I never said that fruit and honey were bad. The crux of that argument is that everywhere you get Fructose in nature it is accompanied by Fiber, which is the only known antidote to Fructose. When we consume Fructose in artificial circumstances, eg as HFCS added to prepared foods, it is devoid of the necessary fiber to neutralize the damaging effects. That is what makes it a toxin. It is a toxin when consumed without fiber.
The reason fiber is stripped from most prepared/packaged and fast foods is because fiber lessens the shelf life and lengthens the time necessary to cook it which is bad economics for the people who sell prepared foods and who sell fast food. But, when you strip the fiber and the fat out the food tastes more bland. So, HFCS is added to improve flavor.
The body does indeed break HFCS into Fructose and Glucose via an enzyme in the stomach, but the problem is that 1) HFCS is apx 90% Fructose and only 10% Glucose and 2) only 20% of Glucose is metabolized by the liver leaving 80% for other processes, but 100% of Fructose is metabolized by the liver. Only the liver can metabolize Fructose. Since the purpose of the human liver is convert glucose to glycogen, to produce bile to break down fats, and to filter foreign substances that can’t be metabolized by other processes, this is the basis for the assertion is Fructose is a toxin.
He goes on to show that the average person is consuming 15% of his/her daily caloric intake from Fructose (particularly HFCS) as it is in all kinds of pre-prepared food, fast food and packaged ready-to-eat foods. We have been told to lower fat intake so much, so many foods are “low fat”. When you take the fat out of foods it tastes worse, and HFCS is added to make it taste better. HFCS (and all sugars) also masks the taste of salt. The average person in America consumes over 140 lbs of sugar (glucose, fructose, sucrose et al) each year.
Anecdotally, we as a society have gotten fatter, we have higher rates of heart disease, and higher rates of diabetes. We have been told to reduce fat intake, and we have reduced fat intake, yet we are sicker than ever in these diseases. There is a clear correlation between the increase in sugar intake and the increase in Cardiovascular and Metabolic diseases (diabetes, heart disease, and dislipidemia etc, where we know Diabetes leads to increased risk of heart attack and stroke). To me this is a clear link between sugar and the heart. When “they” told us to reduce fat intake, the substitution of Fat for Sugar may have been seriously detrimental. Hence this thread. It is possible the “fat = heart disease” studies are flawed because many of those studies did not control for sugar intake.
He mocks the idea that we can realistically burn away fat. Yes we can, but its obscenely inefficient. 30 minutes of cardio work burns the calories of 1 cookie. Its impossible really to burn calories. Exercise is good for increasing the metabolism which speeds up the process of burning Glucose, so it is a net plus but doesn’t really help us lose weight very much. Conversely he argues that it isn’t strictly the calories that cause fat, but the substrate that the calories come from. For example you can get 120 calories by eating 2 slices of bread, from 1 shot of Makers Mark, or 1 glass of OJ. If you have the OJ you get lots of Sucrose. Sucrose is half Fructose and half Glucose. He claims this is worse than the other two options in terms of creating and storing fat.
Unlike Glucose, Fructose metabolizes into (among other things) Uric Acid. (This is discussed at around the 1 hour mark in the video if you are so inclined). Uric Acid causes Gout and Hypertension. But as it relates to fat, he claims, and backs it up with studies, that Fructose metabolizes in a way, unlike Glucose, that it causes de novo lipogenesis (new fat cell creation). Tests comparing high dose Glucose consumption results in less than 2% additional fat, whereas the same calories taken in as Fructose ends up as over 30% fat. And in a study where high amounts of Fructose were added to a diet vs a control group, by day 6 Triglyceride levels doubled, there was a 5 fold increase in denovo lipo genesis (new fat cell creation), and insulin resistance doubled.
The science behind this, he asserts, is that Glucose consumption metabolizes and partially ends up as tyrosine-irs 1. Fructose, via the same process, ends up as serine-irs1, which is inactive. It sits in the liver and raises liver insulin resistance, forcing the pancreas works harder where insulin creation increases, forces energy to be stored in the fat cells and reinforces a negative feedback loop where the brain can’t tell you that you are full.
