Panel Discussion on the Fight Against Sugar

Here’s a panel discussion on the fight against sugar featuring, among others, myself and sugar’s enemy number one, ie Professor Robert Lustig.

The discussion took place last month at a health conference in Oslo. The other participants are Dr. Espen Rostrup (a solid rock in the Norwegian diet debate – when he dives in) and Tone Glestad from the Norwegian Center for Sugar Addiction. Together we discussed health problems from sugar consumption, as well as weak and strong points in Lustig’s message.

You can also watch Dr. Lustig’s excellent talk from Oslo “Fight Against Sugar” on YouTube. It’s almost identical to his new YouTube talk from October, “Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0”.

55 comments

Top comments

  1. FrankG
    For me it boils down to quality vs. quantity... fructose is not a toxin per se, any more than sugar (sucrose) is a toxin per se -- the problem is that with the modern, industrial, western diet (SAD) too many people are simply getting too damned much of it!

    So then how to reduce the amounts back to "normal"? Avoiding processed, packaged "foods" goes a long way, as does reducing soda consumption.

    Even food often viewed as "healthy", like fruit juice, is refined such that you may as well be drinking soda -- in which case you ARE better off eating the fruit instead... although I challenge you to regularly eat the same 6 oranges -- along with the rest of your breakfast, every morning -- that it would take to make that glass of juice. The fibre, volume of food and effort to digest DOES make a difference n this case.

    Is even the "normal" amount of sugar tolerated by everyone? Evidently not and I only need to look at my own Diabetes to recognise that... but my 20-something year-old son -- who shares my genes but is so far metabolically healthy -- can he tolerate more than me? Sure he can! Is he better off eating whole fruit than drinking juice? I'd say so, yes.

    Reply: #4
    Read more →
  2. John Wilson
    I hear the discussion of taking sugar/soda/candy/cookies/cakes out of schools and taxing them to reduce use, but this must come second to what was not discussed in this panel. That is, training children from infants that sugar/soda/candy/cookies/cakes are a reward. Let's face it, parents encourage children to view these foods as highly desirable on a daily basis and the message is so ingrained in the minds of our children that they cannot conceive of eating them as anything but desirable (rightly so, because that is the message!). What parent these days throws a birthday party for a pre-teen that doesn't feature these foods? What parent these days does not withhold the reward of a cookie to elicit desired behavior, reinforcing the 'goodness' of these foods? It is total hypocrisy after years of this 'training' to turn around in schools and say we are taking these foods out of your reach because they are really 'bad', and the kids, of course, see through this logic and dismiss it as phony. The comparison with tobacco and what controls worked there is a poor one because we never encouraged tobacco use by our children. If there is to be reduced sugar consumption it must start with convincing adults to quit training our children to value the offending "narcotic".
    Read more →

All comments

  1. PrimeNumbers
    There's negligible glucose score difference between brown rice and white rice though, and the insulin scores for both are high. He seems to think that fibre is magic, yet I've not seen the actual evidence to show this is actually the case.

    Did the traditional Japanese really live on brown rice or white rice though?

    And the satiety score of brown and white rice is 132 and 138 respectively. I don't think Lustig's argument holds up at all.

  2. PhilT
    I'm not a fan of these single molecule crusades, to be honest. Fructophobia will just see products reformulated to maltodextrin + artificial sweetener so they can claim "no added sugar" or "sugar free" and the carbohydrate content will be the same.

    I also struggle with the intellectual coherence when fruit is given some sort of free pass as if its content was exempt from body chemistry.

    Lustig hides behind fibre to defend fruit, but he is on tape saying fructose in fruit is a problem.

  3. FrankG
    For me it boils down to quality vs. quantity... fructose is not a toxin per se, any more than sugar (sucrose) is a toxin per se -- the problem is that with the modern, industrial, western diet (SAD) too many people are simply getting too damned much of it!

    So then how to reduce the amounts back to "normal"? Avoiding processed, packaged "foods" goes a long way, as does reducing soda consumption.

    Even food often viewed as "healthy", like fruit juice, is refined such that you may as well be drinking soda -- in which case you ARE better off eating the fruit instead... although I challenge you to regularly eat the same 6 oranges -- along with the rest of your breakfast, every morning -- that it would take to make that glass of juice. The fibre, volume of food and effort to digest DOES make a difference n this case.

