No, it weighs exactly what a continent should.
More seriously, yes, people are overweight, no, a fat tax would not help. First, it would just create black markets (and it’s pretty unresponsive to price anyway.) Second, fat is not unhealthy, and eating fat doesn’t make you fat.
You don’t need HFCS to be specifically bad for you to explain why Americans are fat. Assume HFCS is equally bad as any other sugar. Now, do we include any other sugar in just about every other processed food we make? Is any other sugar subsidized to be so cheap that it’s used in incredible amounts?
Funny thing is, the typical fat American who goes to France finds himself complaining about the fatty food, lots of cream sauces, even cream in cereal. Yet he’s fat and they’re not.
Cows are vegetarians.
Now, I’ve tried cutting things other than carbs before. When I cut fat, I felt sick. All the time. I felt dizzy, constantly, and still do if I go 2 or more days without meat. When I cut anything but carbs, I was constantly hungry - including right after eating. Can I lose weight that way? Probably, by being willing to be miserable all the time. I prefer to be less miserable.
kaju:
I’ve read it, and I’ve read Aragon’s other blog where he and Lustig go back and forth. Aragon argues that fructose is not harmful in acceptable quantities and contexts, seizing on Lustig’s unfortunate rhetoric and ignoring all the points he has made with respect to fructose consumption in proper contexts, such as fruits, as you’ve mentioned. The two end up talking past each other. Aragon actually mischaracterizes Lustig again in this piece, trying to ascribe to Lustig the view that HFCS and sugar have different metabolic effects. He’s referencing this debate:
Aragon and Lustig: The Bitter Truth About Fructose Alarmism
Read it. In his first post, Lustig acknowledges Aragon’s primary point about quantity and context.
What some are referring to as fructose alarmism is not really the case; it’s just people pointing out how fructose is metabolized and why it is necessary to consume it reasonably - in fruits and, outside of that, in reasonable quantities.
Unfortunately, these points get lost in the midst of knee-jerk responses that dramatize the debate more than what is necessary. “Fructose alarmism”…whatever. If one sees Lustig’s presentation (did you see it?) one will not come away with the view that fructose will kill you or make you fat in the proper context (fruit) or quantities. I didn’t, and it’s reasonable to assume that Lustig doesn’t see it that way even if you didn’t see any of his videos or articles, because he admits to regularly allowing his children to consume it.
The alarmism is entirely on the other side of the debate, and stems (I suspect) almost entirely from Lustig’s unfortunate “poison” remarks.
I’m not advocating a vegetarian diet or anything even close to it. I’m simply suggesting that, contrary to what Dr. Lustig says, calories DO matter, in fact, they are the MOST important factor when it comes to weight loss, at least from a physiological sense. Of course, you need proteins and fats much more than you need carbs (you can live without carbs, but you’ll die without either dietary fat or protein). And lower carb diets might have better rates of adherence than low fat diets, but I don’t really know.
To further my point about calories, let’s use a quick example: what kind of diet is someone (and let’s say this someone is a typical American who consumes a lot of calories from drinks) following if they simply cut out all calorie-containing drinks, and drink water instead? They still eat bread, ice cream, burgers, pizzas, fries, steaks, eggs, bacon, etc. They still consume lots of carbs, fats, and proteins. Let’s say that, after cutting out calorie containing drinks, they consume 50% of their calories from carbs. You can’t call this a low carb diet, can you? The fact of the matter is that you won’t lose fat on a diet like Atkins unless you also cut your calories in the process. Calories are the most important determining factor for fat loss, period.
Lewis,
I’ve seen Lustig’s presentation, and he comes off as a complete quack. He says fructose is a poison. You can’t consume poisons in small quantities and survive. He says that calories don’t matter, even though he provides evidence that people have been consuming more calories from soft drinks.
Everyone knows that it’s easier to consume calories from liquid sources than it is from actual food, it has nothing to do with fructose. Do you know how some beginner bodybuilders attempt to make the most out of their muscle mass gains? They add a gallon of milk a day to their normal diet. Why do they do this, instead of just eating more? Because it’s easier to drink your calories than it is to eat them.
