I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[robblok]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

Really?   Interesting about the healthy bacteria. I didn't know that.  I use probiotics for that but always wonder if they are doing anything beneficial or if I'm just being scammed because they are SO expensive, and when they talk about BILLIONS of colony building unts, it just sounds a little too much like marketing mumbo jumbo...but I guess I'm just too lazy to know for sure so I just use them like multi-vitamins (which is another thing I always wonder about in terms of whether they make a difference or not.)

I take kefir (make my own) for the bacteria and then you need to feed them the right stuff. That means certain fibers. I am not sure but a lot of research on the bacteria in the gut is as interesting as your fasting research. The problem is I have not really seen much change in me. 

 

But that is the problem with all those things they claim benefits and its hard to really pin down if you are getting them. 

 

 

[WaveHunter]

57 minutes ago, robblok said:

I take kefir (make my own) for the bacteria and then you need to feed them the right stuff. That means certain fibers. I am not sure but a lot of research on the bacteria in the gut is as interesting as your fasting research. The problem is I have not really seen much change in me. 

 

But that is the problem with all those things they claim benefits and its hard to really pin down if you are getting them. 

 

 

Yeah, you make a great point; there's just not enough time in the day to pin down the validity all of these different things that may or may not contribute to health.  That's why I just take a multi-vitamin and a probiotic pill daily without feeling the need to know the underlying science.  I've considered kefir too but haven't really tried it yet (though I think I might). 

 

I'm also a big fan of green tea, not so much because I know anything that much about the underlying science but because I admire Japanese culture, and green tea seems to be a big part of it (not to mention fermented foods).

 

There is no denying that Japanese people are among the healthiest people on the face of the earth in terms of resistance to obesity, not to mention having good metabolic health in general.  I think their culture has a lot to do with that, compared to the culture of most Western countries which promote poor metabolic health.

 

Sometimes it's not such a bad idea to accept things on face value rather than needing to understand the underlying science. 

Edited May 22, 2019 by WaveHunter

[FracturedRabbit]

Just watched an interesting (to me) video about the need for fibre, or rather than an absence of need. I know people who eat zero fibre (carnivores) and they seem to do just fine. 

 

 

 

[robblok]

12 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Just watched an interesting (to me) video about the need for fibre, or rather than an absence of need. I know people who eat zero fibre (carnivores) and they seem to do just fine. 

 

 

 

I think it depends on the person. Its not just diet alone. We are all the same but different too.

[cooked]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

I think it depends on the person. Its not just diet alone. We are all the same but different too.

Yes, I watched that yesterday. This morning I watched Dr. Lustig stating that fibre is very important, talking to Ivor Cummins.

So I doubt I'll be going carnivore any time soon except possibly to urgently correct my biometrics (CAC score etc) then back to low carb. I'll be watching again, seems like a reliable guy. As he says, the figure of 30 gm daily seems to have no research behind it.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by cooked

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, cooked said:

Yes, I watched that yesterday. This morning I watched Dr. Lustig stating that fibre is very important, talking to Ivor Cummins.

So I doubt I'll be going carnivore any time soon except possibly to urgently correct my biometrics (CAC score etc) then back to low carb. I'll be watching again, seems like a reliable guy. As he says, the figure of 30 gm daily seems to have no research behind it.

 

IMO, Lustig is one of the smartest scientists/physicians out there when it comes to understanding and advocating science-based nutrition.  In many ways he was one of the original pioneers of low carb, keto-based nutrition, and was one of the first scientist to promote the idea that sugar is actually toxic to the body. 

 

His arguments always seem well founded and compelling; No Mumbo-Jumbo nonsense; just the truth and nothing but the whole truth that's backed up with incontrovertible scientific facts.

 

In his books, he has a rare ability to describe complex aspects biochemistry and physiology in ways that anyone can easily grasp, so you come away with an in-depth understanding of the topic being discussed, not just dumbed-down notions and oversimplified analogies.

 

I've read a couple of his books and they are definitely worth reading for anyone who takes their own nutritional health seriously.  They are Fat Chance and The Hacking of the American Mind: The Science Behind the Corporate Takeover of Our Bodies and Brains.

 

I wish more physicians thought about nutrition the way he does!  If they did, we wouldn't be facing epidemic levels of metabolic diseases such as obesity and Diabetes-2 today.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

15 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

IMO, Lustig is one of the smartest scientists/physicians out there when it comes to understanding and advocating science-based nutrition.  In many ways he was one of the original pioneers of low carb, keto-based nutrition, and was one of the first scientist to promote the idea that sugar is actually toxic to the body. 

 

His arguments always seem well founded and compelling; No Mumbo-Jumbo nonsense; just the truth and nothing but the whole truth that's backed up with incontrovertible scientific facts.

 

In his books, he has a rare ability to describe complex aspects biochemistry and physiology in ways that anyone can easily grasp, so you come away with an in-depth understanding of the topic being discussed, not just dumbed-down notions and oversimplified analogies.

 

I've read a couple of his books and they are definitely worth reading for anyone who takes their own nutritional health seriously.  They are Fat Chance and The Hacking of the American Mind: The Science Behind the Corporate Takeover of Our Bodies and Brains.

 

I wish more physicians thought about nutrition the way he does!  If they did, we wouldn't be facing epidemic levels of metabolic diseases such as obesity and Diabetes-2 today.

 

Lustig has been taken apart by quite a few real scientists. I don't trust him much as he states quite a lot of untruths to sell his books and make him popular. Sorry for not agreeing with you about this guy he has some points but lies a lot too. He is the exact example of an diet extremist and youtube guru.  A good friend and respected researcher with real credentials not like Lustig his credentials in a totally other field Alan Aragon and many others have shot holes in Lustig his lies.

 

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

[VincentRJ]

I'm nearing the end of a 3 day fast. During the first two days I went for a fairly long walk each day, 2 to 3 hours. Didn't feel particularly hungry or lacking in energy. However, I have now broken my fast, after 62 hours, with a cup of coffee, with milk and sugar, as I sit by the computer writing this.

 

I prepared my breakfast last night but haven't eaten it yet. Maybe I'll put it in the fridge and eat it tomorrow. That would then be an 86 hour fast interrupted by a cup of coffee.

 

For those who have trouble with constipation, I recommend a high-fibre breakfast consisting of whole grain rolled oats and wheat germ, soaked overnight in full-cream milk, plus a chopped up avocado and/or banana, and/or blueberries, mixed with the soaked oats before eating.

