Most animals meats are processed before and after the slaughter, especially bacon. Bummer, cause I know dem paleo yo-yos loves dem some dead rotting pig LOL
@datzfast I don't eating rotting animals nor any highly processed foods, so bacon is out, boy. Funny thing, bacon eaters aren't all happy and laughing for long, right?
@Fathomless Joy i enjoy pig, your sacrificing your health for a pigs health. Ok, i admire your resolve. But thats all i admire. Bacon not highly processed is just fine with me. in fact i remove the nitrates by soaking in water. after all the bacon wasn't a longevity issue it was the cooked nitrosamines that was an issue.
If the video poster is trying to say that Dr. Lustig is pushing his issue, then I could sorta see that. But I feel that his sentiment is that the issue was neglected and he wanted the audience to be aware of it.
But you could also interpret it as him wanting to hear if Taubes affirmed, denied, or was neutral on his research into fructose, fiber, and obesity. And Taubes seemed to be more affirmative leaning in his response.
You can't speak for an entire population anymore than this arrogant fool can. It is VERY unscientific of him to apply bad theory across the board and pass it off as absolute truth. What's the bad theory? That carbs/insulin ultimately=weight gain. Non-sense. he is using diabetic model and people with leptin receptor abnormalities as the branch point to sell a false notion. healthy individuals can process carbs and insulin fine, in fact the latter helps them regulate body fat!
You can believe whatever you like - hell 90% of the world is religious. The biochemistry supports him. The diet works. Populations that begin to increase their carb intake become heavier.
And yes, I can speak for entire populations. As with vaccinations and diseases not every individual reacts exactly the same. It is harder to predict an individual's response than it is to predict an entire population's response to something.
False, some of the populations taubes references did NOT see weight gain as a result of carb increase, but fat and sugar increase. In other words components of the typical western diet. Read Stephan Guyenets blog entry about this, in it he ownes taubes.
He "ownes" Taubes? Yes I am aware that certain people seem to genetically tolerate carbs very well - my brother for instance. This by no means contradicts the data taken from 307 million Americans when looking at their diets. Some people don't gain immunity through vaccination, does that mean vaccinations don't work? No it means that over populations vaccinations work.
But look, biochemically the arguments against carbs are sound. Troll someone else, please.
Biochemically, you're dealing with nutrigenomics. Do you know what that means? It means that some populations will be more adaptable to carbs than to fats as a primary macronutrient. Asian cultures are another outstanding example of long lived people (okinawans) who persevere on high carb diets all their lives. Some people have problems metabolizing dietary fat, so consumption of the amount of fat taubes suggests would lead to visceral fat storage. Stop applying blanket theory.
Perhaps you yourself should not be so naive in believing that the only possible reason for longer lifespans of Okinawans is diet. You spoke of bad science earlier. Applying "blanket theory" to "all people live longer due to their diets" certainly is.
Sure, that could be the reason. It could also be thousands of other things - from genetics to stress levels.
That being the case - you also do not know that they would not thrive on high-fat diets - perhaps they would live longer?
Because other high fat populations do NOT live as long as them, including asian populations that adopted high fat AND high sugar diets. Bottom line is not everyone has the same body chemistry. A lot of people cannot metabolize too much dietary fat because they have a gene mutation that does not allow for it. And those who cannot process carbohydrate generally have leptin receptor sensitivity, or are pre-diabetics who are insulin sensitive. Wake up and smell the diversity.
For real? I cited the U.S. population, somehow you brought Asia into it. Yes we are diverse in the U.S. but Asians make up a very small % of the population. Of course different races are different - I also said my brother handles carbs well
By an extreme margin the U.S. population (non-Asians) does not handle carbs well
Throughout your tantrum I have cited numerous examples of exceptions, yet somehow you are still trying to convince me that there are exceptions. Go troll 4chan.
Uh, there are one BILLION people in china alone! But asians are a small percentage of the population? You are too retarded to carry on an intelligent conversation with, as you have presented nothing but opinion with nothing to reference as back up, as I have used science with references. Good night.
This is getting so stupid. Go back and read my paragraph. Look at the words. Look at the sentence structure. No offense, (I know this sounds condescending, I don't mean it as such) is English a second language to you? You seem to have trouble comprehending very clearly composed thoughts written in English.
Yes, Asians are a very small percentage of the United States population.
I was actually not aware that China actually has Asians in it, thank you for clearing that up.
I was referring to GLOBAL population, stupid. How is the U.S population more testable than any other population? The air quality? Or are we just THAT MUCH SMARTER than other countries? God you're stupid.
@brainboob Your words "an entire population" ("an" implies a segregation, as in not global population) "False, some of the population" - again not implying global population as a whole "means that some populations will be more adaptable" again not global "components of the typical western diet" not global "Asian cultures are another outstanding example" not global My words "Populations that begin" not global "By an extreme margin the U.S. population" not global It goes on brother. Chill out
Exactly, this is exactly what happened to me when I tried a low carb, high fat paleo-style diet! I became skinny fat because my phenotype does not like a lot of dietary fat!
Okay, that title is just ridiculous. Taubes asked Lustig to speak up so he could be heard. That's not exactly the same as Lustig spontaneously yelling at Taubes!
I love how people are both aware of and see people that lose entire limbs, go blind and have organ failure because of sugar but still seem to blame fat.
I don't care if your diabetic or not. If you recognize that sugar can cause catastrophic organ failure but refute the idea that it can (over a lifetime) do damage to arteries you need to think about your stance a little while. So cholesterol does its best to fix the damage and finally they get clogged, isn't the fat's fault.
Diabetics have receptor abnormalities that cause them to be sensitive to insulin and gain weight from insulin driving foods. Taubes claims everyone is this way, that is a complete falsehood. Refined sugar is the evil of the carb world, just as trans fat is the evil of of the fat world.
Well... Speaking as a 25 year old male with normal blood sugar levels:
I was 280 pounds and consistently hungry 6 months ago, I have been in ketosis since. Eating <20 grams of carbs per day allowed me to lose 75 pounds in 4 months (The past 2 months I have been stuck at 205)
Speaking as a person who has tested Taubes' ideas (I tend to eat as many as 8,000 calories a day) and saw the exact results he claimed - Well sir, I am going to have trouble agreeing with you.
@1imesub (healthy)Fats are necessary (nuts, olive oil, moderate animal fat) in fact theyre good for you, you NEED them for brain function and hormone production, stop spreading absolute bullshit advice, you dont know what youre talking about, put down the rag magazines you read this shit from.
@1imesub Yes because youre close minded and stubborn. Give me some proof to back up your claim that a "low fat diet" is healthy/better for you and ill do the same arguing the latter k?
He yelled? Really, LatestNutrition? That was 'yelling'? Sounds like you didn't listen very well. Both men are experts in their fields. Dr. Lustig points out a factor that he thinks Dr. Taubes should consider/explain, which Dr. Taubes then addresses and addresses why it's so difficult to isolate. Both men allude to the challenges in precisely isolating the factors associated with obesity. I mean, if it was really that easy to figue out, we would have solved the problem long ago!
Sugar addiction is due to chronic neurotransmitter deficiencies. The solution is a 100% pure amino acids supplement (i.e. no fillers, no additives, no sugar/stevia, and manufactured at very low heat). Such a product is called AMINOKIT Recovery Formula and can end sugar cravings in 24 hours. The above product has been used in drug rehab centers for 15 years to end cravings for not only refined sugar but cocaine, heroin, alcohol, and other drugs. Avoid sugar and achieve fast, healthy weight loss.
Because the loss of lean tissue on low carb was so substantial against whatever fat was lost, my actual body comp changed to a condition known as "skinny fat." That is, you're much lighter, but actually fatter. I see this quite a bit amongst the low carb dieters. The only positives I see is that the Low Carb dieting is moving away from more saturated fat cheese, steak, sour cream, and eggs food choices, and more toward and "eco-atkins " approach. First do YOUR research, then attempt a lecture.
@voxstack1 That was back in the high protein, low carb...low fat, dieting regimes of the late 60's early 70's. An impossible diet that was impossible to maintain...and no one does anymore. Arnold messed around with that diet as well. It's a great way to lose muscle...especially if you're not on steroids. Gironda was on steroids and so was Arnold.
@voxstack1 : When I trained at Gold's Gym back in the 80's the bodybuilders would only go LC, low-calorie prior to a contest, usually the last couple weeks before a contest. They knew they would lose water weight and bring out the muscular definition. The rest of the year they consumed a high carb diet with lean protein (broiled chicken, tuna, etc). LC would be detrimental to their success if they attempted LC year-round. I agree with brushfour44.
I have to say I've never seen a low carb dieter (including myself), that did not suffer the skinny fat consequence.When I did low carb I got plenty of compliments on my weight loss, but if people could have looked under my shirt they would have been stunned how smooth I was. I started at a bodyfat of 22% and after a 45 lb weightloss, came in with a bodyfat of 19.6%.I actually was a bit leaner, but I was also lifting heavy weights and doing lots of HIIT cardio, so my results were actually AWFUL!!
Low carb diets, like ALL diets, will lose you weight. The problem with low carb is you end up much lighter but with a very bad body composition. I wish they would conduct these tests with changes in bodyfat percentages in mind, and not changes in total bodyweight. Low carb is not a good diet for athletes. Fat is not a good fuel source for performance. New theories suggest that attempting to use fat as a main fuel source only tells the body to store more fat in anticipation of upcoming workouts.