Aragon shows that Lustig’s studies are outdated and wrong, as are his examples. And you’re missing Aragon’s finer point about the studies about fructose. These studies take pure fructose in high doses and see how it reacts in the body. That’s completely different from how fructose reacts in the body when you have a product with some fructose, glucose, sodium, and caffeine.
Calories intake=Calories outtake - Not net gain or loss in body fat.
Calories intake>Calories outtake - net gain of body fat
Calories intake<Calories outtake - net loss of body fat.
It’s not the most important in determining fat loss. It’s the only factor. It’s physics.
I see your point, but where does Lustig say calories don’t matter? I recall him saying that not all calories are created equal, so to speak, because certain calories come from foods that have different metabolic effects than others, but this is not the same thing. Saying that fructose has bad effects due to how its metabolized, rather than its caloric content, is not to say that calories don’t matter.
And:
Can we put this to rest…I’ve acknowledged this as poor rhetoric. Have you ignored my points that he himself couldn’t possibly believe this statement due to his children’s diets? Obviously, he exaggerated for effect and it was a poor statement, but that doesn’t make him a quack.
He says so in the beginning of his lecture. He restates it in multiple ways.
Did you miss the part where he discusses that excess fructose consumption (outside of the proper context) stimulates caloric intake? Again, how is that “calories don’t matter?”
His point is that “calories in, calories out” while true, grossly simplifies the problem. He asks, rather, why do Americans consume more calories now than before?
You said you can’t get fat on fruits. Cows manage. That’s all I meant.
So, what do you want me to do with the example about the guy who stops drinking soda? Did he lose weight or not? I’m really not sure what I’m supposed to get from this example. He’s improved his diet, yes. He’d be worse off if he kept the soda and dropped the pizza and steak. I don’t think this tells us much about ideal nutrition, though.
I wasn’t arguing about whether calories matter or not, I was sharing my experience to deal with your suggestion that it doesn’t matter where you cut the calories from. It might not matter for total weight loss (or maybe it does - it’s hard to exercise intensely when you feel like crap) but it would seem to matter for overall health.
Calories intake>Calories outtake - net gain of body fat
Or gain in muscle
Calories intake<Calories outtake - net loss of body fat.
Or loss of muscle
How can it be an oversimplification? Biology is nothing but chemical reactions. Energy in=Energy out in every chemical reaction. It is the law of conservation of energy.
No. When you increase muscle mass, you are increasing energy expenditure, so you require more energy intake.
That’s correct, and the calories are the proximate cause, but he’s looking for an ultimate cause, and trying to explain why more people are consuming more calories than ever before. Even Aragon, his chief nemesis in this debate, acknowledges this:
It’s the part about “different nutrients impart different physiological effects and have different roles within the body” that is central component of Lustig’s work - he claims that excessive fructose consumption interferes with leptin, the hormone which controls appetite and hunger signals.
I’m becoming convinced that most of his critics simply do not understand what he is arguing, and I’m also convinced it’s because of the way he’s presenting his material.
No. When you increase muscle mass, you are increasing energy expenditure, so you require more energy intake.
How does that contradict my comment? When people increase muscle mass, they need to eat more in order to do it, don’t they? Isn’t that why Weider sells “mass gainers” with a lot of calories? Now, after the muscle has been gained, yes, the outtake point, so to speak, has increased. But how can you “gain mass” if not by taking in more energy than you put out?
It’s a circular argument unless you can prove that the amount of fructose consumption is independent of lepin and the entire regulatory system that controls appetite and hunger signals.
Wait a minute…are you saying that if fructose inhibits leptin then we would never eat enough of it to inhibit leptin?
I don’t follow.
EDIT:
Lustig’s point is not dependent upon initial fructose consumption happening as a result of leptin being interfered with. Don’t take my use of the word “excessive” to mean binging on sugar or anything like that.
I’m saying this. If all you establish is a causal relationship as follows: fructose → inhibits → Lepin ->regulates appetite
but what regulates appetite (yearning) for fructose?