[robblok]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm nearing the end of a 3 day fast. During the first two days I went for a fairly long walk each day, 2 to 3 hours. Didn't feel particularly hungry or lacking in energy. However, I have now broken my fast, after 62 hours, with a cup of coffee, with milk and sugar, as I sit by the computer writing this.

 

I prepared my breakfast last night but haven't eaten it yet. Maybe I'll put it in the fridge and eat it tomorrow. That would then be an 86 hour fast interrupted by a cup of coffee.

 

For those who have trouble with constipation, I recommend a high-fibre breakfast consisting of whole grain rolled oats and wheat germ, soaked overnight in full-cream milk, plus a chopped up avocado and/or banana, and/or blueberries, mixed with the soaked oats before eating.

Dont advocate whole oats, they are carbs many low carb advocates will get a heart attack from anyone advocating any carbs. Be prepared to be crucified.

 

Good on you for being able to do a fast like that. I would go totally crazy. Just can't think and work when I am hungry. I do get hungry when I don't eat. 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Lustig has been taken apart by quite a few real scientists. I don't trust him much as he states quite a lot of untruths to sell his books and make him popular. Sorry for not agreeing with you about this guy he has some points but lies a lot too. He is the exact example of an diet extremist and youtube guru.  A good friend and respected researcher with real credentials not like Lustig his credentials in a totally other field Alan Aragon and many others have shot holes in Lustig his lies.

 

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

Well, each to his own opinion, but I found your referenced link to Aragon's view to be pretty biased with no underlying science to support what he says. 

 

It's only my personal opinion but I really don't see how anyone can deny Lustig's basic message that processed sugars can be very toxic to metabolic health!

 

I agree that Lustig's views are extreme but so is the perilous and unnecessary use of processed sugar in food products today.  Thus, IMHO, his "extreme" views are well founded and appropriate.

 

If you review the underlying science of the effect of processed sugar on metabolic health, just in terms of insulin insensitivity, and how processed sugars combine with proteins to promote serious Advanced glycation end-product (AGE's), the toxic effects of excessive sugar in the diet is VERY clear, and Lustig's views are compelling, and those two aspects only scratch the surface of the perils of processed sugar.

 

As for Lustig's words, sure, you can pick holes in some of what he says, just like you can with anyone who discusses controversial subjects, but to flatly refute his basic message on the toxic nature of processed sugar makes no sense if you viewing the facts in an unbiased way.

 

What's more, to disagree with his view that the processed food industry promotes the use of processed sugars (high fructose corn syrup) purely for financial gain at the detriment to the public's health is simply to ignore the truth.

 

Finally, to claim that Lustig's credentials are not real or that his views are only for the purpose of selling books is nonsense IMHO.

 

Just my personal opinions but I feel strongly about the toxic nature of processed sugars on metabolic health, and the current epidemic of obesity, Diabetes-2, and a whole host of other metabolic syndromes today support Lustig's view strongly. 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, each to his own opinion, but I found your referenced link to Aragon's view to be pretty biased with no underlying science to support what he says. 

 

It's only my personal opinion but I really don't see how anyone can deny Lustig's basic message that processed sugars can be very toxic to metabolic health!

 

I agree that Lustig's views are extreme but so is the perilous and unnecessary use of processed sugar in food products today.  Thus, IMHO, his "extreme" views are well founded and appropriate.

 

If you review the underlying science of the effect of processed sugar on metabolic health, just in terms of insulin insensitivity, and how processed sugars combine with proteins to promote serious Advanced glycation end-product (AGE's), the toxic effects of excessive sugar in the diet is VERY clear, and Lustig's views are compelling, and those two aspects only scratch the surface of the perils of processed sugar.

 

As for Lustig's words, sure, you can pick holes in some of what he says, just like you can with anyone's views, but to flatly refute his basic message on the toxic nature of processed sugar is not wise IMO.

 

What's more, to disagree with his view that the processed food industry promotes the use of processed sugars (high fructose corn syrup) purely for financial gain at the detriment to the public's health is simply to ignore the truth.

 

 Finally, to claim that Lustig's credentials are not real or that his views are only for the purpose of selling books is nonsense IMHO.

 

Just my personal opinions but I feel strongly about them. 

 

Lusig is a liar bending facts to suit his own message. Sorry if you don't agree with that but so be it.

 

Quote

 

The Australian ‘Paradox’

In 2011, Australian scientists analysed the trends in obesity and sugar consumption in Australia, the UK, and USA over the past 30 years. The analysis was far-reaching: Data on consumption of sugar in all three countries were obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization for the years 1980-2003, and further data for Australian sugar intake was obtained from various sources including governmental organizations, industry groups and the country’s two biggest supermarket chains (Coles and Woolworths). Obesity statistics for children and adults were obtained via published national surveys.

Here’s what they found: In Australia, the UK and USA, per capita consumption of refined sucrose decreased by 23%, 10% and 20% respectively from 1980 to 2003. When all sources of nutritive sweeteners, including high fructose corn syrups, were considered, per capita consumption decreased in Australia (−16%) and the UK (−5%), but increased in the USA (+23%).

Furthermore, there was a reduction in Australian sales of sweetened beverages by 64 million litres from 2002 to 2006 and a reduction in the percentage of Australian children consuming sugar-sweetened beverages between 1995 and 2007.

Despite this, the prevalence of obesity increased threefold in Australia since 1980.

The findings confirmed what the Aussie researchers labelled an “Australian Paradox” – a substantial decline in refined sugar intake over the same period that obesity increased markedly.

As the researchers noted, “the implication of these findings is that efforts to reduce sugar intake may reduce consumption but may not reduce the prevalence of obesity.”[10]

That’s because blaming single foods or macronutrients for the obesity ‘epidemic’ draws attention away from the real cause: A caloric intake that is in excess of one’s caloric requirements.

Oh, and while Lustig would have us believe anyone who dares refute the prevailing anti-sugar sentiment must be on the payroll of Big Sugar[4], the Australian analysis was an independent endeavour supervised by professors Alan Barclay and Jennie Brand-Miller. The latter is one of the pioneers of the glycemic index (GI) concept, and has written numerous articles and books championing low-GI foods and diets. She therefore has little incentive to enhance the public image of high-GI sugars.

Interestingly, Lustig never mentions this study. I wonder why?

 

 

Same that lustig blames carbs for obesitiy in the US while data shows that calories have gone up with 600 instead of blaming that he takes carbs. Sorry in my book that is bad science. Same like his fake claims about the Japanese diet. Someone like that just cant be trusted.

 

His credentials are fake, he is not a professor in food science but kids. Again the truth hurts. 

 

I agree with some parts of what he says but a large part of what he says just does not hold water if you look at the facts.

