free-range situations. There are also new studies demonstrating changes in the nucleus accumbens by PET scan, which equate fructose with other substances of abuse.
Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32:20-39.

I could go on, but our manuscript in Nature Reviews, entitled “The role of fructose in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome” will speak for itself in due course.

The defense rests. I shall not respond any further, as I have satisfied your criteria for objectivity and experimental and mechanistic rigor, and I have better things to do than engage in this continued puerile one-upsmanship. I’ll let the public decide who they wish to believe. And thus far, based on the 230,000 YouTube hits and numerous blogs extolling this line of reasoning, I’ll take my chances.

Sincerely (for the final time),

Robert Lustig, M.D.

“The defense rests. I shall not respond any further, as I have satisfied your criteria for objectivity and experimental and mechanistic rigor, and I have better things to do than engage in this continued puerile one-upsmanship.”

Translation: I can’t really say much more but “if you overeat on fructose you’re marginally worse off than overeating on anything else”, so I’ll take my ball and go home.

“I’ll let the public decide who they wish to believe. And thus far, based on the 230,000 YouTube hits and numerous blogs extolling this line of reasoning, I’ll take my chances.”

lmao. That’s how science works, right? Pick a conclusion, cherry-pick til it looks right, and sell it to people without the scientific background to evaluate your claims.

Oh and push that “MD” title, too. When you don’t have a leg to stand on, appeal to authority.

It’d be unbelievable if I weren’t seeing it with my own eyes.

This thread has become a vindication for those of us who carry the good fight against the predatory media alarmism made ubiquitous by the egos who fail to temper their practice with ethics.

I’m elated at seeing how some very conscientious, well-read, and wickedly intelligent fitness nerds can take to task marketing mavens, fitness gurus, and yes, even M.D.’s who base their careers on murky hypotheticals.

For me, this thread has become a glowing illustration of positive community. It makes me smile knowing that a groundswell of critical thought is emerging against the dominant pseudo-scientific mainstream.

In Dr. Lustig’s case, it’s easy to see how readily politicized researchers become when their baby, the research or theory that serves as the bedrock of their career, doesn’t hold water in the real-world.

It suddenly isn’t about the science anymore, is it?

It’s about the YouTube video hits.

A doctor. A man who has committed his life to solving the ailments of our civilization has cited his number of YouTube hits in response to a direct, contextual criticism of his work.

This saddens me, but gives me hope knowing that people like Alan, and Jamie, and Leigh, and Lyle, and Mike, and James, and Roger, and JC, and everyone else who has built this rebellion are slowly making a name, making a dent into the rampant B.S. that cripples so many well-meaning folk who just want to get in shape.

Whether you’re sitting on the side of the lay-public like Hahn, or occupying a seat in the ivory tower like Dr. Lustig, when you play with theoretical fire you’re bound to get empirically burned.

Bravo, Alan, bravo.

Lustig means “funny” in Swedish. Youtube hits to determine credibility? Hilarious. Most of his responses in this thread would be pretty fucking funny if you don’t consider that he’s dead serious in his argumentation.

@ Martin’s comment

LMFAO

It is 2010, a man walked on the Moon, a remote controlled car is cruising around on Mars, yet some people STILL believe the Earth is flat, some people still vigorously claim evolution isn’t happening.

Only a few people on this board are experts regarding food, I suppose mr. Aragon is one of them, having watched the video of dr. Lustig’s lecture and having read mr. Aragon’s critique here, I fail to understand why there is such an interesting note of negativity from some posters toward dr. Lustig. Because, as they say he speaks more on the sensationalist side? Some professors tend to lecture this way and it’s a good thing, because there will be very little sleepers in the classroom. Being passionate about a truthiness does not make him wrong.

Has dr. Lustig proven the theory about fructose, so that all doubt is removed? Well apparently not. So, I’m not sure what the majority opinion here is, that fructose is neutral, or that it is good? Are there any arguments to consume more fructose? To go, as Alan put it, out of your way to get pure fructose and use it generously on everything you eat, and why not? Maybe you, who doubt dr. Lustig should do that, I’ll see to it that you get your Darwin award in a few years.

Seriously, what our good doctor proposes is NOT unhealthy, it seems so even to a non professional nutritionist such as myself. Furthermore, doesn’t it make perfect sense to eliminate simple sugars from your diet? Drink plain water, don’t sweeten your anything and also, lower saturated fats as much as you can, increase non-saturated fats intake, increase fiber intake. In my gym, evey guy I talked to knows that.

@Michael K

Why would someone need to reduce saturated fat as much as possible? You clearly have missed the latest systematic reviews on the subject and the latest meta-analysis on the prospective studies regarding this issue.

It still seems like replacing SFAs with PUFAs decrease the risk, but SFAs per se are NOT increasing the risk . Please say things as they are.

I really expected Lustig to come up with at least more than he has….this is a massacre. LOL @ the youtube hits, like everybody who watched it agreed with it. What a cop-out.

BMJ

Dr. Lustig,

That was a very weak display of ‘scientific’ debating. In fact, it was a nearly perfect display of poor reasoning skills and denial of the research evidence. Alan was clear, logical, and evidence-based. You appeared confused, frustrated, and quite ignorant.

I have to echo others’ thoughts about using Youtube as a base of support for your credibility. At least you got me to chuckle. Apparently, you’re no better than Fred Hahn when it comes to forming strong logical arguments.

I would suggest that you have your esteemed colleagues have a look at this discussion. Perhaps they can come across to you about how you fell short, as well as how you might improve your mindset and practice as a scientist and teacher.

On a whim, I emailed Dr. Lustig thanking him for contributing, and I even praised him for his tenacity despite our disagreement. His initial response was cordial, but contentious. The last thing I want to do is spend my time in a private email debate with him. I let him know that the point of our discussion in the first place is to educate the public, so I invited him to re-engage with me over here, for the learning benefit of the readers. He refused. His second response was less cordial, more contentious, and more bristling toward the idea of coming back here. He even had some choice descriptors of the contributors to this discussion, which I’m sure is why he disallowed me to post our email exchange publicly.

Here’s the key point I want to level at Dr. Lustig, who I asked to respond again, but probably will not: If you are such an illustrious academician and scientist compared to the “naysayers” of this discussion who are merely “pseudo-scientists”, then your arguments should have stood strongly on the merit of their scientific defensibility. But, they were EASILY crumbled. Furthermore, valid arguments against your claims were repeatedly ignored. The large gaps in the accuracy of your material were also repeatedly ignored.

You made an extremely weak showing here, and trust me that plenty of, as you say, “real scientists” had their eyes on this discussion, watching in disappointment as your case floundered and essentially got crushed.

With all that said, you’re welcome to come back and attempt to rectify your failure to communicate relevant facts.

Well, if there’s one thing I learned from this discussion, it’s that you can’t rely on the letters after your name to win a scientific debate. Dr. Lustig is smart enough to know that he lost this one pretty badly. His quick exit from the premises was probably the wisest option.

I would have liked to have seen more discussion of, and links to reliable information on the pediatric obesity epidemic.

Dr. Lustig’s talk was the first I had heard of this alleged phenomenon.

@ Michael K

No problem. I know this is only semantic, but people are so afraid of saturated fat when in fact, they are not deleterious to health – by themselves, but can be *relatively* to other kind of fat. I know in the end the thing to do is the same, but the message isn’t.

I have a few isssues with your comments. first, your studies, who is financing them? it has been my experience that the studies that say fructose and high fructose corn syrup are “ok in moderation” are funded by someone with something to gain. Also so it is not fair to compare the fructose in a starwberry or any other natural food that God created to the fructose in a fruit snack, juice, or any otehr food tha man creates!! And how do you define ‘moderation’ when most of the products that are on our shelves contain HFCS, its in ketchup, in juices, in cereal, in granola bars, it is in too many foods that Americans consume! if you want to look at some good unbiased nutrition facts, look up Dr. James Chestnut, but please don’t help people buy into the lie about our processed foods. Our country has an obesity problem because the additives in our foods are killing our metabolisms. Oh and one last thing, don’t go to a diet pop to avoid the sugar and HFCS, you get aspertame, and that is a poison, it was approved with the knowldge it caused cancer!

@Amy Southwick

Aspartame is perfectly safe, at least in the dosage we are getting.

Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. PMID: 17828671

“The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.”

There was no conflict of interest reported in this review.

The problem might more lie in the fact that product containing aspartame are highly processed.

Frank,

Good post on aspartame. The whole “Aspartame is poison” thing is ridiculous….I will probably make a blog post about this in the future.

**********
Are you kicking the ‘fructose alarmism’ horse because you’re basically okay with consuming ~100 pounds of sugar annually?
***********

No. I’m kicking the horse because it’s false information. I believe information should be 100% truthful based on the available evidence.

You are correct that the obesity epidemic is multifactorial, which is why it is erroneous for anyone to blame one factor for obesity.

You are correct that the obesity epidemic is multifactorial, which is why it is erroneous for anyone to blame one factor for obesity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

James, I can’t agree with you enough. The more we debate the minutiae, the farther we stray from solving the obesity problem in America.

********
psychological toxins
*********

Oh, no, Alan…you said the bad pseudoscientific word….”toxin”…you need your mouth washed out with soap…..we don’t need scientific pottymouths here

Alan:

Thank you for the reply.

“You mention that you ‘did not come away from watching the video with a fear of HFCS consumed in moderation,’ except the rest of your comment shows otherwise. Notice how you implied a significant difference in sugar-sweetened foods versus HFCS-sweetened foods. That’s incorrect.”

In reference to your above comment, I didn’t imply anything. I asked a straight forward question…are they, or are they not, metabolized differently? I admitted I didn’t know much about the subject and was simply seeking clarification on this point. If they are metabolized differently, that would “seem” to be potentially significant. Again, I don’t know much about biochemistry, but the very little I do know is that a very small change in chemical composition can radically alter a substance and hence the bodies reaction to that substance.

The answer I got from James (thank you, James), lead me to believe they are metabolized differently since he said there is a “little” difference in how they are metabolized; he did not say there is “no” difference. If there is any difference, no matter how slight, then the implication is they “may” not be metabolized the same. Whether that little bit of difference leads to the problems being hypothesized by Dr. Lustig or not is a completely different matter. Again, I was only trying get some clarity re: if they are metabolized differently or not.

“Chronic overconsumption of either one is a bad idea.”

Agreed. But the question would seem to be does one have more of a detrimental hit than the other. And if so, than that detrimental effect combined with cumulative exposure (obtained by virtue of it’s ubiquity) extrapolated out over several years “might” be a problem. Not saying it is or isn’t, but I’m keeping an open mind to the issue . Once more, I was just trying to get a handle on if there is ANY difference, and what that difference is, re: metabolism.

” As for HFCS in various refined products, the amount will vary considerably.”

I’d imagine that is true, but HFCS would seem to be in quite a lot of products.

“Those buns you’re scared of likely do not have much more than about 1 gram of HFCS per slice. How many buns will you be munching on today? You’re better off keeping an eye on total carbs for the day while predominating your diet with minimally refined foods rather than fretting over every gram of HFCS in the minor amount of refined foods you eat.”

You are completely mischaracterizing my statement. I am not “scared” of the buns at all LOL. I actually ate 2 right after I wrote my post. I eat a small amount of carbs during the day and I usually eat the majority of my carbs post workout ( I had just deadlifted before having my burgers). I do keep an eye on total carbs for the day, and other than my buns, tend to not eat processed foods. I am not “fretting” in the least over my buns (well, not the ones I eat anyway). I understand your blog post is on “alarmism,” but please don’t automatically assume your posters to be alarmist, lest you be an alarmist alarmist.

Ganine,

The only practical difference between sucrose and HFCS is in the bonding. The glucose & fructose in HFCS is mainly free and unbonded, while it is bonded in sucrose.

However, this makes no *meaningful* difference in regards to metabolism in the body. The bonds in sucrose are quickly broken when sucrose hits the acid environment of the stomach. This means that once sucrose hits the stomach, it’s no different from HFCS.

Once you get to the small intestine, metabolism is *exactly* the same.

This *little bit of difference* does not lead to the problems Dr. Lustig talks about. The fact is, HFCS and sucrose are identical as far as your body is concerned. The difference in bonding wouldn’t make a shred of difference in regards to your health.

Alan, calling my stance extreme is a bit unfounded. Beseides, I fail to see how my statements brought up the rigid vs flexible dieting, unless you would call “no drugs, tobacco and alcohol” rigid dieting too. Perhaps I lacked precision in my posts – of course I never proposed we replace ALL SFAs with PUFAs, since that would be impossible – just avoid SFAs, which is mainly animal fat. I do propose the elimination of all centrifugal sugars (that does not include foods that naturally contain sugars, even honey) but of course it’s not really necessary to eliminate them in absolute terms, just don’t add sugar – you’ll get it in anyway somehow. However much fibers you eat, it’s probably not enough, so I propose you eat some more. Add olive oil and fish oil to your diet. That’s it. Do you really think that’s extreme or are you just trying to bully me?

holy fuck.

Ryan Zielonka
February 8, 2010
“You are correct that the obesity epidemic is multifactorial, which is why it is erroneous for anyone to blame one factor for obesity.”

bullshit … i can easily blame all the time spent reading this god damned comment thread while munching on deep-fried HFCS (stroopwafels, mmmm) rather than training or doing something otherwise useful.

my simple translation of reality is that the psychological effects of teh sugars, while independent of and thus not changing the phsyiological, can dominate. thus, the result is (get this) people fucking eat more.

Really Frank? Since my opinion on SFAs is in accord with most of what google finds when looking for saturated fats I must conclude what I think is not extreme, but mainstream (unless you call mainstream opinion extreme-?) – that doesn’t in any way mean it is correct, but I would very much like you to prove your point by providing a few credible links/studies. I found this one ( http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/06/06/saturated-fat/ )claiming that we should increase SFA intake, sadly, it cites no sources, here’s an article at the Harvard’s page in my favor: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending my camp to death, I’m merely looking for the truth. 🙂

Excellent resource, thanx for that. On the same note, I briefly looked around and found a paper titled “Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease” found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=3
which concludes that, “…dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.”

There is another paper titled “Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: Epidemiologic evidence.” found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20138901?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1
which concludes that “…Consumption of SSBs should therefore be replaced by healthy alternatives such as water, to reduce risk of obesity and chronic diseases.”

I suggest you read the entire abstract and if possible, the paper itself. I’m currently thinking about purchasing membership there. Both studies appear to be in accord with Lustig, rather than Aragon.

One of the least convincing arguments from the above is that HFCS is the same as table sugar. Yes. I understand this — but the argument does not stop there. These assertions come loaded with the implication that table sugar is safe over the long term in the ever-increasing dosage which human beings are consuming. If the metabolic pathways for fructose lead to a higher amount of undesirable end-products within the human body then it is irrelevant as to whether its source is HFCS or by pouring refined, white sugar down your gob.

So what of it? Is table sugar a long term health risk? Should we be consuming more, or less? What is the ideal daily dosage? How can we relate this to the rise of HFCS as an additive in almost all processed foods?

Mike K,

It looks to me like instead of trying to find the truth, you’re groping for evidence that fits your beliefs, and ignoring the rest. Refer to Frank’s response for the big picture about saturated fat. Also, that other study you cited is correlational. Not that this means it’s useless, but it can’t show cause-and-effect, and it can’t necesarily distinguish the role of decreasing activity levels and a lot of other variables from soft drink intake. Also, I think you’re misrepresenting Alan’s stance. He advocates “a predominance of minimally processed foods” in the diet. That study you linked suggests the dangers of excess soft drink consumption combined with other typically bad lifestyle habits of the population at large. Are you even reading Alan’s responses? You are in fact proving yourself to be an extremist by missing the point continually.

I’ll take a stab at this

>> Is table sugar a long term health risk?
depends on context and dose

>> Should we be consuming more, or less?
who is “we”?
if “we” is already obese people consuming excess calories and if “we” want to gain more weight, yes you “should”, but why concentrate on sugar? In this case fat (butter, lard, cream) would be a better, more concentrated way to get more calories.

if “we” is anorexic women about to die, IMHO hell yes you “should” (although you might disagree)

if “we” is everybody in the US – the answer is “depends”. My answer is “I don’t know”

if “we” is people with insulin resistance who’ve carefully experimented on their own diets and found they do well on high fat diets and badly on high carbohydrate, probably you shouldn’t.

>> What is the ideal daily dosage?
you have been reading along in the last 150 or so posts, right?

>> How can we relate this to the rise of HFCS as an additive in almost all processed foods?
what do you mean by “this” in “relate this” – the preceding 4 questions, the stuff in the 1st paragraph?

James Kreiger:

********

I’m going to use your above statement as an example. The metabolic pathways for fructose only lead to higher amounts of “undesirable end-products” under certain conditions. Under other conditions, fructose is harmless and can even be beneficial.

********

Can you elaborate on this more? What are these conditions?

Sugar makes me a friendly, happy person to be around. Thanks sucrose!

Random guy:

*****

What is Alan’s take on saturated fat? I am curious on this one

*****

I suspect it has something to do with dose and context…

Roy said: “Surely a study done in 1979 discounts the anecdotes of people that were there from the late 90s to the present day.

Oh wait, no it doesn’t.

Is being honest really so hard? I thought you had to pass ethics to be approved by the medical board.”

You made me laugh with this. Heck, at least it’s more current than Taubes’ mid-60’s references in GCBC. Lustig is almost into the 80’s!

Alan,
Under the heading “Fructose is evil, context be damned” you say:

“[Lustig says] that unlike glucose, fructose does not elicit an insulin (& leptin) response, and thus does not blunt appetite … Lustig is forgetting that most fructose … has an equal amount of glucose attached to it … Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite.”

You cite four studies as authority for that statement. Each of those studies comes to an identical conclusion: HFCS (55% fructose) is not materially worse for you than sucrose (50% fructose) (or vice versa).

The studies were funded by [3] PepsiCo North America, [4] Suikerstichting Nederland [Dutch Sugar Industry], [5] the American Beverage Association and the Corn Refiners Association and [6] International Life Sciences Institute North America – ILSI has significant links to producers and purveyors of sugar and HFCS products. And while I doubt funding source changed what was an entirely predictable outcome, I think it would have been good to mention it when citing the articles.

What I don’t understand is how citing four studies which say that sugar and HFCS have identical effects (including on [next meal] satiety) addresses the point Lustig makes about fructose versus glucose and long term appetite control.

And I certainly don’t understand how you get from there to the conclusion that because fructose (on its own) is not a normal part of our diet, we don’t have to worry about substances that include it (such as HFCS and Sugar).

Cheers
David.

>> because fructose (on its own) is not
>> a normal part of our diet, we don’t
>> have to worry about substances that
>> include it (such as HFCS and Sugar)

Where did you see that?