@brushfour44 actually no not all diets cause weight loss. There are countless examples of this. Second, perhaps you should do some research before claiming that a low carb diet produces unfavorable body composition. Or perhaps you think increased lean muscle mass with decreased excess body fat are "bad"? Third, fat is the primary fuel for endurance. If you looked into the actual biochemistry behind it you'd learn the truth. The body under normal conditions has absolutely zero carb requirement .
@IAmTheRealBill Check the 2010 report by the New England Journal of Medicine. The common denomenator amongst all diets is a reduction in calories. That is the number one reason dieting will cause weightloss. No mystery there. Second, ATP is the primary fuel source for endurance. ATP is produced by glycogen....which is the byproduct of carbohydrate. ATP cannot be replenished fast enough by fat,..that is why low carb fueled athletes hit the wall sooner and don't perform as well throughout.
@IAm I was on low carb for a total of 18 months. 4 months in 1992,...and 14 months in 1998-99'. I do heavy strength training and lost quite a bit of lean muscle tissue and my strength went with it. I lost 45 lbs. on Atkins and over 1/3 of it was muscle + adduitional water weight. I'll never do it again,...and frankly I wish I didn't do it at all. Fat is burned in the presence of carbohydrate. Competitive bodybuilders no longer attempt low carb because it is not a good method for fat loss.
That's right. Nowadays, professional bodybuilders take massive doses of the drug clenbuterol for cutting purposes, which is much healthier than controlling carb intake. Right.
That's right. Nowadays, professional bodybuilders take massive doses of the drug clenbuterol for cutting purposes, which is much healthier than controlling carb intake. Right.
@vox Some fat loss supplements do very little if anything for fat loss. Clenburterol has been shown to work to some degree. In NO WAY will taking Clenbuterol be effective enough to lose all the fat you need for a contest. It will aid your progress slightly. Many bodybuilders do not use it at all. It's contolling caloire intake against activity levels consistantly over time that gets you cut. The leanest bodybuilders I know, 3% bodyfat or less, do it by way of 25% Protein-20% Fat-55% Carb diet.
There were and are people presenting themselves from the medical and science communities saying all kinds of whacky things. What one needs is the Position Statement of the entity in question. If you know of an alphabet soup group position statement that currently or even recently advocates low fat diets I'd love to see it. Please forward if you have or you are able to find that information. I've read the postion statements of interest. They do not state low fat diets that I've seen.
No. I did not just say that. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at. I did my undergrad in biochemistry, dietician, physiology coursework at a major research/medical university over ten years ago. At that time and many years prior no alphabet soup group was advocating low fat diet that I'm aware of. Of course, one might wonder what is meant by low fat. What do you mean by low fat?
If you can find a way to stay alive or even simply cogitate without sugar then please let us know how you manage that. It can't be done. You can't live without sugar anymore than you can live without water. To many calories,,, to much sugar or fat or protein.. and you'll likely become obese, diseased, die early, etc. The same exact thing happens with hyponatremia and/or drowning - excess water kills you. To little kills you. The exact same is true for all three macronutrients. Sugar is required
Please define sugar. Which sugar are we discussing? Is it a processed sugar that has been stripped of nutrition other than energy - say, for example, a twinkie? No authoratitive health agency is advocating for twinkies, candy bars, chips or bleached white flour bread. Asparagus is essentially all sugar. But you can not digest a great portion of it because humans do not have the enzymes AND it has lots of nutrition. Eat plant not manufactured/processed corporate food. Eat "some" high fiber bread.
Wow, that's fascinating. I guess I'll stay off the cattle ranch for fear a cow might eat me. Considering the number of hamburgers I've eatin, I wouldn't blame the cow. But I surely would be surprised. Cleanest calorie sources, plants, are those closest to the sun. Animals eat plants and convert it to meat containing fat. Land animals, especially beef, contain the most unhealthy fats. Eat plants, maybe some fish and once in awhile maybe some land animal. You'll live longer. It's a fact Jack.
It would help to understand the Alphabet soup groups. They do not advocate low fat. Fat is required in the diet. This has been understood for many years. They advocate low calorie that maintains a healthy body weight. They advocate for all three macronutrient groups pulling from sources that are "healthy". Michael Pollan sums it up most succinctly with his subtitle - Eat Food. Not to Much. Mostly Plants.
@bladerunnerr57 Wow--Did you just say your alphabet soup of groups did NOT ever advocate low fat diets??? Did you type that with a straight face? That a certain level of certain kinds of fats is essential, is of course known by your alphabet soup groups--& they still, either today OR in the recent past, advocated low-fat diets. My point, which you did an excellent job of missing, is that the snack-buying public tends to believe that the label "low-fat" means it will help them lose weight.
When an entity, such as the USDA or ADA, state one should eat a diet with a higher ratio of carbs, they are not advocating pasta, soda, or bleached white bread. They are advocating asparagus. Can anyone seriously tell me I should avoid asparagus?
The USDA, AHA, ADA, CDC, AMA, ACSM and other private and public institutions have long advocated AGAINST simple sugars such as fructose. The Harvard and USDA Food Pyramids very clearly stress “sugar” should be a very small part of the diet or eliminated. No one anywhere has advocated ever for a diet high in cookies, candies, pasta, sodas, breads, granulated sugar, etc. How this point is lost on authors like Atkins, Lustig, Taubes, etc. is quite interesting. Might they have books to sell?
@bladerunnerr57 A compelling question. Actually, somebody HAS advocated a high-sugar diet: the snacky-food companies! The snacky-food marketers have really cashed in on the doctrine of low-fat diets--& low-fat diets have certainly been advocated by your alphabet soup of groups. The teachings of Lustig, Taubes, etc, will hopefully help the public to understand that the label "low-fat" on all these processed snacky foods, does NOT mean it will help them lose weight, 'cuz of the high sugars.
I have to say i don't really care about health. At the end of the day all i care about is how i look and i have to say this guys looks a hell of a lot better than all the fruitarians i've ever come across.
I think this is great. Intelligent people mixing minds. Lustig really brought out fructose as the culprit (not glucose) and Taubes agrees. At least we are getting good science not diluted and convoluted by the government. If the politicians are bought then their offices are bought as well.
There is no yelling... there is a complete understanding and agreement... please resubmit... if people don't watch they will get the wrong information...
misleading title, both Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig are heroes of the modern day and they are on the same side, just discussing areas of commonality, sharing knowledge with each other and with us, we should be grateful and glad, not acting like we're watching Springer, what the heck is happening to our society?
I hate eating animal proteins, absolutely hate it. What does a vegan have to look forward to other than soy for protein, or handfuls and cups of nuts, which are higher in calories.
but are they fat with respect to a traditional baseline. most babies are fat. baby fat is expected. but when are they fatter. thats the important thing.
GARY, GARY, GARY - You need to do the study YOURSELF. The medical community is never going to fund this study. Take it to NBC, ABC, or maybe even the new OWN network and present it as a new television program - THE BIGGEST WINNERS, and you will not only prove your point, but you will make a fortune in the process.
Everyone needs to understand that typical meat in this world has UNUSUAL amounts of polyunsaturated fats which in most if not all cases are detrimental to a whole myriad of bodily systems including cardiovascular. Before you attack the fat understand that a wild "grazing" animal for example has a completely different lipid profile than a farm animal. It's what they EAT. They're not suppose to eat CORN. Think about it. Saturated fat isnt as saturated as youd think anymore. Which is a shame...
@TheAmericanWaySeries It would be awesome to have some acreage lol, Enjoy your lot, and I hope it lasts, really I do. Thanks for another view point, take care.
Fructose is metabolized like alcohol, but there are crucial differences: Fructose doesn't cause drunkenness, so there's no law limiting use in any way, no social stigma,(not even for the over-fat: they're now the majority), & no family disapproval,(the whole family's 'using'). To say it's a portion issue rather than a substance issue's literally true, but misleading: Without any social or legal limits to use, availability, & promotion, the substance itself strongly tends to -cause- overuse.
So Fat isn't directly utilized by the brain since the brain only has Glucose Receptors. Fat isn't burned better either. While 1 gram of fat can provide twice as much energy as 1 gram of glucose, fat metabolism is not as desired by the body. Unlike what you said, Fat is stored in the body-it's called Adipocytes. People are fat more due to excessive fat intake, and poor exercise, rather than simply sugary sweets (that have no fat).
@axelbello99 no thats not true i cut out white sugar and starch carbs and bread and i lost 45 punds so you can say whatever unless you experienced it then you cant talk
No one said that cutting out white sugar and starch or bread will not help you lose weight. Secondly, I don't even know to what are you referring "that's not true". The lethargy? Well, you probably didn't suffer lethargy since cutting white sugar, starch and bread isn't exactly a low carb diet. How many grams of carbs did you eat everyday?? And trust me, I know. I WAS on a low carb diet.
@axelbello99 Well i did the induction part for a month and then from there i ate only vegtables and some fruits and only drank water and ate meat and nuts ect which is basically the atkins diet in the final stages. Also your body makes carbohydrates on its own hence why there is no such thing as a essential carbohydrate only amino and fatty acids low carb helps for weight loss and controlled carb is great for weight maintanence.I eat about a 100 to 150 grams of carbs a day now that im at mygoal
Exactly. A complete Atkins diet is quite tough on the body. And yes, while low carb diets help you lose weight, it also plays dramatic role in blood glucose levels (thus the reason why some Atkins Diet followers end up with hypoglycemia). I could only eat 100-150 gr. of carbs during a diet,. For maintenance, I consume around 200-250 grams.