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-truth-about-robert-lustigs-anti-sugar-claims/

 

 

You feel strongly I feel stongly too. Sorry I just can't abide by people like lustig who take things out of context don't look at the big picture. Demonize foodgroups.

 

About processed foods I agree with you.

 

Also he claims the Japenese to have a better diet compared to the US.. but that is not because of what they eat like lustig tries to show but there is 1000 calories difference between the two diets. Guess he never wanted to mention that. Anyone thinking that that has nothing to do with it is just out of his / her mind. But lustig ignores it to support his theories.

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by robblok

[WaveHunter]

36 minutes ago, robblok said:

Lusig is a liar bending facts to suit his own message. Sorry if you don't agree with that but so be it.

 

 

Same that lustig blames carbs for obesitiy in the US while data shows that calories have gone up with 1000. Instead of blaming that he takes carbs. Sorry in my book that is bad science. Same like his fake claims about the Japanese diet. Someone like that just cant be trusted.

 

His credentials are fake, he is not a professor in food science but kids. Again the truth hurts. 

 

I agree with some parts of what he says but a large part of what he says just does not hold water if you look at the facts.

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-truth-about-robert-lustigs-anti-sugar-claims/

 

 

Well, it's very easy to twist facts in a biased way when dealing with observational population studies such as the one you are referring to.  I'm not saying this study is necessarily biased because I'm not really familiar with it BUT "twisting the facts" is considerably harder to do with well-crafted, unbiased laboratory studies conducted in strict accordance with the "scientific method" that explore biochemical processes, not population statistics. 

 

The latter is REAL science IMO, and when you view the effects of processed sugar on metabolic health in this way, the truth becomes quite compelling!

 

I favor laboratory-based studies based on biochemistry because such studies make it very difficult to mask the truth.

 

Nonetheless, you don't you need a lot of statistics to see that the rapid rise in obesity and Diabetes-2 began to occur when Governments and major Health Organizations adopted the "Food Pyramid" of the the 1970's and 1980's that promoted "carbs" as the foundation of a healthy diet and at the same time vilified fats as evil. 

 

Low fat processed foods were popularized because they are cheaper to manufacture than natural foods.  That is the ONLY reason!  Unfortunately, when you take the fat out, most foods become practically unpalatable.  How do you make them palatable?  ADD SUGAR!  High fructose corn syrup is dirt-cheap, and THAT"S WHY low fat foods have been promoted for the last few decades...not for improved health but for financial profits!

 

Metabolic disease is now at epidemic levels, especially in countries with highly developed processed food industries using HFCS.  You don't see that correlation??

 

Well, most people do!  It has become pretty well acknowledged that these recommendations of the 1970's and 1980's were lobbied for by the food industry more for financial reasons than for health reasons, especially in the case of processed carbohydrates, and even more so when those carbs involved high fructose corn syrup.

 

If it is not carbs and sugars, what do you suggest accounts for this present epidemic?

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, it's very easy to twist facts in a biased way when dealing with observational population studies such as the one you are referring to.  I'm not saying this study is necessarily biased because I'm not really familiar with it BUT "twisting the facts" is considerably harder to do with studies based on laboratory studies on a biochemical processes. 

 

The latter is REAL science IMO, and when you view the effects of processed sugar on metabolic health in this way, the truth becomes quite compelling!

 

I favor laboratory-based studies based on biochemistry because such studies make it difficult to mask the truth, but I don't you need a lot of statistics to see the correlation between the rapid increase in obesity and Diabetes-2 began to occur when Governments ands major Health Organizations adopted the "Food Pyramid" of the the 1970's and 1980's that promoted "carbs" as the foundation of a healthy diet and at the same time vilified fats as evil.

 

It has finally become acknowledged that these recommendations were lobbied for by the food industry more for financial reasons than for health reasons, especially in the case of processed carbohydrates, and even more so when those carbs involved high fructose corn syrup.

 

 

It is Lustig himself who uses these observational population studies to prove his points and now that I bring others that counter all that he says they are not valid anymore. Why are they valid when he uses them but not when they go against him ?

 

I agree 100% that i prefer lab studies that is why i love to see a half year in house study between no carb keto and normal carb and see if one has an advantage over the other when in both processed carbs are eliminated. A study like that would settle all our questions. 

 

You also have to look at that it did not only adopt the food pyramid but people started eating a lot more and not only carbs. Just look at the data and you will see. So its not just carbs its the total amount of food that is what depends it. (ok processed carbs are a problem but once these are gone its all about the total amount of calories)

[WaveHunter]

47 minutes ago, robblok said:

It is Lustig himself who uses these observational population studies to prove his points and now that I bring others that counter all that he says they are not valid anymore. Why are they valid when he uses them but not when they go against him ?

 

I agree 100% that i prefer lab studies that is why i love to see a half year in house study between no carb keto and normal carb and see if one has an advantage over the other when in both processed carbs are eliminated. A study like that would settle all our questions. 

 

You also have to look at that it did not only adopt the food pyramid but people started eating a lot more and not only carbs. Just look at the data and you will see. So its not just carbs its the total amount of food that is what depends it. (ok processed carbs are a problem but once these are gone its all about the total amount of calories)

In this and other threads that we both participate in, I have presented links to countless lab-based studies that support my negative views of excessive carbs and sugar, and their correlation to metabolic health issues.

 

As for excessive eating being a major issue, I couldn't agree with you more!  But why do you think people eat more these days than they used to.  The reason is that our diets are more carb-based today than they ever were in the past.

 

Carbs are FAR LESS satiating than fats, so it takes a lot more calories of carbs to feel satiated, thus one tends to eat far more of them to feel happy; ergo, more calories consumed than would be the case with more fats in the diet.

 

This fact isn't lost by the processed food industry and the fast food industry either.  They take maximum advantage of that fact with all sorts of tricks to make people eat (and buy) more product. 

 

It's no accident that McDonald's makes highly salted french fries a big part of their menu.  And why?  Because you'll end up buying a Big-Gulp coke to go with your meal with loads of high fructose corn syrup in it.

 

Even worse, one of the key factors of HFCS is that it blunts satiety to an even greater extent that other types of carbs, so HFCS are not only cheaper to produce but they also tend to make people eat more (buy more) of the product than they normally would.

 

How Corn Syrup Might Be Making Us Hungry-and Fat (from Scientific American article)

 

People in America are far more obese than in many other countries simply because processed foods and fast foods are more effectively marketed and serving sizes in fast food joints have become ridiculously large, just to take advantage of the satiety blunting effects of all of the processed sugar in the products. 