I see stuff like

AA:

>> Is it really that groundbreaking to
>> think that polishing off a half-dozen
>> soft drinks per day is not a good
>> idea?

and this:

AA:
>> I’m obviously not in favor of
>> replacing anyone’s daily fluid
>> intake with soft drinks, but I can
>> already see a number of straw man
>> arguments headed my way.

Great one Alan. I just got through reading all the comments. I have only two points to make.

1. I’m urging everyone with websites to post only the debate between Alan and Lustig. I doubt many people will read through all these comments and the world deserves to see the misinformation that Lustig is spreading and how he ran away from a logical argument after being defeated.

2. I feel sorry for Fred Hahn’s clients. I’ve never heard such poorly made arguments and an utter refusal to listen to reason.

Louis: You are right that people in Asia exercise more and stay thin despite a high carb intake. Dr. Lustig did not miss this point in the lecture – he stated that exercise increased the rate of, I believe, the citric acid cycle which keeps the liver from converting the glucose into fat and distributing it into the bloodstream. In addition, only 20% of glucose is subject to this process, while ALL of fructose is. So there is in fact a huge difference between an active Asian eating rice versus a sedentary American consuming fructose.

Ganine: The lecture never said HFCS is bad, sucrose is okay. In fact, it stated that the two are almost equivalent.

These are just two examples of the lecture being interpreted unfairly or erroneously.

I have no affiliation with Dr. Lustig whatsoever. I merely agree with his findings as most convincing, and most conforming to my own observations. In addition the research he cites and arguments he delivers seem to be in line with the latest science.

In the end, the alarmism of fructose really is about the disruption of hormone regulation. If you believe it fructose is fine, I’d like to hear alternative theories on why Americans have such high rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and other degenerative diseases. Some biochemistry will be convincing.

@ Nicholas:

“I have no affiliation with Dr. Lustig whatsoever. I merely agree with his findings as most convincing, and most conforming to my own observations.”

Translation: I hear what I want to hear, as long as it fits my personal beliefs about nutrition. This fits perfectly with what I want to hear, so I’ll believe it.

@ Mike K:

Roy Baty just helped you discover Pubmed within the last 2 days. What makes you think you can make heads or tails of scientific studies?

Un—believable.

Alan,

Thank you so much for choosing to discuss this video.

James Krieger said:

“No, what is mind-boggling is how you continue to adhere to a simplistic, grade-school level of understanding of adipose tissue regulation.”

Thank you James. Your double MS degree has served your manners well.

Nicolas said:

“In the end, the alarmism of fructose really is about the disruption of hormone regulation. If you believe it fructose is fine, I’d like to hear alternative theories on why Americans have such high rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and other degenerative diseases. Some biochemistry will be convincing.”

Sorry, this is not how science works. We could generate hundreds or possibly even thousands of hypotheses as to why this is the case. It is doubtful that any one variable is responsible. The fructose alarmists are the ones making a specific claim. The onus of proof is on them and they’ve done a piss poor job at it so far!

Fred Hahn, have you not come across Lex Rooker and other bloggers who
are doing very carefully controlled self experiments, who gained
weight on zero carb?

Dr. Eades says:

>> The metabolic advantage brought about by low-carb dieting is
>> probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a 100-300 calories, which
>> isn’t all that much.

This isn’t very far from what Lyle says, is it? (minus the cussing : )

doesn’t QUITE sound like “you can eat a plate of pork chops piled to
the ceiling and not get fat”

And yes, I could eat a plate of pork thops, piled to the ceiling, plus
some bacon and eggs, plus some duck pate (love that stuff) no juice,
no bread, no cereal (no carbs) every day.

I can overeat meat like anybody’s business. I used to have 32 ounces
of steak and a small salad for dinner all the time).

5,000 calories a day of steak, no carbs??( BRING IT ON.

David,

Since you agree that sucrose or HFCS has appetite-suppressive effects in the short-term, I find it amusing that you’re quick to assume this would automatically flip-flop the opposite way in the long term, particularly within the context that their consumption isn’t artificially high as in studies commonly used for scaremongering purposes.

As for your critique of John White’s article, you point out that 2 of the studies cited therein indicate the metabolic risks of a moderate amount of fructose despite White’s mentioning of an extreme amount of fructose being the problem. Okay, that’s fine. However, this doesn’t make his statement false, as I’ve shown in my rebuttal to Lustig’s final post. Also, you have to look at the totality of the evidence. Have a look at the following review, which objectively examines the gamut of research and shows that your alarmist stance on fructose is unfounded:

Evidence-based review on the effect of normal dietary consumption of fructose on development of hyperlipidemia and obesity in healthy, normal weight individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139

In agreement with RayC, your dismissal of the American Society for Nutrition’s credibility on the basis of their membership is ludicrous. The ASN publishes some of the highest quality nutrition-related research, in terms of both the investigators and the content. They hold high standards of rigor in the conflict-of-interest department, requiring transparency from all involved. In sum, the ASN is one of the most well-respected scientific information resources – for deserved reason.

The study I cited above is published by the CRC press, which publishes a range of scientific material, including engineering, physics, and medicine. All nonfictional material. If we were to apply your logic behind the dismissal of the ASN, we could just as easily dismiss the credibility of your book “Sweet Poison: Why Sugar Makes Us Fat”, since its publisher (Penguin Books Australia) has a bestseller list predominated by FICTION:

http://www.penguin.com.au/new/bestsell_contents.cfm

But would that be a fair or logical dismissal? Not on those grounds. A better basis for skepticism towards your stance would be the fact that you fit the one-sided alarmist archetype to a stunning degree. The message behind your agenda is oversimplified, and in denial of the importance of dosage & context. Did you skip over the research I linked regarding the association between rigid dieting and adverse behavioral outcomes? Here, I’ll link it again:

Rigid vs. flexible dieting: association with eating disorder symptoms in nonobese women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916

Flexible vs. Rigid dieting strategies: relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790

The black & white, good/bad picture you paint is not only incorrect, but it’s counterproductive to properly educating the public. You are very quick to discredit scientists and scientific organizations that don’t fit your pre-existent beliefs, but what makes you more credible? I’m very satisfied with my track record with freeing people from various irrational food phobias. You on the other hand, are en route to doing just the opposite. To illustrate, I’ve captured the main point driven home at the end of each one of your videos:

David, I also want to add that in your promotional campaign, you use your own testimony as the major selling point for your book. You let yourself get 88 lbs overweight. And sugar was to blame for this? Well, that sounds like a good enough reason to write a book. Get really fat, adopt a quasi-religious faith about the good and evil of various foods, then write a book about it. You should have stuck to being a corporate lawyer, because this new gig of yours as the Superhero Against Sugar is a joke. Alan put forth a noble message against extremism, alarmism, and the labeling of foods as good or evil. Frankly, I’m enjoying watching him own the hell out of you and your ilk.

“David Gillespie is a recovering corporate lawyer, co-founder of a successful software company and consultant to the IT industry. He is also the father of six young children (including one set of twins). With such a lot of extra time on his hands, and 40 extra kilos on his waistline, he set out to investigate why he, like so many in his generation, was fat. He deciphered the latest medical findings on diet and weight gain and what he found was chilling. Being fat was the least of his problems. He needed to stop poisoning himself. Web site: http://www.sweetpoison.com.au”

Hey David I got fat from eating too much fried chicken, pizza, steak, and fries. I never go for the sugar, and I have no sweet tooth to speak of. Am I not poisoning myself because I avoid sugar? Please do tell.

Mike,

Unless you pulled that info from some former fat guy’s sugar is evil handbook, I ain’t buying it.

One last caveat. I work with a highly respected physician in Seattle who does sports performance work for elite athletes. She specializes in treating legitimate over-training, also known in the medical community as general adaptation disorder. 99% of the people who believe they’re over-trained have only over-reached. I was diagnosed with over-training disorder in April 2008 and am still recovering from it.

Guess what the number one common denominator is amongst athletes, recreational or professional, who are diagnosed with over-training?

Chronically insufficient carbohydrate intake.

There’s a dark side to this zealotry that never gets discussed on boards because these folks get sick. Really sick from the kind of deprivation advocated by these fad diets. And they never come back because they’re getting medical treatment for borderline, sub-clinical or full-blown eating disorders fueled by this stuff.

I posted:

##Dr. Eades says:
##
##>> The metabolic advantage brought about by low-carb dieting is
##>> probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a 100-300 calories, which
##>> isn’t all that much.
##
##This isn’t very far from what Lyle says, is it? (minus the cussing : )

to clarify: I think Lyle’s stance is that it’s like 20 calories of ketones lost per day in urine.

So Lyle is far, but not very far, from Eades.

David,

What good is it for Alan to respond to you if you ignore the research review he just linked refuting your “Fructose = BAD” stance? And he’s the one supposedly remiss here? And I suppose it’s convenient to ignore the research review Michael Miller posted too. Why don’t you post the research you have refuting Alan’s position instead of crowing on and on about funding source. I’m sure that we all would be happy to see the evidence you can present to support your stance. We’re all here to learn, no sense in witholding your secrets.

Sam,

There’s a definite lag time with the Paleo thing. “Better” is relative. I’ve seen too many folks dig themselves into a spiraling black hole with low-carb/paleo dieting. If you go back three plus years ago, you can find me fingers in ears proselytizing party-line low-carb zealotry on fitness websites. It may take years (it did for me), but there will be an inevitable physiological or psychological backlash. It’s human nature -we crave what we can’t have.

Moreover, many paleo folks go from pure dietary hedonism to strict asceticism, never experiencing a middle ground. Because the diet “worked” doesn’t mean that it’s the only, let alone ideal path to progress.

Is it just me or has David blatantly ignored the evidence everyone has presented to him? I know it’s late, I could just be imagining things.

Sam,

Okay I feel a lot better, meds down the hatch. By the way, that’s funny about the Paleo crowd jumping from one rule-ridden doctrine to the next.

David,

How about you cough up this research that refutes Alan’s stance on fructose consumption?

Alan, you’re definitely in the same class as Anthony Colpo. Collect x number of scientific studies and you can support any positon. Same goes for any other person. What most people fail to realize is the complex nature of metabolism and that anyone that claims to have “the answer” is arrogant and unteachable. There is always the urge to develop a unified theory of any area when that goal is only possible by ignoring facts that interfere with that theory. Like Einstein once said, “everything should be made as simple as possible…but not simpler.”

Like any of this even matters. Clearly there are much better foods in our world than HFCS or table sugar. Replacing unnatural sugars with natural foods is of course going to be better.

Dear Ed,

You said:

“Alan, you’re definitely in the same class as Anthony Colpo. Collect x number of scientific studies and you can support any positon. Same goes for any other person. What most people fail to realize is the complex nature of metabolism and that anyone that claims to have “the answer” is arrogant and unteachable. There is always the urge to develop a unified theory of any area when that goal is only possible by ignoring facts that interfere with that theory. Like Einstein once said, ‘everything should be made as simple as possible…but not simpler.'”

Anthony Colpo really has nothing to do with this, but nice ad hominem. Anyways, you’re correct that its possible to cherry-pick the literature to support your position, and people do it all the time. If you take a look at Alan’s reference list, he included a few reviews and meta-analyses of the literature. You understand what they are, right? And why I would bring them up, right? I also included one a few posts above this one in this comments section. You should read the reviews. The one I posted is the most recent. It is very illuminating.

While some people enjoy calling him “Alan Arogant [sic]” and others “don’t like the cut of his jib,” everybody knows that he, and James Krieger, realize “the complex nature of metabolism.” Because they understand “the complex nature of metabolism” they don’t claim to “have ‘the answer’.” Instead, like any intellectually honest and open-minded person would do, they look to the body of evidence for “the answer.” They examine the evidence and see in which direction its pointing. They aren’t afraid to say, “I don’t know.” Intellectually honest and intelligent people know that the most credible evidence is contained in the scientific literature (RCTs, reviews, and meta-analyses), more specifically in peer-reviewed journal articles.

Intellectually dishonest people, however, begin their mission with a conclusion in hand, and then proceed to engage in rationalization, omission, and verbal gymnastics in an attempt to force reality to fit their conclusion.

Those whom you claim to be “arrogant and unteachable” used to believe all kinds of nonsense. One day they learned how to analyze the literature, examine how one study fits into the bigger picture, and generally think for themselves.

Once again Ed, I invite you to read the reviews and meta-analyses.

Cheers,

Michael Miller

Alan,

Thank you once again for the reply.

The American Heart Association released a scientific statement on dietary sugars and their relationship to cardiovascular health in August 2009. You can read it here: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192627

Of particular note is their final recommendation that an adult male should consume no more than 144 calories (38 g) per day in added sugars (which would be 19g of fructose). They also observed that any alcohol (or discretionary fat) should be deducted from that total (which means drinking one can of full strength [5%] beer would mean you couldn’t eat anything containing sugar that day except fruit – no breakfast cereal, no soft drink, no ketchup and certainly no confectionary).

They based their recommendation on a multitude of studies but some of the more pertinent ones are listed below.

Why is it that neither the AHA analysis, nor any of these studies made the cut when you were performing your objective review of the evidence on fructose ‘alarmism’, but almost every review ever performed on behalf of the sugar industry made the list?

Cheers
David.

Bray GA, Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Consumption of high-fructose corn
syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity [published
correction appears in Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1090]. Am J Clin Nutr.
2004;79:537–543.

Johnson RJ, Segal MS, Sautin Y, Nakagawa T, Feig DI, Kang DH,
Gersch MS, Benner S, Sánchez-Lozada LG. Potential role of sugar
(fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic
syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86:899 –906.

Lê KA, Tappy L. Metabolic effects of fructose. Curr Opin Clin Nutr
Metab Care. 2006;9:469–475.
Havel PJ. Dietary fructose: implications for dysregulation of energy
homeostasis and lipid/carbohydrate metabolism. Nutr Rev. 2005;63:
133–157.

Gross LS, Li S, Ford ES, Liu S. Increased consumption of refined
carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States:
an ecologic assessment. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79:774 –779.

Elliott SS, Keim NL, Stern JS, Teff K, Havel PJ. Fructose, weight gain,
and the insulin resistance syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:911–922.

Dhingra R, Sullivan L, Jacques PF, Wang TJ, Fox CS, Meigs JB,
D’Agostino RB, Gaziano JM, Vasan RS. Soft drink consumption and
risk of developing cardiometabolic risk factors and the metabolic
syndrome in middle-aged adults in the community [published correction
appears in Circulation. 2007;116:e557]. Circulation. 2007;116:
480–488.

Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Keim NL, Griffen SC, Bremer AA, Graham
JL, Hatcher B, Cox CL, Dyachenko A, Zhang W, McGahan JP, Seibert
A, Krauss RM, Chiu S, Schaefer EJ, Ai M, Otokozawa S, Nakajima K,
Nakano T, Beysen C, Hellerstein MK, Berglund L, Havel PJ. Consuming
fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases
visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/
obese humans. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:1322–1334.

James J, Thomas P, Cavan D, Kerr D. Preventing childhood obesity by
reducing consumption of carbonated drinks: cluster randomised controlled
trial [published correction appears in BMJ. 2004;328:1236].
BMJ. 2004;328:1237.

Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Osganian SK, Chomitz VR, Ellenbogen SJ,
Ludwig DS. Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption
on body weight in adolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot
study. Pediatrics. 2006;117:673– 680.
Hallfrisch J, Reiser S, Prather ES. Blood lipid distribution of hyperinsulinemic
men consuming three levels of fructose. Am J Clin Nutr.
1983;37:740 –748.

Link for post above: http://www.leighpeele.com/carbohydrate-intake-recommendations-for-sensitivity

Hey Alan, it looks like one of your crew is having a hard time sticking to their gunz on the subject. How can you explain recommendations like this with your stance?

DAVID GILLESPIE: I pointed out before you are setting up a straw may by claiming Alan says “eat unlimited sugar”. He wrote no such thing but you continue spouting this nonsense.

Alan: Watch your calories, watch your sugars, don’t eat too much of either, just be moderate, don’t be hysterical in eating or in avoidance.

David : “AHA says dont drink 4 cans of pop a day (regardless if you ‘re a young athlete or an old bed-ridden man), Alan doesn’t give a hard and fast number, so Alan is a sugar industry sponsored satan/sugar worshipper”

HEY DAVID – would it be possible for you to stick your fingers in your ears any harder than they are, or shout llalalalallalalallalal IM NOT LISTENING l;lalalallalallala

would that be possible?

Terry:
I agree with you. I bet a lot of us here do. From one of my posts, re: should you eat more sugar

>> if “we” is people with insulin resistance who’ve carefully experimented
>> on their own diets and found they do well on high fat diets and badly
>> on high carbohydrate, probably you shouldn’t.

Everyone should be afraid OF THE THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THEM.

Scattershot hysteria or mass fear can mis-direct and waste badly needed resources.

I wondered above about Dr. Lustig’s contention about a pediatric obesity epidemic.

I don’t believe it because of similar stuff that happened in the past. Example:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/09/phantom-epidemic-of-child-diabetes.html

Terry, remember, this was your original comment, which is the strawman I was referring to:

“Some of you anti-alarmists in this thread would just label my problems as being a slothful glutton…the typical fat, lazy American. And you’d be wrong.”

That’s a strawman. No one here is labeling your problems as that of a slothful glutton.

James, remember, this was your response, which is the strawman I was referring to:

“And is there individual variation in people’s response to sugars? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that sugar is this evil thing that should be avoided at all times.”

That’s a strawman. No one is saying that fructose/sugar is this evil thing that should be avoided at all times.

@Erik – You are a moron. Leigh’s article is the best I have yet to see on grading your insulin sensitivity and giving a starting point. There is a clear stance on the being against the Taubes and Eades alarmism. You are grasping at straws.

@Terry – James specifically said dosing matters I don’t know how many times. Stop while you are behind.

>> Perhaps you needed to look a little closer at the recommendations.

WOW I had actually assumed he reported it correctly, (and even with his mis-reporting he was still off …)

My bad …

Ray — I wouldn’t call David’s post inaccurate. I’d call it incomplete, since it disregards the range of individual requirements listed in the AHA paper. This purposeful omission of context is done in order to paint a black & white picture. This illustrates the main point of my article. Good job, Dave man.

@Matt and @J.C.

James was trying to fight my strawman with a strawman of his own. Sorry, if I didn’t point that out clearly enough.

Yes, I think we can all agree that dosing and context is important. In fact, that’s the whole point. The doses of fructose in the American diet have gotten very high, and many people can’t handle it.

