Sugar: Hiding in Plain Sight

Here’s a four-minute video on sugar, movie script by Prof. Robert Lustig. In just a few weeks it’s had almost 200,000 views.

The video is short and simple – and mostly for beginners. But it’s worth four minutes.

I object to the over-simplification that fructose is a problem while glucose is the body’s best fuel. Glucose – in too large amounts and easily digestible forms – may also be a problem. And the video disregards the fact that fat is an excellent fuel with many advantages.

Fat and glucose – coming from real unprocessed food – are both good fuels for the body. Fat is a great basic fuel, that goes a long way. Glucose is a rocket fuel for peak performances.

More

The Problem Is the Soda. Not the Calories.

Free of Sugar Addiction – Third Time’s the Charm!

WHO Recommends Cutting Sugar Intake in Half!

Is There a Safe Amount of Sugar?

48 comments

Top comments

  1. Molly
    Caylee, this is a LCHF website. We are a supportive little community here, but I doubt that you will get very far by telling somone that they are spewing ignorance across the web by advocating an LCHF aproach :)

    By all means read the rest of this site and the facts and science behind this approach, and then come back and tell us why you disagree with it; but I am afriad that an appeal to authority simply won't work with us - we want hard facts and science, we want reports in peer reviewed journals. Telling us that you've met someone or read their books and that we should trust you simply won't wash.

    Some of us have been here for years and it gets very tiring to have vegans and fruitarians bomb in on us out of nowhere and start lecturing us on why we're wrong. Some might even say that its rude to do such a thing. I would certainly never bomb in on Colin Campbell's website and start lecturing his adherants about an LCHF diet !

    Read more →
  2. murray
    I read Campbell's book. It is not very convincing; it's more of a screed than science. I was hoping for some genuine insight into nutrition and health. Not recommended reading.

    Based on reviewing science for a decade now, I converted from a plant-heavy low-fat diet to a low-carb, high-fat diet heavy in animal fat, bone broth, meat on the bone and fermented vegetables. So I changed my mind on the basis of assessing the science.

    Campbell throws the word "fraud" at low-carb. He is in essence calling Dr. Eenfeldt and others criminals, and so do you by pushing the book as "The Truth." That bears a very heavy onus of proof. Let's see it. All the book offers is dubious interpretation of ambiguous data. His case to prove fraud would be laughed out of a court of law and should be laughed out of the court of public opinion.

    On the other side of the ledger there are reams of studies supporting LCHF in relation to weight management, avoiding and managing disease, metabolic functioning, mitochondrial health and ketones as metabolic signals. Further, there is the clinical experience of countless numbers. Then there is the athletic performance research and experience of Drs. Phinney, Volek and Noakes and the cancer research of Dr. Seyfried and others. Even the US military is turning to research on ketones to enhance human performance.

    There is my own significant weight loss, health improvement and reversal of aging signs converting from a no-processed foods diet that was heavy in plants and low fat, to my current keto-LCHF diet. My HbA1c dropped to 4.7, for example. Read the research on HbA1c and various diseases and retention of neural mass, for example. The only downside I've experienced to the keto-LCHF diet is for extreme energy burst athletics, such as intense mountain biking through steep up-and-down terrain for more than an hour, which I easily manage by having some carbs to reload the glycogen buffer and no more. A handful of nuts does the job.

    Finally, no one here is saying no one should eat a plant-based diet or that everyone needs to be on an LCHF diet. Most of us here have found we do much better on LCHF and so wish to gain a better understanding of why it works so well for us and how it might be tweaked in ways that are healthful and enjoyable.

    One thing many of us have found---by actually measuring blood glucose and monitoring weight effects---is that eating a lot of fruit has the same effect as eating added sugar. That is empirical evidence. Nothing Colin Campbell says in his little book (it is short) alters the blood sugar measurements I take after eating a lot of fruit. Moreover, there are plausible digestive and metabolic explanations as to why blood sugar might shoot up non-linearly after some person-specific threshold of fruit consumption has been met. So the claim that eating unlimited fruit is okay has an evidentiary burden to be met, and I have not seen it. Bare appeals to food "as God made it" or unexplained fibre "mitigation" does not cut it. I have real evidence of glycemic effect and the response is bare rhetoric.