@axelbello99 but im doing the complete atkins diet lol what you do is raise net grams of carbs everyweek until you stop losing weight then thats the amount you are supposed to stay at. So many people just focus on the induction phase but its much more than that. Its customizing the diet so it works for everyone. BUT i am a follower of metabolic typing to so i think i am a fast oxidizer thats why the atkins diet works for me. but a slow oxidizer would do better on more carbs less protein/fat
Do you know how many people have sued the Atkins Diet programs because of death, diabetes and other diseases due to extremely low carb diets? You can't live off low carbs the rest of your life. Carbohydrates produce the energy. Your muscles store Glycogen and Creatine for energy, not fat. This goes to show that, as far as the body is concerned, carbs are the number 1 source of energy...,then fats, then (during starvation), proteins (muscle).
@axelbello99 Regarding people being sued. The most famous case was about Jody gorran and he was sponsored by PCRM a vegan activist group. There is a spot on dateline and he seems full of crap. Its a interesting watch and easy to find on line
While Jody Gorran was the most prolific case, being possibly one of the first ones every reported by journalists, it's not the only one. In the last 15 years, it has received well over 500 complaints. And, Atkins used to advise their clients that "meat all the time" was good. Atkins Nutritionals went bankrupt in 2005, and only now are they trying to get back on sturdier feet. They recently took out the "meat all the time" advice, stating "we should eat balanced meals"....
So these clients, following the Atkins advice, ate meat all the time. Their cholesterol levels went up, plaque formation and artherosclerosis was present, high blood pressure, angina, blood sugar variations..etc. I mean, anyone can see that eating meat all the time (red meat, at that) is not good for you. Only now are they stating "well, maybe that wasn't such a good advice".
Funny because I've been on an even more extreme example of atkins - I'm on a high fat, solely animal products diet for well over a year. My blood lipids have gone down significantly, regardless of the huge amounts that I eat. I've lost 100lbs. I have never felt healthier. No more pms, better memory, my skin glows, I don't get shaky low blood sugar if I miss a meal.... That you assume the cholesterol levels go up etc doesn't actually bear out in studies.
Funny because I've been on an even more extreme example of atkins - I'm on a high fat, solely animal products diet for well over a year. My blood lipids have gone down significantly, regardless of the huge amounts that I eat. I've lost 100lbs. I have never felt healthier. No more pms, better memory, my skin glows, I don't get shaky low blood sugar if I miss a meal.... That you assume the cholesterol levels go up etc doesn't actually bear out in studies. or even anecdotally.
@babetteq I feel sorry that animals have to live such miserable lives and die such a miserable death to make you feel better. I eat almost all raw veg an I feel great - I even took up exercise and am fitter now at 45 than I ever have been in my life. Comparing the atkins diet with carb diets based on bread and pasta is a crock.
@imnotabear nature, from the smallest phytoplankton to the largest mammals, is animals eating other animals. if you can prefer veggies that's super, but don't try to take some sort of bullshit moral high ground.
@rast123456789 While Ketones are used by the brain, they are not efficient at producing energy as it requires. In fact, many ketones are liberated into the lungs, giving people who are in dangerous low carb diets or who suffer from diabetes,= an acetone breath. But, there are no fat receptors. And to produce this, it requires too many steps to produce energy. Carbs are still the primary energy source, and most favored for all the body.
Sure, fat indirectly serves energy to the brain. Yet, Ketone bodies have some problems: 1) Hydrophilic 2) Energy-wise incomparable to carbs 3) acidic pH which causes Acidosis in the body. This last one, causes your body to use the Bicarbonate Buffering System to regulate your pH, but if your pH falls too much....there's pretty much not a lot you can do by yourself.
So there's a reason why the Brain doesn't express any fat receptors on its surface. It could very well be related to the fact that, in terms of evolution, we were mostly carb-based organisms, rather than fat-based. This makes sense, considering most primates are fruit-eaters, rather than omnivores or carnivores.
As stated in private e-mail, #2 was to read 7eggs/week, an amount you SPECIFICALLY stated was dangerous. You've now found the recommendations from the American Heart Association I referenced that directly say otherwise. I assume you take them as an authority.
You also concede number 5 above, and claim you did not mean to write omnivores. I find that claim dubious, but at least you have conceded that point as well.
As for the rest, I await ANY citations to the contrary.
@axelbello99 Another person that has no idea what they are talking about lol. Try the diet then talk. Eating carbs raises your blood sugar level and that causes you to become fat and since your cells can't get its energy from fat you get fatter and you are starving causing you to get even more hungry. I lost 30 lbs on this diet, no shit low fat diet, and all of the silly fruit diets ever worked haha. There is also tons of historical evidence to back up his claims, read Good Calories bad Calories
@Warpath2198 Just to clarify to the real person that knows nothing (you by the way): Eating carbs does not make you fat. Eating excess carbs does. Do you ever see athletes say "oh, I'm gonna avoid carbs?" No....ever see Gatorade or Powerade say "Carb free?" Of course not. And the athletes that drink it are not fat. It's excess, it always is. Everything in excess is bad.
@axelbello99 lol try the diet then talk. There is a ton of historical evidence to back up Taubes. His book Good Calories Bad Calories explains it all. We are also not monkeys and all of these carbs "western" diet is not what man mostly ate.
And, this is important: Fat wouldn't be such a good primary food source since our brain can only utilize Glucose; otherwise, Ketone bodies are produced to nourish the brain. And ketone bodies will produce lethargy...a tired feeling that a lot of people on Low Carb diets have felt. Again, Glucose, Fructose, Fats and Proteins are all good for the body. The quantities, and I can't stress this enough, is what causes unbalances. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
Another point to Metqa is this: The body utilizes Glucose first because, for one thing, Glucose is more readily available to us than fats are. Secondly, the process by which Glucose is turned to ATP (or energy) is quicker than fat metabolism (beta-oxidation). Thirdly, even fat metabolism ends up producing intermediates that end up in the Glycolytic pathway that Glucose uses to produce ATP.
So a lot of attention is being given to this Fructose-Obesity theme, yet it's obvious that pretty much any carb like Glucose or Fructose will do this. The only reason why Fructose is targeted is because it's found in higher levels in produced foods. But Lustig's point is wrong on many things. His view is like saying that since Alcohol can cause liver disease, then drinking a beer will kill you.
Hey, have you watched Lustigs explanation of how fructose is metabolized? It is metabolized just like achohol, and what happens if you chronically drink alchohol. Check out this video, it's long but worth watching if you are really interested in Why Lustig is so hard down on fructose.
HFCS are not bad for you. It's the amount of HFCS that we eat, not the fact that we eat it. Eggs are good for you, yet they still have at least 170-220 mg of cholesterol per egg. That's why eating 1 egg per week isn't bad, but eating 7 eggs per week might considerably raise your Cholesterol levels. Glucose, just like Fructose, will cause weight gains.
@axelbello99 you're wrong. They did a study giving babies 4 eggs a week and their cholesterol never rose. This is the equivalent of an adult eating 40 eggs per week. They also did a study with adults eating 2 eggs a day compared to no eggs. The adults eating eggs did not raise their cholesterol. Finally, a high cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. This is absolute garbage. Taubes, Uffe, both know and admit this. Only the larger LDL particles are associated with heart disease.
No, Im not wrong. For one thing, it's illegal in the US and most of western europe to do "Guinea tests" on babies; so, wherever that research was made, wasn't here nor Europe. Second, check pubmed on all articles related to hypercholesterolemia due to excessive intake from the diet. The evidence proves otherwise to what you are saying. Secondly, sufficient proof is out there to link high cholesterol foods and heart disease: artherosclerosis, plaque formation...etc.
Thirdly, LDL transports cholesterol, so by definition, if LDL is responsible for heart disease, it's because of the amounts of LDL transporting cholesterol. The only true test Lustig ever did in vivo with human patients was removing high fructose foods from young children to see the effect (this is legal since you are not putting potentially life threatning situations on subjects). But his fructose claim cones fron feeding 200 gram mice, nearly 20 grams of it a day.
That's like giving a 200 pound man, 20 pounds of fructose per day. That is not scientific. It was only done to prove what excessive fructose consumption does to your body, not what sensible amounts of it can do. No proof links sensible fructose intake to any disease. And yes, I've seen Bitter Truth. It was good, but again, Lustig failed to state what are the parameters to fructose intake.
So what is the difference between lustig's diet and taubes diet. Is the difference that lustig thinks that starch and grains are good and taubes doesnt?
@slash3rr Lustig is extremely focused on the evil role of fructose, one type of carbohydrate. His view of starch and grains is neutral if not positive. Taubes originally focused on the role of "grains and refined carbohydrates," basically indicting all carbohydrates, but he's coming to understand the role of fructose.
I don't know what evidence Lustig has that the insulin hormone does not cause a problem with weight gain and diabetes etc... when it comes to Glucose and refined carbs in general. He needs to address this.
I agree. Taubes is on to something, apart from any concern about fructose. However, it's also clear that Taubes should be putting more focus on fructose. I'm sure if these guys worked together, they would come to an understanding, it just that working independently they're bound to end up focusing on different aspects of the same issue.
There are a lot of people who have made important contributions to both of these theories. Have you checked out Weston A Price Foundation's website? It's invaluable in my opinion.