I’m alarmed… so I guess I’m an alarmist. I get alarmed when I see obese teenagers drinking sugary beverages. I get alarmed when I hear diabetic co-workers say they are using agave nectar, because it has a low glycemic index. I get alarmed when my friend is drinking Vitaminwater, because he thinks it’s healthy due to containing natural “fruit sugar” instead of table sugar.

I guess I just can’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed…

Oh well, I should know better than to argue nutrition with people…it’s almost as pointless as arguing politics and religion.

@ Alan:

“Good job, Dave man” = lmfao, priceless.

@ Terry:

What you’re doing is having a hissie fit over the type of sugars people are taking in. Guess what, if they had a goddamn clue about the big picture, they’d be just fine. Once people figure out that TOTAL CARBS matter most, the rest falls into place from there. And yes, I was formerly obese, but not anymore. What happened is I got educated, and I learned that reaching your goals in the long term has nothing to do with “this food = good, that food = bad”. I know this stuff is difficult to grasp, but take your time, the lights will flip on eventually.

@RayCinLA – “I know this stuff is difficult to grasp, but take your time, the lights will flip on eventually.”

Wow, really Ray? Condescending much? I’m glad you have everything figured out! Heck, if everyone were as smart as you… there wouldn’t be a problem with obesity in America.

Unfortunately, just last year I had my primary care physician and the nutritionist he sent me to both telling me to go on a low fat/high carb diet to control my cholesterol and triglycerides. Both of them knowing full well that my fasting blood glucose was high.

There are so many people in the medical/diet/nutrition field that have NOT figured it out. Maybe you could go flip their lights on for them?

hey David Gillespie: THANK YOU SO MUCH

for not answering many of the questions directed at you
– shows a lot about you

You again pretend that Alan recommends everyone consume a
lot of fructose, as if the numbers for active people are
be applied to everybody.

This has been your pattern from the start – right after
your first post I asked

DG: because fructose (on its own) is not a normal part of our diet, we
DG: don’t have to worry about substances that include it (such as
DG: HFCS and Sugar)

Where did you see that?

I see stuff like

AA:

>> Is it really that groundbreaking to
>> think that polishing off a half-dozen
>> soft drinks per day is not a good
>> idea?

You continue the pattern throughout, up to and including this last post,

DG: If by ‘context’ you mean your article is intended only to apply
DG: to individuals consuming 3,000 calories per day (and living an
DG: ‘active’ lifestyle

your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired

A small sedentary female’s context differs from an active young large male.

Do you know the meaning of the word context? If you do then apparently you forget what it means when it comes time to type

On to the AHA paper:

What’s your point? If anyone had written above

“small sedentary women can eat a ton of fructose”

then that paper might have some relevance

but no one wrote that. Everyone wrote different people should consume different amounts

I don’t know who you think you’re convincing, but anyone who can read can check up on your distortions all the way through

Here’s my guess as to your next post:

“you are an agent of the sugar industry. I bet you’re funded by
Coca Cola. You say we should all eat 600 grams of fructose per day

” Oh, how the ignorant have fallen. It’s great to see rationalism deliver the killing blows. Nice work, Alan and colleagues.”

You mean reason?

I just made a post expanding upon what’s been said here. Specifically, I address the “fructose makes you fat” concept.

http://www.thebsdetective.com/2010/02/partial-bullsht-of-day-fructose-makes.html

>> Who needs evidence when you can just *believe*

How better to maintain a belief (and cowed believers) than to invent vast conspiracies intent on poisoning you and keeping you and your followers in the dark?

So, I had decided that I wasn’t going to post another comment because everything that needed to be said was said already. But then, this completely amazing post showed up on bb.com and I had to show everyone here.

REMOVE FRUCTOSE entirely from your diet, it is a sort of poison on terms of irritating the endocrine system.
It triggers fat storage hormone ESTROGEN.
Detoxifying from fructose is compulsory for normal health.
This means STRICTLY removing soft drinks HFCS (fructose) laced, STRICTLY all fruits, STRICTLY fruit juices and alcohol (fructose) from diet.
The very usual reaction to removing fructose from the body is to lose several kg (15kg?) of weight without exercise. Your food cravings will vanish entirely too.

Try also to remove milk products from your diet (casein triggers estrogen).
Remove gluten (it triggers estrogen).
Omega 6 fats can cause allergic reaction (triggering estrogen) – can offset it with omega 3 intake.
Some veggies have chemicals sprayed on them during growing.
Washing them is not enough to avoid allergic reaction. Try to cook it instead of eating raw.
The out of normal reactions are usually caused by allergens in food.
And many health problems including obesity, stubborn fat, depression are fully traced to Estrogen elevated presence in the body.
Passion flower, chamomile, damiana, garlic can lower estrogen.
Drink lots of water, soda water is OK it doesn?t cause allergy.
Drink green tea for it burns calories and can help you lose weight.
Green tea will work for you very well after estrogen is vastly lowered.
After removing products irritating hormonal system there will be a much fewer products to chose from as the food to eat.
Try to see it positive – this was price to pay for getting healed.
There is nothing bad in following some narrow path if that is the only way of staying healthy.

Mike M — This is exactly the kind of lunacy that spreads like cancer, thanks to people who write books or give lectures about the evils of [insert your favorite scapegoat food or nutrient].

Sam — I think Erik’s IQ would break into the double digits if he studied & learned the definition of the straw man fallacy.

All — Thanks once again for the feedback.

JLB, you got it. Rationalists don’t start w/ concrete evidence, but take some ideas as “given” and just run from there.

Anyway, this article has been very informative.

DB — Frickin’ hilarious. Illustrates the point perfectly.

Some Guy — Glad you liked the material. I’m gonna guess that you’re a professor or researcher by trade. Am I right? I’m just curious, thanks.

^^^LMFAO!!!^^^

David,

I felt it was important to respond to each of your contentions because you’re exactly the type that can effectively spread misinformation. You’re articulate & well-mannered. However, you’re also unobjective. And that’s the problem.

For example, you’ve been shown various studies pooling together the body of controlled reasearch and arriving at a safe dose of fructose that’s in line with what I mentioned in my article. In response, you called foul due to funding source. I & others explained the folly of that, and you ignored us. You’re probably still in denial that you’re wrong about the funding source of the study James linked indicating a 60g threshold, and I bet you’re also going to ignore the review posted by Michael Miller, as well as the rest of the evidence.

Also, you have to realize that the AHA’s paper is just one of several scientific reviews on this topic. Therefore, it in and of itself is not the Gospel. Like any other review, it’s needs to be factored into the body of research as a whole. But even looking at the AHA’s recommendations in isolation, they STILL don’t support your stance. Pay attention and take notes…

The AHA’s added sugar recommendations are based on the assumption that added sugars will comprise half of your ‘discretionary kcals’, which are miscellaneous, flexible kcals that can technically can come from ANY proportion of added sugar, solid fat, or alcohol [Note: the idea of discretionary kcals boggles the mind of absolutists who have no grasp of dietary flexibility].

The discretionary allotment for an active male is 512 kcal, and a sedentary one is 290 kcal. The average of this is 401 kcal. Technically, it wouldn’t violate the AHA’s recommendations if someone’s entire discretionary kcals came from sugar, which in the case of 401 kcals is about 100g, which equates to 50g fructose, which brings us right back to the exact number I listed as the upper safe limit in my original article. Here’s the kicker: if we were to look at the entirety of the research, that 50g limit is actually towards the lower end.

Feel free to re-read the above, as well as everyone’s responses to your comments. Despite your articulate delivery, you have tenaciously ignored the facts.

Bearing in mind that Lustig is a paediatrician and he’s probably seen loads of kids that have been fed excess calories for so long that they’re now obese, I can understand why he’s worried about fructose.

Kids on permanently hypercaloric diets have permanently full livers. As fructose enters liver cells via Glu-T5 transporters which are insulin-independent, the liver is effectively force-fed fructose and has to dispose of the excess by lipogenesis which leads to NAFLD, high TGs etc etc. Paté, anyone?

As glucose enters liver cells via Glu-T2 transporters which are insulin-dependent, the liver can down-regulate these becoming insulin-resistant thus shutting off the source.

“Some Guy — Glad you liked the material. I’m gonna guess that you’re a professor or researcher by trade. Am I right? I’m just curious, thanks.”

Close. Actually I’m an analyst in the energy industry. However, I did bioengineering research in my undergraduate. It’s not much I know, but I do have some understanding of what’s going on here. Over the last few years, I’ve come to realize that philosophy is inescapable and how ideas shape our lives. Still learning as always.

Evading facts and spreading misinformation (as opposed to honest inquiry, were we will make mistakes) is bad enough, but when you have a government that feels it has the right to interfere and regulate what people eat and how they live and so on, it can become that much worse.

Ironically enough, I recently chatted with another “Rob” who lives in Japan and he too said they don’t eat a whole lot of sugar. *Shrug*

Nigel — that’s fine to be worried about kids’ excess consumption of soft drinks and candy. However, there’s a far bigger issue with the nutrient-sparse calorie surplus they provide rather than their fructose content per se. It really boils down to teaching people the big picture while putting fructose into proper context, versus having people zero in on fructose per se and lose sight of the big picture completely.

“You know, I get a kick out of knowing I can maintain sub-10% bodyfat (despite being a former fat boy with shitty genetics and thyroid issues) on frozen pizza, Starbucks’ mochas, cookies, rice, Gatorade, and Chinese buffets only by obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
I was actually FATTER when I did the Paleo-tard/low-carb thing, which I followed strictly for close to two years. I avoided HFCS like the plague and used practically zero condiments.
Why was I fatter? Because inevitably I’d blow my diet when I wanted some starch or was put into a situation where I had no other option. And instead of a sane serving I’d demolish boxes of cereal and anything resembling sugar because 97% of the time I deprived myself of it.
I feel bad for you Paleo/low-carb folks. Really, I do. It’s a whole lot of pain and suffering you endure for no good reason. Moreover, I feel terrible for your children, especially if you impose your diet zealotry upon them.
I’ll take my moderated starch, sugar, and HFCS intake with a side of abs any day over the stress associated with any asinine mainstream eating guidelines.”

Ryan thanks for sharing your personal experience. For over 2.5 years Ive been following a low carb diet, excluding as much HFC as possible basically anything remotely unhealthy got the flick. It’s only until I’ve recently read the work of Leigh Peele, Alan Aragon, and Lyle Mcdonald that I’ve decided to change my stance, and for my own sanity, as the way I was eating before made me miserable, but I soldiered on because I thought it was the right and only way to go! I feel I was slowly heading into a downwards spiral leading to an eating disorder. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t given myself a free pass to eat like crap, I think its all about moderation at the end of the day. Guys, this thread has been an amazing eye opener, and may we continue to learn.

>> what is wrong with alarmism?

The Ancel Keys mistake , part deux.

The new blockbuster Coming this summer to a screen near you.

Starring Charlie Sheen as Ancel Keys, firing a rubber chicken into the heart of, well, heart disease (allegorcally of course)

Sorry if you don’t get the references.

Actually, the hysteria would have be Ancel Keys’ second intentional mistake, if you believe some reports that he maliciously manufactured (or picked) his datasets, completely apart from the flawed analysis Lustig talks about.

And at the local drive in’s second feature, Clint Eastwood in “any which way but liver disease”, co-starring Clyde, the organg-utan used in the fructose experiments.

“With all the health statistics as bad as they are, what is wrong with alarmism?”

With the crime rate as bad as it is, what’s wrong with firing a gun wildly into a crowd? I’ll probably kill some criminals.

Hey guys, let’s start the anti-protein movement together. It will give me an excuse to eat more fettuccini Alfredo.

I’ll begin by harping about protein’s harmful effect on bone. Who wants to cover its harmful effect on the kidneys?

Protein = bad. Can you dig it?

The part that I can’t stop laughing about (and there is a few good ones on here) is when I look at the April 2009 edition of AARR, there is a review of the very study (Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans.) the good doc uses as his golden pass to being correct.

This statement is at the end of Alan’s review: “the lay fitness media will inevitably misapply the study conclusions without knowing the irrelevance of the study design.” and goes on to say how unfortunate it is that they will blame a few servings of fruit.

Alan it’s almost sad, you predicting the future like that, just wouldn’t have thought we would see a Doc be so ignorant.

Amazing information. Laughed my ass off all while crying a little for the ignorant.

Saluki — I just put some brown sugar in my coffee. And I bet I’ll outlive you.

I have some additional ideas for Saluki.

Why go halfassed with your dietary asceticism? Why stop at cutting out sugar? There are other dietary evils, you know. Cholesterol and saturated fat might give you a heart attack, so make sure you cut them out. While you’re at it, avoid salt completely as well. Your circulatory system will rejoice.

If you can eliminate all of these things, you’ll be much better off than anyone who halfasses their extremism. Because, you know, there’s no such thing as cutting back or moderating intake; you have to cut it out altogether in order to achieve true dietary self-righteousness.

Also, don’t scroll up and read the research I cited on the adverse potential of inflexible eating practices. You might actually learn something, and education can be a very harmful thing because it actually forces you to use your brain. The horror.

Quite an interesting read. I got about half way through the posts and am kind of surprised to see that in all the arguments about sugar (in it’s various forms) and caloric intake correlating to or causing obesity, I didn’t see any comments about the endocrine response to sugars. It would seem to me that this is a vital consideration when discussing carbohydrate intake. It was mentioned (if I recall correctly) that fructose doesn’t elicit an insulin response, and consequently can lead to overeating. From what I understand, when the insulin/glucagon axis is skewed toward chronically high insulin levels the body will store, as opposed to use, bodyfat. Also, eating high-glycemic index carbs causes a insulin spike, which often leads to further ingestion of sugars to counter the following low blood sugar. Surely a low insulin response to a dietary sugar would be favorable to a large spike in terms of how that carbohydrate gets utilized by the body. While calories in vs. out must be a part of the formula changing body composition, it seems to me that it is the hormonal environment (endocrine, paracrine, autocrine) that will largely determine whether fat or muscle is affected by the calorie deficit or surplus. It is in this respect that HFCS-laden products tend to be more of a culprit in obesity than fibre and fructose- containing foods. IE. 50 grams of carbohydrates from soda will have a more detrimental effect on body composition than 50 grams of carbohydrates from an apple.
What are you thoughts?

@ Preston – great post! I think you are a prime example of someone who follows a certain pattern of eating but doesn’t obsess or become mortaly offended when something doesn’t mesh with your nutritional choices. I think it’s important for people to do what works best for them and be able to keep an open mind and continue to let the information permeate as it comes in. I can’t speak for Alan, but I’m pretty sure he’d be on board with your thoughts.

Sam — I think Saluki went kaputzky after I challenged him to go full-task with his ideology.

Jonathan — While the body is influenced by hormonal systems in various ways, the acute & chronic flux of insulin has much less influence on body composition than people assume. Give this a read: http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?152

Preston — If you’re subscribed to AARR, check out the December 2009 issue where I take an in-depth look at Paleo dieting. From what I’m gathering about your habits, it’s more just eating sensibly rather than eating speculatively. There comes a point where a looser adaptation of the popular paleo principles becomes, in practice, eating less processed foods. This is something I don’t disagree with.

Here you all go:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5

“For thousands of years humans consumed fructose amounting to 16–20 grams per day, largely from fresh fruits. Westernization of diets has resulted in significant increases in added fructose, leading to typical daily consumptions amounting to 85–100 grams of fructose per day. The exposure of the liver to such large quantities of fructose leads to rapid stimulation of lipogenesis and TG accumulation, which in turn contributes to reduced insulin sensitivity and hepatic insulin resistance/glucose intolerance. ”

And they mean eating ad libitum.

“In conclusion, emerging evidence from recent epidemiological and biochemical studies clearly suggests that the high dietary intake of fructose has rapidly become an important causative factor in the development of the metabolic syndrome. There is an urgent need for increased public awareness of the risks associated with high fructose consumption and greater efforts should be made to curb the supplementation of packaged foods with high fructose additives.”

I don’t think sugars or fructose are evil and are somewhat needed if active, I personally never found very low carb to be sufficient for weights.

But I do think there is an issue with fructose but not necessarily for the same reasons and because of this I was a bit surprised when Dr Ludwig suggested that consuming glucose with fructose is worse.
From my understanding of fructose malabsorption (not fructose intolerance) it is actually the opposite and is important that you consume equal if not higher amounts of glucose to help in the digestion of fructose (and fructans found in wheat and some vegetables) otherwise it is left to bacteria which can cause a whole host of digestive and other symptoms.
It is suggested that it is quite common particularly amongst Europeans and is very important in the management of IBS but is not well recognised. A lot of people have issues with wheat and blame it on gluten but its possibly often a fructan issue. IBS type symptoms and anxiety (both symptoms of fructose malabsorption) seem common amongst overweight/obese people and perhaps why they often feel better on a low carb diet though can’t always stick to it. Mind you, some fructans are still found in low carb vegetables and they can also be made by bacteria.

Anyway, obviously not an issue for everyone, just wanted to mention it as I don’t see it mentioned 🙂

Fred Hahn – Gary Taubes is not god, Eades is not the Holy Ghost, you are not John the Baptist and Atkins is not Jesus

GCBC is not the bible.

please look up “confirmation bias”

then look up extremism and monomania.

Good luck and godspeed (although your confirmation bias will likely make that read “garyspeed”)

Fred — Don’t be hatin’. What’s wrong with having “classic carbophobic flair”? I think it’s entertaining, and even endearing at times.

“Fred — Don’t be hatin’. What’s wrong with having “classic carbophobic flair”? I think it’s entertaining, and even endearing at times.”

Because you choose to misrepresent my position in order to serve yourself and feed you followers – something I would never do to you.

If anything it is a excess insulin phobia.

Let me ask you this and i’d like an honest, man-to-man, response. Did you actually read Good Calories Bad Calories cover to cover and if so, do you feel you comprehended all of what Gary was saying? I am on the third read through of it and am STILL learning from it. There are many concepts that shot by me the first read through.

My feeling is that neither you nor James or even Lyle actually too k the time to read the book in it’s entirely with an open mind.

And the fact that you call me carbophobic indicates that you have not read either of my books either.

Sam, you’re a troll. Aren’t you aware of this Alan?

Peter — Very nice post. I don’t disagree with most of it.

Sam — lulz. You have a way with words.

Fred — let me direct you to this post: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/#comment-1438

Thad — I agree with you that a gross chronic excess of fructose consumption is a bad idea. As is a gross chronic excess consumption of anything else.