    Reply: #31
    Read more →

All comments

  1. b
    As I've repeatedly stated, Lustig just doesn't get it.

    He says on page 69 of his own book, he can't figure
    out why he can't lose his own weight.

  2. LCC
    Not everyone can lose weight as easily as others. Further, stating he "can't lose his own weight" does not discredit his scientific explanations of how fructose and sucrose are metabolized in the human body.
    Reply: #5
  3. charles grashow
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/learning-to-cut-the-sugar/?_...
    .

    Q.A lot of the recipes in your book use fruit to add sweet flavors. Was this a way to limit refined sugar?

    A.Exactly. People always say to me, “What about fruit? It has sugar.” But I have nothing against fruit, because it comes with its inherent fiber, and fiber mitigates the negative effects. The way God made it, however much sugar is in a piece of fruit, there’s an equal amount of fiber to offset it.

    There’s only one notable exception: grapes. Grapes are just little bags of sugar. They don’t have enough fiber for the amount of sugar that’s in them. But I have nothing against real food, and that includes real fruit. Eat all the fruit you want. It’s only when you turn it into juice that I have a problem with it, because then it loses its fiber.

    EAT ALL THE FRUIT YOU WANT!!

    Reply: #11
  4. Enkidu
    I've always been somewhat confused by Dr. Lustig. In his book he covers the role of insulin in weight gain yet highly recommends a diet including unlimited servings of whole grains. Even if you forget about gluten and all the other protiens of issue in wheat, how do you justify whole whet in light of the effect on insulin. It's ok because of a few fiber grams?
  5. murray
    In Fat Chance, Dr. Lustig essentially claims that one cannot lose subcutaneous body fat over the long term. The reasoning is that fat cells send leptin signals when they are storing fat, signalling to quell appetite. When one loses body fat, the leptin signal weakens and so you eventually over the longer term return to the "set point". So he thus appears to rationalize inability to lose subcutaneous fat as an impossible feat. This seems to me to overlook that processes can upregulate or downregulate over time, as any LCHF eater knows from adjusting to a high fat diet. He also overlooks the obvious fact that many people have indeed lost subcutaneous body fat over the longer term (I am going on 8 years now), and it only takes one counter-example to defeat a universal claim. I seem to have upregulated my leptin signalling in my remaining fat cells, or become more sensitive to leptin in my brain. Whichever, hunger has not been an issue for me since going LCHF.
  6. murray
    I think Dr. Lustig is giving a free pass on fruit and grains in order to focus on added sugar without attracting so much political resistance. To appeal to the "intent of God" or magical, unspecified "mitigating" effects of fibre is hardly science. To his defence, it does seem that some proportion of the sugar in fruit is encased in cells with fibrous walls that we are slow to digest, which presumably slows the glycemic index of the fruit and likely allows gut bacteria to consume a good portion of the sugar and other carbs, and a good portion of the fibre would get converted by bacteria into short chain saturated fats. But even this potential mitigating effect would be overwhelmed by eating a large quantity of fruit, and the effect could be non-linear, much as a bathtub acts as a buffer to contain water from the spigot until the limit is reached and then the bathroom is flooded. This effect is obvious to anyone who has a glucose monitor and is obsessive (like me) who learns that a tablespoon of blueberries has no blood sugar effect but a cup of blueberries has a large glycemic effect. And if there is a large glycemic effect, then the liver is converting fructose and, once the glycogen buffer (like the bathtub) is full, excess glucose into triglycerides to store as fat.
    Reply: #12
  7. Nate
    Hi Diet Doctor,

    Your 'NEW' page is not updating the blogs of the bloggers listed on that page. Is there something wrong with my computer or yours ??