 

Remember the infamous TV ad back in the '80's for Lay's potato chips, "Bet you can't eat just one!"  That's pretty telling of the processed food industries' goals and intents IMO!

 

You don't care for Lustig; he's not your cup of tea?  Hey, that's fine, but do you actually deny the link between sugar and metabolic disease?  I know you to be a very smart man; I just can't believe you deny this link.  I think you're playing "Devil's Advocate" with me perhaps?

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

21 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

In this and other threads that we both participate in, I have presented links to countless lab-based studies that support my negative views of excessive carbs and sugar, and their correlation to metabolic health issues.

 

As for excessive eating being a major issue, I couldn't agree with you more!  But why do you think people eat more these days than they used to.  The reason is that our diets are more carb-based today than they ever were in the past.

 

Carbs are FAR LESS satiating than fats, so it takes a lot more calories of carbs to feel satiated, thus one tends to eat far more of them to feel happy; ergo, more calories consumed than would be the case with more fats in the diet.

 

This fact isn't lost by the processed food industry and the fast food industry either.  They take maximum advantage of that fact with all sorts of tricks to make people eat (and buy) more product. 

 

It's no accident that McDonald's makes highly salted french fries a big part of their menu.  And why?  Because you'll end up buying a Big-Gulp coke to go with your meal with loads of high fructose corn syrup in it.

 

Even worse, one of the key factors of HFCS is that it blunts satiety to an even greater extent that other types of carbs, so HFCS are not only cheaper to produce but they also tend to make people eat more (buy more) of the product than they normally would.

 

How Corn Syrup Might Be Making Us Hungry-and Fat (from Scientific American article)

 

People in America are far more obese than in many other countries simply because processed foods and fast foods are more effectively marketed and serving sizes in fast food joints have become ridiculously large, just to take advantage of the satiety blunting effects of all of the processed sugar in the products. 

 

Remember the infamous TV ad back in the '80's for Lay's potato chips, "Bet you can't eat just one!"  That's pretty telling of the processed food industries' goals and intents IMO!

 

You don't care for Lustig; he's not your cup of tea?  Hey, that's fine, but do you actually deny the link between sugar and metabolic disease?  I know you to be a very smart man; I just can't believe you deny this link.  I think you're playing "Devil's Advocate" with me perhaps?

I think excessive carbs are the problem, processed ones. I think that oats, musli (without sugar), whole wheat bread are perfectly fine, i also think that oranges are prefectly fine while people like lustig think they are not. So yea I think the guy is a crackpot who loves making money just like all the other diet guru's.

 

I don't know why you keep getting back with the food industry while i told you countless times I think processed carbs are bad. We agree on that and I always talk about bad processed carbs. That is the difference between me and diet Gurus like lustig. We look at details don't demonise complete food groups but look more specific. But that does not sell books.. an easy enemy carbs / sugar does.

 

I think there is a link between processed carbs and metabolic link especially lots of them. i think you will be hard pressed to find the same link between oats / musli / whole grain bread and metabolic disease. 

 

I don't like extremists, told you that before and he certainly is one.

[FracturedRabbit]

"It's all about the total amount of calories". At the risk of being flamed, I don't think this is correct. First of all, a calorie is a unit of measure we have created, it is not something that is recognised by the body i.e. there are no cell receptors for calories. I think we would all agree that the body would process 1000 calories of cake differently from 1,000 calories of avocado. It's not so much how much we eat, it's what we eat and whether what we eat satiates us, and thus reduces our desire to eat more (e.g. avocado) or just fills us for a short while before creating a need to eat more (cake). To  what extent are those 1000 calories nutritionally rich?

 

Exercise alone will not make you lose weight.

Calorie restriction alone will not make you lose weight (over the long term, because the metabolism will adjust to the lower intake), and then when you go back to "normal" eating, boom!+

Eating the right food over the long term, together with exercise, is the pathway to health.

 

For healthy people, all this is somewhat academic; but for those with diabetes type 2, the suggestion that it's all about the calories and it's OK to go on eating a diet high in carbohydrates, is dangerous. Once you are diabetic you are carbohydrate intolerant and your only way back to health is to substantially reduce your carb intake.

 

I read this week that 40% of UK hospital beds are now occupied with people with diabetes related illnesses. Most of these people could fix their health if they knew and/or cared enough to do something about it. Government guidelines don't help; and even the hospital food menu for diabetics is carb-centric (and includes a nice slice of cake!). Someone on the main health forum here who has diabetes and requires medication said he had tried a low carb diet but found it boring because he missed his bread and potatoes... So depressing.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think excessive carbs are the problem, processed ones. I think that oats, musli (without sugar), whole wheat bread are perfectly fine, i also think that oranges are prefectly fine while people like lustig think they are not. So yea I think the guy is a crackpot who loves making money just like all the other diet guru's.

 

I don't know why you keep getting back with the food industry while i told you countless times I think processed carbs are bad. We agree on that and I always talk about bad processed carbs. That is the difference between me and diet Gurus like lustig. We look at details don't demonise complete food groups but look more specific. But that does not sell books.. an easy enemy carbs / sugar does.

 

I think there is a link between processed carbs and metabolic link especially lots of them. i think you will be hard pressed to find the same link between oats / musli / whole grain bread and metabolic disease. 

 

I don't like extremists, told you that before and he certainly is one.

Well the topic we're really discussing is processed sugars specifically.  You can consider Lustig to be a crackpot intent only on selling books but that doesn't diminish his message about the toxicity of sugar.

 

Whether or not you like the guy, science supports the notion that processed sugars have toxic qualities on metabolic health.  It is now well documented from many science-based sources.

 

I don't really care about Lustig himself, one way or another, to be honest; only the message he delivers about the potential toxicity of processed sugar, and the processed food industry's use of them purely for financial gain.

 

When you look at the biochemical reaction that processed (not natural) sugars have on metabolic health in terms of insulin resistance, neuro related glycation, alteration of other hormonal receptors (i.e.: leptin), to name just a few, the underlying science is compelling.

 

Just as damaging as sugar can be on insulin sensitivity, the relationship of sugar to glycation that is now directly linked to metabolic disorders related to cognitive aging and dementia make it clear that glycation may be even more damaging, yet this is rarely discussed or acknowledged...until very recently. 

 

With regard to Lustig, my view is ..."Don't shoot the messenger".  You may not like the guy, but his message is valid and worthy.  People SHOULD consider the potential toxic nature of sugar, and not simply dismiss it as guru-speak.