Preston — You sound like a good bro. I wouldn’t say you’re a Paleopud either (credit: Mike Miller for the term). Thanks in advance for straightening out your Paypal situation… Have an Ice day 🙂

Rourke — You seem to be interested in ignoring the errors Lustig made regarding the facts that 1) the Japanese diet does NOT “eliminate fructose” regardless of historical era, 2) fruits do NOT universally have “way more fiber” than fructose, 3) claiming a causal relationship between fructose intake and the rise in Japanese obesity rates is false because of a multitude of other obesogenic factors that occurred during the same time period, and 4) Lustig likes to pick & choose the data from population studies while ignoring other data (within the same studies) that doesn’t fit his anti-fructose campaign. How intellectually honest are you being by ignoring these errors?

Daniel — Excellent points made. Thanks for contributing.

Alan,

I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion from two of the studies (sources 3 and 5) you mentioned as showing HFCS and sucrose having appetite-suppressing qualities. My first point of contention is that of funding sources: one sponsored by Pepsi, another by the Corn Refiners Association and the American Beverage Association.

My second issue is that these studies compare the satiating effects of HFCS and sucrose with diet soda and low fat milk – processed foods – as opposed to a meal of real food. One study found milk to reduce calorie consumption significantly, while the other did not.

Either way, I do think that these studies overstate the satiating effects of HFCS and sucrose. Just my $.02.

Besides that, solid post. Thanks for giving people the other side of the argument.

Tim

This is a great find, and many interesting comments. Lecture shows the level of sophistication. Whereas, comments indicate complete lack of understanding of basic principles.

A long portion of biochemistry presented is correct and makes sense if one spends time on it. It is quite overwhelming portion of Dr Listig’s talk, and can be overlooked as not so important vs his message.

Dr. Listig is exaggerating his points as he is exposed to effects of American life but also trying to catch people’s attention.

It is about time somebody raises an issue, which is much bigger than what he states. Even so, he is using powerful imagery to get his point across: the only way to make people listen.

Fat free diet is a misnomer, since sugars are used to replace the nutrition value. Refreshment drinks are just a tip of an iceberg…..

Daniel:
Starches and even sugar are bland on their own and you aren’t tempted to eat much of them.
Fats are bland on their own and even nauseating in big amount, so you’re not tempted to eat lot of them. But it’s starches and fat or sugar and fat together that make food very palatable and easy to gulp down in huge amount
_________________
My personal experience does not bear this out, from both directions – when I eat mindlessly, not consciously controlling my calories I eat too much, regardless of whether it’s a low fat or low starch/carb diet.

Growing up I was fed an almost- standard Indian diet – rice, lentils, beans. Low fat (this was non-standard – in India they add a LOT of oil -slathering butter on roti, frying stuff in tons of oil). If we ever had meat it was very lean chicken, boiled, with the oil that floated to the top skimmed off. I ate a lot, got hungry a lot, and got pretty big

around 1990 I tried Atkins for the first time. I didn’t do Atkins as a “lowered carb” approach with 100g of carbs per day, I did a near-zero carb Atkins. I actually stuck to it for a long time, around 3 years. Lost weight temporarily but it came back. I’m 100% sure I did not let carbs back in the diet. It was all eggs & meat from a butcher (no sugar or bread crumbs could have gotten into that meat). My mistake was to believe the hype – “no carbs, no insulin, no fat. GUARANTEED.”

It doesn’t take rice or potatoes to make me eat more steak or pork. I can eat fatty, non-starchy foods til the cows come home (and then I’ll eat the cows, if they’re fatty enough)

dairy whipping cream with zero carbs? I could down a liter for breakfast – it tastes awesome to me.

fatty steak? no problem. I can eat tons and tons. Tastes great to me.

But i did never feel hungry on Atkins. If Dr. A. had said to count calories I might have lost & kept that weight off.

And in fact he did write that you have to count calories – I unfortunately missed those 2 sentences in the 200 pages that told you not to count calories.

The only way I’ve taken fat off and kept it off (60 pound loss, 2 years now) is to COUNT my calories and self-experiment to find what diet keeps the hunger down.

A very high protein diet, moderate fat with occasional carbohydrates seems best for me, and something it looks like

I can maintain indefinitely – the most important thing, IMHO.

unlike, for example, the all -vegetable diet (no fatty vegetables) with no salad dressings (fatty or sugary) where you can’t eat a lot of calories no matter what you do – I can’t stay on it for long at all

Whether the reasons I get fat on any diet are chemical or something else (my guess is I just developed a habit as a child to ignore “stop eating” signals & keep going) doesn’t matter. It’s a fact I have to work around.

@ Scott “Smug” Jenkins:

“I am just going to address the first post completely and ignore the comments, and move on to the comments later. I want to be thorough.”

For someone who is trying to be thorough, you’d be much better off reading the post, the comments, and the follow-up blog post that address most of your points, as well as your hilarious level of denial.

Would you like to try again?

~shakes head~

And now, moving on to the commentary. I’ll skip over the vacuous name calling, people swinging from Alan’s nuts, ass out conjecture that he might be lying to make his talk interesting, lying to make a “profit” (how he is doing this in his line of work escape me) and so forth and focus on that which appears to have some substance.

Matt Stone: Raises the interesting question of why has calorie consumption increased? One hypothesis is that it’s the increase of corn sugar in the diet. What other hypotheses are there? Particularly, what explains fat babies?

Cynthia1770: I don’t pretend to understand the biochemistry, but I do think the main point here is that one possible explanation is the increased intake of HFCS drinks. I think there is an interesting question about whether we would see the same problem if it was all some other form of sugar besides fructose. But, I think this is at the center of the problem and basically makes all the talk about dose moot.

The question is what is making people fat. The ability to consume massive amounts of empty calories in the beverage we consume sinks the question about dose. There is an open question about whether HFCS and the sale in these drinks works with our biochemistry to make obesity rates increase.

Pikku: Let’s say a 16 oz. can of Coke is 200 calories. That’s about 2 apples. I know people that can easily drink a two liter (~68 oz.) of Coke in a day. I don’t know any that eat the equivalent of that (8) in apples a day. So, there is a difference in these two based on their energy density, and there may be something else in play too. That is the question, which you are assuming based on faulty logic.

Mike L.: The data he links to on consumption confirms some of these statements. But, the issue here is that this is a statistical average rather than the consumption of obese people. Perhaps the people eating less HFCS are getting slimmer, bringing down the average, but the obese people are eating a higher proportion.

Alan Aragon: “Blaming the nation’s increased caloric intake now versus 1970 on fructose’s purported appetite-stimulatory effect is a leap of speculation.”

This is a legit criticism. However, it is just as legit to use it against your own claims that fructose is not the problem, particularly since a preliminary scan of your “research” was produced by people in the food additive industry, which – at the very least – invites us to question its validity.

“…let me remind you that correlation =/= causation.”

As long as you are applying that same standard to the “research” you accept.

James Krieger: Your comment ignores many of the arguments presented. It ignores the biochemistry argument. It ignores the fact of fat babies. If you have an alternative hypothesis, great. However, your comment basically says that we don’t have the research to know one way or another. The research is flawed. That’s fine. Without facts, people have to go with hypotheses – and “Fructose is Satan” is just as valid as “Fructose is good for you”.

Just don’t for a fucking second pretend that you are somehow more correct – when your data is just as bad.

Robert Lustig: I find your defense weak. I understand you are busy (aren’t we all?), but it would be better to get a resident to go a good job or not do it at all, than offer up something half-assed. It just makes you look bad. My advice, save yourself the bother. Most forums like these have useless commentary offered up by people that wouldn’t know critical thinking if it walked up and kicked them in the face.

Nigel Kinbrum: What about the uncontroversial position that it is easier and more common to consume much more liquid beverages than fruit? I also don’t believe the talk linked to above said it was addictive. It merely said it doesn’t trip off the satiety response.

RayCinLA: “if you think that you communicated that dosage and context were important in those 90 minutes, you’re wrong.”

Watch the video again, because he says that the minor damage caused that eventually leaves contributes to factors that kill a 90 year old rice farmer (I think this is how he framed it, going off memory) it’s no big deal. He is talking about the fact that people are regularly eating and drinking enormous quantities of HFCS.

JLB: Want to claim I am an irrational child? Could it be that the problem is a little bit more complicated than you have grasped? Also, asking for a “safe” dose is pretty irrational in itself. He makes it clear that it is harmful, but not terribly so when eaten in moderation. You come across like a zealot in this exchange.

Fred Hahn: The most informative post I’ve read thus far.

Mike Howard: “If Dr. Lustig were being honest, he would state that fructose consumption within the context of an otherwise healthy and hypocaloric diet would not likely do jack squat to anyone’s health.”

What dosage is a “healthy and hypocaloric diet”? Forget the dose, how many cans of soda can I safely drink in a year?

You see how that sounds? Next, I’ll make an argument about how chlorine bleach mixed in a safe dose with water is actually good for you – since it kills those nasty bugs.

The point is that fructose is not being eaten in the context of a “healthy and hypocaloric diet”, so your comment isn’t particularly helpful.

—-

Skimming through the rest of the comments. I have to say that a lot of this is just unadulterated bullshit. Much of the conversation revolves around minor points, and I don’t see a single person putting forth an answer to the big question he asked:

Explain the fat babies.

You want to quibble about Japanese diets, validity of rat studies (even though they are used as a standard model for pharmaceutical, genetic and other studies), dosage and the like – all of which are more or less besides the point.

The central point is that you don’t think the case has been made against fructose or HFCS. I could have found that by reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia:

“Studies by The American Medical Association suggest “it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose” but calls for further independent research on the subject.”

Notice the independent research? That means the books are cooked and you folks are using that to “prove” your points.

There are reasons to doubt. It’s not conclusive. Do what you think is right given what you know. The conversation is over.

******************
Most forums like these have useless commentary offered up by people that wouldn’t know critical thinking if it walked up and kicked them in the face.
********************

Speaking for yourself there, Scott?

@ Scott Jenkins:

“He is talking about the fact that people are regularly eating and drinking enormous quantities of HFCS.”

How does the above at all counter any of Alan’s points? Or better yet, how can you write so much, yet say so very little? You have contributed some of the most inane banter here so far. Feel free to continue, though. It’s almost as funny, if not funnier, than Fred Hahn’s posts.

Even ‘science’ is ‘limited’ by only “knowing what it knows WHEN it knows it”…. 🙂

For example,

The Journal of the American Dietetic Association recently published a report indicating that there is often a statistically significant (18-20%) difference between the calories ‘listed’ VS. the ‘actual’ calories contained in most of today’s processed/packaged/pre-prepared foods… http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/11/35038/restaurant-packaged-foods-have-more-calories-label.html

These are the foods where we would primarily find HFCS in our modern American diet. Though I would certainly acknowledge that HFCS doesn’t ‘only’ enter our diet through these foods (in other words, even making ALL of our food ourselves would, likely, yield a certain amount of HFCS if we include certain sauces/condiments/seasonings/sugars), processed/packaged/pre-prepared are certainly where we get the bulk of our HFCS.

When a scientist/researcher attempts to assemble data for and draw conclusions from, say, a population based study where participants self-report what they eat over a long period of time, wouldn’t this introduce a HUGE variable into that study? If a fundamental assumption of those who feel that fructose/HFCS consumption is chiefly at the root of our country’s weight gain is that NO other factors related to our food consumption have changed in the American diet over the last 30 years (inferring that the ‘variable’ MUST be fructose), they likely weren’t privy to the RECENTLY reported fact that simply eating a diet high in processed foods of ANY kind (which we do more of now than 30 years ago when these foods were somewhat less available) could very well mean we are simply eating up to 20% more than we think we are!!

If total caloric value of diets high in processed foods (and, thus, HFCS/other refined sugar) is up to 20% higher than previously thought, then calories consumed over the last 20-30 years cannot be considered a ‘non-variable’ in relation to those consumed in, say, the 1970’s (a time when studies indicate we ate LESS processed/packaged/pre-prepared food than we do now). All studies of similar structure done during this time that come to correlative conclusions about HFCS/fructose being the root cause of obesity would have to acknowledge that calories reported by participants include an error margin of up to +20%

Thus, this study alone would indicate that ALL population based studies that report ‘the only thing we eat more of now than we ever have before is Fructose/HFCS’ are simply untrue… because ANY of us who eat ANY processed foods would simply have to acknowledge that we don’t know exactly how many CALORIES we are eating – and, thus, neither do the researchers who assemble the data for these studies!!!

I know that those who are hell-bent on convincing us that HFCS is causing all of our problems will point out that HFCS is primarily present in processed/packaged foods and, so, if we eat more of them, then we are eating more HFCS and that is why we are in our current obesity predicament. But the problem is you CANNOT argue that there aren’t other possible variables of equal or greater importance – primarily, how many calories we actually consume today VS. 30 years ago.

I don’t claim to know for sure that the ‘anti-HFCS’ folks are wrong, I only assert that you CANNOT prove you are right at this time – there just isn’t any science with fructose as the LONE variable between modern and past American diets. We NOW know that estimated calories consumed could be significantly under-reported by those who eat any amount of processed/packaged/pre-prepared foods, and, thus, calories consumed cannot be eliminated as a variable in these studies.

Sam: I specifically mentioned the part of the presentation where he talks about the rice farmer who receives such a low “dose” that he lives to 90 years old, which in his view isn’t a problem. Now, watch the video and address that point. Since you like to go on about “dosage”, you should know that even water is a “poison” above a certain “dose”.

James Krieger: No, it’s mostly commentary like yours, that looks at an argument and decides to offer poor criticism while hiding behind their degrees, pretending desperately that they know something.

Sam: Data is either good or it isn’t. Offering up astro-turf research while making asshat comments about rat research makes you look like a fool. I’ll take Princeton rat research over the “research” of food additive consultants every day of the week. Perhaps you guys might take a look at the author affiliations of the articles you cite so you won’t look like you have your head in your ass.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

RayCinLA: I suggest a class in basic reading comprehension. This is not something I can offer to you.

*********
Perhaps you guys might take a look at the author affiliations of the articles you cite so you won’t look like you have your head in your ass.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
***************

Scott,

Perhaps you might read the actual journal article you cite so you won’t look like you have your head up your ass.

There’s a serious problem with the outcomes of this paper. When you look at Table 1, Experiment 1, the rat group that got the HFCS solution for 12 hours gained more weight than the rat group who got the 12-hour sucrose solution. However, the rats that got the 24-hour HFCS solution gained the same amount of weight as the rats who got the 12-hour sucrose solution. Yet, overall HFCS consumption was the same in the 12-hour and 24-hour groups. This is a huge discrepancy in the results.

There are more discrepancies when you look at Figure 3 from Experiment 2. The group that had 24-hour access to HFCS gained the most weight, but weight gain was identical between the 12-hour HFCS and 12-hour sucrose groups. These results are not consistent with Experiment #1.

On top of all that, the researchers didn’t report the overall energy intakes of the rats in Experiment #2 (the 7 month feeding trial), despite the fact that they measured it. Why did they not report this data?

The fact is, the data is not consistent from experiment to experiment, and there is important information that is missing. On top of that, the researchers try to say near the end that there are differences in sucrose versus HFCS, but then fail to explain just how those differences would make a difference metabolically.

Just so that you don’t find your head in your ass again, next time read the actual journal article rather than citing a news report (news reports are pretty bad for accurately reporting on scientific research).

James Krieger: It’s poor because there has been nothing substantive to critique, until now. So, at least, you’re upping your game a bit – which is more than can be said of some others here.

I’m making arguments. The general strategy when debunking an argument is to either show a premise is false or to show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I’ve done that with Alan’s arguments primarily by showing that he doesn’t have the data to support his position, there is reason to question the sources of his data, and that he has poorly constructed the arguments he has criticized. These aren’t criticisms that require “data”, beyond pointing out the astro-turf associations, which I did.

You’ve tried this false dichotomy argument before. It seems to be a favorite. But, it is not a false dichotomy to say something is either true or not. It’s the foundation of rational thought. To assert that quality of data is on a continuum is nonsense. It either supports what you are saying, or it doesn’t. It either reflects reality or it doesn’t.

If you want to say that this all boils down to probabilities, and data suggest that something is either more or less probable. Ok. There’s something to that, but for the kind of argument you are making, you need some kind of conclusive truth. You don’t have it. No one does.

I think I can say for certain it that Astro-turf science doesn’t lead to the truth, and some food additives consultant doing a bullshit meta-analysis to confirm the truth of their bread and butter doesn’t really lend itself to any kind of vigorous debunking. It practically debunks itself – just by using the word meta-analysis in this context. Q.E.D.

“The affiliation of an author is irrelevant to the quality of the data or the work.”

Tobacco scientists in the 1950s would have loved you.

“The fact is, the data is not consistent from experiment to experiment, and there is important information that is missing.”

Let’s see. You come up with some pretty esoteric technical complaints about a paper and somehow this redeems citing astro-turf meta-analysis that anyone that knows anything about statistics would immediately laugh at…not quite the same level of having one’s head in one’s ass.

I’m not in a position to explain why these details aren’t in the paper. Perhaps there was a word limit? Perhaps there is some other good reason besides they’re trying to bamboozle you? I have no idea. But, I do know that the data continuum that we do have from sources that aren’t industry mouth pieces point in a direction you don’t like. And you might be right, I don’t know. But, the only alarmism I’m seeing is the knee-jerk trying to claim someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes that passes as discussion here.

I don’t see you subjecting Alan to any vigorous critique about his off hand dismissal of rat models. I didn’t see you asking the same kind of esoteric question regarding his sources, particularly meta-analysis “research” that frequently goes wrong in scientific peer-reviewed journals as often as that same information is mis-reported in the media.

Oh, and by the way, not everyone has access to Elsevier journals, and I’m sure the vast majority of people here do not. So, it’s not quite appropriate, in this forum, to get into details on a paper people can’t look at for themselves, don’t cha think?

alan could you take a look at this and explain why even in this limited sample this could happen
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

AzureSky — see this post: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/#comment-2960 and add to this the fact that although humans and rats have physiological similarities, they also have crucial physiological differences – particularly in regards to hepatic response to stimuli.

Scott — I think you should be asking James more questions in the spirit of learning rather than preaching to him what you think you know (or don’t). I concur with others that thus far you haven’t brought much to this discussion beyond baseless assertions, and frankly, a lot of hot air.

Amazing – this is the first time I see the Americans actually use the proper KILOCALORIE (kcal) unit, instead of just calling them “calories” and being happy and content with being 1000 times off in accuracy.

Good article apart from that.

According to what I’ve read, HFCS-55 is 55% Fructose + 45% Sucrose. Sucrose breaks down into 50% Fructose and 50% Glucose. Therefore, HFCS-55 is approximately 80% Fructose and 20% Glucose.

This may be the reason why HFCS-55 is considered a poison in this context.

