Debating Science isn't any better

Miscellaneous General
1

We all know politics and economics are frustrating. This is usually attributed to lack of an objective touchestone. We can’t have controlled experiments that say we’re objectively right.

But I have been going around for a few days and picking fights where I do have scientific controlled studies to show I’m right. I’ve been debating nutrition, mostly against low-carb gary taubes types. On the one hand, I can debate the theory of the physiology and I always win because they very quickly stop talking about it. On the other hand, I can point blank refute their claims with controlled studies. When I ask them for controlled studies, I never get them.

Debating nutrition is so unbelievably similar to debating politics. People have unshakable religious beliefs in sensationalist personalities and nutritional gremlins (fructose, carbs, etc). They will never give them up no matter how badly they lose the argument.

Anyway, just thought I’d like to point this out. It isn’t that people go “full retard” on politics and social matters. People are biased towards self serving philosophies. Potential application might be to point out that this is the reason for your opponent’s beliefs after you’ve exhausted logical ends. This is understandably harder in nutrition because I can’t prove that person X repeteadly fails orthodox diets, but in politics, its plausible that some people are so enamored with statism because it’s a fantasy land where everyone conforms to their personal acceptable range of behaviours and they get to feel like a hero for saving the poor and needy.

2

This is because political thinking and faith in (politically accredited) experts has infested “public opinion” on just about any subject, especially if there are regulations involved or pending.

I’ve been on “skeptic” forums where posters bemoaned the fact that “high fructose corn syrup is still legal” as though it were indicative of an evil coporate food conspiracy (then of course they mock small farms and the very notion of “conspiracies” anywhere outside of the perceived republican-corporation axis of evil).

It’s like a parody.

3

HFCS haters are really funny. Its like they think that there’s some huge difference between HFCS (55% fructose) and sucrose (50% fructose) that can single handedly explain the obesity epidemic. When I point out that fructose goes preferentially to the liver, filling liver glycogen (one satiety signaler) and NOT raising blood sugar, it doesn’t matter to them. Nothing does.

At any rate, I don’t think its politics that’s infested public opinion. People have always believed stupid crap, most evidently in crazy pagan religions.

4

The problem with your controlled fructose study is that they replaced fructose in the low-fructose group with glucose from cereal grains. The high-fructose group got their fructose from fruit. I agree that eating fruit is preferable to eating cereal grains for weight loss.

source: http://paleohacks.com/questions/41327/another-fructose-question-whats-your-take-on-this-study-posted-by-chris-master#axzz1UMdbu1qW

As far as fructose not effecting insulin, here is what Dr. Kurt Harris says on the matter:

“fructose has no immediate effect on insulin release, but is linked to pathologic hyperinsulinemia via it’s effects on the liver. This is the exact opposite of glucose, which requires insulin to partition it when eaten, but for which there is no good evidence to relate it to chronic pathologic hyperinsulinemia.”

source: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/5/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates-revis.html

More general thoughts on fructose:

“Fructose is a carbohydrate, but metabolically it is quite different from the glucose that comes from starch. In small amounts or in moderate amounts in real food, fructose may not be a problem, but the ubiquity of fructose in the modern diet creates obesity, insulin resistance, fatty liver disease, and abnormal bacterial growth in the gut with consequent inflammation.”

source: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/3/30/paleo-20-a-diet-manifesto.html

5

Why? Whats wrong with cereal grains? Why are the physiological explanations for fructose enhancing dietary success wrong?

The “link” is epidemiological. People who consume lots of HFCS also overeat calories → hyperinsulinemia.

Which is totally unsubstantiated by controlled studies. Yes, people who consume lots of fructose have these problems. But they’re also the people eating tons of junk food. If you replaced fructose with dextrose in their diets the results would be very similar if not worse since you’d be giving them even higher blood sugar.

6

So, basically if you think different from the OP, then you are unscientific. One controlled study = this, another = that.

Climategate, anyone? Data can be manipulated by anyone and for about any reason.

Also, the OPoster seems to see others ‘evidence’ with caveats, but does not include them on his own opinion.

for example, “If you eat too much HFCS and have bad health, it must be because you eat a whole bunch of junk food.” - That is one heck of a controlled study.

So what? Is this supposed to demolish the point itself?

“Epidemiology is the study of health-event, health-characteristic, or health-determinant patterns in a society. It is the cornerstone method of public health research, and helps inform policy decisions and evidence-based medicine by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive medicine. Epidemiologists are involved in the design of studies, collection and statistical analysis of data, and interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review). Major areas of epidemiologic work include outbreak investigation, disease surveillance and screening (medicine), biomonitoring, and comparisons of treatment effects such as in clinical trials. Epidemiologists rely on a number of other scientific disciplines such as biology (to better understand disease processes), biostatistics (to make efficient use of the data and draw appropriate conclusions), and exposure assessment and social science disciplines (to better understand proximate and distal risk factors, and their measurement).”