Yeah, this is a growing awareness, and it has many people involved, all of whom have their own take... which is not something you can always say for the vegan/vegetarian/low-fat group. My personal opinion of the Weston Price people is that they're generally right, but they occasionally get too righteous and forget scientific rigor. I didn't like their critique of Loren Cordain's Paleodiet, for one.
From my 2 years of experience reading very detailed and concise articles, closely argued and studded with scientific references, I WP's conclusions are a result of where the research has taken them. They give Taubes a thumbs up but criticize his non distinction between different carbs refined and unrefined. The only other major criticism is that Taubes doesn't discuss the density of nutrients in saturated fats and a high fat diet which put WP in a category all their own.
@canaan1967 that's because for many people, refined or unrefined carbs still have the same effect: weight gain and damaged cardiovascular markers. Drinking fruit juice, and sugary fruit, is 'unrefined' carbs, but causes weight gain for many and high blood sugar.
I tend to agree and Weson Price Foundation does as well because the recommend a diet of only 18% carbs a day give or take a few percentiles. However, WP says to eat carbs with fat like stoned ground, sprouted whole grain bread with lots of butter, preferably raw or potatoes sauteed in duck fat, oatmeal with butter (i use coconut oil).
What do you think about Robert Lustig declaring Glucose from white bread beneficial? I have a lot of problems with his analysis
@canaan1967 Lustig's a nutbar when he claims glucose is 'good.' And if he thinks white bread glucose is 'good' he's a total loon. Glucose is sugar, and will cause weight gain and obesity for many people regardless. Lustig's obsession with only fructose is retarded. There's no fructose in bread and grains and it will still make you obese.
@OuttaVegas but eating bread without high fructose corn syrup still makes me fat. Eating food with high glucose and no fructose makes me fat. Explain that? 60 or so years ago we didn't have HFCS. But we still ate bread and glucose and that still made us obese.
i think his point is that glucose is good because it is the basic sugar that is needed for life. if you eat no dietary glucose, sugar or starch, your body will still MAKE glucose. Since our primary fuel pathway is to process glucose, then having some glucose producing foods in our diet is not bad. his issue is with how the body processes fructose as a poison, and since HFCS is prevalent, that's the ogre he's chosen to fight. Eat more glucose than you need and you still make fat
@Metqa it is better for your body to make glucose, than to eat a high glucose diet. Glucose is not our 'primary' fuel pathway. Our body uses fat as well, even the brain. In fact fat is better because there's no insulin activation, it's not inflammatory, and it gets burned better whereas glucose is stored. You don't understand that high glucose is just as bad as high fructose. The 'issue' with Lustig is that he only focuses on fructose. Glucose is still inflammatory and makes you obese.
1. I never suggested eating a 'HIGH glucose' diet. 2. Glucose is indeed our primary fuel path, that is not the same as saying it is the only fuel path. Primary means processed first, the reason is that unused glucose can't stay in the blood for long without causing problems(inflammation). Hence the body will process(burn or store) any sugar FIRST. First does not mean only. I understand that Lustig focuses on fructose because it will make you obese much faster than glucose.
@Metqa well if glucose is the primary fuel path, I find that a bit counter productive, since that only makes us even more susceptible to inflammation and diabetes, etc...wouldn't it have been better if fat was our primary path? Problem with Lustig is that he doesn't acknowledge that glucose is also a problem. He leaves it out entirely and says its "good." He should know that for many people, even a "little" glucose is deleterious.
Well, glucose is indeed the primary fuel path, if you don't believe me then just go pick up any college level physiology book. No matter how hard you want to believe other wise or how healthy you want to be, you body, my body, your dogs body, the bacteria on your bread, the fungus on the fridge all use glucose first.
But joking aside, I think you don't understand WHY the body uses glucose first, it's exactly for the reasons you specify that is shouldn't use it at all. cont...
Cont... whether we like it or not glucose is a readily available food source for most living beings. Glucose serves many biological functions from keeping frogs from dying when frozen to feeding our cells. BUT back to topi, Glucose must be dealt with first BECAUSE it can damage if kept in the blood too long. That's why the body will use it up as fuel or convert it to fat before it will use fat. The body cannot ignore glucose, or it will suffer acidification. That's Biology.
You can try to avoid glucose, but if you eat any vegetation or fruit you will ingest it, so you body will have to deal with it whether you like it or not, and dont forget that you body makes glucose from protein and fat. What's the point of making glucose if the body did not have a way and a need to process it immediately? Even cats, which are carnivores process sugar first. Cat's that don't are diabetic.
As far as Lustig, he chose fructose, Someone else might choose Trans fats.
Good worthwhile video, thanks for putting it up. But there is no need to try and grab views with the title, let the subject speak for itself. I would consider changeing the title. Regardless, again, thanks for putting this content up :)
The title of this video is misleading, as many commentators have already stated. Robert Lustig mentions fructose as a culprit, and Gary Taubes agrees to a certain extent, but says all sugar is bad, and could be the main problem. Gary Taubes closer to the mark than the conventional wisdom of "low fat, high carb" and he's an honest skeptic.
If you took time to read Taube's book, you would know he did not ignore the dangers of fructose. Which leads me to believe that maybe Dr. Lustig didn't read the book either. He may have attended the conference to corroborate with Taubes without reading his book, as Taubes says is most often the case.
Most animals meats are processed before and after the slaughter, especially bacon. Bummer, cause I know dem paleo yo-yos loves dem some dead rotting pig LOL
FathomlessJoy 5 days ago
@FathomlessJoy ha ha you get no bacon and i get yours for half price.
datzfast 1 day ago
@datzfast I don't eating rotting animals nor any highly processed foods, so bacon is out, boy. Funny thing, bacon eaters aren't all happy and laughing for long, right?
FathomlessJoy 1 day ago
@Fathomless Joy i enjoy pig, your sacrificing your health for a pigs health. Ok, i admire your resolve. But thats all i admire. Bacon not highly processed is just fine with me. in fact i remove the nitrates by soaking in water. after all the bacon wasn't a longevity issue it was the cooked nitrosamines that was an issue.
datzfast 21 hours ago
Perfectly civil scientific exchange, no yelling, posted title is misleading.
dmontgomeryNM 1 week ago
Lose the stache, Gary. :)
voodooshizzle 2 weeks ago
It doesn't sound to me that Lustig's and Taubes' views are incompatible.
fringeelements 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LatestNutrition
Stop eating processed foods. Done. Problem solved.
atomiclotusbox 1 month ago
If the video poster is trying to say that Dr. Lustig is pushing his issue, then I could sorta see that. But I feel that his sentiment is that the issue was neglected and he wanted the audience to be aware of it.
But you could also interpret it as him wanting to hear if Taubes affirmed, denied, or was neutral on his research into fructose, fiber, and obesity. And Taubes seemed to be more affirmative leaning in his response.
Satarack 2 months ago
@EuphoricDan
You can't speak for an entire population anymore than this arrogant fool can. It is VERY unscientific of him to apply bad theory across the board and pass it off as absolute truth. What's the bad theory? That carbs/insulin ultimately=weight gain. Non-sense. he is using diabetic model and people with leptin receptor abnormalities as the branch point to sell a false notion. healthy individuals can process carbs and insulin fine, in fact the latter helps them regulate body fat!
brainboob 3 months ago
@brainboob
You can believe whatever you like - hell 90% of the world is religious. The biochemistry supports him. The diet works. Populations that begin to increase their carb intake become heavier.
And yes, I can speak for entire populations. As with vaccinations and diseases not every individual reacts exactly the same. It is harder to predict an individual's response than it is to predict an entire population's response to something.
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
@EuphoricDan
False, some of the populations taubes references did NOT see weight gain as a result of carb increase, but fat and sugar increase. In other words components of the typical western diet. Read Stephan Guyenets blog entry about this, in it he ownes taubes.
brainboob 3 months ago
@brainboob
He "ownes" Taubes? Yes I am aware that certain people seem to genetically tolerate carbs very well - my brother for instance. This by no means contradicts the data taken from 307 million Americans when looking at their diets. Some people don't gain immunity through vaccination, does that mean vaccinations don't work? No it means that over populations vaccinations work.
But look, biochemically the arguments against carbs are sound. Troll someone else, please.
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
@EuphoricDan
Biochemically, you're dealing with nutrigenomics. Do you know what that means? It means that some populations will be more adaptable to carbs than to fats as a primary macronutrient. Asian cultures are another outstanding example of long lived people (okinawans) who persevere on high carb diets all their lives. Some people have problems metabolizing dietary fat, so consumption of the amount of fat taubes suggests would lead to visceral fat storage. Stop applying blanket theory.
brainboob 3 months ago
@brainboob
Perhaps you yourself should not be so naive in believing that the only possible reason for longer lifespans of Okinawans is diet. You spoke of bad science earlier. Applying "blanket theory" to "all people live longer due to their diets" certainly is.
Sure, that could be the reason. It could also be thousands of other things - from genetics to stress levels.
That being the case - you also do not know that they would not thrive on high-fat diets - perhaps they would live longer?
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
@EuphoricDan
Because other high fat populations do NOT live as long as them, including asian populations that adopted high fat AND high sugar diets. Bottom line is not everyone has the same body chemistry. A lot of people cannot metabolize too much dietary fat because they have a gene mutation that does not allow for it. And those who cannot process carbohydrate generally have leptin receptor sensitivity, or are pre-diabetics who are insulin sensitive. Wake up and smell the diversity.
brainboob 3 months ago
@brainboob
For real? I cited the U.S. population, somehow you brought Asia into it. Yes we are diverse in the U.S. but Asians make up a very small % of the population. Of course different races are different - I also said my brother handles carbs well
By an extreme margin the U.S. population (non-Asians) does not handle carbs well
Throughout your tantrum I have cited numerous examples of exceptions, yet somehow you are still trying to convince me that there are exceptions. Go troll 4chan.
