Dr Lustig convinced me to cut my level of sugar intake to almost none as well as processed foods. I only eat "real food" as Dr Lustig would call it and the health issues I was suffering from in my mid 50's are a thing of the past in my mid 70's. I do not know the science behind what happened. But life would have been much more enjoyable in my 40's into my mid 50's had I ate then how I eat now. Thank you Dr Lustig. You guys fight it out over the science. For me. I am loving getting up in the morning again. This was not always the case. Just saying.
markbolender
Thanks so much for having me Layne! I hope that I was able to bring appropriate nuance to this incredibly challenging topic.
dr.joezundell
I first saw your discussion with A. Huberman, liked it and that sent me here. Before commenting, I'd like to say I'm an MD and Clinical Pharmacologist, so most of the things Clinical Trial related spark my interest. I am also doing mountain bike touring and I have recently started to dwelve into the sports nutrition thing more closely (as this isn't approached in the medical school).
Dr. Lustig's videoclips were among the first I saw on YT when starting to look for new nutrition info. Those led me to many others. It resonated with my initial desire to lose some belly fat and reduce my waist to under 1/2 of my height (I was 179 cm, 79 kg and 96 cm on waist in August 2023, now dropped to 69 kg and 86 cm waist, by reducing caloric intake from 2200 to 1800 kcal daily, with carbs representing max 30%). It worked, now I am just maintaining it (as a lifelong purpose), continuing to keep carbs calories under 30% (many days under 25%, because protein and fat keep me full).
Now coming back to your comments on Dr. Lustig claims: - the statin RCTs outcomes.
I found 3 large meta-analyses of statin RCTs (vs placebo or active control) - the first and oldest, to which I think he was referring to, is: Kristensen ML, et al. BMJ Open 2015 - The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement - indeed, the author's concludion was that median postponement of death in the 11 RCTs for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively.
The second is: Hansen et al - J Gen Intern Med - Society of General Internal Medicine (Denmark) 2019 - Postponement of Death by Statin Use: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
They included 16 RCTs of at least 1000 patients, in which a statin intervention (any type) was compared with placebo using a predefined primary or secondary
outcome of death by any cause and having a minimumtrial follow-up of 2 years. Their analysis revealed a survival gain of 12.6 days within the trial duration (up to 7 years).
The third is: Hansen et al (same as second) - Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021 - Postponement of cardiovascular outcomes by statin use: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
They included 19 trials with at least 1000 patients each. For four major outcomes, the summary outcome postponement in days was as follows: cardiovascular mortality,
9.27 days; non-vascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 1.5 days; any myocardial infarction 18.0 days; and any stroke, 6.1 days. Their conclusion: Statin treatment provided a small, average postponement of cardiovascular outcomes during trial duration.
Now, granted, I am not a statistician and as I understand, they are propsosing a new method of evaluating postponement of outcomes. Also there is a limiting by calculating the outcome postponement only as long as the trial takes place (7 years was the longest) and making a lifelong extrapolation isn't easy.
The point is - do statins tend to be overprescribed? And aren't there patients (especially in primary prevention) that would benefit from a change in lifestyle, as long as they are committed to adhere to it permanently?
Regarding the "war on the calorie" - I don't agree with him that the calorie should be eliminated, after all it is an useful tool and a numeric parameter we base our research on, amongst other. Maybe not many people are able to count their calories on a day by day basis (except data nerds, which I hope I qualify for). But in starting to understand they are overeating, the calorie count, if well explained by their healthcare provider, is a starting point.
TravellerRDS
Time stamps...
● 00:00 Analyzing Dr. Robert Lustig's recent podcast appearance, addressing concerns about unsupported claims, and acknowledging the value of scientific integrity in discussions on Andrew Hubman's show.
● 02:19 Examining the theme of Dr. Robert Lustig's podcast, highlighting his focus on individual biochemical pathways and mechanisms, and discussing the distinction between mechanisms and outcomes in the context of dietary choices and insulin's effects on body fat.
