This isn't true. He has books and lectures explaining the metabolic processes when eating refined sugar, and why it's bad for you. Nowadays it's pretty mainstream stuff. Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".
> Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".
Lustig specifically claims that sugar is addictive; that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose; that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss; that in fact, weight loss is somehow a function of insulin, not calories; that fructose is uniquely bad relative to other sugars; that fructose causes inflammation; that recent decades' increase in obesity is caused by increased sugar consumption; that statins are essentially useless; that some kinds of LDL cholesterol are good for longevity; that non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar; etc, etc, etc, etc.
A few of these claims are wholly unsubstantiated by research; the rest have some research and the research does not support Lustig's claims.
>>The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity.
>that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose
>>Dietary fiber (DF), especially viscous DF, can contribute to a reduction in the glycemic response resulting from the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods.
>that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss
>>Mechanisms smooth out the large day-to-day differences in energy consumption, decreasing the importance of the size of a meal. In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight.
I'm not going to go on and on... UCSF, which is one of the most respected teaching hospitals in the country, isn't hiring cranks. He specialize in exactly this stuff. Yea, he's a bit more strident than would would expect from a scientist, yes, he deals with the extremes of childhood obesity, which isn't really relevant to most people's bodies, but christ, he's not a crank.
> In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight.
If calorie intake increases, then it's no longer "calorie restriction".
If his actual claim was that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss, then that's wild despite your quote.
> I'm not going to go on and on...
Well you didn't address the other really egregious supposed claim, that "non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar". If that's an accurate description of his stance, that's really bad.
>While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.
Again… things that are counterintuitive are exactly the purview of good science. The human body is an absurdly complex multi-variate system that is confounding even in the areas we pretend to understand.
The interaction of the neurologist of taste on biological processes may be affecting the hunger responses, thus weight gain.
This shit is not simple, and the simplistic models we use to explain these processes are exactly the type on ultimately wrong knowledge that Karl Popper rails against.
Again, I definitely think Lustig claims debatable things overconfidently, but he’s no crank.
"is a crank" is really far from "has some controversial or heterodox views"
I'm not arguing that everything Lustig says is correct, on the contrary, I've gone out of my way to criticize him. My point in this conversation is that saying a reputable scientist, at a reputable institution, doing reputable research is somehow a crank... is bananas.
If he actually said it's the same impact, that is much closer to crank than controversial without a few pieces of really strong evidence.
And the counterargument you had for calorie restriction described a situation that is not calorie restriction.
I'm not saying he's a crank for sure, but my evaluation of him is riding on whether loeg's description of his claims is accurate, not the evidence you brought, because that evidence really does not support the plausibility of those claims.
Directly following that, he goes on to totally misrepresent a 2011 study in which groups were assigned diet soda, water, milk, or full sugar soda; the study saw diet soda participants gain less weight than the water group and actually lost fat. (All other participants gained weight and fat.) That's https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22205311/ .
If he isn't a crank, he should stop going on podcasts and saying crank things.
And finally, he's a pediatric endocrinologist. Not a specialist in many of the subject areas he makes claims about (cardiology, gastroenterology, nutrition).