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
@EuphoricDan
Uh, there are one BILLION people in china alone! But asians are a small percentage of the population? You are too retarded to carry on an intelligent conversation with, as you have presented nothing but opinion with nothing to reference as back up, as I have used science with references. Good night.
brainboob 3 months ago
@brainboob
This is getting so stupid. Go back and read my paragraph. Look at the words. Look at the sentence structure. No offense, (I know this sounds condescending, I don't mean it as such) is English a second language to you? You seem to have trouble comprehending very clearly composed thoughts written in English.
Yes, Asians are a very small percentage of the United States population.
I was actually not aware that China actually has Asians in it, thank you for clearing that up.
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
Comment removed
brainboob 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was referring to GLOBAL population, stupid. How is the U.S population more testable than any other population? The air quality? Or are we just THAT MUCH SMARTER than other countries? God you're stupid.
brainboob 3 months ago
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
@brainboob What SNP permanently down-regulates fat absorption?
MichaelnChristine 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brushfour44
Exactly, this is exactly what happened to me when I tried a low carb, high fat paleo-style diet! I became skinny fat because my phenotype does not like a lot of dietary fat!
brainboob 3 months ago
'I stumbled into this field where nobody seems to have a clue'-Can you get anymore arrogant than that?
brainboob 3 months ago
The title is misleading. It's a great video. Thanks for posting.
iamgabrielf 3 months ago
Okay, that title is just ridiculous. Taubes asked Lustig to speak up so he could be heard. That's not exactly the same as Lustig spontaneously yelling at Taubes!
ObakeOnna 4 months ago 3
Is this guy related to Owen Wilson??
Illuvater 4 months ago
The title is totally misleading. I've flagged this video as such. Join me.
Jitpring 4 months ago
I love how people are both aware of and see people that lose entire limbs, go blind and have organ failure because of sugar but still seem to blame fat.
I don't care if your diabetic or not. If you recognize that sugar can cause catastrophic organ failure but refute the idea that it can (over a lifetime) do damage to arteries you need to think about your stance a little while. So cholesterol does its best to fix the damage and finally they get clogged, isn't the fat's fault.
EuphoricDan 5 months ago
@EuphoricDan
Diabetics have receptor abnormalities that cause them to be sensitive to insulin and gain weight from insulin driving foods. Taubes claims everyone is this way, that is a complete falsehood. Refined sugar is the evil of the carb world, just as trans fat is the evil of of the fat world.
brainboob 3 months ago
@brainboob ...I think you're totally correct.
brushfour44 3 months ago
@brainboob
Well... Speaking as a 25 year old male with normal blood sugar levels:
I was 280 pounds and consistently hungry 6 months ago, I have been in ketosis since. Eating <20 grams of carbs per day allowed me to lose 75 pounds in 4 months (The past 2 months I have been stuck at 205)
Speaking as a person who has tested Taubes' ideas (I tend to eat as many as 8,000 calories a day) and saw the exact results he claimed - Well sir, I am going to have trouble agreeing with you.
EuphoricDan 3 months ago
Comment removed
brainboob 3 months ago
@EuphoricDan
And by the way, i'm younger than you are and paleo/high fat, low carb failed me and made me skinny fat.
brainboob 3 months ago
This title is very misleading. Gary Taubes is a supporter of getting rid of fructose
alexzracer2008 6 months ago 2
hey @axelbello99 how did you get to be 100lbs overweight eatting carrots!!!!!!!!!! you will be dead within 5 years if you are not already dead.
dtriumbari 6 months ago
Sure you'll lose weight. You'll also clog your arteries and possibly die.
Better alternative: eat a low fat plant based diet.
1imesub 6 months ago
@1imesub (healthy)Fats are necessary (nuts, olive oil, moderate animal fat) in fact theyre good for you, you NEED them for brain function and hormone production, stop spreading absolute bullshit advice, you dont know what youre talking about, put down the rag magazines you read this shit from.
ccfcobro 6 months ago 2
@ccfcobro I stand by my original post.
1imesub 6 months ago
@1imesub Yes because youre close minded and stubborn. Give me some proof to back up your claim that a "low fat diet" is healthy/better for you and ill do the same arguing the latter k?
ccfcobro 6 months ago
@ccfcobro "Make Yourself Heart Attack Proof" by Dr. Esselstyn.
1imesub 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1imesub Pay attention to the studies. You've been brainwashed by the AHA.
RubyLindyBlues 5 months ago
This is an absolutely ridiculously misleading title to the video. Taubes ASKS Lustig to speak up. It was a quite civil exchange,
WmDProctor 6 months ago 29
He yelled? Really, LatestNutrition? That was 'yelling'? Sounds like you didn't listen very well. Both men are experts in their fields. Dr. Lustig points out a factor that he thinks Dr. Taubes should consider/explain, which Dr. Taubes then addresses and addresses why it's so difficult to isolate. Both men allude to the challenges in precisely isolating the factors associated with obesity. I mean, if it was really that easy to figue out, we would have solved the problem long ago!
hedonistaesthete 7 months ago
Sugar addiction is due to chronic neurotransmitter deficiencies. The solution is a 100% pure amino acids supplement (i.e. no fillers, no additives, no sugar/stevia, and manufactured at very low heat). Such a product is called AMINOKIT Recovery Formula and can end sugar cravings in 24 hours. The above product has been used in drug rehab centers for 15 years to end cravings for not only refined sugar but cocaine, heroin, alcohol, and other drugs. Avoid sugar and achieve fast, healthy weight loss.
sophywest1 7 months ago
Because the loss of lean tissue on low carb was so substantial against whatever fat was lost, my actual body comp changed to a condition known as "skinny fat." That is, you're much lighter, but actually fatter. I see this quite a bit amongst the low carb dieters. The only positives I see is that the Low Carb dieting is moving away from more saturated fat cheese, steak, sour cream, and eggs food choices, and more toward and "eco-atkins " approach. First do YOUR research, then attempt a lecture.
brushfour44 8 months ago 2
@brushfour44
Vince Gironda was big on steak, cream and eggs. I heard of him, but I never heard of you.
voxstack1 7 months ago
@voxstack1 That was back in the high protein, low carb...low fat, dieting regimes of the late 60's early 70's. An impossible diet that was impossible to maintain...and no one does anymore. Arnold messed around with that diet as well. It's a great way to lose muscle...especially if you're not on steroids. Gironda was on steroids and so was Arnold.
brushfour44 7 months ago
@voxstack1 : When I trained at Gold's Gym back in the 80's the bodybuilders would only go LC, low-calorie prior to a contest, usually the last couple weeks before a contest. They knew they would lose water weight and bring out the muscular definition. The rest of the year they consumed a high carb diet with lean protein (broiled chicken, tuna, etc). LC would be detrimental to their success if they attempted LC year-round. I agree with brushfour44.
auggiedoggy 5 months ago
Comment removed
brainboob 3 months ago
I have to say I've never seen a low carb dieter (including myself), that did not suffer the skinny fat consequence.When I did low carb I got plenty of compliments on my weight loss, but if people could have looked under my shirt they would have been stunned how smooth I was. I started at a bodyfat of 22% and after a 45 lb weightloss, came in with a bodyfat of 19.6%.I actually was a bit leaner, but I was also lifting heavy weights and doing lots of HIIT cardio, so my results were actually AWFUL!!
brushfour44 3 months ago
Low carb diets, like ALL diets, will lose you weight. The problem with low carb is you end up much lighter but with a very bad body composition. I wish they would conduct these tests with changes in bodyfat percentages in mind, and not changes in total bodyweight. Low carb is not a good diet for athletes. Fat is not a good fuel source for performance. New theories suggest that attempting to use fat as a main fuel source only tells the body to store more fat in anticipation of upcoming workouts.
brushfour44 8 months ago
@brushfour44 actually no not all diets cause weight loss. There are countless examples of this. Second, perhaps you should do some research before claiming that a low carb diet produces unfavorable body composition. Or perhaps you think increased lean muscle mass with decreased excess body fat are "bad"? Third, fat is the primary fuel for endurance. If you looked into the actual biochemistry behind it you'd learn the truth. The body under normal conditions has absolutely zero carb requirement .
IAmTheRealBill 8 months ago
@IAmTheRealBill Check the 2010 report by the New England Journal of Medicine. The common denomenator amongst all diets is a reduction in calories. That is the number one reason dieting will cause weightloss. No mystery there. Second, ATP is the primary fuel source for endurance. ATP is produced by glycogen....which is the byproduct of carbohydrate. ATP cannot be replenished fast enough by fat,..that is why low carb fueled athletes hit the wall sooner and don't perform as well throughout.
brushfour44 8 months ago
@IAm I was on low carb for a total of 18 months. 4 months in 1992,...and 14 months in 1998-99'. I do heavy strength training and lost quite a bit of lean muscle tissue and my strength went with it. I lost 45 lbs. on Atkins and over 1/3 of it was muscle + adduitional water weight. I'll never do it again,...and frankly I wish I didn't do it at all. Fat is burned in the presence of carbohydrate. Competitive bodybuilders no longer attempt low carb because it is not a good method for fat loss.
brushfour44 8 months ago
@brushfour44
That's right. Nowadays, professional bodybuilders take massive doses of the drug clenbuterol for cutting purposes, which is much healthier than controlling carb intake. Right.
voxstack1 7 months ago
@brushfour44
That's right. Nowadays, professional bodybuilders take massive doses of the drug clenbuterol for cutting purposes, which is much healthier than controlling carb intake. Right.
voxstack1 7 months ago
@vox Some fat loss supplements do very little if anything for fat loss. Clenburterol has been shown to work to some degree. In NO WAY will taking Clenbuterol be effective enough to lose all the fat you need for a contest. It will aid your progress slightly. Many bodybuilders do not use it at all. It's contolling caloire intake against activity levels consistantly over time that gets you cut. The leanest bodybuilders I know, 3% bodyfat or less, do it by way of 25% Protein-20% Fat-55% Carb diet.
brushfour44 7 months ago
@brushfour44 atkins is the best, see my channel
PaulBocianfan 7 months ago
This was improperly titled.