  8. Mary Beauchamp, R.N.
    I love the commentary on this video, Diet Doc. I totally agree! There is a limit to the amount of carbs in fruit which tips the scale and prevents fat burning. Too much fruit and "natural" sweeteners are NOT good either. Thanks!
    Replies: #9, #47
  9. Andrew
    Then why are fruitarians skinny! I was at the woodstock fruit festival last summer and met lots of people of all age groups who eat fruit by the pound and they where some of the leanest fittest people I have ever met! I myself eat tons of fresh fruit and while my weight did initially go up a little it eventually stabilized and I am in better shape now at 43 than I was at 25 or 30!
    Fruit makes you fat??!! what a joke!!!! But bacon and butter are slimming??? You low carbers are killing me!!!
    Reply: #22
  10. Eric Anderson
    Lustig does seem focused on fructose while glucose and insulin seemto get a free pass or "I do not know"

    As the ability to cheaply measure glucose, insulin, ketone and other biomarkers will help identify glucose and insulin and ketone variance from person to person and the same person over time and diet changes.

    Now I still get Fauxed by hidden sugar in meat.

    eric

  11. Andrew
    Well said Charles atleast someone in here makes some degree of sense :)
  12. Caylee
    Check out "Low carb fraud" by Colin Campbell or Dr.Neal Barnards program for reversing diabetes and if after that you still feel the the same way then good luck to you!
    Replies: #13, #17
  13. Lori Miller
    "Check out "Low carb fraud" by Colin Campbell or Dr.Neal Barnards program for reversing diabetes and if after that you still feel the the same way then good luck to you!"

    Already checked it out. "The Low Carb Fraud" is the most misleading, ill-researched book I've ever read. Many of the assertions don't pass a 30-second fact check. As for Dr. Barnard, he seems to have made up "facts" out of whole cloth about early hominid diets and attributed them to Dr. Richard Leakey. It isn't hard to suppose his assertions about a high-carb diet curing a disease of carbohydrate intolerance came about in a similar way.

    http://relievemypain.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-low-carb-fraud-review.html
    http://relievemypain.blogspot.com/search?q=barnard

    Reply: #14
  14. Caylee
    Typical response from an angry blogger who doesn't like hearing the truth! Next time you read either book try reading more than just a few pages! I've met many of these plant based doctors in person and listened to their lectures and am currently studying plant based nutrition and trust me these guys know what there talking about and have cured many overweight and sick people through their diet programs some even terminally ill! But people like you would rather ignore that and try and make misleading info. By spewing ignorance across the web! I'm sure if Colin Campbell read you're review he would just roll his eyes and think nothing of it! I feel sorry for you actually!
    Reply: #19
  15. Molly
    Caylee, this is a LCHF website. We are a supportive little community here, but I doubt that you will get very far by telling somone that they are spewing ignorance across the web by advocating an LCHF aproach :)

    By all means read the rest of this site and the facts and science behind this approach, and then come back and tell us why you disagree with it; but I am afriad that an appeal to authority simply won't work with us - we want hard facts and science, we want reports in peer reviewed journals. Telling us that you've met someone or read their books and that we should trust you simply won't wash.

    Some of us have been here for years and it gets very tiring to have vegans and fruitarians bomb in on us out of nowhere and start lecturing us on why we're wrong. Some might even say that its rude to do such a thing. I would certainly never bomb in on Colin Campbell's website and start lecturing his adherants about an LCHF diet !

  16. Joe
    Ahh yes love watching high carb and low carb people squaring off why can't we all just get along :(
  17. murray
    I read Campbell's book. It is not very convincing; it's more of a screed than science. I was hoping for some genuine insight into nutrition and health. Not recommended reading.

    Based on reviewing science for a decade now, I converted from a plant-heavy low-fat diet to a low-carb, high-fat diet heavy in animal fat, bone broth, meat on the bone and fermented vegetables. So I changed my mind on the basis of assessing the science.