Alan,

For me the issue is not about obesity or HFCS vs. Sugar and calories. What I found interesting in Dr. Lustig’s presentation was the metabolism of fructose by the liver and the by-products ( Triglycerides and vLDL ). As an adult onset type II diabetic, when my ability to control blood sugar was impared ( through lack of diet and exercise) my triglycerides and LDL numbers were high. Having gotten my A1C number down to about 5.1 my triglyceride and LDL numbers came into line ( dramatically so).

Any thoughts on this portion of Dr. Lustig’s presentation?

Thanks,

Alex

Alan: I wasn’t. I just get upset about all the inaccurate nutritional advice going around. The other day I saw a journalistic account of a study that left out “refined” in refined carbs, leading the reader to think all carbs are bad.

This is part of the good fats myth, which is not making people healthier.

Alan, before you rip on Lustig, consider that he’s describing the way the body metabolizes hfcs. Obviously a healthy person can have a bit of hfcs and not suffer negative consequences.

As he explains, the metabolism has to do with the fiber, which is why eating an orange is fine while drinking a glass of OJ is bad.

To anyone reading this and wondering what is true, go to the grocery store and watch people as they check out. The people who buy lots of processed food are the fat ones, and the people who buy mostly whole fruits and veggies are the healthy looking ones.

Doug — I just edited in my answer to Alex (I took some time to dig up the full text after answering the other posts including your useless one), so feel free to eat your cheeseburger & your words too. Another thing, I’ll quote the conclusion of my article above, which you either missed or are choosing to ignore: “The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity.”

Devon — It’s clear that Lustig’s intent was to send the public indiscriminately up in arms against a single macronutrient subtype. With most lay viewers, he has succeeded.

Devon — Here’s a snippet from the follow-up blog post I made, explaining how Lustig clouds the big picture by falsely placing the focus on a single factor:

“In my rebuttal to Lustig’s initial comment, I first point out the limitations of epidemiological data, as well as Lustig’s neglect of the numerous factors that have contributed to a reduction in energy expenditure, such as, “an increase in sedentary occupations; an increase in two-income households and single-parent households; transportation and infrastructure changes that discourage physical activity; a decrease in PE classes and extracurricular sports programs in schools; an increase in sedentary forms of entertainment (i.e. TV/movie viewing, video games, internet, etc.); demographic changes (i.e. aging population, immigration, etc.); a decrease in food costs with increase in food availability and changes in food consumption patterns” (study here). I finish off by pointing out the error of the claim regarding the Japanese diet, and mention Lustig’s omission of giving concrete numbers in his lecture regarding the dose-dependent safety of fructose in the diet.”
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

Sorry I hadn’t read more of the discussion here before posting, but there really is a lot of it, and I still haven’t read it all. My impression at this point, though, is that the conversation, such as it is, is driven far more by ego – on both sides – than anything else. There’s lots of citation dueling, demands for response, and subtle ad hominem. But those of us in the lay category won’t find much of definite use here. I think that’s unfortunate, because it’s clear that there are smart people commenting, and if curiosity reigned we’d probably have better questions, which lead to better answers. One thing that I didn’t see covered is Lustig’s claim in the presentation that any attempt to explain the obesity epidemic had to explain obesity in infants. (Haven’t verified that claim.) If there is such a problem, and we can assume that activity levels in infants hasn’t change as dramatically, if at all, in the last 30 years as it has in older groups, then how do we explain that problem? Lustig said the increase in sugar in formula, the very use of which has also increased, is the explanation. Again, it seems at the least plausible, and is definitely consistent with the rest of his theory.

Ultimately, I don’t know. But I remain curious. And hopeful, too.

Scott,

To further illustrate the problem with your dichotomous viewpoint in regards to data, consider a study that doesn’t show a significant difference between a treatment and control. However, the 95% confidence interval for the difference is (-2, 20). This means that there’s a 95% probability that the true mean for the difference lies between -2 and 20. This confidence interval is heavily skewed towards the positive end, indicating that there’s a strong chance there is a treatment effect, but it just couldn’t be detected. Perhaps there was an insufficient number of subjects and the variability was too high. Again, there are many gray areas when it comes to scientific outcomes….it is not black or white.

Even scientists themselves grade studies according to their quality. There are many review articles that give studies A, B, C, D, and E grades depending upon the strength of the evidence supporting a particular hypothesis. RCT’s usually receive A grades, for example, while observational studies fall lower on the grading scale.

So, yes, the quality of data and its ability to support a particular hypothesis does fall on a continuum.

********************
some food additives consultant doing a bullshit meta-analysis to confirm the truth of their bread and butter doesn’t really lend itself to any kind of vigorous debunking.
*********************

Read my previous post on author affiliations.

Second, if you actually knew how to critique research rather than rant about author affiliations, you could easily dissect the paper. The author affiliation is irrelevant. I’ve published meta-analyses myself….3 of them, to be exact. I don’t give a damn about who the author is when I read a paper. I look at the quality of the meta-analysis itself. What was the methodology? Are the statistics sound? Are their relevant trials not being included? Do they have sound inclusion and exclusion criteria? Are their inconsistencies in the reported data? Does it look like anything is being left out? Do the authors address the limitations of their work?

Third, the fact you’re looking to “debunk” a paper you haven’t read indicates you’ve already made up your mind before the fact. In essence, you’ve started with your conclusions before examining the data.

Fourth, in an earlier comment, I posted a meta-analysis from Diabetes Care, of which the primary author was “independent” according to your criteria. Here is the link:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/10/1930.long

The results are similar to the meta-analysis that Alan posted. Are you still going to spew your bullshit about author affiliations now?

********************
citing astro-turf meta-analysis that anyone that knows anything about statistics would immediately laugh at…
**********************

I’m actually laughing at you because I’ve published 3 meta-analyses and know quite a bit more about the statistics involved than you do.

Of course, if there are problems with the statistics in the meta-analysis that Alan referenced, why don’t you show us exactly what you’re laughing about? Or are you just going to rant about author affiliations again?

Like I said….back up your assertions with evidence.

***************
I’m not in a position to explain why these details aren’t in the paper.
******************

But apparently you’re in a position to know if an author is “cooking his books”?

*****************
Perhaps there is some other good reason besides they’re trying to bamboozle you?
********************

That’s not the point. The point was to show you that just because research is “independent” doesn’t mean the work is quality work or that the results can be trusted. It was to show you that you need to look at a study’s methodology rather than who the authors are.

Also, the fact that they left out the dietary intake data from the 7-month experiments is important, because it’s needed to assess the effects of fructose on weight gain.

**********************
I don’t see you subjecting Alan to any vigorous critique about his off hand dismissal of rat models.
************************

“Off-hand” dismissal? First, Alan says nothing about animal models in his post. Second, in his comment to AzureSky, he linked to my critique of the paper out of Hoebel’s lab. He simply included the comment about rat models as an additional point to that critique. And Alan is correct….there are important differences in hepatic lipid metabolism when comparing rats to humans….differences that need to be considered when you’re looking at the effects of fructose on triglycerides.

************************
. So, it’s not quite appropriate, in this forum, to get into details on a paper people can’t look at for themselves, don’t cha think?
****************************

No, what’s not appropriate is for you to draw conclusions based on a cursory glance. If you’re going to be citing scientific work in support of your position, then you should be reading that work.

Alan: Nice sloppy dodge. I made specific points, and instead of addressing them, you play the know it all card where people should be learning from the one sided discussion. At least James makes some effort to try to point to where I have supposedly got it wrong. The rat model being one example.

James: Speaking of strawmen,

““Off-hand” dismissal? First, Alan says nothing about animal models in his post.”

Perhaps you missed this part of Alan’s original post, which is clearly making a comment about rat models.

“So much for Lustig’s repeated assertion that fructose and fructose-containing sugars increase subsequent food intake. I suppose it’s easier to sensationalize claims based on rodent data.”

I take this as a claim against sensational claims, pointing to some problem in rat models and asshat egoism. And this is indicative of your reconstruction of the points I am making, i.e., attacking strawmen. Questioning the data, which by the way is precisely what you are doing in the Princeton study, is essentially questioning the truth of the facts being asserted. This is basic logic 101 and it is one of the main ways you you deny the soundness of an argument.

Actually, I debunked one of the review articles because, in this context, a meta-analysis is bogus with any methodology. It would be one thing if we were comparing studies of a standardized medical procedure, it is quite another to put together studies with different methodologies in a meta-analysis. and frankly, statistical analysis is rarely done right and I would question the whole business along the lines of The Cult of Statistical Significance of in articles like this one:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong

I’ll grant your point that independence is not a guarantee for impartial evaluation, but financial consideration have been shown time and time again to influence scientific outcomes, which is why we have to disclose them when we submit these kinds of articles – because they are important.

As for your nuance argument, I don’t disagree. There are many factors that might require a finding to be qualified. But, the fact that a finding needs to be qualified to be true, doesn’t mean it is not either true or false. The fact that we may not be certain whether a given fact is true or false doesn’t mean it isn’t either true or false. It’s a separate epistemological issue, but again, it is either true or not, and we have to make guesses based on our assessment of the probabilities, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking we are doing anything beyond making educated guesses – that we know something we don’t.

“Second, if you actually knew how to critique research rather than rant about author affiliations, you could easily dissect the paper…”

I’m not only pointing out a problem in author affiliations, which is a legitimate point. I also pointed to the problem of doing a statistical analysis on this topic. So, you were saying something about strawmen?

And speaking of strawmen, can you tell me what exactly is the problem I’m incorrectly attributing to Alan? See, when you can’t point to something specific, that’s a good indication that perhaps your claim is false.

“I look at the quality of the meta-analysis itself. What was the methodology? Are the statistics sound? Are their relevant trials not being included? Do they have sound inclusion and exclusion criteria? Are their inconsistencies in the reported data? Does it look like anything is being left out? Do the authors address the limitations of their work?”

Here’s a specific claim. You seem to ask all these really interesting questions, when they go against your notions. Did you make this effort on the meta-analysis Alan cites? Or is that something you save up for only one side of the discussion?

“Third, the fact you’re looking to “debunk” a paper you haven’t read indicates you’ve already made up your mind before the fact.”

Pot meet kettle. Right? I’ve already said that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not invested in it one way or another. However, I am noticing that the discussion, here, is piss poor when the critique is putting forth something positive for the argument being presented by Lustig. You’ll offer all kinds of potential problems in the Princeton study, yet not one for Alan’s studies, why is that?

And why not specifically talk about what’s so good about the meta-analysis? Why go for some vague generalities? Why not explain to us why this particular study has good methodology? No access? Or is it because it doesn’t help your argument that I’m right that’s its a bullshit study – and which is why you want to talk about some other studies or hide in vague generalities of what I should be doing if I was as good as you?

“I’m actually laughing at you because I’ve published 3 meta-analyses and know quite a bit more about the statistics involved than you do.”

You may know more than me. But, your arguments to this point are, frankly, shit. You’ve been a condescending prick – which is fine, I’ve asked for it by taking the tone that I see through the comment section of this thread. It certainly sounds like you work with statistics more than I do. But, the bottom line is that I’ve put forth specific problems: the problem of obese infants, the problem in Alan’s sources, the problem that he questions the rat model without supporting this claim, etc. And you keep asking for data. And you keep trying to out condescend me.

“If you’re going to come on here and behave in such a way, then expect the same behavior in return.”

Perhaps you’ll want to revisit how you and others responded to people that said anything positive in relation to Lustig’s thesis prior to my commenting in this forum. The fact that I came in and gave you a little taste of what you folks like to dish out….well, boo hoo. You want to be a dick, by prepared to deal with people that have no problem being a dick in return.

I may have missed it above, but what are the physiological benefits of HFCS or fructose alone to the human body?

**************
But, the bottom line is that I’ve put forth specific problems: the problem of obese infants,
*****************

The problem with your “problem” is that you are assuming that obesity has a single cause. There is absolutely no evidence that this assumption is true.

Increased food consumption and decreased activity doesn’t need to explain the problem of obese infants, because there are many, many causes to obesity that are all interplaying with each other to create the “perfect storm” that results in an obesity epidemic.

Nevertheless, even the data on infants indicates the causes of obesity are multifactorial. For example, a high-glycemic diet in mothers can contribute to infant obesity (i.e., the infant is actually born obese):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307352

Fructose or HFCS aren’t a factor here because HFCS is not high glycemic.

Excessive intrapartum weight gain is a risk factor for having an obese infant:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338575

….meaning a woman who gains excessive weight during pregnancy is at higher risk of having an infant *born* obese (not made obese by giving the kid juice). There’s actually quite a bit of research on this….here’s another paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19208280

Infants of obese mothers have lower energy expenditures than infants of non-obese mothers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18485223
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3340127

Obese infants do in fact consume more calories than normal weight infants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890076

Thus, the data shows that the concept of energy balance applies to infants as it does adults, and thus increased energy intake and decreased energy expenditure is contributing to obesity in infants as it does in adults. Thus, it is erroneous to try to pinpoint obesity as having a single cause (i.e. HFCS) in either adults or infants.

***************
meta-analysis is bogus with any methodology. It would be one thing if we were comparing studies of a standardized medical procedure, it is quite another to put together studies with different methodologies in a meta-analysis.
*******************

Another assertion for which you have no evidence. Making assertions is not making arguments. You need to provide evidence supporting those assertions.

The fact is, you can combine studies with different methodologies in a meta-analysis. There’s nothing “bogus” about this. There are statistical models that allow you to account for between-study differences (such as the hierarchical random effects models that I used in my published meta-analyses).

The study in a meta-analysis is the experimental unit. Just as you can have different types of subjects in an experiment (for example, a mix of males and females of different ages), you can also have different studies. As long as those studies are meeting your particular inclusion/exclusion criteria, and as long as that inclusion/exclusion criteria is sound, it is certainly valid to combine the results of different studies with different methodologies. To assert otherwise is like arguing you can’t have males and females in a particular study group because they’re different.

Devon,

***************
If there is such a problem, and we can assume that activity levels in infants hasn’t change as dramatically, if at all, in the last 30 years as it has in older groups, then how do we explain that problem?
***************

See my comment here regarding obesity in infants:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/#comment-3023

The data shows that energy expenditure has, in fact, decreased in obese infants, accompanied by an increase in energy intake.

Univariate causation thinking seems to be very attractive to lots of folks, when a multivariate approach is required. The attraction to univariate seems universal, but especially bad in “health circles”.

Whether from a desperate search for simple answers to a simple lack of thinking & brainstorming on alternative explanations.

Jared: sorry … I missed the obvious thing that Lyle and Alan write about – sucrose seems better as a workout drink because more types of sugar transporters are used – those for glucose and fructose.

You’re basically using 2 pumps (glut-1 for glucose and glut-4 for fructose, if memory serves) to get calories from the intestines into the body, where a glucose-only drink, or starchy foods that break down only to glucose use only one the glucose pump.

Mixing in fructose is also better as a “glycogen refilling” food, if you’re on a so called “cyclic keto” diet.

As Alan points out, Robert Lustig exaggerates the evidence against fructose. However, Lustig has a scientific background, so he can put forward arguments that at least give the appearance of being science-based. An Australian lawyer named David Gillespie decided several years ago that he knows more than any scientist about fructose and its effects on health and obesity. He wrote a book called ‘Sweet Poison’ (published in 2008) in which he goes even further than Lustig in a diatribe about fructose. This book is a best-seller in Australia. I don’t know if it is also making waves elsewhere, but if you know of anyone who believes the claims made in ‘Sweet Poison’, I suggest you direct them to a radio program I presented in January of this year. An audio or transcript can be downloaded from: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2010/2770728.htm
It would be diplomatic (but euphemistic) to say that Gillespie’s book is based on ‘misinterpretation’ of the scientific literature; in fact, it is based on misrepresentation of the literature.

Hi Alan,

Context is important.

Obviously, adding an additional 22% (55/45) more fructose to one’s diet by simply substituting, by weight, sucrose with HFC-55 will increase frusctose’s impact on a seditary person’s liver.

However, the answer is – and I think everyone who has posted here will agree – is to lower all sugar intake.

But this raises the real problem with HFCS.

The predominance of HFCS in our food exists because it is subsidized by the US government.

It is so cheap to make HFCS that food producers can turn paper and garbage into a delicious (well-sweeted) “food”.

It is cheaper to make poor nutrutional food. With cheap sugar, one can turn cheap food into delicious food, and price it lower than the healthier alternatives.

Cheap, bad (but tasty) food drives away healthy food out of the market place.

What is left is an over-abundance of high sugar, unhealthy (but cheap) food. And that is what is being eaten, and that is what is causing the litany of health issues.

The fight -though important- isn’t necessarily on HFCS because it is a worse/slightly worse/equal villian compared to sucrose.

The fight should be to end the subsidization of HFCS. Then healthy food has a marketable chance -on price- in our stores.

A personal way to end the subsidization is by us, the people, purposely avoiding foods that contain HFCS. If we do not buy the junk, then it will be removed from the market.

So we should actively seek out products that do not have HFCS as a ingrediant. Use market pressure to remove the subsidy – which will, by market forces, withdraw the junk food and the vacumn will be filled by a healthier alternative.

Paula — I address that study in this post: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/#comment-1250

Black Flag — I think some companies have already caught a whiff of consumer avoidance of HFCS. But if you’ll notice, the vast majority the foods that have any significant amount HFCS are processed foods that should be a minor-at-best part of the diet anyway. This is a major part of the point I’m making: lead a nonsedentary life, eat a mostly unprocessed, non-crappy diet, and a small part of your diet can be what ever the balls you want.

Chris — As Sam noted, I had quite the volley with David Gillespie in this very thread.

Eric — Thanks for taking the time to read the comments. If you got past some of the ego-flexing, posturing, and ad hominem stuff, I’m certain that you learned some important stuff. Let me commend you on having a strong enough BS detector to know when you’re being fed some untenable alarmist crap. Also, congrats on beating your other addictions. Chronic overeating can be conquered as well.

Since you have a lot of weight to lose, you’ll need to remove the intimidation factor of this project by breaking it down into a realistic progression with realistic timeframes. One of the main things that prevents people from succeeding is not having a focused framework that they can chip away at productively while seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Set a 1.5-year goal, where you target a loss of 130-145 lbs, putting you at a much healthier weight of 175-190 lbs by the final quarter of 2011. Broken down into 3-month milestones, your progression might look something like this:

Months….lbs lost….lbs/week
1-3…………..40……….3.3
4-6…………..35……….2.9
7-9…………..25……….2.1
10-12……….20……….1.7
13-15……….15………..1.2
16-18……….10………..0.8

Eric — you got it, bro. Please keep us updated about your progress. If you’re making progress, you’re succeeding. Do me a favor, go get a calendar put it up on your fridge, and mark the goals down so they can be more concrete and in-your-face each day. Here’s to taking a couple years of your life to get into your best shape EVER.

pro-carb zealotry < ------ scientific fact ------ > anti-carb zealotry

Take a guess where Connelly falls on the above continuum.

