Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
klimmilksq

Dr. Lustig's "sugar: The Bitter Truth"

Recommended Posts




I'm just posting this as I found this interesting, especially the takes on fructose (and it's relatives: sucrose, HFCS, etc).


It's kinda long, so thoughts would be interesting to see after it's been watched from beginning to end.


Dr. Lustig is also present in UCTVPrime's "The Skinny on Obesity", so far 3 parts have been posted on youtube.

http://www.youtube.c...CTVPrime/videos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Guy Justin, starting his own thread and then knocking it down by replying to the Milk thread.

Where are the cliffs bro? NEG. j/k

I've found my health improves a lot if I stay low fruc / low gluc - ose. That's kind of how I tend to eat year-round. I did a high carb phase earlier and when I quit I immediately felt withdrawal symptoms. Never doing that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Guy Justin, starting his own thread and then knocking it down by replying to the Milk thread.

Yes I am Good Guy Justin.

Where are the cliffs bro? NEG. j/k

Too many cliffs to list.

I've found my health improves a lot if I stay low fruc / low gluc - ose. That's kind of how I tend to eat year-round. I did a high carb phase earlier and when I quit I immediately felt withdrawal symptoms. Never doing that again.

I find everything improves if I stay away from sugary stuff in general, like junk food and what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

Very interesting stuff; astonishing really. Just got to 44:33 (which with a three year old and a new born is pretty good going) but seems to be when the really interesting stuff starts.

Cheapest copy of pure white and deadly I can find is £218! :o

1:06:04 (my benefit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

Here is a response, which I also found interesting. The one thing Alan Arargon does not seem to cover in this response is the metabolic process through which a disproportionate amount of fructose ends up as fat, which for me is the most concerning element of Lustig's point of view. I am not convinced by Arargon's contention that sucrose, equal proportions of glucose and fructose, really affects satiety as much as Arargon would have us believe. That said, it cannot be as bad as Lustig makes out either. If glucose does release leptin, and fructose does not, surely a mixture of fructose and glucose in equal portions is only half as effective at producing leptin (the full response) as glucose would be on it's own. And I do not see how not producing a Leptin response translates to eating more, because it does not negatively affect the leptin response of the other foods you eat. Yes the fructose response is one which generates empty calories, and an amplified adipose deposit, but everything else remains equal.

Interesting stuff. Drinking soft drinks excessively was never a good idea in the first place, but it is surprising the stuff they artificially sweeten. It looks like we are not as hard done by in the UK as in other western societies though (from my limited google-ing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Experiment, one of the articles you linked to elsewhere (too lazy ATM to find it), mentioned that fructose reduces leptin sensitivity. Whether you have large amounts of leptin in your bloodstream or not, if your receptors aren't picking up on it, you remain unsatiated.

I don't know the ratios of sensitivities and amount of leptin generated, but if sucrose is 50/50 glucose/fructose, the net result might be that the effects cancel each other out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the big shocker was seeing fructose in chocolate milk, in which it has no business being. I mean milk + chocolate is already amazing, why do you need to sweeten it! Nuts!!

I think the main takeaway though is that fructose isn't necessarily a poison, so long as it's consumed in small doses and alongside fiber. I.e., in its naturally occurring form (fruits). What a shock.

Here is a response, which I also found interesting. The one thing Alan Arargon does not seem to cover in this response is the metabolic process through which a disproportionate amount of fructose ends up as fat, which for me is the most concerning element of Lustig's point of view. I am not convinced by Arargon's contention that sucrose, equal proportions of glucose and fructose, really affects satiety as much as Arargon would have us believe. That said, it cannot be as bad as Lustig makes out either. If glucose does release leptin, and fructose does not, surely a mixture of fructose and glucose in equal portions is only half as effective at producing leptin (the full response) as glucose would be on it's own. And I do not see how not producing a Leptin response translates to eating more, because it does not negatively affect the leptin response of the other foods you eat. Yes the fructose response is one which generates empty calories, and an amplified adipose deposit, but everything else remains equal.

Interesting stuff. Drinking soft drinks excessively was never a good idea in the first place, but it is surprising the stuff they artificially sweeten. It looks like we are not as hard done by in the UK as in other western societies though (from my limited google-ing).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

Thanks, FM. I should pay more attention to my posts, clearly! Having looked into it a bit further, in several tests with lab rats, fructose led to overeating resulting in the theory that fructose causes leptin resistance. The problem is they didn't appear to do the tests with a control (equivalent rat snacks with glucose), so there is no way to say whether it was just a response to increased calorie dense food generally.

One of the most convincing theories - as far as I am concerned, because all roads appear to point to this conclusion - is that Leptin resistance is simply a natural response to increased consumption of calorie dense foods, because it enables mammals to build up an energy reserve during times of plenty (in preparation for the times of hardship). This has as appeal to logic, based on evolution and the trials and tribulations of life that most mammals would have experienced. But also, rats who developed Leptin resistance because they were fed calorie dense foods, returned to producing normal Leptin levels when they were placed on a calorie restricted diet.

That said, fructose would still be a whole new branch of evil because it does not produce Leptin, so Leptin resistance or not, at best a can of a sucrose enriched drink is going to make you feel less satiated than it's glucose alternative. At best, it will impair your ability to feel satiated on the glucose in the sucrose too.

All in all, it's best to avoid drinks (and any food, because the list is very long indeed) with high fructose corn syrup and sucrose.

For me the big shocker was seeing fructose in chocolate milk, in which it has no business being. I mean milk + chocolate is already amazing, why do you need to sweeten it! Nuts!!

Agreed. I think the list of other foods, like bread, is a little crazy too. The list of MacDonald's foods that did not contain fructose was startling by how short it was. It brings home to me just how important it is to make your own food whenever you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated lecture from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×