    Is even the "normal" amount of sugar tolerated by everyone? Evidently not and I only need to look at my own Diabetes to recognise that... but my 20-something year-old son -- who shares my genes but is so far metabolically healthy -- can he tolerate more than me? Sure he can! Is he better off eating whole fruit than drinking juice? I'd say so, yes.

    Reply: #4
  4. FrankG
    ... Is he better off eating whole fruit than drinking juice? I'd say so, yes... though even whole fruit is something I can rarely tolerate and then it is usually an handful of frozen wild blueberries with heavy cream.
  5. John Wilson
    I hear the discussion of taking sugar/soda/candy/cookies/cakes out of schools and taxing them to reduce use, but this must come second to what was not discussed in this panel. That is, training children from infants that sugar/soda/candy/cookies/cakes are a reward. Let's face it, parents encourage children to view these foods as highly desirable on a daily basis and the message is so ingrained in the minds of our children that they cannot conceive of eating them as anything but desirable (rightly so, because that is the message!). What parent these days throws a birthday party for a pre-teen that doesn't feature these foods? What parent these days does not withhold the reward of a cookie to elicit desired behavior, reinforcing the 'goodness' of these foods? It is total hypocrisy after years of this 'training' to turn around in schools and say we are taking these foods out of your reach because they are really 'bad', and the kids, of course, see through this logic and dismiss it as phony. The comparison with tobacco and what controls worked there is a poor one because we never encouraged tobacco use by our children. If there is to be reduced sugar consumption it must start with convincing adults to quit training our children to value the offending "narcotic".
  6. murray
    John, your point is spot on. Look how many high holidays have been co-opted to become sugar-fests--Halloween, candy canes for Christmas, Valentine's Day, candy eggs from the Easter bunny.

    Treats do not have to be sugary indulgences. My daughter has been away at university and yesterday I suggested for Christmas dinner we have Scotch-glazed pork belly as an appetizer. Her response?

    "aaaahhhhh pork belly

    yes yes yes please that"

  7. bill
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't
    carbohydrates made up of many sugar
    molecules strung together?

    When we break down carbs, don't these
    molecules act the same as any other
    sugar molecules in our bodies?

    Lustig can't see past his fructose argument.

    He eats bagels and he can't figure out why
    he can't lose the last 40 pounds he put on
    in his residency (Pg 69, Fat Chance).

    Reply: #10
  8. Steve Frisch
    One of the (many) problems I noticed with Dr. Lustig’s answers is that he's a bit loose with facts.

    For example, the staple rice in Japan has been and is still uruchi mai, which is a white rice, not "brown" rice as he claims.

  9. neal matheson
    I lived in Japan for many years, Japanese People eat white rice and have for a very long time. Brown rice is fed to prisoners and others though pretty widely available.
  10. murray
    Bill, most digestible starch is a polymer chain of glucose molecules without fructose. Oligofructose is a complex carbohydrate that is an insoluble fiber. Some of dietary fructose is converted into glucose (fructose has a glycemic index of 20) and much of the fructose is transformed into triglyceride fat by the liver, which can accumulate on the liver (thus the fructose link with fatty liver disease). However, excess glucose (from sugar or starch) has many of the same metabolic ill effects as fructose, when eaten in excess of the capacity of the liver to create glycogen and the sugar-burning rate of cells in the body. So it seems more glucose/starch can be eaten than fructose before the metabolic trouble begins. It's all about relative rates--rates of ingestion, rates of capacities to process benignly (tolerance).
    Reply: #11
  11. bill
    murray said:

    "However, excess glucose (from sugar or starch) has many of the same metabolic ill effects as fructose,..."

    Yes, and Lustig refuses to recognize this.

    Reply: #13
  12. Logan
    I don't agree with using government to restrict or tax sugar to reduce consumption (just as I don't agree with this tactic being used for alcohol and tobacco). On the other hand we can stop giving out farm subsidies to sugar producers, just as we should stop subsidizing tobacco farmers (I don't know if alcohol production is subsidized, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is).

    I think the best course to take is to assume personal responsibility for your own life and the life of your family and stop consuming sugar, and try to convince your extended network of friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors to follow your example. Be out and proud of your low-carb high-fat diet, share your health marker data and any weight loss progress with everyone.