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that people eat way too much processed food. If people were to eat what we were made to eat (meat, fruits, and veggies) the country as a whole would not be obese. Fructose from fruit is NOT a bad thing. I do think that ingesting too much of it from HFCS (straight dose of fructose/sucrose with no fiber) is not a good thing. Fructose does not necessarily cause insulin to be released, true. However, HFCS is 45% glucose which DOES cause insulin to be released. Maybe that distinction is not made clear enough.

Insulin, and this is fairly well documented fact (Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Pharmacotherapy, Dipiro, et al – to name 2 pharmacy textbooks that are used in EVERY pharmacy school in this country at least), is a hormone that drives glucose into the cells of the body; including fat cells. Put another way, insulin inhibits the breakdown of fat. Therefore if you have a high amount of insulin present in the bloodstream you will not have any lipolysis. High amounts of insulin are secreted into the bloodstream after eating large quantities of food in general of course; but if you are trying to lose weight one of the worst things that you can eat are highly processed, REFINED carbohydrates. These cause the most amount of insulin to be released. Total avoidance of carbs is ridiculous, because fruits and vegetables fall into this category. However, a more moderate approach, limiting your sugar and HFCS intake to occasionally is the winning strategy in my view. Agree? Disagree?

“However, a more moderate approach, limiting your sugar and HFCS intake to occasionally is the winning strategy in my view. ”

A moderate approach is necessary, regardless of insulin, HFCS, etc. If one is trying to lose weight, one can’t eat large amounts of high calorie foods and create a calorie deficit at the same time. They’re polar opposites. One either has to eat a moderate amount of high-cal foods, a small amount, or none at all. One simply can’t eat large amounts of soda, doughnut, french fries, milkshakes, etc., and create a deficit. So moderation/ restriction is essential, even if one is solely focused on creating a calorie deficit.

We’re basically in agreement. If one finds a diet that allows one to create a calorie deficit without it feeling like a burden, I’m all for it. But it’s still a calorie deficit. 🙂

“there is only so much lettuce and turkey someone can eat honestly. ”

That’s a good point. Filling up on low-cal foods is a good option. Sometimes I do this, sometimes I won’t. It really just depends on what I feel like eating. I know I can eat a greater volume of food if they’re low cal fruits, veggies, fish, etc. Or, if I want something that is higher in calories, I must reduce the volume. I think a lot of people have a hard time believing that they can reduce volume like this. Well, I used to think I couldn’t do it, but now I can! Sometimes we surprise ourselves.

The two obvious ways to cut calories are to either reduce or eliminate high-cal foods that one enjoys. Either way is valid. Personally, I’d rather reduce than eliminate. I eat foods that I enjoy (mostly healthy, but one or two desserts a day, as well,) just less of them. I’m down 25 pounds (255 to 230,) so it’s working so far! 🙂 I will admit that I haven’t eaten ice cream in a while. It’s just so easy to keep digging deeper into that container! lol. Eventually I may bring it back in moderation, but I don’t trust myself with it yet. I haven’t completely eliminated anything else from my diet.

I’m in Berea.

Thanks, Seth. I appreciate that. I feel pretty good about it, too. 🙂

I was just referring to the idea of eating high-volume, low-calorie foods as a way to increase satiety. Basically, eating foods that have lower energy density so that one can eat more of them. There’s also a common belief that protein increases satiety, as well. So those two ideas could be why people have success with LC and Paleo diets. High volume/ low cal veggies and fruit + high protein foods is probably a good strategy for increasing satiety while eating less calories. Like I said, I’ll do that sometimes. Other times I’ll have a piece of pie. 🙂

I haven’t been perfect, but for the most part I’ve been able to control the quantity of food I’m eating, regardless of which foods I eat. I think sometimes we blame the Twinkies or cookies or chips instead of our own lack of self-control.

I don’t know all the scientific details, so I won’t get into that. I will respond to your last paragraph though. I think what this country needs is to reduce the sheer amount of gluttony that we are indulging in. I know because I was there. My diet was godawful, lemme tell you! lol. I had zero self-control. My personal belief is that people can reduce their calorie intake regardless of what foods they eat. Maybe not every single person, but many/ most. If it’s true for a former basket case like me, it has to be true for other basket cases, too! 🙂 I just don’t think they know it yet.

Nutritious food is good, of course, but being at an ideal weight is healthy, too. If every overweight American created a consistent calorie deficit and slimmed down, we would be a healthier, happier, and more attractive people, even if our diets contain some… indulgences. 🙂

“That whole first law of thermodymanics applies to CLOSED systems…it does hold true for all closed systems, for sure. It’s a LAW. However, it does NOT apply to systems are that hormonally controlled (humans).”

You know there’s a version of the first law of thermo that applies to open systems, right? Also for semi-closed systems. Humans are open, as they can take on mass and excrete it (snicker, snicker).

“On top of that the basic principles of it when applied to people is all wrong. A unit of mass (weight) and a unit of energy (kcals) are not equal terms and cannot be directly related in such a simple way. I know, I know, 3500 kcals=1 pound (2.2 kg).”

Of course they can, at least when it pertains to the almost exact transfer of energy that occurs on the molecular level. 3500 is just an arbitrary number for a pound that’s supposedly referring to a pound of fat. Also, just to be an asshole, weight is not a unit of mass. Sorry. 🙂 And while the caloric values determined in a bomb calorimeter might not match up exactly to how some foods (especially fiber and alcohol) are treated in the body, they’re close enough to provide a measurement of energy intake.

“Each of the variables in that equation when related to weight and energy implies that they are dependent variables. If this is true…why is there a plateau effect in weight loss (metabolism adjusts to conserve energy)?”

There are a multitude of reasons for plateau effects, only a few having to do with actual metabolic adjustment, and even then it’s usually because basal metabolic rate changes with bodyweight (lower with a lower bodyweight and vice versa). Water weight’s a very common reason, especially in women.

“Or even better why is it that Type I diabetics (inability to make and secrete insulin) can eat all of the food they want and they will actually LOSE weight (without insulin)? They will literally starve themselves to death without insulin and if that doesn’t kill them the ketoacidosis will.”

While this is true for diabetics, it doesn’t do anything but illustrate how important insulin’s role is in shuttling glucose to muscle cells and fatty acids to fat cells. This is not news. In a person with a normally functioning pancreas, your argument here has no meaning.

“If there is one thing that this country needs to reverse its thinking on…it is the dogma that we just need to eat less and exercise more (set up a caloric deficit)…unfortunately, it is just not that simple and quite honestly, plain wrong.”

Setting up a caloric deficit is less of a dogma and more of a method proven over decades of research. What you’re referring to is a fundamental misunderstanding of the energy balance equation, mostly a seemingly universal assumption that it is in any way static and that everyone is the same. For example, say a person wants to set a 500 Calorie daily deficit in order to lose 1 pound per week. The first problem is that unless that person has gone through extensive testing, they don’t know: a) Their basal metabolic rate, b) The caloric requirements of being up and around for whatever their job may be, and c) The caloric requirements of any exercise they may be doing. Couple that problem with the fact that said person probably doesn’t weigh their food on a scale and/or uses prepackaged food which has been documented to be off by about 20% on average in caloric estimates. So this person uses an online equation to find their daily caloric requirements, and comes up with 2500 Calories, so they begin eating 2000 Calories daily. Or at least they think they do. With all the packaging errors, they’re actually eating 2400 Calories daily. And then they’re not weighing their food, so they’re actually eating 2700 Calories daily. Top that off with the fact that they don’t do much other than sit around at their job and don’t exercise, and their actual AVERAGE daily caloric requirement is 2100 Calories per day, and instead of a 500 Calorie deficit, they’re actually in a 600 Calorie surplus! So naturally after gaining a pound the first week, they assume that they must be a special flower who can never lose weight and that Calories are bunk.

Ah, that broscience comment was an insult! Ugh…

This stuff is NOT broscience for God sakes (laughing)! It’s science, look it up! I’m a pharmacist…food affects your body the same way drugs do. Everything I’ve said about insulin, is ABSOLUTELY accurate. That is its mechanism of action.

What in particular is INACCURATE??

Ok you called the straw man…check. However, I still contend that even the most precise, type A, anal retentive people are not THAT accurate.

Yes, I’m a paleo (w/ zone) dude…HATE weighing and measuring honestly. Been there done that man…way too frustrating for my personality.

I’m not a low-carb zealot either though…I just believe in eating the RIGHT carbs. Eat all of the veggies you want (with common sense). Fruit too, but to a limit. It’s about BALANCE. Balance between eating the right foods and avoiding the wrong ones (processed) as much as possible.

Yeah, you can have processed foods…I’d be lying if I said I NEVER eat processed foods. I just had a PB cup a little while ago actually. 🙂 BUT, for someone trying to lose weight…I think that is a different story.

No, the insulin thing is NOT an all or nothing type thing, I haven’t hung out on a cell and seen first hand how many triglycerides are leaving cells when insulin is spiked in our bodies but I doubt it is very much.

“Ok you called the straw man…check. However, I still contend that even the most precise, type A, anal retentive people are not THAT accurate.”

No, they’re certainly not 100% accurate, they may be accurate to within 5% on intake. Output is where the real variation comes in and that’s where you have to adjust to account for real world results.

“Yes, I’m a paleo (w/ zone) dude…HATE weighing and measuring honestly. Been there done that man…way too frustrating for my personality.

I’m not a low-carb zealot either though…I just believe in eating the RIGHT carbs. Eat all of the veggies you want (with common sense). Fruit too, but to a limit. It’s about BALANCE. Balance between eating the right foods and avoiding the wrong ones (processed) as much as possible.”

There’s certainly nothing wrong with the paleo lifestyle, but the contention that man absolutely WAS NOT meant to have grains is horseshit. As you said, it’s about balance. The more active and insulin sensitive you are, the more carbohydrates you can eat, from any source (though it seems that “low GI” carbs are preferable from a health standpoint).

“Yeah, you can have processed foods…I’d be lying if I said I NEVER eat processed foods. I just had a PB cup a little while ago actually. 🙂 BUT, for someone trying to lose weight…I think that is a different story.”

It’s a different story about 90% of the time. The other 10% can be a little more flexible. For example, if a person trying to lose weight follows their diet for 20 meals out of the week, 1 free meal won’t hurt progress significantly; in fact, it’s been shown to help with diet adherence, which is arguably the most important factor.

“No, the insulin thing is NOT an all or nothing type thing, I haven’t hung out on a cell and seen first hand how many triglycerides are leaving cells when insulin is spiked in our bodies but I doubt it is very much.”

Please don’t think I’m underplaying insulin’s role in weight loss/maintenance/gain because it is critical; note my comment above where I related glycemic load to insulin sensitivity. But save for the case of type II diabetes, hyperinsulinemia probably won’t cause problems (beyond hunger, that tired feeling, and a little craving for carbs) that can’t be solved by a healthy body.

The grains thing…agreed, that’s why I say zone too. I think you have to take the best science of all things to make what works for you. Yes yes, low GL/GI. 🙂

Well, I guess Jordan & Matt beat me to the punch. Seth, please study their responses. If you have any further questions, let me know. Thanks.

Matt — I know the feeling. Thanks for weighing in on the bro-down.

Seth…do you think that insulin is elevated enough while in a caloric deficit to cause fat storage? Another question, if what you say is true, how do natural bodybuilders (myself included along with many of my clients) get to incredibly lean levels with relatively high carb diets (that ignore the GI scale), with high protein and low fat? High protein, non-GI controlled high carb meals spike insulin quite high without the fiber and fat to slow down digestion. If what you are saying is scientific fact then people should not be able to get to 3-5% bodyfat using these protocols….but they do.

What gives?

The explanation for your question is simple…just like in body building and training clients, everyone is slightly different. Some people FOR SURE have different tolerances for carbs and different sensitivities to the effects of insulin. I WISH I drew the genetic winning lottery ticket and was able to be lean while being able to eat all of the refined carbs I wanted. This is true for some people, I know some of these people (I hate these people 🙂 I kid). Like I have said in previous posts, I can reconcile with the whole caloric deficit thing for overall weight loss if your diet is not that great to begin with. Like I’ve also said, for someone that is trying to REALLY lean out (less than 10% body fat), I believe it comes down to more than just trying to set up a caloric deficit. That has been my personal experience.

I at one point had been counting calories, weighing, measuring, the whole 9 and just was stagnant in my pursuits. Cut out refined carbs and processed foods, voila, lost 20 pounds in 2 months. I’ve been doing this whole counting calories thing and caloric deficit for the last 8 years and only in the last year have I actually seen the scale get down to where it was in high school. Not that I was ever really heavy (5’7″ 183 lbs was my top weight – not muscle). Now I’m down to 147 lbs, lean, and I feel great!

I’m really not trying to come on here and tell you guys that the whole counting calories caloric deficit is just total bullocks BUT I will say that I think that there is a little bit more to it than just simply setting up a mathematical equation for a good portion of the population. I think some of the people (Alan included) that have been having this back and forth with me fall into the category of not being extremely sensitive to the effects of insulin. For those people this equation works really well for them. And while maybe everyone disagrees with what I’m saying, I’m just telling you the mechanism of action of one hormone in our body and how it affects us. Like I’ve said before just look up in textbooks what insulin does and how it works, I’m not saying anything that isn’t very well known.

“The explanation for your question is simple…just like in body building and training clients, everyone is slightly different. Some people FOR SURE have different tolerances for carbs and different sensitivities to the effects of insulin. I WISH I drew the genetic winning lottery ticket and was able to be lean while being able to eat all of the refined carbs I wanted. This is true for some people, I know some of these people (I hate these people 🙂 I kid). Like I have said in previous posts, I can reconcile with the whole caloric deficit thing for overall weight loss if your diet is not that great to begin with. Like I’ve also said, for someone that is trying to REALLY lean out (less than 10% body fat), I believe it comes down to more than just trying to set up a caloric deficit. That has been my personal experience.”

I agree, everyone is different. And you’re right, a lot of it does come down to insulin sensitivity/resistance and insulin secretion.

“I at one point had been counting calories, weighing, measuring, the whole 9 and just was stagnant in my pursuits. Cut out refined carbs and processed foods, voila, lost 20 pounds in 2 months. I’ve been doing this whole counting calories thing and caloric deficit for the last 8 years and only in the last year have I actually seen the scale get down to where it was in high school. Not that I was ever really heavy (5′7″ 183 lbs was my top weight – not muscle). Now I’m down to 147 lbs, lean, and I feel great!”

Please reread my first post. I think you’re a perfect example of the anecdote I was talking about, where the person thinks they have a certain output per day but doesn’t. If you were actually weighing and measuring as you say, then that’s the only explanation I can think of. If you were TRULY in a deficit, no amount of insulin could stop weight loss without killing you.

“I’m really not trying to come on here and tell you guys that the whole counting calories caloric deficit is just total bullocks BUT I will say that I think that there is a little bit more to it than just simply setting up a mathematical equation for a good portion of the population. I think some of the people (Alan included) that have been having this back and forth with me fall into the category of not being extremely sensitive to the effects of insulin. For those people this equation works really well for them. And while maybe everyone disagrees with what I’m saying, I’m just telling you the mechanism of action of one hormone in our body and how it affects us. Like I’ve said before just look up in textbooks what insulin does and how it works, I’m not saying anything that isn’t very well known.”

I’m not insulin sensitive in the last (except after a long fasting period) and as I said before, I agree that insulin is a big part of the puzzle, but it’s not the WHOLE puzzle. Where before I wanted to be sure you knew I wasn’t understating insulin’s role in fat loss, now I want you to understand that you’re overstating insulin’s role in fat loss: Insulin’s role in fat loss is HUGE, but it’s far from everything. You seem to be confusing insulin sensitivity with caloric deficit here; even if you go zero-carb (which, by the way, makes you MORE insulin resistant) and you reduce your insulin intake to comparatively near-zero levels (can’t be zero because protein causes a reasonable insulin secretion itself), you’re STILL creating a caloric deficit; it’s quite easy to create a deficit when you cut out an entire macronutrient. You’re just finding a way to create a deficit that works for you and keeps you sated, in the same way that someone who loses weight well on a high-carb diet finds that that keeps them sated; again, yes, this has a lot to do with insulin sensitivity and secretion, but please don’t think that just because you’re keeping your insulin minimized that you’ve somehow sidestepped thermodynamics.

“I WISH I drew the genetic winning lottery ticket and was able to be lean while being able to eat all of the refined carbs I wanted.”

Not “all” of the refined carbs you want. In moderation. Or a small amount. Nobody can eat “all” of the food they want. (Except maybe people with extremely high activity levels.)

For someone trying to get to under 10% body fat, of course they have to be more strict. They have a smaller margin for error.

That’s a poor criticism. Dr. Lustig’s main thesis is NOT that fructose is evil because of what it does metabolically. If you watch his video carefully, you will even hear him say the exact words. His thesis is that fructose is evil because it’s economically evil. Because it is so cheap and unregulated that it made its way into EVERYTHING. And that makes it hard to eat small quantities of it (certainly when every drink that is not water you drink, almost all bread you eat, and most certainly anything “sweet” you eat, and even things like tomato sauce or soups you buy at the grocery store).

Besides, it’s not news to anyone (I would hope) that fructose metabolism is different that glucose. Every medical student or person cursorily interested in human physiology knows that glucose can be used by every cell in the body, while fructose on the other hand must be processed by the liver, and liver is the only organ that can do anything with it.

What it does with fructose is very similar (almost the same) as what it does with alcohol, and as a matter of fact fructose does the same things to your liver as alcohol does (it damages it, and makes it fatty). Yet, because alcohol also affects your brain (unlike fructose) it is regulated substance virtually anywhere in the world. Fructose which does the same thing to your liver on the other hand is added to everything you eat.

Hi, Alan, I’m new to your blog. (There’s a ton of info to try to absorb, lol!) I’m wondering, do you think a keto diet could be best for certain people, or is the whole low carb thing hogwash?

I’m asking because I became obese (BMI of 31) several years after having my kids and have been having the hardest time losing weight. Following a low calorie diet (under 1,400/day) and lots of exercise (2+ hrs/day) to lose weight has worked for me to slowly get weight off, but it’s hard to keep up and I always end up gaining the weight back. I recently tried a keto diet for a month and lost weight, but something weird happened on that diet. I was constantly hungry, so I upped my calories. Even on 2,400+ calories a day (1,000 cals more than usual), I was still hungry. But the weight was still coming off. That makes no sense to me. Is there some explanation for this besides the whole “carbs are fattening” mantra that others might see it as?