Twomonthago 8 months ago 25
There were and are people presenting themselves from the medical and science communities saying all kinds of whacky things. What one needs is the Position Statement of the entity in question. If you know of an alphabet soup group position statement that currently or even recently advocates low fat diets I'd love to see it. Please forward if you have or you are able to find that information. I've read the postion statements of interest. They do not state low fat diets that I've seen.
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
No. I did not just say that. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at. I did my undergrad in biochemistry, dietician, physiology coursework at a major research/medical university over ten years ago. At that time and many years prior no alphabet soup group was advocating low fat diet that I'm aware of. Of course, one might wonder what is meant by low fat. What do you mean by low fat?
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
If you can find a way to stay alive or even simply cogitate without sugar then please let us know how you manage that. It can't be done. You can't live without sugar anymore than you can live without water. To many calories,,, to much sugar or fat or protein.. and you'll likely become obese, diseased, die early, etc. The same exact thing happens with hyponatremia and/or drowning - excess water kills you. To little kills you. The exact same is true for all three macronutrients. Sugar is required
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
Please define sugar. Which sugar are we discussing? Is it a processed sugar that has been stripped of nutrition other than energy - say, for example, a twinkie? No authoratitive health agency is advocating for twinkies, candy bars, chips or bleached white flour bread. Asparagus is essentially all sugar. But you can not digest a great portion of it because humans do not have the enzymes AND it has lots of nutrition. Eat plant not manufactured/processed corporate food. Eat "some" high fiber bread.
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
Wow, that's fascinating. I guess I'll stay off the cattle ranch for fear a cow might eat me. Considering the number of hamburgers I've eatin, I wouldn't blame the cow. But I surely would be surprised. Cleanest calorie sources, plants, are those closest to the sun. Animals eat plants and convert it to meat containing fat. Land animals, especially beef, contain the most unhealthy fats. Eat plants, maybe some fish and once in awhile maybe some land animal. You'll live longer. It's a fact Jack.
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
It would help to understand the Alphabet soup groups. They do not advocate low fat. Fat is required in the diet. This has been understood for many years. They advocate low calorie that maintains a healthy body weight. They advocate for all three macronutrient groups pulling from sources that are "healthy". Michael Pollan sums it up most succinctly with his subtitle - Eat Food. Not to Much. Mostly Plants.
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
@bladerunnerr57 Wow--Did you just say your alphabet soup of groups did NOT ever advocate low fat diets??? Did you type that with a straight face? That a certain level of certain kinds of fats is essential, is of course known by your alphabet soup groups--& they still, either today OR in the recent past, advocated low-fat diets. My point, which you did an excellent job of missing, is that the snack-buying public tends to believe that the label "low-fat" means it will help them lose weight.
cyndish1 8 months ago
When an entity, such as the USDA or ADA, state one should eat a diet with a higher ratio of carbs, they are not advocating pasta, soda, or bleached white bread. They are advocating asparagus. Can anyone seriously tell me I should avoid asparagus?
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago 2
The USDA, AHA, ADA, CDC, AMA, ACSM and other private and public institutions have long advocated AGAINST simple sugars such as fructose. The Harvard and USDA Food Pyramids very clearly stress “sugar” should be a very small part of the diet or eliminated. No one anywhere has advocated ever for a diet high in cookies, candies, pasta, sodas, breads, granulated sugar, etc. How this point is lost on authors like Atkins, Lustig, Taubes, etc. is quite interesting. Might they have books to sell?
bladerunnerr57 8 months ago
@bladerunnerr57 maybe it's the giant loaves of bread that are shown in the food pyramid diagrams.
griffonstink 8 months ago
@bladerunnerr57 A compelling question. Actually, somebody HAS advocated a high-sugar diet: the snacky-food companies! The snacky-food marketers have really cashed in on the doctrine of low-fat diets--& low-fat diets have certainly been advocated by your alphabet soup of groups. The teachings of Lustig, Taubes, etc, will hopefully help the public to understand that the label "low-fat" on all these processed snacky foods, does NOT mean it will help them lose weight, 'cuz of the high sugars.
cyndish1 8 months ago
I have to say i don't really care about health. At the end of the day all i care about is how i look and i have to say this guys looks a hell of a lot better than all the fruitarians i've ever come across.
roottruthseeker 8 months ago
I thought he answered that really well.
DRSelkirk 9 months ago
Comment removed
Aislan4414 9 months ago 3
@Aislan4414 That would be invaluable and I would be very interested to see the results, great observation!
LJF227 8 months ago
@Aislan4414
Watch the movie Bagit
yogabicycle 8 months ago
Please change the title — you can edit it.
KeithDobie 9 months ago
@KeithDobie I agree, the title was very misleading, no yelling even occured. But it did prompt me to watch it...
LJF227 8 months ago 2
I think this is great. Intelligent people mixing minds. Lustig really brought out fructose as the culprit (not glucose) and Taubes agrees. At least we are getting good science not diluted and convoluted by the government. If the politicians are bought then their offices are bought as well.
jlund75 9 months ago 2
YELLS ... hardly.
justgivemethetruth 9 months ago
title is very misleading. ditto what others have said here.
mckennagene 9 months ago
dishonest title, but i wouldnt have seen the vid otherwise. like.
Pelonetillo 9 months ago
There is no yelling... there is a complete understanding and agreement... please resubmit... if people don't watch they will get the wrong information...
gberke 9 months ago
misleading title, both Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig are heroes of the modern day and they are on the same side, just discussing areas of commonality, sharing knowledge with each other and with us, we should be grateful and glad, not acting like we're watching Springer, what the heck is happening to our society?
parmalatkit1 9 months ago 78
@parmalatkit1 Reality TV and 24 hour news... I think is part of it
TheCycadsAreAudible 7 months ago
@parmalatkit1 Actually he was angry that fructose was not once mentioned in full lecture and said AHA was not given enough credit 3:36
Watch the full lecture in the description
LatestNutrition 4 months ago
Human beings are not evolved to be vegan. So be vegan if that's what you believe, but understand you're creating some real obstacles to good health.
tboynew 9 months ago
I hate eating animal proteins, absolutely hate it. What does a vegan have to look forward to other than soy for protein, or handfuls and cups of nuts, which are higher in calories.
Blu4Blues 10 months ago
Maybe he wanted to say: "tells". Who knows. The title is misleading.
juujuuuujj 11 months ago
Comment removed
JustCallMeStephanie 11 months ago
Many breast fed babies are in fact very fat - but it is a fat that dose not last past the breast feeding stage.
elbanydaer 1 year ago
but are they fat with respect to a traditional baseline. most babies are fat. baby fat is expected. but when are they fatter. thats the important thing.
Pelonetillo 9 months ago
GARY, GARY, GARY - You need to do the study YOURSELF. The medical community is never going to fund this study. Take it to NBC, ABC, or maybe even the new OWN network and present it as a new television program - THE BIGGEST WINNERS, and you will not only prove your point, but you will make a fortune in the process.
TheMusicmaam 1 year ago
Animals that eat their natural diet (grass fed beef for example) FOR THE WIN
TehBerbDean 1 year ago
Everyone needs to understand that typical meat in this world has UNUSUAL amounts of polyunsaturated fats which in most if not all cases are detrimental to a whole myriad of bodily systems including cardiovascular. Before you attack the fat understand that a wild "grazing" animal for example has a completely different lipid profile than a farm animal. It's what they EAT. They're not suppose to eat CORN. Think about it. Saturated fat isnt as saturated as youd think anymore. Which is a shame...
TehBerbDean 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheAmericanWaySeries 9 months ago
@TheAmericanWaySeries It would be awesome to have some acreage lol, Enjoy your lot, and I hope it lasts, really I do. Thanks for another view point, take care.
TehBerbDean 9 months ago
Fructose is metabolized like alcohol, but there are crucial differences: Fructose doesn't cause drunkenness, so there's no law limiting use in any way, no social stigma,(not even for the over-fat: they're now the majority), & no family disapproval,(the whole family's 'using'). To say it's a portion issue rather than a substance issue's literally true, but misleading: Without any social or legal limits to use, availability, & promotion, the substance itself strongly tends to -cause- overuse.
lazur1 1 year ago 2
So Fat isn't directly utilized by the brain since the brain only has Glucose Receptors. Fat isn't burned better either. While 1 gram of fat can provide twice as much energy as 1 gram of glucose, fat metabolism is not as desired by the body. Unlike what you said, Fat is stored in the body-it's called Adipocytes. People are fat more due to excessive fat intake, and poor exercise, rather than simply sugary sweets (that have no fat).