    Campbell throws the word "fraud" at low-carb. He is in essence calling Dr. Eenfeldt and others criminals, and so do you by pushing the book as "The Truth." That bears a very heavy onus of proof. Let's see it. All the book offers is dubious interpretation of ambiguous data. His case to prove fraud would be laughed out of a court of law and should be laughed out of the court of public opinion.

    On the other side of the ledger there are reams of studies supporting LCHF in relation to weight management, avoiding and managing disease, metabolic functioning, mitochondrial health and ketones as metabolic signals. Further, there is the clinical experience of countless numbers. Then there is the athletic performance research and experience of Drs. Phinney, Volek and Noakes and the cancer research of Dr. Seyfried and others. Even the US military is turning to research on ketones to enhance human performance.

    There is my own significant weight loss, health improvement and reversal of aging signs converting from a no-processed foods diet that was heavy in plants and low fat, to my current keto-LCHF diet. My HbA1c dropped to 4.7, for example. Read the research on HbA1c and various diseases and retention of neural mass, for example. The only downside I've experienced to the keto-LCHF diet is for extreme energy burst athletics, such as intense mountain biking through steep up-and-down terrain for more than an hour, which I easily manage by having some carbs to reload the glycogen buffer and no more. A handful of nuts does the job.

    Finally, no one here is saying no one should eat a plant-based diet or that everyone needs to be on an LCHF diet. Most of us here have found we do much better on LCHF and so wish to gain a better understanding of why it works so well for us and how it might be tweaked in ways that are healthful and enjoyable.

    One thing many of us have found---by actually measuring blood glucose and monitoring weight effects---is that eating a lot of fruit has the same effect as eating added sugar. That is empirical evidence. Nothing Colin Campbell says in his little book (it is short) alters the blood sugar measurements I take after eating a lot of fruit. Moreover, there are plausible digestive and metabolic explanations as to why blood sugar might shoot up non-linearly after some person-specific threshold of fruit consumption has been met. So the claim that eating unlimited fruit is okay has an evidentiary burden to be met, and I have not seen it. Bare appeals to food "as God made it" or unexplained fibre "mitigation" does not cut it. I have real evidence of glycemic effect and the response is bare rhetoric.

    Reply: #31
  18. Q
    Dr. Eenfeld, I respect Dr. Lustig but I disagree on the topic of fruit consumption. People should heed your advice: eat fruits occasionally and treat it like candy. Fruits were sweet back in the day but today they're hyper-sweet rocks (dry) because of their low water content. Texture of the fruit flesh has changed too, and not in a good way. Also, today's fruits don't curb the appetite at all. The low satiety makes you reach for more food much like junk food. If your readers are trying to loose weight they need to make sure they're not offsetting their current sugar intake with fruits. The key is cutting back on carbohydrates (sugar); not replacing it with a different form of sugar.
  19. Lori Miller
    Actually, a more typical response from a reader on this site would be, "I was a vegetarian for a while and it didn't work for me. But if it works for you, by all means, keep doing it." The LC world is full of former vegetarians. You're not going to quote anything from Campbell, Barnard, or Ornish that they don't already know.

    Oh, and I went over all fifty-seven pages of Dr. Campbell's little book with a fine-tooth comb, a fact you would know if you'd been willing to read criticism of his work.

  20. charles grashow
    @Lori Miller

    Will you agree that there are studies that show reversal of T2D on a LFHC diet?

    I probably eat more carbs than what the LC'ers on this site would consider optimal. What would you consider a "normal" A1C test score to be? I'm curious.

    Reply: #21
  21. FrankG
    Perhaps you could offer such studies as you feel meet this criteria Charles?

    For the sake of argument let's rule out severe calorie restriction, and any "diets" which improve glycaemic control just by virtue of being a bit better than SAD.

    Each to their own in terms of "optimal" carbs... please don't fall into the trap of trying to set arbitrary and universal levels for everyone then claiming you are fine at a different level. Just because I can only infrequently tolerate wild berries, does not mean that you cannot eat your fill of fruit, if that works for you.

    ---

    As a general comment to all and acknowledging the plea to "let's all get along"... I am heartliy sick of being labelled as a "low-carber", "LC'ers" or any variation of the above... I may currently use an LCHF approach to my eating but that does NOT define who I am.