I’d give points to the OP, but not as many as I’d give Scrooge.

7

Well that’s a better explanation. But the evidence typically used by low-carbers is epidemiological. They observe a correlation between fructose consumption and poor health. Except fructose consumption also correlates with high calories and junk food, which means fructose isn’t automatically explanatory.

They also don’t have any physiological mechanisms by which this is supposed to happen.

Yes. Here. Controlled studies plz.

Moderator note: post edited. -Nielsio

8

Hey, he was a nice example of your thesis!

9

And libertarians wonder why even other libertarians don’t like talking to them. Be opinionated as you like but stop insulting each other. Geez. You sound like statists :stuck_out_tongue:

10

Grains are nutritionally poor, and from my personal experience it is much easier to restrict calories with fruit than grains. For studies/logic behind grain avoidance, not necessarily relevant to weightloss: http://evolvify.com/the-case-against-gluten-medical-journal-references/

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/23/the-argument-against-cereal-grains.html

If you mean in calorie restricted diets such as the study you linked to, what are the physiological explanations for fructose enhancing dietary success? I didn’t see a physiological explanation in the abstract.

Here are links to controlled animal studies which show that fructose consumption leads to hyperinsulinemia when compared to glucose:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8144215

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11514839

They’re only animal studies, but it’s all I could find with a quick google search.

Where are these studies? To your second point, you won’t get me to argue with junk food being obesity inducing whether its source be fructose or dextrose.

11

Sucrose is bad too.

12

Let them say what they want.

This is another. Here is a particularly interesting take on this thread.

“Interestingly, fructose caused a 2.5-fold increase in flux through glycogen synthase without any changes in the percent contribution of flux through the direct or indirect pathways of glycogen synthesis. These data suggest that fructose regulates flux into liver glycogen not only at glucokinase but also possibly at the level of glycogen synthase. In contrast to the marked stimulatory effects of fructose on glycogen synthase flux, we found that infusion of small amounts of fructose had no significant effects on glycogen phosphorylase activity. The regulation of phosphorylase activity by fructose is controversial. In liver extract studies, fructose-1-P has been found to inhibit phosphorylase phosphatase and to activate phosphorylase (18,19), whereas in the perfused liver, fructose has been shown to stimulate glycogen synthesis by inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase activity (20).”

So the debate here is actually “controversial” and is, in fact a political debate that just happens to be at the foot of competeing scientific research. It sounds just like climate change to me. You’ve taken one side and look for research that corroborates that opinion and, lo and behold, others do to…

13

Explain.

I drink (which is the worst way to get calories because it bypasses several satiety mechanisms) 100g of carbs while dieting, around 50 of which are fructose. I can’t give you an exact estimate because I don’t have nutrition facts for wine coolers.

This is a different avenue altogether. While I’m sure it is fascinating, it doesn’t give you grounds to complain about the med-fructose vs low-fructose study. Or maybe it does. I didn’t read all the articles it linked to. If I have missed something, please link me.

On diets, energy deficits are typically made up of some combination of your body’s stored fats (adipose tissue), protein (lean body mass), and carbs (muscle and liver glycogen). Since fructose goes preferentially to the liver, it has the effect of partioning calories to fill up liver glycogen. Since liver glycogen fullness is one (of many) “fullness” signals to the brain, keeping it more full by eating fructose helps maintain dietary adherance and probably maintains thyroid levels better.

Well thanks for the effort. It at least proves that you’re open. This is actually the first time I’ve been linked a pubmed study, let alone controlled studies.

In the first study, dogs were fed 60% of their diet as fructose. It should be obvious that this is supraphysiological. The most you can get by drinking nothing but coke would be 55%. Of course even the worst offenders in real life do nothing close to this. The study is far from suggesting that we should avoid fructose within the context of a normal diet (weight loss or maintenence). And even then it only points to changes in insulin and blood pressure. The study notes that bodyweight remains unchanged as you would expect when you hold calories constant.

This isn’t even necessarily unique to fructose. Consuming 60% of your calories from MCTs or lactose could cause similar problems. Say if your body ran out of enzymes or something. The comparison here is to dextrose, an isomer of glucose, which is the single most efficiently and universally processed form of energy among all known life forms.

For the second study, I can’t immediately see how much fructose the rats are getting. Again, I’d suspect its supraphysiological.

Here’s a metastudy showing that all but the highest levels of fructose consumption do not adversley affect blood tryglicerides or bodyweight.
Here’s a study showing that relatively high levels of fructose (up to 90g/day, think 4-5 cokes) help regulate blood sugar. Above 90g/day the authors notice negative effects which depend on what the extra fructose is replacing.
Here’s a study showing that consuming 50g of fructose prior to a meal results in superior appetite supression to both water and 50g of glucose.
Here’s another study by the same author showing essentially the same thing, with the added caveat that fructose pre-loads caused people to eat fewer calories and less fat.
Here’s a study showing similar blood sugar profiles compared across isocaloric/isomacroed meals. Its fast food (with HFCS drink) vs organic beef with organic root beer vs organic turkey and OJ.