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Well the topic we're really discussing is processed sugars specifically.  You can consider Lustig to be a crackpot intent only on selling books but that doesn't diminish his message about the toxicity of sugar. 

 

I don't really care about Lustig himself, one way or another, to be honest; only the message he delivers about the potential toxicity of processed sugar, and the processed food industry's use of them purely for financial gain.

 

When you look at the biochemical reaction that processed (not natural) sugars have on metabolic health in terms of insulin resistance, neuro related glycation, alteration of other hormonal receptors (i.e.: leptin), to name just a few, the underlying science is compelling.

 

Just as damaging as sugar can be on insulin sensitivity, the relationship of sugar to glycation that is now directly linked to metabolic disorders related to cognitive aging and dementia make it clear that glycation may be even more damaging, yet this is rarely discussed or acknowledged...until very recently. 

 

With regard to Lustig, "Don't shoot the messenger".  His message is valid and worthy.  People SHOULD consider the potential toxic nature of sugar, and not simply dismiss it as guru-speak.

If that was all Lustig said I would be ok with it but its not all he talks about he even takes fruits as dangerous (fructose) anyone who does that is a crackpot. Refined sugars he could make a point for but the moment you include fruits your an extremist crackpot. That is what i read about him that he also targets fructose from fruits. Plus he has extreme views on carbs too.. not just sugar. (read about that too but if you say its only sugar i must have misread)

Edited May 24, 2019 by robblok

[WaveHunter]

58 minutes ago, robblok said:

...he even takes fruits as dangerous (fructose) anyone who does that is a crackpot....

Nonsense!  You obviously know far less about Lustig's views than you think.  Lustig is, in fact, very much in favor of fruit consumption (because the natural fiber of fruit offset the effects of fructose)!

 

From an interview with Lustig:

 

"...I have nothing against fruit, because it comes with its inherent fibre, and fibre mitigates the negative effects..."  "...The way God made it, however much sugar is in a piece of fruit, there's an equal amount of fibre to offset it. ..."

 

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/learning-to-cut-the-sugar/

 

Fructose on its' own however is the most toxic of all sugars since the fiber has been stripped out. (i.e.: foods containing high fructose corn syrup (which is almost ALL foods founds in supermarkets these days, and things like fruit juices)

 

See discussion of Health Effects of Fructose and offsetting factors of fiber and pectin, appearing in Journal of American Medical Association article linked below:

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1693739

 

Also see Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity.

appearing in Physiological Review 2010 Jan;90(1):23-46.

 

Don't make such critical and negative remarks about a credible scientist or his views until you really do your homework!

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Nonsense!  You obviously know far less about Lustig's views than you think.  Lustig is, in fact, very much in favor of fruit consumption (because the natural fiber of fruit offset the effects of fructose)!

 

From an interview with Lustig:

 

"..."I have nothing against fruit, because it comes with its inherent fibre, and fibre mitigates the negative effects," "The way God made it, however much sugar is in a piece of fruit, there's an equal amount of fibre to offset it. ..."

 

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/learning-to-cut-the-sugar/

 

Also see discussion of Health Effects of Fructose appearing in Journal of American Medical Association article linked below:

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1693739

 

Don't make such critical and negative remarks about a credible scientist or his views until you really do your homework!

You should have read the link he is taken apart in that article.. the guy has NO respect from me sorry. So many lies in there that i just got bored with it. I misread about fruits but there are so many mistakes in his work he is just not credible. Those two links sum up all the wrongs of lustig the lower one really tears him apart.  I read it all and lustig is just talking from his ass

 

There all his mistakes are laid out bare and that leaves him less then credible

 

“There is no sugar in the Italian diet”, Lustig confidently asserts.  (right Italians don't drink coffee with sugar and in their meals is no sugar) How can you be so blind to believe a guy who lies.

 

 

One of Lustig’s opening assertions is that The Atkins diet and the Japanese diet share one thing in common: the absence of fructose. This is flat-out false because it implies that the Japanese don’t eat fruit. On the contrary, bananas, grapefruits, Mandarin oranges, apples, grapes, watermelons, pears, persimmons, peaches, and strawberries are significant staples of the Japanese diet [17]. Lustig’s claim also implies that the Japanese do not consume desserts or sauces that contain added sucrose. This is false as well.

 

Another oversimplification Lustig makes is that fructose is “ethanol without the buzz,” and that fructose is toxic to the liver. This once again helps me illustrate my point that even in the case of alcoholic beverages, their risk or benefit to health is dose-dependent. Just like his extremist  treatment of fructose, Lustig bases his case on the effect of chronic isolated ethanol consumption in large doses. It’s easy to examine ethanol out of its normal context within beverages such as wine, because then you can conveniently ignore the evidence indicating its potential health benefits when consumed in moderation [18]

Sorry for not agreeing with you. There are so many untruths said by this guy i started to cry when i read the webpages. But he is an extremist if was not he would not sell as many books.

 

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

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-truth-about-robert-lustigs-anti-sugar-claims/

[WaveHunter]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

You should have read the link he is taken apart in that article.. the guy has NO respect from me sorry. So many lies in there that i just got bored with it. I misread about fruits but there are so many mistakes in his work he is just not credible. Those two links sum up all the wrongs of lustig the lower one really tears him apart.  I read it all and lustig is just talking from his ass

 

There all his mistakes are laid out bare and that leaves him less then credible

 

“There is no sugar in the Italian diet”, Lustig confidently asserts.  (right Italians don't drink coffee with sugar and in their meals is no sugar) How can you be so blind to believe a guy who lies.

 

 

One of Lustig’s opening assertions is that The Atkins diet and the Japanese diet share one thing in common: the absence of fructose. This is flat-out false because it implies that the Japanese don’t eat fruit. On the contrary, bananas, grapefruits, Mandarin oranges, apples, grapes, watermelons, pears, persimmons, peaches, and strawberries are significant staples of the Japanese diet [17]. Lustig’s claim also implies that the Japanese do not consume desserts or sauces that contain added sucrose. This is false as well.

 

Another oversimplification Lustig makes is that fructose is “ethanol without the buzz,” and that fructose is toxic to the liver. This once again helps me illustrate my point that even in the case of alcoholic beverages, their risk or benefit to health is dose-dependent. Just like his extremist  treatment of fructose, Lustig bases his case on the effect of chronic isolated ethanol consumption in large doses. It’s easy to examine ethanol out of its normal context within beverages such as wine, because then you can conveniently ignore the evidence indicating its potential health benefits when consumed in moderation [18]

Sorry for not agreeing with you. There are so many untruths said by this guy i started to cry when i read the webpages. But he is an extremist if was not he would not sell as many books.