Marie — as long as you get your protein requirements covered, the proportion of carb & fat in your diet is dependent upon your personal preference, tolerance, & individual response. If you increased cals on a keto-type plan & kept losing weight, it could have been due to a number of factors, the biggest one being that you were still in an energy deficit, or you were dropping more water weight than before. The whole low-carb thing isn’t hogwash; it just has a better tendency to cover protein needs than the Standard American Diet. This tends to give it an advantage in terms of satiating effect, thermic effect, and preservation of lean mass. Bottm line = if you found what works for you, stick with it.

I’m going to attempt to state an opinion which I feel will be about as constructive and helpful as 99% of the comments on this blog have been:

Your background image made me gain at least thirty fucking pounds and caused at least a sixty percent increase in blockage in my already-diseased heart, brodudehomeskillitmostspectacularg-unit.

Actually Alan is incorrect on some points. For example, according to the US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables, the consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group.

This is a major point that Alan left out.

Secondly, the test to determine if pre-loading on sugar increases appetite did not take into account the time factor. Of course when sugar levels are high, the person will not feel hungry, and indeed will feel quite full. It is only when the sugar levels begin to drop that the hunger cravings return with greater intensity.

There are other holes in Alan’s reasoning that did not address Lustig’s arguments directly, which hopefully people will be able to pick up on.

>> There are other holes in Alan’s reasoning that did not address
>> Lustig’s arguments directly, which hopefully people will be able to
>> pick up on.

To beat the dead horse some more:

indubitably my dear Watson, people WILL indeed note certain holes, a certain GAPING lack …

By the way, your graph is incorrect. It only shows the prevalence of being “overweight”, not obesity. Again, be careful about your sources.

Here is a more thorough graph;

–CDC Trends in Obesity from 1965-2005

In 1960, only about 13% of the population was obese.
In 2005, the number has skyrocketed to about 33%.

This is unprecedented in the history of the world, and the sugar industry is scrambling to hide the correlation to sugar, even resorting to threats against the major health organizations of the world.

–

you’re rehashing arguments that were roundly thrashed eons ago (read the posts above)

>> People who have eliminated processed (free) sugar from their diet
>> report that after a while, once their body readjusts to not taking in
>> so much sugar, they no longer feel the cravings for sugary foods and

“people who have …” my, my, my, how “scientific” and “controlled’ and “randomized” (yes, my sarcasm is scieintific, and controlled, but definitely not randomized)

>> junk foods. They can look at a piece of cake indifferently. It is true,
>>> because I have experienced it myself.

I bet, whether you will ever admit it or not, this is the basis for all you’re writing, and all the verbiage I predict will be forthcoming

And quite a basis, isn’t it? It’s quite a large, nay, a HUMONGOUS controlled intervention study, isn’t it? And being such, it MUST be applied to the entire population. IF THEY WOULD JUST LISTEN !!!!!

Anyway, since the corpuse you’ve presented has been thrashed to within an inch, and you’re following in the footsteps of (yes, you’re showing several of the signs) I’ll take a “pass ” on being @ the receiving end of your monologueing[0]. Good luck with the volumes you’re about to write; Fred Hahn will probably love it (and accuse me of trolling for saying so).

[0] see “the Incredibles”

“I believe it comes down to more than just trying to set up a caloric deficit. ”

Seth, have you heard of the case studies done on children with insulin secretion disorders, who were given 500 calories/day for a month, and still gained weight? When the children were given a medicine to suppress insulin secretion, they immediately began losing weight and their energy and activity increased dramatically.

Dr. Lustig claims he tested this on normal adults with obesity, and discovered the same results. This seems to confirm that the “caloric deficit” approach is not necessarily a shoe-in. I would be curious if you know of where I can find these studies?

.

Davide — Your deadhorse points have all been addressed in this discussion, you may also review the summary, where your points are further addressed: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

Also, the way you attempted to support your argument by citing “The positive testimonies of people all over the internet” tells me that you have not the faintest clue what constitutes strong vs weak evidence. Every time I put sugar in my morning coffee, I chuckle to myself about folks with your utterly neurotic perspective.

Davide — Nice appeal to authority (look it up & familiarize yourself with the logical fallacy). I’m going to guess you fell face-first for Lustig’s appeal to Youtube hits too? Right now now I’m quite literally going to have some coffee with sugar…and chuckle to myself about folks who have nightmares about being chased by sugar cubes.

Mario permalink
April 26, 2010

>> words. His thesis is that fructose is evil because it’s
>> economically evil. Because it is so cheap and unregulated that it
>> made its way into EVERYTHING. And that makes it hard to eat small
>> quantities of it (certainly when every drink that is not water you
>> drink, almost all bread you eat, and most certainly anything

Same thing can be said of corn, soy, wheat & beans – they’ve all gotten cheaper over the last couuple of decades. Note all the cheap food in your grocery stores’ centre ailes – it’s all cheap stuff. So why pin the blame on sucrose, when there’s more wheat and fat being consumed in the pastries that carry the HFCS?

And what if HFCS were not the cheapest sweetener? So what? The world would no longer be obese?

That’s a dubious proposition

the “cheap HFCS” factoid is only true in the US; some US taxes double the price of sucrose (over worldwide prices) in the US.

Without those taxes sucrose would be even cheaper than HFCS.

Basic economics tells you that instead of hfcs in your food, you would probably get the next closest thing or “best substitute that provides the same food engineering properties” – sucrose.

Common sense tells you the same thing – you’re an engineer working at ADM or Pepsi or some other obesity-creating mega-evil-corporation, and HFCS’s price rises, what do you do? Nothing? Heck no – you have to maintain your evilness quotient, so you get on the horn to whoever produces sucrose & secure a supply for your next production run.

Joek, the details/premises of Lustig’s argument are inconsistent with his conclusions (among other errors which you ignored) – which makes his stance that much more convoluted. Thanks for pointing this out. Gimmie a second, I’m gonna go collect my check from the Corn Refiner’s Association, and then sit pretty while you deprive thyself of The Sweet Surprise.

Dr. Lustig finished his sentences with “…, K?” over 370 times in his 90-minute talk, an average of over 4 times per minute. He laid out some good ideas, but good god, that single verbal tic made it impossible to really listen to him.

I just finished this book

Lots of folks posting above would do well to read it (but won’t)

http://www.rburton.com/_i_on_being_certain_i___believing_you_are_right_even_when_you_re_not_63166.htm

Alan,

I’d like to call your attention to the following comment I made recently on futurepundit:

A study was done in 1966 that has not received the attention it deserves. Winitz and Adams researching diets for astronauts created a nutrition mixture and fed it under controlled conditions to a prison population in Vacaville, CA.

At one point the the prisoners complained that the diet was too bland. The researchers had been using glucose rather than sucrose. They changed back to sucrose to the approval of the prisoners. However their daily monitoring of the cholesterol levels of the subject population went up significanly with the sucrose. The diet was changed back to glucose and the cholesterol levels decreased. Back to sucrose and back up they went.

The difference between glucose and sucrose is FRUCTOSE. Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide consisting of one molecule of glucose and one of fructose. The addition of fructose through the use of sucrose raised cholesterol.

I found this out a few years ago from an article by Linus Pauling. It is the only reference to the study I have been able to find on the web aside from the original article available from JAMA which I have not purchased.

Pauling’s article is here: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/Nutrition.htm

The Jama article is here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/196/6/35.pdf

Hopefully one of the commenters or someone else will be able to follow this up. I suspect it may lead to significant progress in understanding the effect of fructose on health.

BTW 4000 IU of Vitamin D/day significantly changed my cholesterol profile for the better as well as reducing my blood pressure back to where it was 10 years ago to 100-120/55-60 from 150-175/90-120 without meds. No longer taking isopril just Vitamin D.

Mike

Alan,

I was groping because it was the only evidence I had seen. Thanks for the further links I will have a look at them and get back to you if I have more to say or ask.

Best,

Mike

Alan Aragon permalink
May 30, 2010
Davide — Nice appeal to authority (look it up & familiarize yourself with the logical fallacy). I’m going to guess you fell face-first for Lustig’s appeal to Youtube hits too? Right now now I’m quite literally going to have some coffee with sugar…and chuckle to myself about folks who have nightmares about being chased by sugar cubes.

Whats that for argument/comeback! sugar stimilates dopamine,so it can be/is addictive. Moderation like davide was talking about is hard for people who already have an addiction/ stopped an adiction or are quickly addicted to stuff.

Doug — Who are you and who do you work for?

“Hold on a second…Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it.”

Fructose does not have glucose attached to it. Yes, sucrose has fructose in it attached to glucose. But straight fructose does not have anything attached…it is a monosaccharide.

Fructose is not metabolized the same as glucose. This is the point. It’s not about carbohydrates in general. We are talking simple, non-nutritious carbs. Sugar, processed grains, etc. Not Fruit. Not whole grains. Not carbs from veggies. Carbs from sugar.

Ludwig makes the comment that fructose and glucose are not the same and that this is what the whole talk is about.

Fructose is the abundant sugar in the diet since HFCS is used in most processed foods. Yes HFCS illicits insulin response because corn syrup has fructose and glucose…BUT the added fructose does NOT illicit an insulin response. However, it does wreak havoc on our system the same way that high blood sugar would…especially for diabetics. We cannot monitor the blood-sugar levels that fructose causes. And if one can understand this biochemistry, then it can be understood that we can’t monitor the fructose half of what sucrose contains because half of it is fructose.

He makes the comment that HFCS is just as bad as sucrose. This is true. However, I would have to say that HFCS is worse because of the added fructose.

Either way, Lustig may have some flaws here and there or maybe just points that are not clearly made, but the whole point is that fructose in excess is damaging to our health. This is not too difficult to understand.

There are always exceptions. For example, a high performance athlete or very active person could benefit from a small amount of fructose. But for the majority of the population this does not apply.

We have become so out-of-tune with what we need naturally. We have demonized real food like grassfed meat and raw milk and animal fats in general. Instead we have shifted to unaturally occuring supplements, oils from plants that were never meant to be extracted and processed junk food labeled as “healthy.” Refined sugar and grains are fairly new to mankind compared to our time of existence. The point is that when everthing that is being consumed by many people (if not most) contains ingredients that are unnatural to our metabolic system (every cell metabolizes) we are going to have problems. This includes refined sugar and HFCS. HFCS is just an extension of unnatural processing of sugar cane.

“On the contrary, bananas, grapefruits, Mandarin oranges, apples, grapes, watermelons, pears, persimmons, peaches, and strawberries are significant staples of the Japanese diet [17]”

NO. I’ve lived in Japan and most people over there treat fruits as an occasional treat, not a staple. A pound of strawberries here might cost 3 dollars but in Japan it can be as a high as 10 dollars for a pound.

Well..i am 35. healthy. 175 lbs 6 ft, ~22 bmi. never ate sugary substance. hardly any soda. Ate Cereals, mostly Honey nut cheerios (now i don’t see HFCS in it, but i guess it used to have it) for 10 years. Now I have Fatty liver. how do you explain that?

DC — Could be a number of factors at play in your development of fatty liver. You should talk to your doctor about that.

I agree that condemning fructose as the sole cause for obesity is silly, though it has been proven to be a detrimental part of the American diet. People need something to blame in order to feel encouragement and reassurance. I also believe that we need to step back and look at our food culture as a whole. How did fructose become a problem? The American food system is at fault. The way food is produced and the amount that is produced have caused food to transform farther and farther from it’s natural state. Why has food production become the way it is today? Americans want and expect food to be convenient. What we need to do is look at the big picture, but most people are afraid to blame themselves and so look for someone or something else to blame.

Robert Lustig has opened my eyes to the ways in which our most trusted authorities on nutrition, such as the FDA and the USDA have failed for the last 30 years to deliver scientifically valid information. I believe that though consumers are ultimately responsible for their own health, it’s important to educate the public as much as possible about what they are consuming. I think one of the best ways to do this is to start with children in schools. As a California resident, I’ve witnessed the gradual degradation of our public education system for the past 12 years and have noted not the increasingly bad quality of school lunches. There is a severe lack of nutritionally viable food due to the industrialization of our food system. I can personally connect to Lustig’s mention of mothers on WIC receiving foods so high in fructose e.g. juice, that it has caused an epidemic of obese infants. After my father died, my mother enrolled in WIC and food stamps to support her six children. Looking back on what the government handed out to us, I realize that the food was usually of poor quality: overly processed and high in fat and sugar. Similar handouts can be seen through the history of Native American reservations. As the government took away native hunting and foraging grounds and continuously pumped “white food” such as white flour, lard, sugar, etc. into the diets of these people, rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc. skyrocketed. Franz Boas’ observation of Plains Indians who exceeded the health of white settlers are certainly not applicable today, where the words “Native American” are synonymous are obesity and type II diabetes. In spite of the failures of the government’s food policy, I will stress again that I am in no way blaming everything on the institutions and corporations that currently mandate what goes onto our plates. What I am advocating, alongside Robert Lusting, is greater accessibility and education about what we are eating.

I liked your post a lot and agree with many of the points you make. What was very unconvincing to me too was the failure to mention the effect of the great increase in caloric consumption in recent years as a large factor in weight gain. Even though Lustig backs up a lot of his points with science, it seems to me like he uses these points almost as a substitute for other key facts and information. I felt like the scientific breakdown about how a calorie is not just a calorie and how glucose and fructose affect the body and contribute to fat accumulation differently was interesting but a little overwhelming. I can see many people getting lost in the science of it all and just accepting all of Lustig’s points without thinking about other factors for why obesity is currently such a problem. Also, it is hard for me to accept his ideas when so much blame is just placed on one part of the diet. There are so many factors and reasons for weight gain and saying that one simple carbohydrate is so heavily responsible is quite a huge claim. In all, I really appreciated this analysis and how this post broke down Lustig’s good points and his weaker arguments.

I agree that the claims by Lustig seemed sensationalized. Really, the minutae of exactly how many grams of fructose you should eat per day (whether maximum or minimum) seems rather trivial. Really, the focus should be less on the one demon nutrient in the Western Diet and more on how to eat healthily overall, as Michael Pollan states in “Food Rules” (which is an excellent book, by the way.) Almost everything is okay for you in moderation–that includes fructose. And the way to stay away from the “demon” part of fructose is to stay away from the extremely processed foods, which are full of added sugars in various disguises with various names. I think the demonization of a single nutrient is beside the point; in general, we people in the US eat terribly, cutting out whole foods and replacing them with processed “foodlike substances”. It’s the entire Western Diet that needs to be revolutionized…not the presence or absence of fructose, fat, or any other specific nutrient in our diets.

I forgot about another possibly beneficial attribute of fructose. It actually lowers blood insulin levels. The wiki on Fructose says that some doctors consider it a safe sweetner for diabetics.

Chris Shaker

You can get more interesting data on Fructose from the “Medscape Medical News” website. You’ll need a free account to access the articles.

http://cme.medscape.com/medscapetoday

This article seemed interesting, saying that “Intake of fructose has increased in the typical US diets to more than 10% of energy intake”

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/577279

“Dr. Vos and colleagues note that fructose consumption may play a role in health outcomes. High fructose intake has been linked to increased de novo lipogenesis in the liver as well as increased plasma triglyceride levels, insulin resistance, and obesity. In short-term studies, fructose intake increases plasma triglyceride levels in healthy adults. Although no studies to date have looked at the effect of fructose feeding on triglyceride levels in children, there have been reports of correlations between fructose intake and plasma lipid levels.

In children aged 6 to 19 years, dietary sucrose has been linked to increased plasma triglyceride and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. Total fructose intake in normal-weight and overweight children was a significant predictor of smaller low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particle size, which in turn has been linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. On the basis of their review of the literature, the investigators suggest that there may be a threshold level for the effects of fructose.”

…

“Other negative effects of fructose consumption include increased levels of serum uric acid, indirectly contributing to hypertension and cardiovascular disease and directly related to the risk for gout in men. Consumption of soft drinks has been associated with the development of cardiometabolic risk factors and the metabolic syndrome in participants in the Framingham Study.

“Compared to other sugars, fructose worsens levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid, [which] may accelerate heart disease risk,” Dr. Dansinger concluded. “The best approach is to stick as much as possible to a whole-foods diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, and healthy proteins. Avoid foods with added sugars.”

This article agrees with what the Wikipedia entry on Fructose says about malabsorption problems some people have with Fructose

Fructose Intolerance, Malabsorption a Common Culprit in Pediatric Abdominal Pain
http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/731472

“In the study of 245 patients between the ages of 2 and 18 years with unexplained chronic abdominal pain, researchers from Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital and Health Center, in Tacoma, Washington, gave patients a standard dose of fructose (1 g/kg, to a maximum of 25 g), followed by a breath hydrogen test, which measured methane levels at 30-minute intervals for 90 minutes. The researchers found that the test was positive for fructose intolerance in 132 of the patients (53.9%).”
…
“Using a standard pain scale for children, the researchers found that after at least 3 months on the low-fructose diet, 88 of the 132 patients (67.7%) with fructose intolerance showed a resolution of symptoms. Among the 113 patients who tested negative for fructose intolerance, 54 (47.8%) reported a resolution of symptoms without a low-fructose diet, but investigator Rasha Saeed, MD, observed that the findings underscore the potential benefits of weaning patients from fructose.”

Chris Shaker

Brian – How much of increase in fructose grams in today’s fruits vs the fruits of yore are we talking about? Links to scientific (Pubmed-indexed) references would be appreciated.

Andreas — Do yourself a favor & read this carefully, it’s probably more important than the original article I wrote.

Dave — Even if you’ve found a loophole in the linked ERS data that supports the idea that sugar is down but HFCS is up, this still doesn’t mean that the ratio of fructose-to-glucose in the diet has significantly increased (which isn’t hard to fathom since sucrose & HFCS have similar proportions of fructose).

Village Idiot — I think you’re not realizing the problem with Lustig’s lecture. He’s misleading people into missing the forest by focusing on one of its trees. Read this summary for more clarity:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

Village idiot — Did you read the link I provided? The big picture is there. Regarding the HFCS in your bread, do you realize that certain zealot factions would berate you for eating bread in the first place? They are just as bad as HFCS alarmists (these folks are in the same boat), but that’s another topic. Have you looked at the sugar content of your bread? Chances are it’s about one gram per slice. This means that even liberally speaking, you’d be consuming 0.5-1g fructose per slice. Unless you eat 20 sandwiches a day, your bread will not be a major fructose contributor to your diet.

Village — In case you missed it, I posted the best you’re gonna get to a 3rd party assessment of the topic, links to recent reviews indexed in Pubmed.

As for the preservative aspects, I haven’t looked into that, and can’t seem to generate enough motivation or interest to do so. If you find anything legitimate, feel free to share it.

It’s a “freshness” preservative in that it helps retain moisture, just like sugar does.

