I don’t think you can beat the system. I think body fat is tightly regulated like body temperature.
There is no circular reasoning there. Leptin’s function is to suppress appetite, not create it. So, if fructose interferes with Leptin’s function, then consuming it will not cause the proper signals to be released to curb more eating.
So Leptin does not create a yearning for anything. We don’t consume fructose, or any other food, because of Leptin. We get the hungry feeling, we eat, leptin is produced and signals the brain that we’ve had enough. Hungry feeling goes away.
More lepin, less appetite. It follows then that less lepin, more appetite. So lepin regulates hunger in both directions. It is only one component and it is more involved in overall long term feeding habits.
“I’m not so sure, I come from and live in Europe and have studied in the States. From my experience I’d just say that European culture places a far higher premium on the quality of food. Deep fat frying something doesn’t let you pass it off as food over here…”
That’s kind of part of what I meant. For example my cousins, when they visit during the holidays, are usually amazed and a little put off by the sheer amount of food on the table. When I’ve been over there they eat good stuff, but just not it such massive amounts. It’s more the ingredients and preparation and such that matter to them or as you say the perceived quality of the dish. Americans seems to conflate more with better when it comes to food.
I haven’t read the entire thread, but the biggest problems with weight in America aren’t because of capitalism. As usual, the have been caused by Government. In particular, I would blame corn subsidies and the bureaucracy crushing local farming.
Corn: heavily subsidised raw energy converted into beef, chicken, sweetener, fizzy drink, and who knows what else… It’s no surprise that subsidising cheap food energy has resulted in an increase in the quantity demanded of it. See ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma’ by M. Pollan to find out more. Oh, and the Govt lets big agriculture get away with a crap load (pun intended) of hazardous pollution, without particularly serious consequences.
Bureaucracy: It’s nigh impossible to run a family, quality, organic, safe farm in America without the Government trying constantly to destroy it. If people aren’t allowed to grow quality food, then you’re stuck with buying irradiated, contaminated, GMO corn/soy based monstrosities. See ‘Everything I Want to do is Illegal’ by Joel Salatin.
It’s simple economics: Government makes it harder to produce good food, and cheaper to buy bad food, therefore people eat absolute crap.
Note: urban planning likely caused a lot of the ‘food deserts’ I’ve heard of in USA, not that I’ve spent any significant time in large cities in America. See
‘The Life and Death of Great American Cities’ by Jane Jacobs.
Ps: Read the books!
“If Lustig is incorrect and fructose is not a prime factor in rising obesity, then what are the health ramifications of increased consumption of it?” - Lewis S.
No idea, if any. I’m not aware of any long term studies on the subject. Until I see some I’d assume nothing and that long term health will be determined by other factors like genetics, balanced diets, exercise, etc.
“The alarmism is entirely on the other side of the debate, and stems (I suspect) almost entirely from Lustig’s unfortunate “poison” remarks.” - Lewis S.
I say BS to this. Fructose is not poison, therefore calling it poison is alarmism. Lustig in this case is no different than any nonsense peddler, like Gary Taubes. He’ll calm you with a paragraph or two acknowledging energy balance and then go off on some LSD or mesc fueled rant on how because of evil insulin that the laws of physics don’t really apply in this or that instance. And it’s simple to understand: people like this have already made up their minds about the issues at hand and when their conclusions are self contradictory they have to spin a lot of BS to make them jibe. No different really than economists who acknowledge inflation as a monetary phenomena and then go through endless logical contorsions to try and show why a quadrupling of the money supply isn’t necessarily inflationary. Just because they start out acknowledging reality doesn’t mean that in the end they aren’t anything from plain wrong to bat shit nuts.
"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." - DD5
Yup. Quacks like Lustig and Taubes just use the fact that both sides of the energy balance equation are dynamic to find wiggle room to hoodwink people.
"More lepin, less appetite. It follows then that less lepin, more appetite. So lepin regulates hunger in both directions. It is only one component and it is more involved in overall long term feeding habits. " - DD5
That would only follow if leptin were the only hormone that regulate hunger and satiety. It isn’t.
xahrz, a completely pointless rant, and in the midst we see you cannot, along with others in this thread, even characterize what he’s saying properly. Once again, for the umpteenth time, he does not dispute that weight gain is a product of caloric input/output. How many times must this be repeated? Once you take this starting point and follow him as he tries to explain why we are consuming more calories then it becomes impossible to snap back into “OMG! He’s denying the first law of thermodynamics! Quack! BS!”…please.
You don’t have to agree with him. Fine, there. Show how his biochemistry fails, or say the jury’s still out (or we need more long term studies)…but mischaracterizing his argument doesn’t cut it if you are actually familiar with it.
Even if he’s an alarmist, that doesn’t refute any of his biochemistry, his reasoning, or the studies he references. It takes more.
“xahrz, a completely pointless rant, and in the midst we see you cannot, along with others in this thread, even characterize what he’s saying properly. Once again, for the umpteenth time, he does not dispute that weight gain is a product of caloric input/output. How many times must this be repeated? Once you take this starting point and follow him as he tries to explain why we are consuming more calories then it becomes impossible to snap back into “OMG! He’s denying the first law of thermodynamics! Quack! BS!”…please.” - Lewis S.