● 04:38 Illustrating the importance of focusing on outcomes rather than individual mechanisms in understanding complex processes, using the analogy of a mutual fund versus an individual stock to emphasize the multifaceted nature of factors contributing to the loss or gain of body fat.
● 07:02 Challenging the claim that different sources of calories inherently differ, emphasizing that while sources like protein and fiber may impact appetite and energy expenditure, the fundamental principle remains that weight gain is a result of consuming excess calories for one's energy expenditure, questioning the attempt to shift blame from calorie consumption to specific food types like refined carbohydrates.
● 09:23 Addressing the argument of food addiction, debunking the notion of sugar addiction by highlighting research findings that lack evidence for such claims, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of hyper-palatability in foods, and questioning the inconsistency in arguments against sugar consumption, particularly in fruits, while acknowledging the health benefits associated with fruit consumption.
● 11:34 Clarifying the chemical similarity of fructose molecules in various sources, challenging the assertion that high fructose intake invariably leads to negative health outcomes by presenting data on decreased mortality associated with certain foods, and debunking the claim that calorie restriction is ineffective for weight loss by emphasizing the abundance of studies demonstrating its efficacy, attributing long-term challenges to adherence rather than the approach itself.
● 14:04 Challenging the argument that insulin is the sole antagonist in health issues, highlighting the flawed logic of attributing negative outcomes to short-term mechanisms without considering long-term benefits, and debunking the oversimplified notion that certain nutrients or activities, when isolated in short-term contexts, are universally harmful without acknowledging their positive impacts on long-term health outcomes.
● 16:35 Addressing mechanistic claims related to cancer biology, consulting an expert in cancer biology to debunk the misconception about oxygen promoting cell growth and emphasizing the role of oxygen in sustaining cell metabolism and survival, while providing historical context with Otto Warburg's Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the Warburg effect in cancer cells.
● 19:04 Exploring the complexities of tumor metabolism and oxygen availability, debunking the oversimplified notion that cancer cells solely thrive on oxygen, highlighting the significance of hypoxic regions in tumors, the role of angiogenesis in supplying oxygen to tumor cores, and the adaptability of cancer cells to use Warburg metabolism to sustain essential processes even in oxygen-deficient environments.
● 21:34 Exploring the misconception about tumor oxygen levels, debunking claims that hyperbaric oxygen would be beneficial for treating cancers, highlighting the importance of understanding tumor metabolism and the role of angiogenesis inhibitors in restricting oxygenation to impede tumor growth.
● 23:50 Examining the flaws in the argument supporting hyperbaric oxygen therapy for cancer treatment, debunking the notion that increased oxygenation directly kills tumors, and highlighting the complex dynamics of capillary physiology, concluding that hyperbaric oxygen therapy lacks specificity for cancer tissue and lacks sufficient supporting data for its effectiveness.
● 26:22 Challenging the claim that fructose leads to increased inflammation and leaky gut, debunking the proposed mechanisms with evidence from human studies that show fructose consumption does not elevate inflammation unless consumed in excess calories, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between mechanisms and actual outcomes.
● 28:43 Disputing the claim that increased sugar consumption is the primary driver of obesity and diabetes by presenting evidence that sugar intake has decreased over the last 30 years while obesity rates continue to rise, highlighting the role of dietary fat, especially ultra-processed foods, in inducing insulin resistance and negatively impacting overall health.
● 30:55 Disputing the coherence of the argument that ultra-processed food inhibits mitochondrial processes and growth in cancer cells by highlighting the increased mitochondrial biogenesis observed in cancers associated with ultra-processed food consumption, emphasizing the multifaceted health risks linked to such diets, including mortality, and underscoring the correlation between added sugars in unbalanced diets and various health issues like microbial disbiosis, altered insulin signals, and metabolic disruptions.
● 33:12 Disputing the claim that weight loss is solely influenced by insulin and not calorie intake, citing a meta-analysis of human randomized control trials that equated calories and protein, revealing a small but statistically significant advantage for low-fat diets in terms of fat loss, contrary to the hypothesis that insulin is the primary driver of weight loss.
● 35:49 Disputing the claim that excess branch chain amino acids (BCAAs) lead to fat gain by debunking the notion that deaminated BCAAs turn into fat, citing studies in lab rodents and highlighting the minimal difference in BCAA content between fish and other animal proteins, questioning the relevance of BCAAs in diet-induced fat accumulation.
● 38:35 Challenging the idea that pasture-fed meat can alter the amino acid composition of muscle tissue in cows, emphasizing that amino acid composition is genetically determined and cannot be changed by dietary factors, while also questioning the claim that animal sources of protein do not raise insulin levels, citing studies showing insulin response comparable to carbohydrates.
● 41:10 Challenging the low-carb community's emphasis on small dense LDL particles as the main concern, asserting that both small dense and large buoyant LDL particles can penetrate the endothelium, depositing similar amounts of cholesterol, and questioning the cherry-picked association of LDL with longevity, suggesting reverse causality and highlighting the importance of well-controlled Mendelian randomized control trials showing the persistent link between LDL and mortality in the elderly.
● 43:35 Challenging the assertion that gaining 10 kilos of body fat won't necessarily lead to metabolic unhealthiness, refuting the claim that cortisol, not calories, is the primary driver of visceral fat by presenting studies demonstrating the role of overfeeding calories, and highlighting the disingenuous omission of saturated fat as a major contributor to liver fat compared to fructose in a head-to-head study.
● 46:03 Addressing the omission of saturated fat criticism and emphasizing that overfeeding any nutrient, including polyunsaturated fats and saturated fat, can increase liver fat; challenging the belief that sugar and fructose lead to liver and body fat when calories are equated, citing studies, including one with high fructose intake, showing no increase in liver or body fat; debunking the notion that fructose is addictive and clarifying that both reduced carbohydrate and reduced fat diets, when calorie-equated, reduce liver fat, with low-fat diets showing greater reduction in liver fat than low-carb diets.
● 48:37 Clarifying that overfeeding fructose does increase liver fat but not uniquely, and overfeeding saturated fat increases it more; addressing the misconception about intermittent fasting reducing liver fat more than caloric restriction when calories are equated; debunking the claim that artificial sweeteners induce an insulin response and pointing to studies, including a famous Copenhagen study, showing non-nutritive sweeteners have no effect on insulin or glycemia, and can contribute to weight loss compared to sugared soda intake.
● 51:13 Analyzing a study cited by the speaker claiming a 10-kilo weight gain from diet soda, debunking the misinformation by presenting accurate data from the study, revealing that diet soda did not lead to weight gain but rather showed weight loss tendencies in comparison to other beverage groups, and emphasizing the importance of accurately representing research results without cherry-picking data.
● 53:39 Critiquing the speaker's misrepresentation of a study, suggesting two possibilities for the inaccuracies – either not reading the study and relying on someone else's account or intentionally distorting the information, emphasizing the importance of evidence-backed claims in academic discussions, acknowledging some valid points made by the speaker about the impact of fiber and processed foods on health, and calling for a shift away from nutrient demonization to address the complex issues of an obesogenic food environment and sedentary lifestyle.
● 55:57 Expressing concern over the podcast, emphasizing the need for scientists, especially those with advanced degrees, to uphold rigorous standards, urging viewers to develop skills in interpreting research to distinguish between evidence-based claims and misinformation, and expressing hope that the discussed individual may reconsider and improve the accuracy of future claims given their influential platform.
LawrenceAugust_
I cut sugar and refined carbs out of my diet and i must say that i feel better than ever. First time ive been at a normal weight in my entire life.
adamgeezy
Dr Lustig is the reason we don't eat refined sugars, and my family and health are SO much better for it!
Shauna_Stat
Been really looking forward to this. Actually I'm baffled that no one before has debunked some of the ridiculous claims of Dr. Lustig. It's not just this appearance on the huberman podcast, there are tons of videos and articles where Lustig spreads misinformation. Great work again, Layne ❤
huddrez
If I understand Dr. Lustig, his point is calories are not the same. If you eat 100 calories from sugar, your body responds differently than eating 100 calories from protein. Is he wrong?
pietrogiovanni
A medical doctor being debunked by a nutrition "doctor" not even a dietitian. Sit down rookie.
erwinbarrientos
Ironically, it was Huberman’s series with Dr. Andy Galpin that finally changed my mind on the calories in-calories out argument. Galpin talks about the molecular chain of events and explained food production and digestion through the lens of carbons. It was like a shockwave through every other weight loss video I had ever seen. Highly recommend.
kevkev
Were we listening to the same podcast? I think you missed the point... He is basically trying to explain that excess sugar is toxic for us just as alcohol is, and that we should eat real food instead, how is that bad 😢
MyshelafromTanelorn
12:35 Our findings should be considered when developing dietary guidelines to reduce intake of added sugars, especially fructose, for improving cardiovascular health.
Thats the last sentance of that study layne quotes. Seems to me he didnt even read it fully.
harishujic
Rob Lustig seems far more trustworthy than both Andrew and Layne.
captainspock
What was Hubermans claim about alcohol that you were referring to in the beginning?
afizzle
As a first timer to the channel, I tried giving a nutritionist a chance to speak on topic he shouldn't be qualified for. I'm only into the first 12min of the video as I write this:
7:25 It's not just appetite and energy expenditure (limit of a simple-minded nutritionist's ontology). it's the whole cascade of complicated down metabolic effects, one of which Lustig is touching on.
9:25 Hugs and skin contacts are not suspected to cause metabolic issues.
9:43 Right, no evidence for sugar "addiction" in humans according to DSM criteria (what papers are referring to) therefore absolutely safe. Anything that's doesn't fit the strict definition of this addiction must be completely safe right?
12:00 Again, simple-minded approach of a nutritionist: "fructose is fructose". it's not about the fructose molecule per se, although Lustig does use the word for rhetorical convenience. His message is once again clear: it's the metabolic and systemic effects the way in the longer run.
12:32 Study is saying fructose containing fruit is better than SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages). Either the doofus didn't even bother to read the conclusion of the study he cites, or is a dishonest piece of shite who likes to deliberately takes things out of context to support his simple-minded worldview.
So that's more than enough strikes for me at 12th minute. I'm out.
iranjackheelson
Dr. lustig never asserts that the fructose in fruit is different than fructose in soda. I guess you weren’t as sedulous with observation as you thought . He actually explicitly addresses the indictment you are making. He does however assert the total matrix of a whole fruit including but not limited to fiber (polyphenols, antioxidants) buffers glucose metabolization.
damiend.
I truly think some people want to be lied to and shielded from the truth...they will refuse to believe countless research studies and instead just blame nameless people or things.
whereruaaron
You seem to work for the sugar industry,
arnimjacob
It seems at about 11:30 that you gloss over an important nuance. That because of the fiber in fruit, the rate of absorption of fructose is significantly slower than that when you drink a soda with high fructose corn syrup. I have heard a number of scientific experts in the field discuss this. It's not the total amount which may be the same, but the peak rate at which fructose hits the liver which has to process it. This leads to the problems people discuss in terms of liver damage. Yes it's much easier to down two or three sodas in one sitting as opposed to 2-3 apples and so the former is likely to happen and latter is likely to almost never happen, but rate of fructose absorption is something to consider as a real difference also.
CraigHocker
Imagine being so arrogant that you are going to argue that sugar isn’t bad for you with an endocrinologist who has specialized in this field and subject 🙄
