Sugar is a Poison - Dr Lustig

Highly worth watching! Sugar lovers and frutarians ... are dead wrong

Sugar = Cancer and other diseases

I also recommend the book "SUGAR BLUES"

Fail.

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

Your brain needs glucose to operate. I can tell you without a doubt that when i was on a low carb "diet" my brain wasn't operating at full potential. Upped my carbs and i noticed instant results - more energy, clear thoughts, retained more from what i was reading etc. Fruit a poison haha. Isolate a compound, like fructose (pop) and then amplify it, then of course you'll have problems. So why not give your body and brain what it needs in the simplest form that is easily digestible and causes the least amount of stress on your system. From what i understand, when your body's glycogen stores are depleted it will look wherever it can to find a fuel source. Starches, sugars, fats, proteins can all be broken down in to a usable energy source for your body, but why exert more energy than what is needed? Maybe i'm confused.

http://www.acnp.org/g4/gn401000064/ch064.html

Although the brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization. With a global blood flow of 57 ml/100 g·min, the brain extracts approximately 50% of oxygen and 10% of glucose from the arterial blood. Hence, the glucose utilization of the brain, as assessed by measuring the arterial–venous difference (22), is 31 mmol/100 g·min. Oxygen consumption is 160 mmol/100 g·min; because CO2 production is almost identical, the respiratory quotient (RQ) of the brain is nearly 1, indicating that carbohydrates are the substrates for oxidative metabolism (60). Given a theoretical stoichiometry of 6 mmol of oxygen consumed for each mmole of glucose, glucose utilization by the brain should in theory be 26.6 mmol/100 g·min. As indicated earlier, the measured glucose utilization is 31 mmol/100 g·min, indicating that an excess of 4.4 mmol/100 g·min of glucose follows other metabolic fates. Glucose can produce metabolic intermediates, such as lactate and pyruvate, which do not enter necessarily in the tricarboxylic acid cycle but rather can be released and removed by the circulation. Glucose can be incorporated into lipids, proteins, and glycogen, and it is also the precursor of certain neurotransmitters such as g-aminobutyric acid (GABA), glutamate, and acetylcholine (10, 60).

Numerous studies have been performed to identify molecules that could substitute for glucose as an alternative substrate for brain energy metabolism. Among the vast array of molecules tested, mannose is the only one that can sustain normal brain function in the absence of glucose (59). Mannose crosses the blood–brain barrier and in two enzymatic steps is converted to fructose-6-phosphate, a physiological intermediate of the glycolytic pathway. However, mannose is not normally present in the blood and cannot therefore be considered a physiological substrate for brain energy metabolism. Lactate and pyruvate can sustain synaptic activity in vitro (36, 55). Because of their limited permeability across the blood–brain barrier, they cannot substitute for plasma glucose to maintain brain function (43). However, if formed inside the brain parenchyma, they are useful metabolic substrates for neural cells (66). Under particular conditions, such as starvation, diabetes, or in breast-fed neonates, plasma levels of the ketone bodies acetoacetate and D-3-hydroxybutyrate increase markedly (41). Under these conditions, acetoacetate and D-3-hydroxybutyrate can be used by the brain as metabolic substrates (41).

It would be interesting to get CS opinion on this and then compare it to all those comments posted over at Alan Aragon article. For example, this "Frank" guy seems to back up Aragon and attacking Lustig. At the same time he (Frank) claims aspartame is perfectly safe in moderate doses, something I think CS disagree with?

Ahhh, this is complicated.

After reading like every single comment made, it seems as if these guys (Alan side vs Lustig side) really don't are too far away from each other after all. It is hilarious to read the funny comments from "health groupies", but these comedians are only making the debate less clear IMHO.

Alan summarizes:

“The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity.”

I think I can buy this.

Any thoughts about this James Krieger guy? He seems pretty accurate.

I don't get the fatalist, extremist views on diet, everything in its right ratio's depending on the individual ... we all need certain simple sugars, sometimes more than others, sometimes not at all. I myself am a big advocate of a health fat / protien diet as I feel it works best for my strength, mind, sexual vigor, everything, but sometimes I need an apple or a sweet potato. Simple as that.

I agree also that you can't watch that video and dismiss all sugars, just not logical.

It's might be worth pointing out that the suit he is wearing is sized very, very large, essentially a fat man's suit. Either he is a body builder who aims for mass then wears loose fitting clothes to hide his gains, or somewhat obese himself. I would wager without hesitation the later.

act<react wrote:I don't get the fatalist, extremist views on diet, everything in its right ratio's depending on the individual ... we all need certain simple sugars, sometimes more than others, sometimes not at all. I myself am a big advocate of a health fat / protien diet as I feel it works best for my strength, mind, sexual vigor, everything, but sometimes I need an apple or a sweet potato. Simple as that.