Hi Alan,

So I saw that a can of Fanta Orange has 44g of sugar. If 55% of that is fructose then one can has 24.2g of fructose. Two cans is 48.4g of fructose. I saw no other sugars listed in the ingredients.

If I did this right and if I interpreted the below statement posted earlier in this blog then two cans of that soda almost max out my safe limit of fructose…. or did I get something wrong?

<<>>

Thanks

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
Posted March 22, 2010; 10:00 a.m.

share | e-mail | print
by Hilary Parker

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”
In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.

There is more but I didn’t copy it.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
Copied from Princeton website.

The food manufactures never did long term(30-40 year) human studies. We are their study and they seem to be ignoring the results.

Well, I heard Dr. Lustig speak a 40minute version of this just 3 nights ago in person. He has updated it a bit and added some other information. As many have pointed out, he’s a dynamic speaker. Like many, I was enthused to get some bio-chemistry and political and economic (corporate interests )context around a major additive to the food supply.

I have shared the infamous YouTube video with some folks and stumbled here. I’ve read the entire years worth of comment/debate — ego, and passion.

There are many theories and a lot of science hanging out there in the world. No one, no one has it all put together. (including Dr. Lustig) A ‘single theory’ is not in play. I’ve worked with a bio-chemistry expert/clinician (Orthomolecular doctor, now in his late 70’s), he has diagrams as complex as Dr Lustig’s and is one of the leading experts on methylation. Over my head. The proof is whether or not as a clinician, these guys can help patients, and whether as researchers and thinkers – they can advance science and discussion. In that, Dr. Lustig has been successful.

What has been troubling for me, from the anti-Lustig camp, has been lack of response to the mostly mild posters who have said, (paraphrase coming) “even if he isn’t 100% on the mark, his voice is making a contribution” Every time that type of point is asserted, Alan comes on to say “but he’s an alarmist nevertheless and must be put in check” (again, paraphrase) Alan, I know you acknowledge some of this in the original blog article, but it might be helpful if you could do a little side-update talking about the broad aspects of Dr Lustig’s contribution that you support? What you think he got right? And if you think he’s doing more good than harm? EVEN if you still believe some of his remarks or style of delivery to be “alarmist”, and needlessly so? It feels skewed now that you essentially want to refute him entirely, did I get that wrong?

It took quite some time in the thread for a very important set of comments to be put in to the discussion (which also seem to be totally non-responded to by the anti-Lustig camp). Dr. Lustig made some big assertions and interpretations, he also put out facts on the science front. But he also talked about culture, economics, corporate interests, govts role or lack-there-of — you cannot talk about anything related to the food supply without talking about profit motive. You just can’t. And none of the anti-Lustig commentators have responded to that aspect of the discussion at all?

I thank Scott Jenkins for his contribution to this thread, if for no other reason than we needed some balance from the more ‘animated crowd’! The Pro Lustig camp was a lot more tame than the anti-Lustig camp! 🙂

I’m not here to say “I believe” or don’t believe. I’m not a scientist. Like many who have popped up in this thread, I’m a citizen with my own set of health issues, and my own specific journey spanning a lot of years now, trying to cobble together some insights and understanding about matters of health, nutrition. I have worked with variety of healers and so-called experts from eastern disciplines and western.

I heard a famous academic once, say, “there are facts, there are assertions and there are interpretations…” And I always try to use that filter to assess things no matter how passionate or compelling the delivery.

It is impossible for anyone to make an argument or take a position devoid of pre-influence. So no one in this conversation is truly objective.

I thank this thread for taking me off my excitement factor of Dr. Lustig, and helping me to begin to think more critically. I think I knew when I heard him speak the other night, that he was just poking at one thin piece of a big complicated picture. The audience was over 50% MDs and scientists and he was well received btw.

As just a personal observation — there also seem to generally, broadly to be two camps — the ‘moderation’ and the “black n white” camps. I’m not sure Alan’s original assertion that its about “dosage context” matters. Because even if its correct as it shines on the science, there really isn’t any reason I can think of that human beings need processed food additives at all? Is there a Unique benefit? Is there something manufacturing and modern science is offering that nature didn’t already provide for? Or that the modern world mitigates against?

Dr. Ludwig said something interesting in the talk that wasn’t on the YouTube. He pointed out how hard it is for socio-economically challenged people to be given options so that they can choose whether or not have an Apple vs a Snickers or a bread that is just multi-grain flower vs bleached processed wheat with HFCS and other additives? He made the insight that in Detroit, HQ for the grocery chain Kroegers, there isn’t a single Kroeger’s in Detroit?! If the outcome of Dr. Lustig’s hyperbolic talk, lead to nothing more than inner-city poor children getting organic apples and whole grain bread in lieu of snickers and pop tarts — and if it helped more ravaged urban landscapes turning in to community gardens so that people could re-learn that food comes from the earth not from a box or can or plastic wrapper in a store — if his message leads us there — isn’t he making an important contribution?

There’s a lot more than science in his lecture.

Anyway — I don’t think I have any special insights to add to this discussion — but I will say I’ve yet to hear anyone forward an explanation about the obese 6 month olds? This was one of Scott Jenkins strongest points??!

I personally think Dr. Lustig is making an important contribution. He’s passionate. And he’s just one guy combining research with clinical work. He has a theory, there’s some strong science in there and a deep deep (especially for an academic MD) discussion of the business interests and govt. regulator coopting and historical context — that adds to the other discussions that have been out there for a while now in the alternative food crowd.

I don’t drink juice or soda and haven’t for a long time. I don’t eat fast food, haven’t for decades. But I’m always trying to churn — add info, update info, drop info — and there is the what I call “common sense” gauge. Does something sort of seem reasonable or not? Struck me that a lot of his assertions were reasonable. I’m not qualified to say whether they were all factually sound or not, and I appreciate the vigorous debate in this thread that call some of it in to question.

The 100% accuracy as to whether or not having any amount of HFCS seems besides the point. Some of Alan and his team have possibly (Jenkins kind of blew some of you up a bit) punched some holes around that. But is that important in the bigger picture?

I’m going to assume that no one in this conversation has ever been paid by anyone with a stake in keeping HFCS in the food supply. I have no easy way to determine that. I’ll assume the best of intentions.

I think the goal for most people, is to function well and learn enough of what can be known, to make good choices. I lean in the direction of the least amount of time from the earth to my plate. No chemicals please. No GMO please. No irradiation please. Let cows eat grass. Let them roam free. And if as part of our cultural rituals and celebration we enjoy things recreationally that might cause dis-equillibrium to our systems…hormonal disregulation on occasion — well – few of us are going to run like fine machines 24-7 for a lifetime.

I think part of what resonates in a talk like Dr. Lustig’s is the political and corporate interests context. It makes us, joe-citizen feel vulnerable to powerful forces that care about our money not our well-being.

Does anyone need HFCS? Can good health be maintained without it? If the answer is “yes”, (yes, good health can maintained with out it, and no, we don’t need it in the food supply) then why argue over whether Dr Lustig is spot-on vs alarmist at all? Isn’t our attention better spent promoting things that are unequivocal?

No need to point me to links. I’ve read the entire thread thus far.

It would help me if the strongest anti-Lustig voices in this thread over the last year could say a few things regarding:

6 month olds and obesity?
HFCS and corporate interests?

I believe there is far too much fluidity between corporate entities and govt agency entities. A lot of movement back n forth there. I don’t trust the FDA or USDA. I don’t trust a lot of large bodies that put out the press releases and reports to the mainstream media either.

IMHO dogma is dangerous. I live in a region where every kind of approach to food and nutrition is discussed ad nauseum. Slow-Food, Raw, Paleo, Vegan, Flexitarian, Weston Price informed, Ayurvedic informed, Ancient Chinese informed, anti-grains, anti-dairy, anti-sugar, macrobiotic, on and on and on. Some say we’re all alike as humans, and others say we’re all so different — different genetics, different blood constitution. Ph Balance in the blood matters, no it doesn’t. We’re designed to eat like our ancestors who were nomads, no, we’re agrarian. Raising crops conicided with class — Pharoahs ate diverse food, slaves building pyramids got a bowl of mushy starchy carb loading …

Oh, that guy Ferris — the 4 hour body or whatever — he was a speaker at this event as well, he came on after Lustig — didn’t seemed too pleased. Had a very different discussion/perspective. Good stuff.

I don’t think btw, that Dr. Lustig left the thread because he couldn’t defend his position, I think guys like that aren’t interested in winning an internet debate, where the debate itself becomes more important. He’s interested in his work. Is he biased? Of course he is. Is he passionate? No doubt. This isn’t the kind of forum he can thrive in. I think he tried, at first to respond. Some of that was rejected. This guy isn’t an experienced online debater, but he’s a smart doc and in total — when you step back and go — does his talk do more harm or more good? Does it get important conversations going? And is there some important science to look at? Science that calls for more research? More studies? And did he begin to put down a historical, economic, corporate, social, political context — I think the answers are yes yes and yes.

That’s what I end up with. I would never tell anyone to turn of their critical thinking and again, for that I thank this thread. But no one here has convinced me that he is harmful nor making a positive contribution. That’s the bottom line for me.

It’s daunting. And in conclusion — I’m grateful for this thread, to keep me on my toes, to keep me from just taking anything Dr Lustig’s talk said at face value with no critical eye, but in total, I feel he’s making a contribution and doing more good than harm. I suspect he himself in 10 years will have refined his theory further.

Good health.

Hi Alan – i’m going to repost my question that was not answered. Perhaps it wasn’t asnwered becuase it ended up in two posts. Maybe it was a stupid question!

Here it is:

So I saw that a can of Fanta Orange has 44g of sugar. If 55% of that is fructose then one can has 24.2g of fructose. Two cans is 48.4g of fructose. I saw no other sugars listed in the ingredients.

If I did this right and if I interpreted the below statement posted earlier in this blog then two cans of that soda almost max out my safe limit of fructose…. or did I get something wrong?

“Technically, it wouldn’t violate the AHA’s recommendations if someone’s entire discretionary kcals came from sugar, which in the case of 401 kcals is about 100g, which equates to 50g fructose, which brings us right back to the exact number I listed as the upper safe limit in my original article.”

Thanks

BTW – I’ve noticed that you send people to your summary page about this debate. You should realize that it comes across as an entirely biased summary and does nothing to clarify the debate.

One does not take it seriously when one sees phrases like:

“he responded by preaching to me more of his gospel”

“still find yourself fumbling over groundless claims.”

“Fred Hahn brought his classic carbophobic flair”

“Ardent sugarphobe David Gillespie”

i’m not trying to be a jerk here – just trying to filter through the emotion

Alan – Your summary did not rub me the wrong way – my emotions are not involved in this discussion. The summary does nothing to cut through the ego-driven drivel that tends to happen on every blog – in this case, it just reorganizes to it. I’m just suggesting that you should not expect people to see things differently after looking at your summary. I am NOT saying you are wrong.

In terms of the soda, I was not asking about the soda for my own sake, I was just curious about what is “generaly” safe. I can imagine a lot of kids easily drinking 2 cans a day plus getting plenty more fructose from other sources. I wonder if 50g is “safe” for a 10 year old.

Village — I’m not sure how you’re arriving at the conclusion that the summary just “reorganizes the ego-driven drivel.” I engaged in 2 main debates in the discussion of this topic. One of the debates was me vs Lustig. The other debate was me vs Gillespie. The summary linked you straight to each debate & gives an accurate assessment of what transpired in each debate. Is it really that tough to see this? As for your closing question, I’ll quote myself (note the bold): “Figuring that both sides are biased, the middle figure between the two camps is roughly 50 grams for active adults.”

Hate to rain on your parade, Alan, but your facts are actually 100% wrong. Don’t tune me out yet!

First, when did Dr. Lustig ever say carbs were a key factor in the problems of the modern diet? In fact, and if you follow his lengthy interview on livinglalocarbvida.com site, he says JUST THE OPPOSITE. He doesn’t view a low carb diet as effective, since it’s a red herring.

Secondly, you point out his “no fructose” Atkins/Japanese diet point. He never states that fructose does not exist in the Japanese diet. Wow. You’re just being really lazy here… He says that the natural state of sugars in these diets is NOT REMOVED through modern industrial processing, as it is in Western diets today. The sugars are absorbed along with the fiber in these foods because it is not refined, and separated from said foods. Therefor it is digested normally, and in a healthy fashion compared to refined sugars in foods.

What’s hard to understand about that and why are you so blatantly incorrect on the basic facts and understanding of this well presented lecture?

You seem to argue at length based on gross errors in fact, and worse a casual support of industrialized, processed foods.

Sorry, but your argument is completely bogus.

For those people who don’t belive that sugar is the bigger culprit than fat, you are all nuts. keep eating your high carbohydrate diets, and keep getting fat, keep getting heart disease, and keep getting type 2 diabetes.

Yes, lifestyle has changed in the last few decades. Yes, people are more sedentary… So wouldn’t that mean that you would LOWER the amount of foods that are more quickly digested into your body? Wouldn’t you want to eat more protein and fats, which cause sateity and keep you fuller longer?

Even if some of the points Dr. Lustig makes are a bit extreme and biased, in my opinion, his general idea is correct. When was the last time the Food Industry and FDA did something and promote something that actually benefitted the public? The world, especially North America, has become controlled by the Food and drug Industry. What ever happened to preventative measures? This high carb diet has been implemented for about 50 years now, and has anything gotten any better? The answer is NO, and that should tell you guys something. Open up your eyes. It is plain facts that fat and protein consumption has not changed, and maybe even gone down over the years, yet there is increase is heart disease and diet related illnesses.

It is well known that not all students in class a brilliant, so it seems that most of these (not brilliant) students having meeting here!? Please run back to school and start again, before this watch the presentation again!

I have just come across the article and this discussion and it has taken me 30mins just to skim through it. Thank you Alan and to all the other thought provoking and enlightening comments. I look forward to reading through your other articles.

“Univariate causation thinking seems to be very attractive to lots of folks, when a multivariate approach is required. The attraction to univariate seems universal, but especially bad in “health circles” ”

Yes because univariant causes don’t enrich corporate america

Hi Alan. Your original critique of Lustig’s speech was mostly about the weak support for his claims of a causal link between fructose and obesity. But you said nothing about his explanations of sugar metabolism and its effects on the liver and other parts of the body – or about any other part of the speech, for that matter. Can this be taken to mean you had no issues with the video beyond what you listed? If the rest is on the level, it seems that, obesity aside, there are still serious problems with fructose (diabetes, hypertension, cirrhosis, etc.). I know, context and dosage and all that. But the question remains: at any dosage, are these processes happening the way Lustig says or aren’t they?

David — You’re (incorrectly) ascribing proportional changes to the absolute difference in kcal intake.

Mike — To quote you, “I know, context and dosage and all that. But the question remains: at any dosage, are these processes happening the way Lustig says or aren’t they?” To answer that I’d say it depends on the actual scenario. For people who are sustaining an unused calorie surplus & are sedentary, I’d say that these processes are more likely to occur. But then again, the singling-out of fructose as the “arch enemy” in this scenario is yet another one of the ways people are being misled. So it ALL goes back to dosage & context.

Hi, I agree with the Dr that sugar is very dangerous to health and that it will be compulsory required to use the natural one in stead of industrial. Thank you a lot, hope people will know it and practice it.

I am impressed that you take the time to respond to almost every “argument” that is ported here.

Thank you for defending reason. People want easiliy identifiable good guys and bad guys, but reality is often much more complex.

As paracleasus(spelling?) would say, the dose makes the toxin.

The little I understand about nutrition comes from having studied some biochemistry years ago and browsing around websites after bumping into Taube’s recent NYT article.

My takeaway from Lustig’s video, fwiw, was that refined sugar input, i.e. without the accompanying fibre, is akin to alcohol input – plain and simple. And that there was compelling evidence that sugar intake correlates throughout history with the increase in CVD.

What’s the fuss with all of the straw man arguments that you felt compelled to raise?

I’m also curious to know why you are dismissing Taube with such force in your April 5th article.

Fwiw I’ve been feasting on a nightmare diet for the past 30 years, consisting in potatoes, veggies, eggs, fish and meat, combined with untold quantities of butter, olive oil, sour cream and cheese, essentially no exercise beyond walking to the grocery, zero pasta (hate the stuff), zero sugar (hate that too), and zero ready-made food.

Speaking as a scientist, Taube and Lustig made perfect sense as to why I’ve a BMI that borders on unhealthily skinny, while my mom’s BMI (who, lately, has been worried about eating healthy) is increasing by the month, and my father’s BMI (who stopped eating sugar after a heart attack) is shooting down on a diet of cheese (can’t live without it), chicken and greens.

The straw man arguments you linked to in your April 5th reply (or those in your own article, I must confess) did not… I salute that author’s effort to explain what insulin is and does, and your own to put Lustig’s research in a broader context. But I’m afraid everyone seems to have some kind of agenda, and you both completely missed to discuss what I took away from Taube’s two NYT articles (and which I knew intuitively anyway): that easy to break carbohydrates such as pasta and refined cereals end up digested too quickly, and that fat in meals help the body know it’s satiated.

From Lustig’s last post more than a year ago:
“I could go on, but our manuscript in Nature Reviews, entitled “The role of fructose in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome” will speak for itself in due course.”

Did he get his paper out (through peer review)?

What I have in mind with my last posting, is not a call for unhealthy eating habits but rather just an example how anecdotal evidence has no value what so ever. I’m no specialist but I think that in my case it’s genetic as my father has also been quite skinny all his life (and he’s now 85 and still in extremely good shape) and we’ve never had any conscious “healthy eating” in our family. I just eat what pleases me most…

Somite,

Thanks for the answer about the paper.

But what in what I wrote do you consider as arguing from anecdotes? I don’t think I’m arguing anything other than neither Denis’ nor my example is a proof of anything?!

Hi, I think you didn’t see the all video because in the last half he says fruit is no problem (only fructose alone). And you miss the point of desserts ( he was talking about italian food not japanese).

If I consume fiber with some botulinum, is it still technically a poison? Castor beans contain enough fiber along with ricin and fructose. Perhaps Dr. Lustig owes his viewers a profuse apology.

Interesting blog. This would take days to read.

Sounds like Lustig and Aragon both made good points;

Lustig is convinced that fructose consumption leads to metabolic syndrome (for various reasons including de novo fat synthesis in the liver, and interference with ghrelin, and leptin), but that glucose consumption would not.

Aragon seems to be pushing the point that labeling fructose as a “poison” is a little extreme considering the lack of controlled studies on humans.

I agree. But I understand why Dr. Lustig would say “poison”; to get people to pay attention.

It’s true that fructose is not a poison if eaten in moderate amounts. Lustig, however, concedes that. He says that it is a toxin after “1000 meals” when eaten in excessive quantities.