    Labels are divisive and I see them being used in that way here.

  22. LCHF_Graham
    Welcome back 'Durianrider'.
  23. Lori Miller
    @Charles, yes, there have been studies that show improvement (I wouldn't say reversal) of T2D on a high-carb or "balanced" diets. However, the ones that immediately come to mind are so low calories that they *are* LC diets. (Jenny Ruhl has ripped these studies apart better than I can.) And what I've read by Drs. Campbell and Barnard is so dishonest that I wouldn't accept any of their studies at face value.

    Of course, if someone eats brown rice, fruit and salad instead of soda, chips and pizza, yes, they'll probably see improvement in their BG. But I don't see how this would be an improvement over a LC diet that doesn't spike BG.

    If someone can eat a high-carb diet, not calorie restricted, and have an A1C in the 5% range, jolly good; if someone can do that without drugs, I'm not sure I'd call them diabetic. My mother is a T2D, and I've seen her BG levels go over 200 after eating, say, a yogurt with 30g of carb. Her FBG used to be over 300 before she started LC. Now, it's usually under 100, her mood and energy are better, and she doesn't go into "carb comas." She's off Januvia and has cut her insulin use by two-thirds. I won't be encouraging her to go on the Ornish diet.

    Reply: #24
  24. FrankG
    The funny thing (and always great to point out to "by the book" Dieticians) is that a calorie-restricted diet -- despite the by-mouth percentage of calories per macros being classed at LFHC -- relies on the body's own stores of fat to make up the caloric deficit...

    So effectively a calorie-restricted diet is (as you say Lori) not only LCHF but also relying on the same ArteryCloggingSaturatedAnimalFats which many experts would have us believe are killing us all! :-P

    ---

    On a similar theme.. here is Barry Groves writing about how Gorillas actual digest an high FAT diet... http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/should-all-animals-eat-a-high-fat-lo...

    ...it ain't all just about what goes in your mouth :-)

  25. Dr. Joseph DelGrosso
    Great quickie on sugar.

    I'm glad the part about fructose was included. Fructose is beginning to be implicated for non-alcoholic liver disease as we learn more about its metabolism and physiologic effects over time.

    Thanks for posting this!

  26. FrankG
    That's all you got? Seems to be the same studies in multiple papers... in each case they "show some improvement"... compared to what? Carbsanity is not a reliable source so I'm not even going there.

    "reversal of T2D"..???

    Apply some common sense... carbs break down to glucose... too much glucose is a problem for someone like a Type 2 Diabetic; who is by definition, carbohydrate intolerant. How can eating MORE carbohydrate possibly improve that situation?

    As in Lori's example above, my BGs and A1c (plus ALL other health markers) are significantly improved on LCHF. I am so much better eating this way on very much reduced (little to no) medication and BGs so stable that I rarely even need to test it these days. This has been my way since 2008... and you seek to convince me otherwise with a 21 day trial?

    I think that you and I have a very different interpretation of "reversal of T2D".

    Eat what the heck you like Charles but here you are just pi$$ing into the wind.

  27. FrankG
    And as any discussion of fruit here seems to have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, this sketch seems appropriate... :-P

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LXCZRpxHpg

  28. Joe
    All this debate on fruit really has me craving some sweet crunchy cherries :) Too bad they are not in season yet :(
    Reply: #33
  29. charles grashow
    http://medicc.org/mediccreview/articles/mr_119.pdf

    At termination of the intervention, insulin administration had been eliminated in all patients, and 12 patients (75.0%) were receiving the Ma-Pi 2 macrobiotic diet as their only therapy. Overall glibenclamide use increased from 6 to 15 tablets daily (0.76mg/kg weight), since 4 patients initiated glibenclamide therapy when they stopped taking insulin.