I agree also that you can't watch that video and dismiss all sugars, just not logical.

Yep exactly.

People tend to create false dichotomies when it comes to food/nutrients/anything really. Finding the optimal amount is key.

Good lecture, I've seen it before and agree with many of his points.

To elan's point --in the video he attacks fructose, but not glucose. I've heard him say in an interview that he doesn't think low carb diets are necessarily the way to optimal health.

I also remember him saying that fructose is only a "poison" at high levels. He also noted that there is no problem with fruit because of the natural fiber included. The real problems according to Dr Lustig are fruit juices, soda, HFCS, etc.

abc - totally agree, one has to find what works for them, I mean how many times have you seen in your life or others direct experience that contradicts conventional wisdom or scientific knowledge? One would never know until they tried.

In saying that, I think threads that focus on the thousand or so factors that make a body incapable of handling a little itty bit of sugar would be much more beneficial. If sugar was truly such a poison that caused all of these issues, every sugar consumer would be sick. This is not the case, there are other things at work that should get more attention.

abc123 wrote:

actI don't get the fatalist, extremist views on diet, everything in its right ratio's depending on the individual ... we all need certain simple sugars, sometimes more than others, sometimes not at all. I myself am a big advocate of a health fat / protien diet as I feel it works best for my strength, mind, sexual vigor, everything, but sometimes I need an apple or a sweet potato. Simple as that.

I agree also that you can't watch that video and dismiss all sugars, just not logical.

Yep exactly.

People tend to create false dichotomies when it comes to food/nutrients/anything really. Finding the optimal amount is key.

Exactly.... From a dualistic standpoint we want to label everything good or bad when those are just concepts we come up with. I see this going on with a lot of subjects here- vitamin D for example. Nature doesn't make mistakes. If something exists, it serves a purpose or is 'beneficial' in one way or another.

That saying "everything in moderation" exists because there is truth in it.

In-depth article on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=sugar

I'll go tell the monkeys

We've been over this - monkeys/chimps don't live by fruit alone...
and they don't drink OJ

Delphine wrote:We've been over this - monkeys/chimps don't live by fruit alone...
and they don't drink OJ

Does ANYONE live by fruit alone? (well, I'm aware some people do but they are a tiny minority!)

Delphine wrote:
In-depth article on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=sugar

A well written and researched article. As he says, research is still ongoing on what comprises the right amount of sugar intake.

From the article, emphasis mine-
"Feed animals enough pure fructose or enough sugar, and their livers convert the fructose into fat — the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, to be precise, that supposedly gives us heart disease when we eat it, by raising LDL cholesterol. The fat accumulates in the liver, and insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome follow."

From wikipedia-
As its name (palmitic acid) indicates, it is a major component of the oil from palm trees (palm oil, palm kernel oil, and coconut oil). Palmitate is a term for the salts and esters of palmitic acid."

In this light, could Coconut Oil oil cause fatty liver?

Didn't know this fact, just reviewing the data on Alan Aragon's website from the RDA (ERS) on HFCS and Corn Sweetners:


Average daily per capita calories from the U.S. food availability.
HFCS
1970 1.8
1999 214.6
2009 168.8

and Corn Sweetners
1970 53.6
1999 281.4
2009 221.6

Refined Cane and Beet sugars
didn't change from 1970 to 2009 214.3

Glucose, and Honey and added sugars didn't change very much either.

Stephan Guyenet at Whole Health Source comments on this article from Ray Peat:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

I read Peat's article. He's correct that the glycemic index isn't worth much. He's also correct that simply making the pancreas work is not behind insulin resistance. But he totally ignores the large body of evidence that fructose causes long-term insulin resistance, and starch doesn't. In fact, he barely mentions fructose.

If sugar is as harmless as he says, that implies that the diseases of civilization that Price and others saw were entirely due to white flour and/or micronutrient deficiency. Many of these cultures were not eating significant PUFA and they still got sick. The Tokelauans, for example, were at 3% PUFA when their diabetes skyrocketed following the introduction of sugar and white flour.

There is definitely an interplay between sugar and PUFA though. The combination of the two is the worst. Feeding rodents one or the other isn't as bad as combining them, and that's probably true for humans as well.

The other point is that humans don't absorb big fructose loads efficiently. It sits in the small intestine and gets fermented by bacteria, leading to nasty digestive consequences. You can observe this by measuring breath hydrogen, a product of bacterial metabolism. 25g fructose is enough to cause malabsorption in about 50% of people. That's two apples (eaten at once) or one can of soda.