 

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

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-truth-about-robert-lustigs-anti-sugar-claims/

Look, you are entitled to your opinion as I am in mine, but you are nitpicking details and calling his views "crackpot" on that basis while ignoring the central message he delivers.

 

Fructose in its' raw state (i.e.: not offset by the fiber and pectin found in fruit), is very toxic to the liver and will result in glycation, both over time.  You may disagree with that but science (not just Lustig) says otherwise.

 

I provided a link from Examining the Health Effects of Fructose JAMA ^ | June 3, 2013 | David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD  

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3028793/posts?page=4

 

I suppose you think Dr. Ludwig is a crackpot too, or that the Journal of the American Medical Association publishes unfounded mis-information or half-truths??

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

Look, you are entitled to your opinion as I am in mine, but you are nitpicking details and calling his views "crackpot" on that basis while ignoring the central message he delivers.

 

Fructose in its' raw state (i.e.: not offset by the fiber and pectin found in fruit), is very toxic to the liver and will result in glycation, both over time.  You may disagree with that but science (not just Lustig) says otherwise.

Yes mate I have an opinion I am not nitpicking.

 

“One Big Mac and you gotta, you know, mountain bike for ten hours!” claims the incredulous Lustig, to the laughter of an audience who clearly wouldn’t know blatant bullshit even if it climbed up their necks and pissed in their ears.

 

Yes i am sure you agree with him here.. i mean the guy tells the truth. 

 

The lies holes in his videos are so big that its just crazy. 

 

The message he delivers is nice but has to many lies to make him credible. 

 

(i thought you would love this statement from lustig)

[WaveHunter]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes mate I have an opinion I am not nitpicking.

 

“One Big Mac and you gotta, you know, mountain bike for ten hours!” claims the incredulous Lustig, to the laughter of an audience who clearly wouldn’t know blatant bullshit even if it climbed up their necks and pissed in their ears.

 

Yes i am sure you agree with him here.. i mean the guy tells the truth. 

 

The lies holes in his videos are so big that its just crazy. 

 

The message he delivers is nice but has to many lies to make him credible. 

 

(i thought you would love this statement from lustig)

Again, whether or not I agree with Lustig is irrelevant, I agree with the UNDERLYING SCIENCE that supports the view that all sugars (including refined fructose) are toxic to metabolic health. 

 

I have given you links to another highly respected scientist, Dr. David Ludwig, Professor of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health; Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, in the last couple of my posts (and many other credible science-based sources in other posts) that support the notion that processed sugar is toxic to metabolic health.  How can you deny the underlying science? 

 

I suppose you think Dr Ludwig is also a crackpot too trying to sell a book, and that the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association publishes biased mis-information and half-truths ?

 

Sorry, no offense intended, but judging by your mis-information about Lustig's view on fruit, and the negatively slanted quote about mountain biking, you are getting all your information from incredibly anti-Lustig biased sources.  Why not check out the science-based facts instead of third party interpretations from people who have an obvious negative agenda in mind.

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Again, whether or not I agree with Lustig is irrelevant, I agree with the underlying science.  I have given you links to Ludwig just now (and many other credible science-based sources).  How can you deny the underlying science?  I suppose you think Dr Ludwig is also a crackpot too trying to sell a book, and the the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association publishes biased mis-information and half-truths ?

Again anyone who makes this many mistakes and faults in what he says makes him not credible. If you have to overstate your point to make yourself heard your not a valid researcher. That is what lustig is doing and what I have proven. I know you don't like me for this but its how I am I hate extremist especially if they lie. I just went through both those websites and the faults and untruths i read there are alarming. I did not even go through all of it because it was so much.

 

The mountainbike thing is just 1 thing to demonstrate how he exaggerates. So what makes you think he does not exaggerates his other points. 

 

All the research is fine but as Alan Aragon states it dose dependent so the underlying science is good but he takes it out of context. So no I don't agree with Lustig at all.

 

Lets just agree to disagree on this one. 

 

I think Allan Aragon had him pegged correctly. (and was quite mellow in how he views Lustig)

 

I have a great deal of respect for Lustig’s professional accomplishments, and I share his concern for the nation’s penchant for sitting around and overconsuming food and beverages of all sorts. However, I disagree (as does the bulk of the research) with his myopic, militant focus on fructose avoidance. He’s missing the forest while barking up a single tree.

Edited May 24, 2019 by robblok

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Again anyone who makes this many mistakes and faults in what he says makes him not credible. If you have to overstate your point to make yourself heard your not a valid researcher. That is what lustig is doing and what I have proven. I know you don't like me for this but its how I am I hate extremist especially if they lie. I just went through both those websites and the faults and untruths i read there are alarming. I did not even go through all of it because it was so much.

 

The mountainbike thing is just 1 thing to demonstrate how he exaggerates. So what makes you think he does not exaggerates his other points. 

 

All the research is fine but as Alan Aragon states it dose dependent so the underlying science is good but he takes it out of context. So no I don't agree with Lustig at all.

 

Lets just agree to disagree on this one. 

 

I think Allan Aragon had him pegged correctly. (and was quite mellow in how he views Lustig)

 

I have a great deal of respect for Lustig’s professional accomplishments, and I share his concern for the nation’s penchant for sitting around and overconsuming food and beverages of all sorts. However, I disagree (as does the bulk of the research) with his myopic, militant focus on fructose avoidance. He’s missing the forest while barking up a single tree.

Again, as I just said in my previous reply, judging from the fact that you have grossly misinterpreted Lustig's view on fructose in natural fruit, and you have provided an incredibly biased and demeaning (to Lustig's audience) quote:

 

“One Big Mac and you gotta, you know, mountain bike for ten hours!” claims the incredulous Lustig, to the laughter of an audience who clearly wouldn’t know blatant bullshit even if it climbed up their necks and pissed in their ears.

 

I think it's more than obvious that you are getting all of your information about Lustig (and fructose) from very biased sources who use blatant mis-information (his view on fruit), and demeaning remarks about his audience (the BigMac remark) to unfairly promote their own hidden agenda by tearing him down.  Sorry, but nothing is more repugnant in my book than someone who attempts to build up their position by tearing someone else's audience down, inferring they must be too stupid to know the truth "even if it pissed in their ears"

 

THAT is not what I would consider to be an unbiased, science-based source of information.

 

Wouldn't it be more proper and fair to get your view of Lustig directly by reading one of his books instead of relying on obviously biased and mis-informed third party interpretations from people who have an obvious ax to grind?