He claims Sugar and Ethanol both metabolize the same way, except that Ethanol has an effect on the brain (you get drunk) and sugar doesn’t. I don’t recall hearing him state that that Ethanol is a “Hydrated Carbon” (carbohydrate). The basis for saying that Ethanol is a Carbohydrate is based on a rudimentary definition of Carbohydrate that states a carbohydrate is a molecule composed of only Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen where Hydrogen exists in a ratio of 2:1 or more relative to Oxygen Ethanol is Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen where Hydrogen is 2:1 or more than Oxygen. The Hydrogen is bound to the Carbon instead of the Hydrogen (as far as I know - just a keyboard chemist here). I don’t really know why he mentions that - it is almost in passing. He is really trying to compare Ethanol metabolisis to Fructose matabolisis.
Now I agree, he is sometimes sloppy in that video, he will occasionally interchange the word Fructose with the word Sugar, especially when he claims Fructose is essentially not a carb but actually is essentially a fat. So as an interested third party, curious why I can’t shed these excess 30 lbs despite well over a year on a low cal diet, (I quit smoking 6 years ago, went from 190lbs to 240lbs on a 6 foot frame) if you have any special knowledge or expertise that disputes these issues I am interested to hear it.
Apologies for the long post, but I edited my original post and now want to clarify where I am coming from - since you asked “where do you people come up with” these ideas. :-)
Obviously reducing fat intake is healthy, so long as sugar isn't used as a substitute for fat, to add taste. Unfortunately, a few "low-fat" products such as low-fat yogurts, in Australia at least, focus on reduced-fat labels (e.g. 70% less fat or non-fat) for marketing purposes, but don't mention that fat taken out has been replaced by adding sugar. They have high sugar content, so won't really help you lose weight, nor are they 'healthier'.
The other point, HFCS is not widely used in Australia and in for example soft drinks. Instead we use cane sugar - here it is thought that when the body turns HFCS into energy, it creates too-high levels of the unhealthy triglyceride fats in the process. So, even though too much sugar is not good for us, the body seems to handle it better than HFCS.
A few additional points:
1. Instead of “OJ” (now sure what Lustig defines as Orange Juice.. there are many types of “OJ” i.e. orange juice, including concentrated ones) have an Orange —> the fruit itself.
2. The sugar found in the largest amount in oranges is sucrose. And, the 2nd largest amount of ‘natural’ sugar in oranges is Fructose, followed by slightly less Glucose.
3. Fructose (in fruit and by eating fruit) is absorbed more slowly into the bloodstream and doesn’t cause as rapid a fluctuation in blood sugar levels. IOW, it has a very low Glycemic Index (GI Index) - That can be a plus.
4. Fructose (’natural’ sugar) in fruit & by eating fruit, should not be used interchangeably or be confused with the much maligned high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The syrup sweetener comes from corn and is made up of 40 to 90 percent Fructose.
Nothing against Mr Lustig & his credentials, but these compounds & intakes need to be considered in context, and as part of a balanced dietary requirements, lifestyle & general health of an individual, which, in turn, can also vary from person to person.
Huh? You said:
That would mean fruit and honey are really bad, unless you think there is a lot of fiber in honey.
everywhere you get Fructose in nature it is accompanied by Fiber, which is the only known antidote to Fructose
Antidote for fructose?......it's stuff like this that gives me headaches. This is crazy talk and you should stop. Fiber neutralizes the damaging effects? Crazy talk squared. Honey doesn't have fiber but people have been eating it for thousands of years.
I'd ask how fiber is able to forestall the toxic effects of fructose but I really don't want to know. It's all nuts, and Lustig is the nut king.
1) HFCS is apx 90% Fructose and only 10% Glucose
Huh? In what products? HFCS is commercialized in two formulas. One has 42% fructose and 55% glucose, while the other is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. This composition is almost identical to sucrose (table sugar).
2) only 20% of Glucose is metabolized by the liver leaving 80% for other processes
Huh? This makes no sense.
but 100% of Fructose is metabolized by the liver
So what? The liver easily converts fructose to glucose.
Only the liver can metabolize Fructose. Since the purpose of the human liver is convert glucose to glycogen, to produce bile to break down fats, and to filter foreign substances that can’t be metabolized by other processes, this is the basis for the assertion is Fructose is a toxin.
But the liver easily converts fructose to glucose. That being the case, it's clear that the liver was designed to to that very thing. Therefore, I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
He goes on to show that the average person is consuming 15% of his/her daily caloric intake from Fructose (particularly HFCS) as it is in all kinds of pre-prepared food, fast food and packaged ready-to-eat foods.
Fructose is also found in sucrose (table sugar). It accounts for 50% of the total make up of sugar. Does that mean that regular old sugar is also highly toxic? Since you can't explain how fiber negates the toxic impact of fructose, I'd say that Lustig has an agenda that has nothing to do with sound science.
The average person in America consumes over 140 lbs of sugar (glucose, fructose, sucrose et al) each year.
Again, so what? That consumption isn't all that much different than it was 40 years ago. Maybe our sedentary lifestyle has something to do with the problems you see?
There is a clear correlation between the increase in sugar intake and the increase in Cardiovascular and Metabolic diseases (diabetes, heart disease, and dislipidemia etc, where we know Diabetes leads to increased risk of heart attack and stroke
There is also a clear correlation between obesity and the maladies you cite. I trust you've heard the old adage about correlation and causation?
To me this is a clear link between sugar and the heart
Based on what, feelings? There is also a clear correlation between obesity and heart disease. There is also a clear correlation between family history of heart disease and heart disease. This statement of yours is ridiculous.
When “they” told us to reduce fat intake, the substitution of Fat for Sugar may have been seriously detrimental
One reason they told you to reduce fat intake is because fat offers more than twice the calories, per gram, as carbs and amino acids.
Its impossible really to burn calories.
Yet we do it every day through necessary metabolic processes and exercise. I can't imagine that Lustig would ever say something as silly as this.
He claims this is worse than the other two options in terms of creating and storing fat.
And people without any understanding of the subject eagerly purchase his books. In the meantime, rational people continue to understand that if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. Same as it ever was....
He claims Sugar and Ethanol both metabolize the same way, except that Ethanol has an effect on the brain (you get drunk) and sugar doesn’t.......He is really trying to compare Ethanol metabolisis to Fructose matabolisis.
Yeah, right. Lustig likes saying that fructose is ethanol without the buzz. He does claim that they are both metabolized in the same manner. That's idiocy. Ethanol and fructose utilize completely different pathways. Alcohol converts to acid aldehyde and then into acetyl CoA. To do so, an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase is employed. This enzyme doesn't even figure in fructose metabolization. The metabolization of fructose and ethanol are not similar at all. Prolonged excessive consumption of ethanol can lead to liver fibrosis. Fructose consumption will not lead to this kind of organ damage. Lustig is grasping at straws to promote some unknown agenda. It is boggling that anyone with a basic understanding of human nutrition would give any credibility to what he says.
Fructose is essentially not a carb but actually is essentially a fat
If Lustig said this then you need to run fast and far from this guy. You shouldn't be listening to anything the guy says. It's all crap.
I can’t shed these excess 30 lbs despite well over a year on a low cal diet, (I quit smoking 6 years ago, went from 190lbs to 240lbs on a 6 foot frame) if you have any special knowledge or expertise that disputes these issues I am interested to hear it.
I'm no weight loss expert but I do understand the first law of thermodynamics -- you cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. You may have to fight a stubborn metabolism, but if you exercise more, and eat less, you should be able to eliminate that 30 lbs.
People want to believe that weight gain/loss is more complicated than it is. People selling diet advice have learned that others will pay for their books if they complicate the issue by demonizing one macronutrient over another or confuse the biochemistry and physiology like Lustig does. They learned a long time ago that simply telling people that they should burn more calories than they consume to lose weight is not the kind of advice people willingly pay for.