Delphine wrote:
Stephan Guyenet at Whole Health Source comments on this article from Ray Peat:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

I read Peat's article. He's correct that the glycemic index isn't worth much. He's also correct that simply making the pancreas work is not behind insulin resistance. But he totally ignores the large body of evidence that fructose causes long-term insulin resistance, and starch doesn't. In fact, he barely mentions fructose.

If sugar is as harmless as he says, that implies that the diseases of civilization that Price and others saw were entirely due to white flour and/or micronutrient deficiency. Many of these cultures were not eating significant PUFA and they still got sick. The Tokelauans, for example, were at 3% PUFA when their diabetes skyrocketed following the introduction of sugar and white flour.

There is definitely an interplay between sugar and PUFA though. The combination of the two is the worst. Feeding rodents one or the other isn't as bad as combining them, and that's probably true for humans as well.

The other point is that humans don't absorb big fructose loads efficiently. It sits in the small intestine and gets fermented by bacteria, leading to nasty digestive consequences. You can observe this by measuring breath hydrogen, a product of bacterial metabolism. 25g fructose is enough to cause malabsorption in about 50% of people. That's two apples (eaten at once) or one can of soda.

That comment was from a long time ago and there is a lot wrong with it. Regardless, if you read his newest article he basically says sugar is fine and in most cases promotes weight loss more than starch.

I think his food palatability theories are interesting.

Even though this is a tangent, I would hang my hat on white flour being the cause of the disease of civilization.

Gut permeability
Messes up calcium:phosphate ratio
Pure Glucose < Sucrose
Void of micronutrients

Abc,

With regard to the lecture in the video, what do you think of his stance on fructose? I've seen you post a lot about fructose so I wanted to get your PO. If the way fructose is metabolized is presented correctly, then wouldn't a diet high in fructose have to also be devoid of fat in order to not produce insulin resistance, being that fructose (or a large percentage of it) is converted to fat? So in that regard, why wouldn't consuming things that are entirely glucose be more beneficial? ( Things like potato, rice, or dextrose)

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Abc,

With regard to the lecture in the video, what do you think of his stance on fructose? I've seen you post a lot about fructose so I wanted to get your PO. If the way fructose is metabolized is presented correctly, then wouldn't a diet high in fructose have to also be devoid of fat in order to not produce insulin resistance, being that fructose (or a large percentage of it) is converted to fat? So in that regard, why wouldn't consuming things that are entirely glucose be more beneficial? ( Things like potato, rice, or dextrose)

I hope PO doesn't stand for Professional Opinion - LOL

1. Sucrose has consitently been shown to be better than glucose/starch. It's not even a contest when it's in fruit.
2. Fructose does not get turned to fat easily, it depends on many things.
3. You dont have to eat low fat to eat fructose.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://weightology.net/?p=434

Delphine wrote:
Stephan Guyenet at Whole Health Source comments on this article from Ray Peat:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

I read Peat's article. He's correct that the glycemic index isn't worth much. He's also correct that simply making the pancreas work is not behind insulin resistance. But he totally ignores the large body of evidence that fructose causes long-term insulin resistance, and starch doesn't. In fact, he barely mentions fructose.

If sugar is as harmless as he says, that implies that the diseases of civilization that Price and others saw were entirely due to white flour and/or micronutrient deficiency. Many of these cultures were not eating significant PUFA and they still got sick. The Tokelauans, for example, were at 3% PUFA when their diabetes skyrocketed following the introduction of sugar and white flour.

There is definitely an interplay between sugar and PUFA though. The combination of the two is the worst. Feeding rodents one or the other isn't as bad as combining them, and that's probably true for humans as well.

The other point is that humans don't absorb big fructose loads efficiently. It sits in the small intestine and gets fermented by bacteria, leading to nasty digestive consequences. You can observe this by measuring breath hydrogen, a product of bacterial metabolism. 25g fructose is enough to cause malabsorption in about 50% of people. That's two apples (eaten at once) or one can of soda.

abc123 wrote:That comment was from a long time ago and there is a lot wrong with it. Regardless, if you read his newest article he basically says sugar is fine and in most cases promotes weight loss more than starch.

Where's that article?

Maybe you missed his latest post, where he specifically comes down on sugary sodas:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/soda-free-sunday.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-sugar-fattening.html#more

Yes he says sugar sweetened beverages are bad for health - not because sugar is inherently fattening or bad, but because of his palatability food theory. This has to do with over eating.