 

Wouldn't it be  smarter to research the actual underlying science DIRECTLY from peer-based scientific journals instead of random blogs that are only promoting a hidden agenda with mis-information and half-truths?

 

As regards Aragon's view that fructose (toxicity) is dose-dependent.  Of course it is!  The first principle of toxicology is that "the dose makes the poison". 

 

Sure, fructose is natural occurring and the body has the ability to handle a small amount of it.  This does not mean it can handle the unusually large amounts that are hidden in food products these days. 

 

Most people aren't even aware of how much processed sugar they are getting per day because it is hidden in almost ALL processed foods these days, even in foods you'd be least likely to expect to find it in like salad dressing, canned soup, or salted crackers, just to mention a few.

 

And worse, the food makers intentionally hide how much sugar is in their products by NOT listed "total" sugar in their nutritional information on packaging, but breaking it down into constituent sub-types of sugar so all the sugars are listed at the bottom of the label (since labels are ordered in decreasing order of amount).  What's more, they disguise the fact that those sub-types are even sugar by using hard-to-pronounce chemical names that don't even sound like sugar!

 

A book like Lustig's may have its' fault but if all it accomplishes is to make someone sit up and question the possible negative health effects of sugar, and the food industry's intentional effort to deceive the public, then it's done something good

 

I don't care if he makes money on his books, and I don't care if he is passionately aggressive and dramatic to the point of stretching things the truth.  It's called "artistic license", and most intelligent people will only use his book as a starting point to research and explore the actual facts for themselves, not rely on one of his books as a "bible", or consider him a "prophet". 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by WaveHunter

[BritManToo]

33 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

“One Big Mac and you gotta, you know, mountain bike for ten hours!” claims the incredulous Lustig, to the laughter of an audience who clearly wouldn’t know blatant bullshit even if it climbed up their necks and pissed in their ears.

I did a big Mac diet for a month (when they were on sale half price).

Essentially it was my main meal of the day (around 30% of my daily calories), and I lost 4Kg in the month.

 

It's not what you eat but how much you eat.

[robblok]

41 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Again, as I just said in my previous reply, judging from the fact that you have grossly misinterpreted Lustig's view on fructose in natural fruit, and you have provided an incredibly biased and demeaning (to Lustig's audience) quote:

 

“One Big Mac and you gotta, you know, mountain bike for ten hours!” claims the incredulous Lustig, to the laughter of an audience who clearly wouldn’t know blatant bullshit even if it climbed up their necks and pissed in their ears.

 

I think it's more than obvious that you are getting all of your information about Lustig (and fructose) from very biased sources who use blatant mis-information (his view on fruit), and demeaning remarks about his audience (the BigMac remark) to unfairly promote their own hidden agenda by tearing him down.  Sorry, but nothing is more repugnant in my book than someone who attempts to build up their position by tearing someone else's audience down, inferring they must be too stupid to know the truth "even if it pissed in their ears"

 

THAT is not what I would consider to be an unbiased, science-based source of information.

 

Wouldn't it be more proper and fair to get your view of Lustig directly by reading one of his books instead of relying on obviously biased and mis-informed third party interpretations from people who have an obvious ax to grind?

 

Wouldn't it be  smarter to research the actual underlying science DIRECTLY from peer-based scientific journals instead of random blogs that are only promoting a hidden agenda with mis-information and half-truths?

 

As regards Aragon's view that fructose (toxicity) is dose-dependent.  Of course it is!  The first principle of toxicology is that "the dose makes the poison". 

 

Sure, fructose is natural occurring and the body has the ability to handle a small amount of it.  This does not mean it can handle the unusually large amounts that are hidden in food products these days. 

 

Most people aren't even aware of how much processed sugar they are getting per day because it is hidden in almost ALL processed foods these days, even in foods you'd be least likely to expect to find it in like salad dressing, canned soup, or salted crackers, just to mention a few.

 

And worse, the food makers intentionally hide how much sugar is in their products by NOT listed "total" sugar in their nutritional information on packaging, but breaking it down into constituent sub-types of sugar so all the sugars are listed at the bottom of the label (since labels are ordered in decreasing order of amount).  What's more, they disguise the fact that those sub-types are even sugar by using hard-to-pronounce chemical names that don't even sound like sugar!

 

A book like Lustig's may have its' fault but if all it accomplishes is to make someone sit up and question the possible negative health effects of sugar, and the food industry's intentional effort to deceive the public, then it's done something good

 

I don't care if he makes money on his books, and I don't care if he is passionately aggressive and dramatic to the point of stretching things the truth.  It's called "artistic license", and most intelligent people will only use his book as a starting point to research and explore the actual facts for themselves, not rely on one of his books as a "bible", or consider him a "prophet". 

 

Again, you can go through a video and see that Lustig said this and other untruths (does that sound better if i don't call them lies ?) are said. So it has nothing to do with my views of him but these are his own words. The video proves it.

 

There is in my book nothing more repugnant then people who lie and exaggerate to get their point known. That is what lustig does. If you go to Alan Aragon his site you will see him and Lustig have comments and Lustig can't combat him. Alan Aragon is a giant and knows things far better then I do and beats lustig with research. He shows him his numbers are wrong. He beats him down with research (comments between the two) and Lustig is clearly backing down ignoring points. So yea I know who i consider more knowledgeable. It was great seeing and reading this. Maybe you should too.

 

Again you come back with processed foods like you do all the time when you can't win an argument while we are in total agreement there. I am not sure why you keep bringing something up that we are in total agreement about. 

 

I do care about people like Lustig it sounds a lot like reefer madness from the US government overstating points scaring people to get a point across. I hate that you might not but I do. People differ we differ. 

 

I get tired of the Lustig, and other guru's who overstate things to scare people to sell books. 

 

You are passionate about them I am not. Just something we will always fight about. 

 

Oh the bullshit quote is not mine but from the other website. I just copied it completely. But I just liked showing you the lie because I know your an avid biker and like Mc Donalds and have the brain to judge the validity of the statement. 

 

 

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I did a big Mac diet for a month (when they were on sale half price).

Essentially it was my main meal of the day (around 30% of my daily calories), and I lost 4Kg in the month.

 

It's not what you eat but how much you eat.

That is a point I always try to make but it seems to get lost on many people. Though what you say is not 100% true but there is a large truth in it. You can eat super healthy and too much and gain weight or bad and lose weight.

 

Best is of course good and lose weight. 

 

I am still old school believing that calories matter (within limits), and that there is no such thing as calories don't count. I do believe what you eat counts too but it never totally overrules the calories in vs calories out. 