    If you can convince just two people to make the switch, and then they convince two people, and so on and so forth, then in 34 degrees of separation 8.5 billion people will be converted. Assuming it takes a year to convert them, it'll take 34 years to reach this goal at this rate. (I'm working on 5 friends, so far only one has taken the plunge to follow my lead. Another is anxious to see my 6 month health markers which I'll be doing end of January.)

  13. Logan
    What's the point of engaging in attacking allies in the fight against metabolic syndrome? So Lustig hasn't been convinced yet that high-sugar/high-fiber should also be restricted, bad mouthing him on a public form isn't going to change his mind. All 3 of the other panelists expressed at one point or another opinions against the strict low-carb diet that Doc promotes. Yet of the 4 on the panel it is obvious that Doc was the healthiest and fittest one there.
    Reply: #16
  14. smc
    Lustig seems to believe that government coercion is the best way to gain a better diet for most people. I and my wife switched to a LCHF diet with no government "persuasion" at all. We analyzed the facts available and made a choice for ourselves. Let's not forget that it is government (via George McGiovern and his senate panel) that made the initial ill-fated recommendation to reduce fats in the diet, thereby necessarily increasing the carbs. In this case, government was not the solution but the instigator of this multi-decade experiment in high carb living. What a disaster.

    I was annoyed that Lustig decided to bring politics into the discussion at the very end of the video. There was no need for this. This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. It is a matter of good science vs. bad science. Good dietary advice vs. bad dietary advice.

  15. Zepp
    Im with Logan.. dont pick on Lustig becuse hes not a thru low carber.. he is doing a good job from his point of view!

    And its good to have some people in the societys top.. how influence others with influence.. mayby somthing good can came out of it.. like it have been done i Sweden!

    Beside the LCHF movment there are other movments thats more about real food, parent movments thats about real food on the free school lunches and to our old and on hospitals.

  16. bill
    Logan:

    How is pointing out something Lustig says in his
    own book, Fat Chance, attacking or badmouthing him?

    Have you read the book? Would you like me
    to find where he is quoted as saying he eats
    a bagel for breakfast, too? His words, not mine.

    I will continue to refer to page 69 of his book
    wherein he states that he can't figure out how to
    lose the 40 pounds he gained in his residency.

    Again, physician, heal thy self.

    Reply: #17
  17. FrankG
    It's called picking your battles bill :-)

    In the grand scheme of things, do you think that Dr Lustig is helping, or hindering, the growing acceptance of LCHF as an healthy alternative?

    Aren't there enough naysayers out there already?

    As I've said before, I think he still has enough professional recognition to make great strides -- and I suspect that some of what he says is to keep the "establishment" off guard. Fat lot of good he would be if he becomes ostracized as so many others have done, for speaking out freely!

    Are you perfect? I know I'm not.

    Reply: #19
  18. murray
    The difficulty with Dr. Lustig's errors or misstatements is that they potentially undermine the credibility of the important message to reduce starch and sugar. By presenting shoddy science to demonize fructose and sanctify glucose and starch, he puts at risk the goal of improving health by reducing total carb load. Already his position is being attacked by big sugar showing fructose is little different than glucose in excess. Ergo, a calorie is a calorie, CICO, etc.

    A dietician acquaintance who is refreshingly critical and open-minded observed to me that hunter-gather societies tended to be up to 40% calories from carbs in diet. A Norwegian study showed above 40% turned on genes to cause systemic inflammation. For me, the general goal should be to reduce carbs to 40% or less, not demonize fructose. Lustig is getting some media traction highlighting dangers of sugar, so that is good, but I am not sure in the end he is a genuine ally. Not sure.

  19. bill
    What murray said.

    Is LCHF the way to go? Lustig says, "nay".

    Are starches to be avoided? Lustig says, "nay".

    Will Lustig try LCHF to reduce 40 more pounds?
    Lustig says, "nay".

    Who's the naysayer?

  20. Ondrej
    Too bad the expert "panel" did not include world renowned dietary guru Alan Aragon.

    It would have been hilarious to see Dr. Lustig get re-spanked!

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fruct...

    It goes to show that just because you have the words MD after your name does not make you an infallible God.

    Maybe in DR. Lustig's case MD stands for Master of Deceit.

  21. Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist
    Thank you for this discussion. Yes. Education is the key here... education of youngsters and re-education of adults. How many adults still have the picture of the outdated food pyramid in their head? How many adults are still under the spell of TV advertising (here in Australia) that used to promote Mum's at the shopping centre choosing margarine over butter with the jingle "you ought to be congratulated" ? Thank goodness this advertising has stopped. We need uniformity and consistency across the media and all forms of education, for each generation. For "excess sugar" to become a thing of the past, society needs to understand the fundamental difference between carbohydrates being the body's primary energy source (and the consequences of going overboard with carbs), compared to healthy fats (in moderation) being the body's "preferred" more beneficial primary source of energy. Beyond education, there's the deeper issues associated with resistance to change habits built up over decades, willingness to accept beneficial change, and develop new habits... which requires professional counselling for the most part. As a kinesiologist I facilitate change in one person at a time. This message is catching on. People are relieved once they are "on track" again.
  22. Kindke
    Here is the real question, we all know ( processed ) sugar is bad for us and we need to remove it from the diet, But why do we also need to remove so called healthy carbs like boiled potatoes from the diet aswell?

    Simply cutting refined sugar and grains from my diet doesnt magically return me to a state of leanness. I need to cut virtually all carbs to lose weight. Why is it like that?

    It seems no-one knows........

    Replies: #27, #29
  23. Eric Anderson
    Why not get more evidence?
    Yes sugar is a problem
    After removing sugar what is next? and what dose what benifit?
    Grain?
    Fruit?
    Selected vegetables?
    All or all most all vegetables?
    Most or all milk sugars? Milk proteins?

    Seems 80 percent or more calories from animal fat and 80 grams of animal protein every day or every other day works.

    Does the mcDougal or dean Ornish type approach with the removal of all sugars do the same or are lipids and other biomarkers less than optimal when compared with HFLC?

    Are grains enough to lower LDL C or is it the corn oil soy oil soyoil etcetera that does most or all the harm?

    Doing fine on no sugar, no grain HFLC animal based diet. Eric

  24. Michelle
    The message is real food. Food that you make yourself. Food that is full of vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients that help us live, love and stay as healthy as much as we can.

    This is the beginning and what will follow will hopefully answer all the questions you all seem to have.

    Dr Lustig is not a God, nor does he claim to know all the answers, but what he does do is encourage us to ask the questions we have been neglecting for so many years. His message has to be taken seriously by the rest of the medical world and I believe that is why he appears to be a moderate and not as hard core as some of you would like.

  25. Kindke
    I dont get his point on brown rice vs white rice, I will happily eat as much brown rice as white rice, I have noticed no difference in the satiety value of the two.
  26. bill
    Diet Doctor links to Yoni Freedhoff
    who has this post today:

    http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/12/who-cares-if-3500-calories-dont-...

    I guess a calorie is a calorie and
    CICO works?

    No rebuttals on there yet.

    I can see why people get confused.

  27. Logan
    Well according to the low-carb gurus it is insulin that causes the body to store energy (as fat) and all carbs (and excessive proteins) induce an insulin response. Cut out the carbs and you reduce the insulin response, at the same time burning more calories than you take in and your body makes up the difference by dipping into the energy stores. Apparently intermittent fasting is better for weight loss than reducing calories as reducing calories may cause your metabolism to drop and slow your weight loss.

    Although I just watched an episode of Futurescape dealing with space travel and one method of research had to do with a protein/hormone/enzyme (I don't recall which) induces hibernation and lowers metabolism which would theoretically extend life-span. So I'm not entirely sure a low metabolism is a bad thing, maybe my low metabolism (in addition to not smoking/drinking/drugs and drinking only water) is why I look so much younger than my peers?

  28. FSM
    I do not understand why it's being said that there's no data about Aspartame. That is wrong. Aspartame breaks down primarily into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. Methanol causes blindness by destroying the optic nerve, it's a deadly alcohol. This is reason enough for Aspartame to be illegal. Not to mention methanol is associated with many other negative side effects like headaches, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, etc. Methanol has a consumption limit of 7.8mg/day, but even 1 can of diet coke will put you over this limit.

    Aspartic acid can cause brain lesions and affects many brain functions and phenylalanine can cause reduced brain function by numbing you similarly to antidepressants, but this is much less drastic compared to methanol.

  29. Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist
    Kindke shedding unwanted fat stores is a matter of determining one's individual level of daily "carbohydrate tolerance" in grams (of whatever type of carbohydrate you choose to eat... from high carb sugar, pasta, grains down to bread, fruit and lower to low carb vegetables and dairy) relevant to their level of daily physical activity, that "switches" a person from the "fat-loading LIPOGENESIS fuelling state" into the "fat-burning KETOGENIC fuelling state".

    For example, my tolerance level is 50 grams of carbohydrate per day, when combined with 45 to 90 mins moderate to high intensity exercise. When I eat LESS than this amount for 2-3 days ketones (the acidic "burnt fuel" by-product that smells like acetone in your urine) of the fat metabolism process shows up in my blood sample indicating that I am shedding fat. The body fat % on my weighing scales also starts to go done in very small increments. For me, the ketone levels in blood samples vary between 0.1 and 0.3 depending on my time involved in physical activity. When I eat more than 50 grams of carbs I go out of "fat-burning KETOSIS fuelling system" immediately switch into "fat-loading LIPOGNESIS fuelling system". Consistently ingesting less than 50 grams per day, combined with consistent levels of physical activity keeps me in the fat burning ketogenic state.

    Now, for my diabetic friend, his tolerance level is 30 grams per day. He has to stay within this limit plus exercise for at least 30 minutes per day to shed unwanted fat stores. Every person has their own specific carb. tolerance level, that varies from person to person (determined by weighing, researching amount of carb per 100g for each substance, doing the math of adding up every serving throughout the day).

    The choice of what carbohydrate to ingest that adds up to that "optimum" number of grams within your personal tolerance level depends on the individual's physiology, and what your value system is. My value system is "density of wholesome nutrition, as alive as possible" (ie: fresh, unprocessed, prepared to minimize nutrient loss). It's a matter of educating yourself on the carb. content of every single substance you eat for the amount of that substance you are eating (weighing scales & researching grams per 100g of a substance for each meal and doing the math for the entire day).

    Sugar is 100% carb. Pasta is 70% carb. Bread 47% carb. Potato 13% carb. Milk 5% carb. Mushrooms zero% carb.

    For example, a slice of bread may have 25 grams of carb. (half my 50g daily allowance). I could eat 2 slices per day of this, and no other carb, in 4 half slice servings. OR, I could eat 120 grams of baked potato with skin which has 25 grams of carb (half my 50g daily allowance). OR, I could ingest 25 grams sugar (half of my 50g daily allowance).

    All of the above have the same amount of amount of carbohydrate (25 grams) in servings of various sizes, but which of the above choices give the cells in my body the OPTIMUM amount and variety of NUTRIENTS is what is most relevant here?... considering eating food is all about nutrients getting into the CELLS where they are needed?... Yes?

    Let's compare the above.

    SUGAR has zero nutrients.

    This particular slice of BREAD that I chose contains 10g protein, 5g fats, 25g carbohydrate and 318mg of sodium (all essential nutrients, with one mineral). To shed unwanted fat the ratio of protein + fat : carbohydrate needs to be in the ratio of 3:1 to 5:1 for every meal. Bread (on it's own) does not fit this ratio (10g protein + 5g fat = 15g. 15g : 25g carb is a ratio of 1:1.7) One would need to increase protein and fats to obtain the beneficial ratio between 3:1 and 5:1 if one wanted to eat bread and shed unwanted fat.

    Let's look at the POTATO. 120 grams potato (with skin) contains 4g protein, zero fat, 25g carb., plus Vit. C, Calcium and Iron (all essential nutrients, with 1 vitamin, 2 minerals). It's ratio is 1:6. Again, one would need to increase protein and fats to obtain the beneficial ratio between 3:1 and 5:1 if one wanted to eat potato and shed unwanted fat.

    So, considering nutritional value of these choices, 1 slice bread has more protein (preferred if I were building muscles) than this one slice of bread, verses 120 grams baked potato (good if I want these vitamins, minerals), then 25g pure sugar is lowest nutrition at zero... yet they all contain the very same amount of carbohydrate (25 grams).

    It's a matter of personal choice as to what forms of food sources you choose your intake of essential nutrients (2 fatty acids, 9 amino acids, 14 vitamins, 15 minerals).

    However, no carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans.

    Considering these nutrients are ESSENTIAL, one has to make very wise food choices when it comes to including carbohydrates in one's diet, as carbohydrates have nil essential nutritional value... yet a very high probability of leading to increasing unwanted fat stores if not metabolized within a short time frame.

    Any level of carbohydrate, therefore, in all it's various forms (sugar, bread, pasta, dried and whole fruits, starchy vegetables) is in excess of the body's nutritional requirements.

    How much carb. a person can tolerate is specific to the individual. Low carb. is generally 50 grams per day. Very low carb. is generally 30 grams per day.

    Therefore it is the personal preferences/values/habits/genetic heritage of each individual that defines the benefits (if any) that are derived from eating carbohydrates from any food source.

  30. Jamie Hayes
    Regarding drinks sweetened with artificial sweeteners, it would be interesting to measure the Insulin Response to drinking Coke Zero. As it has no sugar (of any kind), I would assume that it has the same GI and GL of water. But it would be interesting to see it tested against some whole foods including full fat milk.
    Reply: #31
  31. binhang
    Hi, I really love this post. Love the way you write your posts. The information in this article is really unique and useful for me. After reading this article, I think I have some ideas for myself. I do follow your articles recently. Thanks for sharing this post. Hope to read more interesting information from you. Have a nice day:http://vkool.com/15-tips-on-how-to-control-blood-sugar-levels/
    Reply: #33
  32. Paul the rat
    Please stop advertising your website (containing informations of little value) here, no one is fooled by your "nice" meaningless comments. Go away.
  33. Zell
    Dr. Lustig makes a lot of sense. It's too easy to rely on diet soda and substitute sweeteners to cope with sugar cravings on a very low carb diet. The stress of eating an extremely low carb diet, with all the food restrictions, can even intensify sugar cravings, especially in the long term. What I find of Paramount importance is to not eat or drink anything that I crave too much. Brown rice, whole grains and fruit do not induce cravings in me - plus, they make staying away from desserts much more doable.
    Replies: #35, #37
  34. Paul the rat
    Obviously you have no slightest idea about low carbohydrate life-style and obviously you did not try it yours and, as every troll, you are an "expert" on it.
    p.s.
    These trolls are as dumb as they are persistent.
  35. Zell
    Paul the rat,

    You are aptly named. I have no interest in your hatred.

    Reply: #38
  36. Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist
    Hi Zell, after reading your post I am curious as to what your proportion of protein:fat:carb ratio is, particularly in regards to beneficial fats.... are you ingesting enough of these?

    The reason I ask is because it has been my experience (and that of my clients) that as soon as even one beneficial fat (eg. 1 tablespoon of coconut oil per day) is introduced (in instances where fats & lipids are insufficient, carbs are several times what they should be, and protein intake is generally sufficient), the carb/sugar (and even alcohol) cravings disappear overnight.

    Zell, there is a broad range of densely nutritious wholesome foods on VLC when you dig a little deeper to investigate. It has been my experience that once people get the fat:protein:carb ratio right they feel very satiated at every meal, have no cravings, have ample available energy (from the 9kcals from fats, which is more tha double the energy per gram, than the 4Kcals from carbs) to do all the activities they desire during each day. In my typical day, I have 3 different foods for breakfast (my main meal, 2 proteins + 1 fat + 1 veg), 6-8 different foods at lunch (primarily salads + 1 protein), and 2-3 different foods at dinner (smallest meal, 1 protein with fat + 2 vegetables).

    The trick is to choose fresh, high quality, high density of nutrient food sources. It's the nutrients that the body craves. If one consumes food with a low amount of nutrient value, then the body will want many servings of that substance to get all it's essential nutrients... if that is the only food you make available to the cells of your body. On the other hand, being selective in eating highly nutrient dense sources of fresh foods will give the body all the essential nutrients it needs on a daily basis. Less "volume" of food becomes sufficient to meet the nutritional needs, especially when very high nutrient dense fresh organic foods are chosen over non-organic... which has nutrients in a more moderate amounts.

    Carbohydrate is not classified as an essential nutrient. The body will crave it (as the only energy source) if one does not provide a better source of energy (beneficial healthy fats). All body processes need energy to function. Carbohydrate is (in my experience) an insufficient source of energy to get done what I need to do every week. Fats provide me with a superior source of energy.

    I do moderate intensity physical outdoor work 4 days per week (36 hours) and Kinesiology (study & therapy for clients) 2 days per week, along with 4 x 45 minute sessions of tennis/swimming/bushwalking per week. I would not be able to do this using carbs as my main source of energy, only fats get the job done.

    Fats also keep my joints "well lubricated", my hair shiny, my skin supple, my muscles "fed".

  37. Paul the rat
    It is not hatred. It is just an observation. How do you know that rats have propensity for hatred ?. Do they ?
    Enjoy your whole grains !.
    Reply: #39
  38. Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist
    Hello "Paul the rat".

    I feel every person is entitled to comment (on the topic) to express their own opinion, insights and share their variety of experiences. I also feel different people are at different stages of their "learning curve".... as nutrition is quite a complex topic, and people don't just become "experts" overnight. Further to this, I sense that being mindful of these differences between each of us and finding the common ground (helping each other along? Yes?) benefits each other in a socially uplifting and supportive manner.

    Making personal insults, put downs, and calling people unkind names (aimed at inflaming defensiveness, perhaps? or trying to pick an argument maybe?) comes across as being unpleasant and doesn't contribute to the topic in a beneficial way. It shows poor manners.

    Understood?

    Paul, I hope you can contribute some thing of a more "positive" nature to the discussion? and stay on topic?.. in the future?

    Yes? ... No?... Maybe?... in stead of getting more and more "personal"?

    It seems to me you may just have a "bee in your bonnet" (so-to-speak) about something (unrelated to this discussion?) that's upset you, if that's the case, how about considering the benefits of getting it off your chest and talking it over with someone who is in a position to listen and understand... (a trusted friend?)

    Replies: #40, #41
  39. Paul the rat
    For how long do you follow this blog Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist?. Please do some reading of this blog before suggesting that I should contribute in a "positive" way. And it seems wrong to you - I do not have a bee in my bonnet
    Reply: #47
  40. Paul the rat
    @ Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist

    I am sure you can tell the difference between someone genuinely asking for guidance/help/suggestions with LCHF from someone making assertive, definite comments about LCHF as those for example made by Zell at # 34

  41. Zell
    Frances,

    Yes, I am familiar with coconut oil, unrefined, organic. Very tasty and wonderful. The problem, for me, w/the vlc diet is that it is dreadfully expensive. Well, that is one problem and perhaps the Main problem I have encountered with it.
    Dr. Lustig doesn't want people to eat meat if it's non-organic. I can certainly understand that. However, if one is to do a vlc diet, meat, fish, pork - all those must, ideally, be organic.
    I just can't afford that kind of diet, so I found myself relying too much on processed meats.
    However, I have had a good deal of coconut oil (organic) with organic eggs. Very tasty way to eat and I am glad I have tried a vlc diet for at least a year, because it Did wean me away from all the sugar.
    Alas, my sugar cravings never fully went away. Dr. Lustig has said it takes about 6 years for that, but I have a feeling that for me, it will be a lifelong thing to battle.
    Complex carbs, including whole grains, are a nice addition to my diet that do not cost too much. I am also going to start eating legumes. All these foods are real, whole foods, w/good nutrients, good qualities to them. I am now eating clementines, and that is a nice way to handle my cravings for Christmas sugar cookies w/o going off the wagon.
    My way is not everyone's way.
    I'm just speaking from a person who is on a very limited budge. Organic meats and fish are Extremely expensive. The organic salmon I once bought was double the price of regular salmon.
    Also, the vlc diet says "no" to too much heavy cream, nuts or even too much meat (even organic meat), because it can cause weight gain.
    So, I've decided to eat complex carbs, beans, fruit, w/o worrying, because those foods are real foods, they are high in fiber (I agree w/Dr. Lustig that fiber is important) and they help balance out my eating, so that I no longer feel I have to rely on processed meats, fish & poultry to do a vlc diet.
    For those who have lots of money, the vlc diet is GREAT. I am not one of them and also, a diet of real, whole foods, low in sugar, high in fiber, is not to be sneered at by anyone, imo (not that You sneered, Frances).
    So, this is my take and where I'm coming from. I Love what I have learned about vlc, how it's weened me from my horribly addictive, excessive need for sugar - but, yes, I do still have cravings (and have had them from the get go of doing vlc, even before I brought back in the whoel grains, fruit & beans).
    I think, compared to the average person, I still eat pretty low carb. I do not have any white bread, white flour products or sugar desserts (including the sugars that are not labeled as such).
    Maybe on a Holiday I might have something, but my regular way of eating eschews sugar and it's many companions. I know how easy it is for me to binge on the stuff.
    I make no apologies for my experiences. I'm just sharing my tribulations, not expecting anyone to do as I do.

  42. Zell
    Diet zealots do not interest me.
    What I like about Dr. Lustig is that HE is not a proponent of any particular type of eating except that he advocates eating Real Food, extremely low in added sugars, no white stuff, and eating food high in fiber.
    Not everyone can do a vlc diet for a variety of reasons, some of which I have mentioned. Not everyone Wants to do a vlc diet. However, Everyone can work to eat better, to eat real foods, high in fiber, low in sugar.
  43. Zell
    I do enjoy this blog, and like to read it regularly and sometimes comment on it. I hope & trust that not everyone will consider me a "troll" for expressing views that may be different from their own. The doctor who runs this blog is, I sense, not going to see me as a troll. After all, Dr. E seems to have a very hearty respect for Dr. Lustig, and I think that is Admirable!
    Reply: #45
  44. bill
    Zell said:

    "I do enjoy this blog, and like to read it regularly..."

    But you apparently don't understand much of what you read.

  45. Paul the rat
    Thanks bill.
    And Merry X-Mass (or Mithras day) to all !!
  46. Frances Lilian Wellington - Kinesiologist
    Hey Paul,

    There you go again... yet another put-down... just as I expected. I won't be drawn into a sarcastic argument with you. Full stop. End of story. Have a nice day.

    Reply: #48
  47. bill
    Frances:

    You're kidding, right?

  48. Zell
    I may not understand much of what I read Bill, and/or you may not enjoy much of what I write because you are yet another intolerant type. This place often feels like a cult. I don't have patience for diet zealots. Your kind is Not helping to advance knowledge, you're just stroking each others egos. Your intent is to quell the "Ignorant Heathens" and establish/maintain dominance of this blog. You and your fellow repressives are a scourge to independent thought. A pox on such petty, insecure bashing from you haters.
    Replies: #50, #54
  49. Paul the rat
    It is ok for you to sing hymns of praise to wonderful whole grains and healthy fruits, yet when we disagree with you (I admit using rude and rough stance that because personally I got tired of "kind" trolls who "tried" LCHF and "know many who tried and it was just terrible' so they are back to healthy whole grains and fresh fruits and feel wonderful. Good for you, I wish you long and healthy life) you call as close-minded zealots and haters?.

    Why are you compelled to push your 'healthy whole grains' agenda on LCHF blog?

    Political correctness is always one way street, right Zell ?

  50. Zell
    I'm telling my story and if you don't like it too bad. You attacked me first. You could have asked me reasonable questions or ignored me, but you went for the jugular. Grow up. We don't all have to agree but we can be civilized about differing views. If not, then don't be playing the innocent when you get back some of your own hostility.
  51. Zell
    We also all have different health issues. I'm experimenting with whole grains, fruit and beans. Stop acting like a Vegangelist. Diet wars are a form of intense intolerance and do not advance knowledge.
    Reply: #53
  52. Paul the rat
    I agree.

    I see everyday people suffering from 'healthy whole grains and plenty of fresh fruits and fiber" diet

  53. bill
    We're just a little suspicious of posters who sing praises
    of things that are exactly the opposite of what this blog was created for.

    Oh, who am I kidding? We're EXTREMELY suspicious of posters
    like that.

    Zell and Frances, your outrage is really over the top and therefore
    not credible.

    By the way, I'm bill. Bill is a different poster.

  54. grinch
    "We're just a little suspicious of posters who sing praises
    of things that are exactly the opposite of what this blog was created for."
    -----

    So this blog was not created to promote good health through dietary intervention among other things? Perhaps the real purpose then was to promote low carb zealotry?

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts