I am seeing people get stuck on Robert Lustig's (and most nutritionists and other chemists') analysis of sugar as being the cause of obesity and diabetes and 'turning into fat.'
Clearly, this kind of thinking is misled. I think by now we have all seen many lay people (including myself!) countering Lustig's argument by saying 'I eat lots of sugar and I'm lean'.
However, this isn't enough for some people, who see Lustig's fancy presentations and molecular-level explanations of exactly how sugar is metabolized, and they just can't see it any other way, regardless of the whole-human-organism-level results.
So I have been wondering... Where is the chemistry that proves Lustig wrong? We have large quantities of anecdotal evidence that shows sugar doesn't turn to fat (30bad is a testimony to that) and we have dr barnard showing that people reverse diabetes on high carb diets, and dr mcdougall showing that people prevent heart disease on high carb diets... but what about someone showing the chemistry of why sugar does not in fact turn to fat? where is the chemistry that shows fructose is good for you? is there someone out there debunking lustig with actual chemical, molecular evidence that his theories are wrong?
Obviously I'm aware that sugar is good for me. But I need this information to help family members who are stuck in this line of thinking. Anything helps.
Replies
thank you rowland, also very helpful. After all this discussion, I suppose this is what I can tell me Lustig-obsessed family:
I have many major issues regarding his presentation unrelated to his analysis of fructose, such as his suggestion to 'read up' on the paleo diet, but whenever I bring these things up, the person I want to help says "I just want to learn from him because I want to understand the metabolism of sugar." This is all well and good, but I just feel like this can be dangerous because the source is so biased- learning about sugar metabolism from dr. lustig is like learning about environmental preservation from an automobile manufacturer.
It makes me frustrated to no end to see lustig on so many documentaries about the decline of health in modern society- why are people listening to him when he himself is an example of this health decline? Does no one else see his bigness?! obviously it doesn't make him a bad person or anything, but why do people go to him about the issue of how to be healthy? are we blind? I think DR has it right, people like to hear good things about their bad habits. Just keep eating steak and eggs and drinking milk, as long as you don't have a glass of orange juice alongside!
All these documentaries about the obesity epidemic, the diabetes epidemic, etc. focus on sugar consumption like 90% of the time. Low-carb meat diets are lauded as 'having good amounts of protein' and being 'a proper balance of nutrients.' Disgusting.
Hi Dylan, as much as we try, it is impossible to look at single nutrients in isolation. When we consume whole unprocessed foods, we get hundreds of nutrients all in their proper proportions and working in concert with each other to nourish our human factory. It is when substances foreign to our bodies are invented, such as high fructose corn syrup, that problems emerge. Science studies nutrients in relative isolation because otherwise there would be too many variables to consider and try to make sense of. But as a result, the conclusions are often wrong, as evidenced by all the confusion regarding nutrition out there. Ask your relatives if fructose from fruit is so bad, then why is it the primary energy source for sperm :) The human body is perfectly capable of handling the fructose coming from fruit found raw in nature. It is a perfect match for our nutrient requirements. That can't be said for HFCS. This probably is not the answer you are looking for. I guarantee the kids Lustig studies that are fat and diabetic aren't fruit munchers, but stuffing down processed foods and drinks. Lustig himself doesn't look too trim, with his fatty neck and apparent lack of energy. He even said in the beginning of that video that the Adkins diet is all good, and we all know how that worked out for Adkins.
I would rather listen to people walking the walk, than talking the talk. All I want is be an example of health and fitness to the world, and to feel good about myself. Because in the end that is all that matters, and is what others will be convinced by. Not a few chemical reactions on a chalk board.
Thank you celine and others for your excellent assistance here! Right now we have great explanations as to why we are RIGHT about sugar. we can help even more people by giving an explanation rivaling Lustig's in complexity and detail as to why he is WRONG. When I am talking to my family about eating sugar and they say "but lustig says..." what part of his deep scientific analysis can I point to and say "that's where he's wrong"?
If you watch 'sugar: the bitter truth' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM from 57:45 to 1:04:25 you will see what I'm talking about. He offers a step by step analysis of every single teeny tiny chemical reaction that takes place between fructose consumption and fat gain. I am looking for an explanation of comparable depth to show how his analysis is wrong.
he does not mention, and gives no reason that the reactions he shows would occur any differently depending on the fat content of blood. is that where he's wrong? if so, why? what exactly changes? or is it something else entirely that makes his analysis irrelevant?
Ah yes, which leads us to the discussion of refined sugar. According to Harley (who is an expert on sugar in the sense that he consumes it in mass quantities) even consuming refined sugar would not cause the problems that lustig claims.
we might say that this only works for harley because he also doesn't consume fat, but lustig's molecular-level analysis does not seem to depend on any presence or absence of fat to be relevant.
either lustig's understanding of chemistry is wrong, or harley is on the way to diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and gout. harley says 'sugar is slimming food.' i have heard him mention that eating only coca cola and skittles will not ever make you fat. these two men can't both be right. what gives?
Lustig stated high levels of fructose raises triglyceride levels ..amoung other horrible things!... but he was tallking about consuming HFCS and not fruit.
Fruit is different than consuming high fructose corn syrup because it contains fiber.
Therefore, the presence of fiber in fruit has a key role in the breakdown of fructose. However, unfortunately, Lustig did not get into the biochemistry of it, but I'd llike to know-what's up with fiber's role in fruit which prohibits it from raising our trigrlyceride levels?
Yes, he claims that fructose, which basically makes up half of HFCS, causes obesity when unaccompanied by the fiber in fruit. But if this were true, then Harley is wrong about refined sugar, which he claims will never make you fat. And I tend to believe him, it seems intuitive to me. Harley says he has in the past experimentally eaten as much refined sugar as possible in a desperate attempt to get himself to gain weight from it but it just doesn't happen. So, a theory has got to go.
Does anyone here believe they would get fat from adding unlimited refined sugar to their diets? I haven't tried, but I kind of think not. Perhaps I'm wrong.
for the record, lustig says that fruit is ok but it's clear he thinks consuming it is a bad idea. he says the fiber causes it to digest slowly, and carbs digesting slowly (according to him) cause gas. "in life, you've got two choices:" he says... "fat, or fart."
Sedentary people on this lifestyle are losing weight eating more calories than before, its because they are eating less fat/less animal products/less processed foods & more carbohydrates which are slimming foods because they hardly get stored as fat on the body.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next