    Reply: #32
  30. Joe
    Well said!
  31. FrankG
    What? Are we supposed to focus on the reduction in exogenous insulin while ignoring the increase in Glibenclamide and take that as a "reversal of T2D"..? Oh look we managed to substitute one diabetic medication with another! Which of course also means that during the course of the trial, it was not just the diet that changed... even if we ignore the fact that this was not a blinded, or even controlled study.

    Fortunately the researchers themselves are a bit more conservative in their interpretation of this small and limited trial on 16 adults in Cuba...

    "Conclusions
    In the 6-month intervention, the Ma-Pi 2 macrobiotic diet had a positive influence on weight control, body fat, and glucide and lipid metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Further research is needed to validate these encouraging results, particularly a clinical trial in which a control group receives the standard diet recommended for diabetic patients."

    Like I said above: just because a "diet" is somewhat better than SAD or even the ADA recommended diabetic diet does NOT make it a reversal.

    And what the heck is a "Ma-Pi 2 macrobiotic diet"?!? Sounds like someone is trying to sell something here!

    What exactly is your personal experience with Diabetes charles? Perhaps you should stick to what you DO know.

  32. murray
    Joe, I got a supply of local sour cherries from a farm last summer and pitted and froze them for small servings throughout the entire year. My son and I often enjoy a couple in our breakfast, but my wife, sadly, is allergic to tree fruit.

    Sour cherries seem to have lots of benefits, so they are well worth spending some of the daily carb budget.

    "Three new studies link eating red to a healthy heart." April 12th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-link-red-healthy-heart.html

    "New research reinforces anti-inflammatory properties of tart cherries." April 27th, 2010. http://www.physorg.com/news191581464.html

    Uhley VE, Seymour EM, Wunder J, Kaufman P, Kirakosyan A, Al-Rawi S, Warber S. Pharmacokinetic study of the absorption and metabolism of Montmorency tart cherry anthocyanins in human subjects. Experimental Biology 2009, 565.4

    Seymour EM, Singer AAM, Bennink MR, Bolling SF. Cherry-enriched diets reduce metabolic syndrome and oxidative stress in lean Dahl-SS rats. Experimental Biology 2007, 225.8. Presented in minisymposium 225, Dietary Bioactive Compounds: Chronic Disease Risk Reduction.

    Seymour EM, Lewis A, Kirakosyan A, Bolling S. The Effect of Tart Cherry-Enriched Diets on Abdominal Fat Gene Expression in Rats. American Dietetic Association FNCE 2008.

  33. Nan
    I agree that Lustig sort of rides the fence about the fructose-sucrose differences. For most of us very much sugar is bad, period. We are as he has said on occasion living in "a sea of sugar."

    There was a very good article on sugar in August 2012 National Geographic some might want to view: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

    http://www.sugaraholics.com
    http://highfatlowcarbrecipes.wordpress.com/

  34. Marcy
    Murray, I agree with you about the carbs in sour cherries being worth it. I have never seen fresh sour cherries but do buy them organic frozen when I see them at Costco. I will be on the look out for fresh.
  35. Francois
    I've been away for a while and just had access to a computer again. I decided to throw in my two cents worth essentially because many people with significant health problems are sent to this web site (I myself send patients regularly here) for a solution and some of the comments made here are so outrageous that they may discourage newcomers who are trying to understand.