[robblok]

@wavehunter

 

After reading the discussion between Lustig and Aragon it was clear who was the better scientist and who had science on his side. Guess what it was not Lustig.

 

Lustig ignored that figures had been revised kept using old figures as they were better for him.

Lustig avoided the points about the Japanese diet when proven wrong.

Lustig could not find any studies on humans with normal amounts of fructose that gave problems. 

Lustig was just not able to come up with much besides rat studies and some correlation (and as we all know that does not count at all). It was great to see someone with knowledge to refute and discredit the studies of Lustig. Aragon came up with human studies that proved Lustig was exaggerating while lustig had to use rat studies to make a point because the human studies did not show what he wanted to show. 

 

So I would really advise you to read it too and if your unbias as you say you will admit that Aragon had the better argument and Lustig with his weak answer I have more followers on Youtube so I am right (yea sure that makes him right so scientific). He gave up because he knew he was beat and knew that he was only digging the hole deeper. 

Aragon on the other hand stayed polite wanted to learn Lustig only wanted to prove his right (and did not). He even emailed lustig when he dropped out of the discussion to get him back. But I guess lusting only likes to perform before people who don't oppose him.

 

To read it just scroll to where Lustig starts to post and see the discussion between two people who know a lot more then us but there was one clear winner and one clear person who could not back his claims up. It was quite interesting to follow to see who came up with what and both are smart guys. Far better as you and I trying to put out their discussion for them. Better let the experts slug it out and read it. 

 

I like guys like Aragon far more then people like lustig who exaggerate and need exaggerated studies to make their point when there is no point.  

 

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

 

That said Aragon and Lustig have common grounds only Lustig takes things to far. 

 

[WaveHunter]

16 hours ago, robblok said:

@wavehunter

 

After reading the discussion between Lustig and Aragon it was clear who was the better scientist and who had science on his side. Guess what it was not Lustig.

 

Lustig ignored that figures had been revised kept using old figures as they were better for him.

Lustig avoided the points about the Japanese diet when proven wrong.

Lustig could not find any studies on humans with normal amounts of fructose that gave problems. 

Lustig was just not able to come up with much besides rat studies and some correlation (and as we all know that does not count at all). It was great to see someone with knowledge to refute and discredit the studies of Lustig. Aragon came up with human studies that proved Lustig was exaggerating while lustig had to use rat studies to make a point because the human studies did not show what he wanted to show. 

 

So I would really advise you to read it too and if your unbias as you say you will admit that Aragon had the better argument and Lustig with his weak answer I have more followers on Youtube so I am right (yea sure that makes him right so scientific). He gave up because he knew he was beat and knew that he was only digging the hole deeper. 

Aragon on the other hand stayed polite wanted to learn Lustig only wanted to prove his right (and did not). He even emailed lustig when he dropped out of the discussion to get him back. But I guess lusting only likes to perform before people who don't oppose him.

 

To read it just scroll to where Lustig starts to post and see the discussion between two people who know a lot more then us but there was one clear winner and one clear person who could not back his claims up. It was quite interesting to follow to see who came up with what and both are smart guys. Far better as you and I trying to put out their discussion for them. Better let the experts slug it out and read it. 

 

I like guys like Aragon far more then people like lustig who exaggerate and need exaggerated studies to make their point when there is no point.  

 

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

 

That said Aragon and Lustig have common grounds only Lustig takes things to far. 

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but you really crack me up in your comparison of Aragon vs Luftig, and also Ludwig who aligns with Luftig, and who I have provided you with much information.

 

Both Luftig and Ludwig are credentialed MD's.  They were educated at top universities (MIT, Stanford and Harvard) and both have been, and continue to be very active in serious scholarly research at two of the top medical research universities in the United States.  Both are acknowledged experts in the field of nutrition and metabolic science.

 

Robert Luftig, MD, MSL is Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).  Luftig has well over 70 scholarly studies and major public health guidelines statements that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and is widely acknowledged in the medical research community as an expert in metabolic sciences and a valuable contributor in matters related to major public health issues today.

 

Daniel Ludwig, MD, PhD is a professor of pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School and a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.  He is a fellow of The Obesity Society and a recipient of the 2008 E.V. McCollum Award of the American Society for Nutrition.

 

Ludwig is considered one of the foremost experts in the world on carbohydrate metabolism.  He has been Principal Investigator on numerous grants from the National Institutes of Health, has published over 200 scientific articles, and served for 10 years as Contributing Writer for JAMA.  http://www.childrenshospital.org/research/researchers/l/david-ludwig

 

Now, just who is Alan Aragon?  He is a celebrity nutritionist.  That's it!  His education consists only of a M.S. in Nutrition, and from a university that only has a doctoral program in Physical Therapy!  While not actually a "diploma mill", it's very close to one.  Not exactly the best credentials for an expert in nutrition IMO.

 

He has no serious scholarly research papers published except as co-author, and only on matters dealing with body-building nutrition, not serious public health issues.

 

One glance at his website makes it clear he is catering to people essentially looking for short-cuts to a lean body, not long-term optimal health.  The website is clearly designed as an e-commerce site to promote his speaking engagements, and his blog, and to sell his book, and nothing more; certainly nothing that addresses major health issues that effect the mainstream population.

 

He's very good at promoting himself as an expert, but I can find nobody in the scholarly world of medical research who acknowledges him as such.

 

His book, The Lean Muscle Diet. amounts to nothing more than just another re-hashed diet plan that only addresses the short-term goal of gaining lean body, while almost totally ignoring major health issues that are seriously relevant today.

 

Every link on the first page of a google search of his name reveal only back links to his website or links to interviews with other "health gurus", or links to mainstream websites like "Men's Health" which are really only thinly disguised marketing/promotional platforms to sell health supplements and books; certainly nothing pertaining to scholarly research or matters of nutrition relevant to public health.

 

It is VERY hard to see him as anything other than just your profit-driven run-of-the-mill health guru!  No significant credentials , no affiliation with scholarly research institutions, no serious scholarly research or publication, no peer-praise from others engaged in scholarly research...just a lot of clever self-promotion! 

 

I admire him as an entrepreneur but certainly not as an health expert.  He's a con man, pure and simple.

 

And worse, he is now likely facing legal problems for some pretty despicable personal behavior if allegations are true.  https://deadspin.com/how-celebrity-nutritionist-alan-aragon-used-his-status-1828684798

 

Sorry, but you are picking the wrong guy to believe in for real science-based truth.  Just like many of these health-gurus who litter the internet, he sounds like a real creep to me.

 

I'm not normally so critical of someone, but the more I learn about him, the less I like!

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by WaveHunter