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 I meant, referring to what Lonewolf said...
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 no thats not true i cut out white sugar and starch carbs and bread and i lost 45 punds so you can say whatever unless you experienced it then you cant talk
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789
No one said that cutting out white sugar and starch or bread will not help you lose weight. Secondly, I don't even know to what are you referring "that's not true". The lethargy? Well, you probably didn't suffer lethargy since cutting white sugar, starch and bread isn't exactly a low carb diet. How many grams of carbs did you eat everyday?? And trust me, I know. I WAS on a low carb diet.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 Well i did the induction part for a month and then from there i ate only vegtables and some fruits and only drank water and ate meat and nuts ect which is basically the atkins diet in the final stages. Also your body makes carbohydrates on its own hence why there is no such thing as a essential carbohydrate only amino and fatty acids low carb helps for weight loss and controlled carb is great for weight maintanence.I eat about a 100 to 150 grams of carbs a day now that im at mygoal
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789
Exactly. A complete Atkins diet is quite tough on the body. And yes, while low carb diets help you lose weight, it also plays dramatic role in blood glucose levels (thus the reason why some Atkins Diet followers end up with hypoglycemia). I could only eat 100-150 gr. of carbs during a diet,. For maintenance, I consume around 200-250 grams.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 but im doing the complete atkins diet lol what you do is raise net grams of carbs everyweek until you stop losing weight then thats the amount you are supposed to stay at. So many people just focus on the induction phase but its much more than that. Its customizing the diet so it works for everyone. BUT i am a follower of metabolic typing to so i think i am a fast oxidizer thats why the atkins diet works for me. but a slow oxidizer would do better on more carbs less protein/fat
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789
That's good. But if you do feel light-headed, or whatever....then start normalizing your intake in progressive steps.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@rast123456789
Do you know how many people have sued the Atkins Diet programs because of death, diabetes and other diseases due to extremely low carb diets? You can't live off low carbs the rest of your life. Carbohydrates produce the energy. Your muscles store Glycogen and Creatine for energy, not fat. This goes to show that, as far as the body is concerned, carbs are the number 1 source of energy...,then fats, then (during starvation), proteins (muscle).
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 Regarding people being sued. The most famous case was about Jody gorran and he was sponsored by PCRM a vegan activist group. There is a spot on dateline and he seems full of crap. Its a interesting watch and easy to find on line
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789
While Jody Gorran was the most prolific case, being possibly one of the first ones every reported by journalists, it's not the only one. In the last 15 years, it has received well over 500 complaints. And, Atkins used to advise their clients that "meat all the time" was good. Atkins Nutritionals went bankrupt in 2005, and only now are they trying to get back on sturdier feet. They recently took out the "meat all the time" advice, stating "we should eat balanced meals"....
axelbello99 1 year ago
@rast123456789
So these clients, following the Atkins advice, ate meat all the time. Their cholesterol levels went up, plaque formation and artherosclerosis was present, high blood pressure, angina, blood sugar variations..etc. I mean, anyone can see that eating meat all the time (red meat, at that) is not good for you. Only now are they stating "well, maybe that wasn't such a good advice".
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99
Funny because I've been on an even more extreme example of atkins - I'm on a high fat, solely animal products diet for well over a year. My blood lipids have gone down significantly, regardless of the huge amounts that I eat. I've lost 100lbs. I have never felt healthier. No more pms, better memory, my skin glows, I don't get shaky low blood sugar if I miss a meal.... That you assume the cholesterol levels go up etc doesn't actually bear out in studies.
babetteq 1 year ago
@axelbello99
Funny because I've been on an even more extreme example of atkins - I'm on a high fat, solely animal products diet for well over a year. My blood lipids have gone down significantly, regardless of the huge amounts that I eat. I've lost 100lbs. I have never felt healthier. No more pms, better memory, my skin glows, I don't get shaky low blood sugar if I miss a meal.... That you assume the cholesterol levels go up etc doesn't actually bear out in studies. or even anecdotally.
babetteq 1 year ago 23
@babetteq Groves?
mjxshipton 8 months ago
@babetteq I feel sorry that animals have to live such miserable lives and die such a miserable death to make you feel better. I eat almost all raw veg an I feel great - I even took up exercise and am fitter now at 45 than I ever have been in my life. Comparing the atkins diet with carb diets based on bread and pasta is a crock.
imnotabear 8 months ago
@imnotabear nature, from the smallest phytoplankton to the largest mammals, is animals eating other animals. if you can prefer veggies that's super, but don't try to take some sort of bullshit moral high ground.
griffonstink 8 months ago
@babetteq How's the liver doing?
TheCycadsAreAudible 7 months ago
@axelbello99 ketones the by product of a fat burning metabolism are utilized by the brain
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789 While Ketones are used by the brain, they are not efficient at producing energy as it requires. In fact, many ketones are liberated into the lungs, giving people who are in dangerous low carb diets or who suffer from diabetes,= an acetone breath. But, there are no fat receptors. And to produce this, it requires too many steps to produce energy. Carbs are still the primary energy source, and most favored for all the body.
axelbello99 1 year ago
By the way, I never said Ketones weren't part of fat-by-products.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 uhhhh nvm you did say that fat wasnt directly utilized by the brain. But it is indirectly utilized with ketones.
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789
Sure, fat indirectly serves energy to the brain. Yet, Ketone bodies have some problems: 1) Hydrophilic 2) Energy-wise incomparable to carbs 3) acidic pH which causes Acidosis in the body. This last one, causes your body to use the Bicarbonate Buffering System to regulate your pH, but if your pH falls too much....there's pretty much not a lot you can do by yourself.
axelbello99 1 year ago
So there's a reason why the Brain doesn't express any fat receptors on its surface. It could very well be related to the fact that, in terms of evolution, we were mostly carb-based organisms, rather than fat-based. This makes sense, considering most primates are fruit-eaters, rather than omnivores or carnivores.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99
Sorry, but your comments are monumentally misinformed. To wit:
1) There is no evidence that people on Adkins' have higher rates of atherosclerosis. Just because it stands to reason does not make it true.
2) 7 eggs/day would have NO effect on CAD, as admitted by the AHA
3) low carb diets do NOT generally lead to hypoglycemia.
4) of course ketone bodies provide less energy. THAT IS THE POINT.
5) The VAST majority of primates are omnivores. This includes ALL anthropoid monkeys.
etc..
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
Comment removed
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@axelbello99
As stated in private e-mail, #2 was to read 7eggs/week, an amount you SPECIFICALLY stated was dangerous. You've now found the recommendations from the American Heart Association I referenced that directly say otherwise. I assume you take them as an authority.
You also concede number 5 above, and claim you did not mean to write omnivores. I find that claim dubious, but at least you have conceded that point as well.
As for the rest, I await ANY citations to the contrary.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@axelbello99 Another person that has no idea what they are talking about lol. Try the diet then talk. Eating carbs raises your blood sugar level and that causes you to become fat and since your cells can't get its energy from fat you get fatter and you are starving causing you to get even more hungry. I lost 30 lbs on this diet, no shit low fat diet, and all of the silly fruit diets ever worked haha. There is also tons of historical evidence to back up his claims, read Good Calories bad Calories
Warpath2198 9 months ago
@Warpath2198 Just to clarify to the real person that knows nothing (you by the way): Eating carbs does not make you fat. Eating excess carbs does. Do you ever see athletes say "oh, I'm gonna avoid carbs?" No....ever see Gatorade or Powerade say "Carb free?" Of course not. And the athletes that drink it are not fat. It's excess, it always is. Everything in excess is bad.
axelbello99 9 months ago
@axelbello99 lol try the diet then talk. There is a ton of historical evidence to back up Taubes. His book Good Calories Bad Calories explains it all. We are also not monkeys and all of these carbs "western" diet is not what man mostly ate.
Warpath2198 9 months ago
And, this is important: Fat wouldn't be such a good primary food source since our brain can only utilize Glucose; otherwise, Ketone bodies are produced to nourish the brain. And ketone bodies will produce lethargy...a tired feeling that a lot of people on Low Carb diets have felt. Again, Glucose, Fructose, Fats and Proteins are all good for the body. The quantities, and I can't stress this enough, is what causes unbalances. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
axelbello99 1 year ago
Another point to Metqa is this: The body utilizes Glucose first because, for one thing, Glucose is more readily available to us than fats are. Secondly, the process by which Glucose is turned to ATP (or energy) is quicker than fat metabolism (beta-oxidation). Thirdly, even fat metabolism ends up producing intermediates that end up in the Glycolytic pathway that Glucose uses to produce ATP.
axelbello99 1 year ago
So a lot of attention is being given to this Fructose-Obesity theme, yet it's obvious that pretty much any carb like Glucose or Fructose will do this. The only reason why Fructose is targeted is because it's found in higher levels in produced foods. But Lustig's point is wrong on many things. His view is like saying that since Alcohol can cause liver disease, then drinking a beer will kill you.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99
Hey, have you watched Lustigs explanation of how fructose is metabolized? It is metabolized just like achohol, and what happens if you chronically drink alchohol. Check out this video, it's long but worth watching if you are really interested in Why Lustig is so hard down on fructose.
search for Sugar: The bitter truth
Metqa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Metqa I did watch it.
axelbello99 8 months ago
@Metqa I'll send you an e-mail...
axelbello99 8 months ago
HFCS are not bad for you. It's the amount of HFCS that we eat, not the fact that we eat it. Eggs are good for you, yet they still have at least 170-220 mg of cholesterol per egg. That's why eating 1 egg per week isn't bad, but eating 7 eggs per week might considerably raise your Cholesterol levels. Glucose, just like Fructose, will cause weight gains.
axelbello99 1 year ago
@axelbello99 you're wrong. They did a study giving babies 4 eggs a week and their cholesterol never rose. This is the equivalent of an adult eating 40 eggs per week. They also did a study with adults eating 2 eggs a day compared to no eggs. The adults eating eggs did not raise their cholesterol. Finally, a high cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. This is absolute garbage. Taubes, Uffe, both know and admit this. Only the larger LDL particles are associated with heart disease.
lonewolf1369 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
No, Im not wrong. For one thing, it's illegal in the US and most of western europe to do "Guinea tests" on babies; so, wherever that research was made, wasn't here nor Europe. Second, check pubmed on all articles related to hypercholesterolemia due to excessive intake from the diet. The evidence proves otherwise to what you are saying. Secondly, sufficient proof is out there to link high cholesterol foods and heart disease: artherosclerosis, plaque formation...etc.
axelbello99 1 year ago
Thirdly, LDL transports cholesterol, so by definition, if LDL is responsible for heart disease, it's because of the amounts of LDL transporting cholesterol. The only true test Lustig ever did in vivo with human patients was removing high fructose foods from young children to see the effect (this is legal since you are not putting potentially life threatning situations on subjects). But his fructose claim cones fron feeding 200 gram mice, nearly 20 grams of it a day.
axelbello99 1 year ago
That's like giving a 200 pound man, 20 pounds of fructose per day. That is not scientific. It was only done to prove what excessive fructose consumption does to your body, not what sensible amounts of it can do. No proof links sensible fructose intake to any disease. And yes, I've seen Bitter Truth. It was good, but again, Lustig failed to state what are the parameters to fructose intake.
axelbello99 1 year ago
So what is the difference between lustig's diet and taubes diet. Is the difference that lustig thinks that starch and grains are good and taubes doesnt?
slash3rr 1 year ago
@slash3rr Lustig is extremely focused on the evil role of fructose, one type of carbohydrate. His view of starch and grains is neutral if not positive. Taubes originally focused on the role of "grains and refined carbohydrates," basically indicting all carbohydrates, but he's coming to understand the role of fructose.
HubertHoratio 1 year ago
@HubertHoratio
I don't know what evidence Lustig has that the insulin hormone does not cause a problem with weight gain and diabetes etc... when it comes to Glucose and refined carbs in general. He needs to address this.
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967
I agree. Taubes is on to something, apart from any concern about fructose. However, it's also clear that Taubes should be putting more focus on fructose. I'm sure if these guys worked together, they would come to an understanding, it just that working independently they're bound to end up focusing on different aspects of the same issue.
HubertHoratio 1 year ago
@HubertHoratio
There are a lot of people who have made important contributions to both of these theories. Have you checked out Weston A Price Foundation's website? It's invaluable in my opinion.
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967
Yeah, this is a growing awareness, and it has many people involved, all of whom have their own take... which is not something you can always say for the vegan/vegetarian/low-fat group. My personal opinion of the Weston Price people is that they're generally right, but they occasionally get too righteous and forget scientific rigor. I didn't like their critique of Loren Cordain's Paleodiet, for one.
HubertHoratio 1 year ago
@HubertHoratio
From my 2 years of experience reading very detailed and concise articles, closely argued and studded with scientific references, I WP's conclusions are a result of where the research has taken them. They give Taubes a thumbs up but criticize his non distinction between different carbs refined and unrefined. The only other major criticism is that Taubes doesn't discuss the density of nutrients in saturated fats and a high fat diet which put WP in a category all their own.
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967 that's because for many people, refined or unrefined carbs still have the same effect: weight gain and damaged cardiovascular markers. Drinking fruit juice, and sugary fruit, is 'unrefined' carbs, but causes weight gain for many and high blood sugar.
lonewolf1369 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
I meant to say Weston Price Foundation.
By the way I heard Gary say that he eats whole grain Pumpernickel bread so he id not completely demonzing carbs.
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967
I tend to agree and Weson Price Foundation does as well because the recommend a diet of only 18% carbs a day give or take a few percentiles. However, WP says to eat carbs with fat like stoned ground, sprouted whole grain bread with lots of butter, preferably raw or potatoes sauteed in duck fat, oatmeal with butter (i use coconut oil).
What do you think about Robert Lustig declaring Glucose from white bread beneficial? I have a lot of problems with his analysis
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967 Lustig's a nutbar when he claims glucose is 'good.' And if he thinks white bread glucose is 'good' he's a total loon. Glucose is sugar, and will cause weight gain and obesity for many people regardless. Lustig's obsession with only fructose is retarded. There's no fructose in bread and grains and it will still make you obese.
lonewolf1369 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369 You obviously don't read food labels. There is high FRUCTOSE corn syrup in nearly all breads sold in the grocery store.
OuttaVegas 1 year ago
@OuttaVegas but eating bread without high fructose corn syrup still makes me fat. Eating food with high glucose and no fructose makes me fat. Explain that? 60 or so years ago we didn't have HFCS. But we still ate bread and glucose and that still made us obese.
lonewolf1369 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonewolf1369 You obviously don't read food labels. There is high FRUCTOSE corn syrup in nearly all breads sold in the grocery store.
OuttaVegas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonewolf1369 You obviously don't read food labels. There is high fructose corn syrup in nearly all breads sold in the grocery store.
OuttaVegas 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
i think his point is that glucose is good because it is the basic sugar that is needed for life. if you eat no dietary glucose, sugar or starch, your body will still MAKE glucose. Since our primary fuel pathway is to process glucose, then having some glucose producing foods in our diet is not bad. his issue is with how the body processes fructose as a poison, and since HFCS is prevalent, that's the ogre he's chosen to fight. Eat more glucose than you need and you still make fat
Metqa 1 year ago
@Metqa it is better for your body to make glucose, than to eat a high glucose diet. Glucose is not our 'primary' fuel pathway. Our body uses fat as well, even the brain. In fact fat is better because there's no insulin activation, it's not inflammatory, and it gets burned better whereas glucose is stored. You don't understand that high glucose is just as bad as high fructose. The 'issue' with Lustig is that he only focuses on fructose. Glucose is still inflammatory and makes you obese.
lonewolf1369 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
1. I never suggested eating a 'HIGH glucose' diet. 2. Glucose is indeed our primary fuel path, that is not the same as saying it is the only fuel path. Primary means processed first, the reason is that unused glucose can't stay in the blood for long without causing problems(inflammation). Hence the body will process(burn or store) any sugar FIRST. First does not mean only. I understand that Lustig focuses on fructose because it will make you obese much faster than glucose.
Metqa 1 year ago
@Metqa well if glucose is the primary fuel path, I find that a bit counter productive, since that only makes us even more susceptible to inflammation and diabetes, etc...wouldn't it have been better if fat was our primary path? Problem with Lustig is that he doesn't acknowledge that glucose is also a problem. He leaves it out entirely and says its "good." He should know that for many people, even a "little" glucose is deleterious.
lonewolf1369 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
Well, glucose is indeed the primary fuel path, if you don't believe me then just go pick up any college level physiology book. No matter how hard you want to believe other wise or how healthy you want to be, you body, my body, your dogs body, the bacteria on your bread, the fungus on the fridge all use glucose first.
But joking aside, I think you don't understand WHY the body uses glucose first, it's exactly for the reasons you specify that is shouldn't use it at all. cont...
Metqa 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
Cont... whether we like it or not glucose is a readily available food source for most living beings. Glucose serves many biological functions from keeping frogs from dying when frozen to feeding our cells. BUT back to topi, Glucose must be dealt with first BECAUSE it can damage if kept in the blood too long. That's why the body will use it up as fuel or convert it to fat before it will use fat. The body cannot ignore glucose, or it will suffer acidification. That's Biology.
Metqa 1 year ago
@lonewolf1369
You can try to avoid glucose, but if you eat any vegetation or fruit you will ingest it, so you body will have to deal with it whether you like it or not, and dont forget that you body makes glucose from protein and fat. What's the point of making glucose if the body did not have a way and a need to process it immediately? Even cats, which are carnivores process sugar first. Cat's that don't are diabetic.
As far as Lustig, he chose fructose, Someone else might choose Trans fats.
Metqa 1 year ago
Youre just pissing people off with the title.... youre gonna get disliked if you dont change it.
benanaman 1 year ago
Good worthwhile video, thanks for putting it up. But there is no need to try and grab views with the title, let the subject speak for itself. I would consider changeing the title. Regardless, again, thanks for putting this content up :)
rich0292 1 year ago
The title of this video is misleading, as many commentators have already stated. Robert Lustig mentions fructose as a culprit, and Gary Taubes agrees to a certain extent, but says all sugar is bad, and could be the main problem. Gary Taubes closer to the mark than the conventional wisdom of "low fat, high carb" and he's an honest skeptic.
jadedmastermind 1 year ago
stupid title
RLaurence123 1 year ago
Yea there is no yelling.. he's just bringing up another side of the issue.
stinkyslinky432 1 year ago
If you took time to read Taube's book, you would know he did not ignore the dangers of fructose. Which leads me to believe that maybe Dr. Lustig didn't read the book either. He may have attended the conference to corroborate with Taubes without reading his book, as Taubes says is most often the case.
howtogetwell 1 year ago
Comment removed
slash3rr 1 year ago