Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 397 posts

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#351

Post by scoofy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #350
scoofy wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig >sugar is addictive >>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. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P…

> 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 t…

>While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2892765/

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.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#352

Post by Dylan16807 »

scoofy wrote: post #351
Dylan16807 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

>While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2892765/ 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 interacti…

"may contribute" is really far from "the same impact"

Even more so if there's a calorie restriction going on, but still so if there isn't.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#353

Post by loeg »

scoofy wrote: post #344
loeg wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cause…

What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig >sugar is addictive >>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. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P…

You’re motte and baileying.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#354

Post by gigatexal »

greenie_beans wrote: post #343
lm28469 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human experience is all about controlling your urges. I also like to eat until I feel stuffed and sleep 12 hours a day, but I don't because I value my long term health above short term pleasures. Sadly for us modern life is all about short term pleasures and convenience, if you're not careful you can lose yourself real quick Try sparkling water, home made water kefir, herbal teas, &c.

why are you lecturing somebody on the internet about personal lifestyle choices? as if the whole world doesn't know what they consume can negatively affect their health...

Real condescending dad energy right?

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#355

Post by scoofy »

loeg wrote: post #353
scoofy wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig >sugar is addictive >>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. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P…

You’re motte and baileying.

You're attributing extreme claims without citation or context.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#356

Post by scoofy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #352
scoofy wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2892765/ 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 interacti…

"may contribute" is really far from "the same impact" Even more so if there's a calorie restriction going on, but still so if there isn't.

"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.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#357

Post by Dylan16807 »

scoofy wrote: post #356
Dylan16807 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"may contribute" is really far from "the same impact" Even more so if there's a calorie restriction going on, but still so if there isn't.

"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.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#358

Post by loeg »

scoofy wrote: post #355
loeg wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re motte and baileying.

You're attributing extreme claims without citation or context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n28W4AmvMDE

22:31 - "fructose is addictive"

No. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27372453/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28330706/

25:14 - "the fiber is what mitigates the absorption ... that fructose wasn't for you"

Not how that works. You absorb the same fructose whether or not it's co-located with fiber.

33:40 - "this whole calories in / calories out makes no sense ... there's no study that actually shows that cutting calories makes a difference"

Completely wrong and against the literature. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32238384/

1:00:17 - "fructose causes leaky gut; that causes inflammation of the liver and ultimately systemic inflammation"

No. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29757229/

1:31:10 - Asked to explain trend towards obesity over the past 20 years if not the transition away from trans fats. "It's the increase in sugar."

No. Sugar consumption has fallen steadily since about 1999, while obesity continues to rise. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31938015/

2:03:40 - "The mean increase in lifespan from being on a statin is 4 days."

No. They have a huge positive impact on mortality and CVD events. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32619724/

2:05:10 - "LDL is not really the problem, there are two LDLs: large buoyant, small dense. Large buoyant is irrelevant, cardiovascularly neutral."

No. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31642874/ (small particles do penetrate easier, but large particles have more apoB; they're both bad)

2:26:39 - "when people go on diet sweeteners ... are they reducing the fat? no."

Wrong again. There's a wealth of literature on this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33168917/

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).

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#359

Post by loeg »

scoofy wrote: post #356
Dylan16807 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"may contribute" is really far from "the same impact" Even more so if there's a calorie restriction going on, but still so if there isn't.

"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.

What do you imagine "crank" means that differs from having some heterodox views? That is the definition of this use.

"a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/crank

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#360

Post by brippalcharrid »

Supermancho wrote: post #186
chrisco255 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably a risky line of thinking, if you're addicted to sugar, to substitute in some other source of sugar. Best to avoid pastries, lollipops and sugary sodas.

It's a risky way of thinking to reduce every act to a moral choice. ie I could have used the energy that I burned making this post, to hand out a dollar to a homeless person. Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run.

The human brain can run on up to 70% ketones overall (this is not only safe, but it appears to have additional therapeutic benefits) and your body can synthesize glucose in your liver and kidneys from fats and proteins though gluconeogenesis to supply the remaining parts of your brain that can't metabolize betahydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate and acetone.
Post reply on HN