Then I’ll stop being polite, because that’s the same line the fucking moron Taubes pushes and it’s just as idiotic coming from Lustig. OoooOOooOOoo, the mystery of it all! Why are we consuming more calories?! The calories are cheaper and beyond that everyone has their own fucking reasons from borderline addiction to a complete disregard for long term health to a pathological love of Doritos. And looking for something systemic to hang the blame on is ridiculous, especially when it’s been repeatedly shown over and over and over and over and over again that the suspect you’re so interested in isn’t the fucking cause. There is no ultimate fucking cause of the type you’re looking for in aggregate statistics that are the result of human action, there’s as many ultimate cause_s_ as there are people who make up the aggregate. Over eating is the ultimate cause when you’re dealing with the aggregate and you can’t go beyond that. Even if you could prove fructose inevitably lead to less satiety and more over eating in everyone who ever ate a gram of it you still wouldn’t know how much if at all that contributed to overall obesity trends until you figured out the fructose content in the diet of everyone in the measured aggregate. Or in other words, how many people are fat and who never eat any damn HFCS? I barely ever touch foods that have HFCS in them and I’ve got a bit of a belly despite my exercising regularly. Quick, kill the fructose gnomes! They’re secretly poisoning me! Or maybe, just maybe, it’s possible to add excess weight with a love of wine and freshly made pasta as it is by sucking down deep fried twinkies.
By all means, don’t worry about being polite.
So you do recognize he ackowledges increased caloric intake as a cause of obesity? If so, thanks for correcting that.
One can, however, investigate the relationships between nutrients and bodily hormones from a biochemical perspective. No, finding a relationship between leptin and excessive fructose (outside of fruit, that is) doesn’t mean we’ve solved the obesity problem once and for all.
On a side note, I’m not looking for anything. I eat sugar, as I do pasta, red meat and other foods people say are bad for me. I’ll make that decision myself. Because I can and should doesn’t mean Lustig is wrong.
Exactly what Lustig says.
Well, no. We can discover conditions that might contribute to at least some people overeating.
No, there is no way to solve the obesity problem once and for all. But, if one “proves” fructose leads to overeating (however unlikely) AND we see that, in the aggregate, fructose consumption increased dramatically within in a period, and that period was followed by a drastic increase in obesity, it wouldn’t be quackery to suggest a connection, so I don’t find your statement compelling.
This, I think, may be the alarmism to which I was referring. There is no necessary connection between investigating the metabolic consequences of high fructose intake and any sort of conspiracy theory or call for state action. It seems the that the newness of the theory, combined with the fact that there are food nazis/paranoid schizophrenics everwhere causes people to dismiss things like this out of hand.
I couldn’t agree more. Once again, investigating or pointing out potentially harmful effects of one substance does not mean everything else must be healthy.
“So you do recognize he ackowledges increased caloric intake as a cause of obesity? If so, thanks for correcting that.”
I recognize it as I’d recognize if a schitzfrenic who regularly spoke with the pope also told me 2+2=4. True, but I doubt it informs his worldview much.
“One can, however, investigate the relationships between nutrients and bodily hormones from a biochemical perspective. No, finding a relationship between leptin and excessive fructose (outside of fruit, that is) doesn’t mean we’ve solved the obesity problem once and for all.”
Actually it doesn’t mean anything, because unless you missed the whole ‘research’ end of this discussion, the studies showing a lack of insulin and leptin response deal with fructose in isolation and/or megadosed, and usually with rats. The applicability of such studies is on the order of ‘good for out house lining’.
“No, there is no way to solve the obesity problem once and for all. But, if one “proves” fructose leads to overeating (however unlikely) AND we see that, in the aggregate, fructose consumption increased dramatically within in a period, and that period was followed by a drastic increase in obesity, it wouldn’t be quackery to suggest a connection, so I don’t find your statement compelling.”
It would be quackery because of several confounding factors, not in the least of which is an increase in calorie intake across the boards.
“There is no necessary connection between investigating the metabolic consequences of high fructose intake and any sort of conspiracy theory or call for state action. It seems the that the newness of the theory, combined with the fact that there are food nazis/paranoid schizophrenics everwhere causes people to dismiss things like this out of hand.”
No, research causes them to dismiss it out of hand. The food nazis and schitzos are the ones selling it over the air waves and on the internet, and tons of people are lapping it up. I don’t think Bill Maher or Joy Bahar go through one show without mentioning HFCS as somehow ‘special’ and ‘evil’. It’s all over the pop culture.
“I couldn’t agree more. Once again, investigating or pointing out potentially harmful effects of one substance does not mean everything else must be healthy.”
Yeah, but of course once more unless you missed a big part of this thread it’s not like there’s a dearth of research on the matter. It has been the subject of some pretty sound studies with a decent body of research out there, and right the verdict is null. It’s like sugar. Don’t eat it by the pound and you’ll likely be okay.
The “obesity epidemic” is the result of the government (and/or AMA) setting a maximum BMI at a level for which most of the population will be obese. If more people are obese then they can spend more. I am on the borderline of obese and morbidly obese but I have no medical conditions and I am able to run a marathon. If I was the healthy weight according to BMI, you would see my ribs poking through my tee shirt.
America is fat because of its market economy. The science says so:
Complaining that your society is obese is a good problem to have. There are places on earth where this is not the case.
http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth1.1.htm
^^The government did it.
Perhaps the official obesity epidemic is due to the ridiculous BMI measurement. But in addition to fat people, how many of us know people who are “slim fat?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Qghel5mmM
Heh, thats why I laugh at those 2 hour elliptical marathoners at the gym down the street from mine. Notice the girl switched to resisted training, and more strength oriented workouts.
The best measurement is looking in the mirror. The problem they identifying is obvious to me. The “normal” BMI range is far higher than my normal frame allows. I was at 18 before I started doing muscle work. My dress measurements are 33-27-34 last I checked. I could gain 40 lbs of fat and still be “normal”. By the way, rofl at running 5 times a week being “torture”.
She could have lost no fat and still gotten lower body fat % from that.