    So in no particular order, tidbits here and there.
    @ Charles Grashow: "eat all the fruit you want". No. No. and No. Especially if you have diabetes. Or any chronic disease. There are many reasons. In a previous blog entry, both Paul and I provided the basic science article that showed that as soon as carbs (any carbs, refined or not) reached 40% of total daily caloric intake, the epigenome was switched on to inflammation. A second demonstration that too many carbs is not good was made by Yoshifumi Y, Uchida J et al., 2014 in an article called Partial low-carb restriction and its effects. They compared two diets: a non calorie restricted partial low-carb diet (total carbs in a day 70-135g ) and a caloric restricted without carb limitation diet. They wanted to see the effect of both diets on diabetes control. The caloric restricted diet had no effect on HbA1C and triglycerides (they were starving but their diabetes did not improve) whereas the partial carb restriction brought a significant decrease in both HbA1C and triglycerides, thus an improvement of the diabetes. So in most people, fruits (NOT fruit juices nor tropical fruits and grapes, which provide too high a glycemic load) can be enjoyed. As long as the total carb intake does not provide more than 40% of the total caloric intake. The more sick you are- chronic disease wise, the less carbs from any source you should eat. In order to get the most "bang for the buck", may I suggest a huge plate of veggies rather than fruits? They provide tons of vitamins and minerals, have incredible taste and are relatively low in carbs. Unless you want to remain a diabetic.
    @ Andrew. "Then why are fruitarians skinny?" Because overall, their caloric intake is relatively low. But body size alone is not sufficient. Should someone eat ONLY fruit, he is lacking iron, B12 and vitamin D amongst other things. Somewhat similar to that Ma-Pi macrobiotic diet, an attempt to integrate Eastern Philosophy into diet. 100% vegan, anything but science-based, not sustainable. In fact, the article's authors did state that their patients were iron deficient... So for a while, there may be an improvement in health if one came from a SAD diet but it will not last. "Fruits will make you fat??!!" Yep. If your diet is fruit and fruit juice only, it will make you sick in the long run. Happy you feel so much better. But check for inflammation markers. And get a B12, an iron and a vit D level. "But bacon and butter are slimming??!!" Yep. Because they provide long lasting energy. Because you overall eat less. Because you do not stimulate insulin to store fat. Just look at all the success stories on this blog. They all got thin eating bacon and butter. Yep. Bacon and butter are health foods. But then, you may decide to keep a closed mind and keep on believing that "fat" is evil. As if there only was one type of fat. Get real! By posting the kind of comments you do on this blog, you only prove how little you know. Many people on this blog do not have a medical degree or dietitian degree. Yet, they know much more about human nutrition than the average physician or dietitian. FrankG has a superior knowledge of diabetes and a remarkable understanding of the effect of diet on health. Murray has more than an interest. His comments are always on target, And appropriate. Paul is a wealth of knowledge and can pull tons of articles - well done articles- backing anything he states.
    @ Caylee. For God's sake, pease stop posting insanities. You are certainly allowed to believe anything you want, even that the earth is flat if this is your fancy. But please do not advertise how prejudiced you are. A little research may help. Since you do seem to adulate Dr Campbell (who is not a physician by the way and has no knowledge of human physiology), may I suggest you also read a few other authors' blogs? I recommend Dr Terry Walsh, internist who reversed her MS with a high fat low carb diet and is getting the same kind of success applying the LCHF principles to other patients with MS, Dr David Perlmutter, Dr Davies and Dr Attia (though a suggest a medical dictionary when you read his blog).
    Finally, @ Murray. As usual, great analyses. I fully agree with your statement that Lustig's free pass on fruit and grain is in order to avoid too much flack from "stakeholders". If we get rid of added sugar, things will be much better. But it would be only a start.

  36. tony
  37. Galina L.
    If you have an ethnic Eastern European store near by, there is a chance they sell frozen sour cherries.
  38. Welldun
    Francois, thank you for addressing the trolls. Looks like we've gained some new ones.
  39. charles grashow
    @Francois - Lustig said "Eat all the fruit you want"
    Reply: #41
  40. Paul the rat
    dr Lustig standpoint is just that, a standpoint one out of many - we read what he writes and hear what he says. Than we compare his views to what we already know and draw our own conclusions - we do not take his 'gospel' (or anybody's else for that matter) for granted - we listen to our bodies first.

    http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0939-4753/P...

  41. charles grashow
    http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/stop-singling-out-sugar/

    The WHO draft guidelines of reducing to below 10 percent, Dr. Sievenpiper pointed out, were based mainly on evidence that addition of excess energy from sugars increased bodyweight (Morenga et al 2013). The 5 percent limit recommendation was solely based on reduction of dental caries (Moynihan and Kelly 2012).