14

This blurb does not actually say anything to indict fructose. Just that it goes to the liver and may or may not become glycogen. Dur. The study you linked is a giant TLDR blurb full of technical vocabulay you do not understand. You were just hoping that no one would read it and take your word on it.

I really, really, really don’t care if fructose inhibits phosphorylase phosphatase and activates phosphorylase.

15

The point was that it is still controversial and you are parading around like you have scientific authority.

"The regulation of phosphorylase activity by fructose is controversial."

“The inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase has been proposed as one method for treating type 2 diabetes.[10] Since glucose production in the liver has been shown to increase in type 2 diabetes patients,[11] inhibiting the release of glucose from the liver’s glycogen’s supplies appears to be a valid approach. The cloning of the human liver glycogen phosphorylase (HLGP) revealed a new allosteric binding site near the subunit interface that is not present in the rabbit muscle glycogen phosphorylase (RMGP) normally used in studies. This site was not sensitive to the same inhibitors as those at the AMP allosteric site,[12] and most success has been had synthesizing new inhibitors that mimic the structure of glucose, since glucose-6-phosphate is a known inhibitor of HLPG and stabilizes the less active T-state.[13] These glucose derivatives have had some success in inhibiting HLPG, with predicted Ki values as low as 0.016 mM.[14]”

Is this to difficult for people to understand?

Moderator note: personal attacks removed. -Nielsio

16

Wow. All this proves is that fructose calories can contribute to diabetes. I never said anything to the contrary. In order for fructose to play NO role in diabetes, it would have to pass through the body unused. It doesn’t.

[edit] Like, there’s nothing in the study indicating that replacing fructose with dextrose would achieve a superior result. Hint - if these people are DIABETICS, you do not want to raise their blood sugar. But that’s okay. If you want to compare fructose to nothing, and then claim that nothing is a better choice for people eating 3800 calories a day, go for it. That doesn’t prove fructose is da baddy.

Also, the problems faced by hyperobese type 2 diabetics are not relevant to normal dietary physiology. Its like saying “what if insulin had no effect?”. Yeah you would probably change your macros if your blood control system was broken.

Insulin sensitivity and heart health. Why are you so knowledgable?

Moderator note: post edited in three spots. -Nielsio

17

all the the quote was supposed to demonstrate was that the language in the prior post was not above people’s heads and that is corroberates the prior point made by the jargonistic white paper. I never made any claims about the studies. I’m not a scientist or a doctor or a pharmacologist and neither are you. I mentioned that it was on controversial grounds of study, which you never responded to. Instead choosing to drone on about your knowledge.

And if you have all of the health problems…it would seem that you are the one that is “retarded.” It is not difficult to eat healthy. One need not drink at all, but that would be silly. People have always made and consumed wine and meads. Wine coolers are stereotypically purchased by women who cannot handle their drink, that is all. I was making fun of you for being a woman.

No one has even said you are wrong.

No one has made a claim that junk food is somehow irrelevant to the overall problem, ie. the term “junk”. Others simply point out that there are studies that are contrary to yours and you fly off the handle. Maybe you could smoke a bowl. Oh, wait, your physiology is weak and compromised.

18

Your entire approach is flawed. Deciding what to eat based on studies is absurd. In fact, the very mentality that your diet should be determined through studious investigation is part and parcel of the obesity problem. Rather than listening to your body, you’re ignoring your body and listening to nutritional studies. Most humans throughout history have had a malnutritious diet. The human body can cope with malnutrition. But today, the average Westerner doesn’t have to worry in the slightest about malnutrition… all the nutrients you could want are available at a very low price. The problem, then, is choosing what to eat but the problem of choosing what to eat is not as simple as reading studies on controlled experiments. You have to listen to your body, you have to create an environment for yourself in which you thrive. Measuring out so many milligrams of carbs, so many milligrams of protein, so many milligrams of sugar and fat is missing the point. Your body is an insanely complex device and the patronizing attitude of modern medicine towards the human body is embarrassing.

If I had to choose one person to represent something like my views on this subject, I’d say Mark Sisson seems to have a pretty no-bullshit approach to lifestyle health. YMMV

Clayton -

19

And libertarians wonder why even other libertarians don’t like talking to them. Be opinionated as you like but stop insulting each other. Geez.

Yep. Libertarians are very annoying. I’d like to say that the OP is a particularly annoying one, but actually, he’s a fairly typical example.

20

Unlike all the well-mannered and humble folks of other ideological persuasions…

And as usual, I think Clayton has said some good things.