    On the other hand, reviews published by Dr. Sievenpiper’s lab using controlled feeding trials with fructose at low to moderate doses (in doses normally found in fruit) does not harm body weight, serum fasting or postprandial lipids, uric acid, and NAFLD. At these levels in humans, he said, the evidence even suggests a benefit to blood pressure and glycemic control. In addition, he cited the work of Sigrid Gibson and colleagues showing that a moderate dietary sucrose intake at levels up to 25 percent of energy appear to have no significant adverse effects on metabolism when substituted for starch, at least in the medium term.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3630450/

    http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/05/fate-of-fructose-in...

    Replies: #43, #44
  42. FrankG
    If you check the "Author information" for two of the authors in your linked NCBI paper, you find The World Sugar Research Organisation. That organisation's own front page states ".The World Sugar Research Organisation (WSRO) is an international scientific research organisation globally supported by the sugar industry."

    The other two work for Sigrid Gibson's own "... specialised professional consultancy in nutrition science.
    Founded in 1994, our client base has grown to include major international corporations..."

    ...all together now, "follow the money" :-P

  43. FrankG
    And here is the paper by Dr John L. Sievenpiper et al...

    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1132642

    Under "Potential Conflicts of Interest" look how many times Coca-Cola (and others) crop up and for how many of the authors.

  44. charles grashow
    http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-10-45.pdf
    Fructose in perspective
    Richard D Feinman and Eugene J Fine

    "However, suggesting that fructose is somehow a foreign substance is not consistent with the science and, therefore, should not be the basis of policy. There is a continuum from scientific studies to popular media that suggests a circumspect approach is unlikely and, in our opinion, there is a clear sense of a rush to judgement on sugar, entirely analogous to that in the diet-heart- cholesterol phenomenon. Perhaps the most important similarity is that both official agencies and individual doctors and researchers are recommending, even demanding, reduction in sugar, despite the absence of any experimental test of the idea. The message to reduce fat and cholesterol was, similarly, made before any test of what the outcomes might be. Given increasing evidence of risk from high total carbohydrate intake, the likelihood of unintended consequences from reducing fructose alone (starch replacing sugar) is strong."

    "In people with type 2 diabetes, removing starch is more beneficial than removing sugar [44] and effective treatment has been demonstrated in several studies from Nuttall and Gannon where the controlling variable is reduction of what the authors call bioavailable glucose [17,18,45]. In this area, at least, it would be good to proceed carefully."

    Reply: #46
  45. FrankG
    "Given increasing evidence of risk from high total carbohydrate intake, the likelihood of unintended consequences from reducing fructose alone (starch replacing sugar) is strong."

    Is that really what you see being advocated here charles... replacing sugar with starch?

    Or perhaps you think that anyone here is promoting the idea that "fructose is somehow a foreign substance"... that would surely be absurd?

    As I recall, Dr Lustig describes fructose as a "dose dependent hepatotoxin".. much like alcohol, with which it apparently shares many metabolic pathways. While a glass or so. of dry red wine per day, may be harmless, or even beneficial in some cases, regularly drinking more than that could lead to damaging health consequences -- or perhaps you think we should drink all the booze we want ..? :-P

  46. Emory
    I found it interesting that dates used to be criticized as a high glycemic food. New studies have shown that they are actually in the low to medium range of the index. They are one of my favorite foods...in moderation. I eat them when I have a desire for dessert..with a little almond butter on them.
    I started on LCHF in the seventies and went from 240 to 160 and have stayed there...at 11% ever since. I went back to high carbs when I was doing triathalons but found that I felt "heavy" and lacked energy. That was a brief, failed experiment.
  47. Kyle
    LCHF works for me...that's all the evidence I need. My weight is great, I have put on a lot of muscle while gaining no fat, and my biomarkers are the best ever. My total cholesterol is within normal range, HDL is very high, triglycerides are very low, resting glucose is normal, etc. Plus, I feel great doing this. If high carb low fat works for some people, more power to them. It sure doesn't work for me. I have tried it, following their exact advise, to negative results. People are different.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts