[podcast flashvars=”titles: ‘Dr. Robert Lustig'”]http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/wp-content/uploads/llvlc378-dr-robert-lustig.mp3[/podcast]
Hello and welcome back to The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore!
Today’s guest is the now infamous viral YouTube Internet sensation Dr. Robert Lustig–a neuroendocrinologist who originally declined to be interviewed for this show because he said he didn’t believe in the low-carb lifestyle. Dr. Lustig, professor of pediatrics at The University of California San Francisco and featured lecturer in the video “Sugar: The Bitter Truth, finally agreed to be interviewed on the subject of fructose as it relates to health and obesity and why he thinks a total “low-carb” approach misses the boat. You’ll also discover why the vagus (or pneumogastric) nerve and insulin metabolism are forcing us to bank fat and be less active. Furthermore, his studies show that fructose is metabolized more like alcohol than glucose, and therefore contributes to liver damage.
This episode is a truly CAN’T MISS event! Please leave your feedback for us about it below!
LINKS MENTIONED IN EPISODE 378
– Dr. Robert Lustig bio
– “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” lecture on YouTube
– RELATED BLOG POST: Dr. Robert Lustig From ‘Sugar: The Bitter Truth’ Explains Why He Doesn’t Believe In The Low-Carb Lifestyle
– Sean Croxton’s interview with Dr. Lustig
– Sean Croxton’s “Short Version” video of the “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” video
Excellent show Jimmy and Dr Lustig! Excellent! Thank You!
Finally… Biochemistry controlling behaviour!
THANKS Frank! It was a long time coming getting Dr. Lustig to come on the show and I’m glad he did.
Wow. What a great interview!
I follow your show for second year now and i can tell this is one of my favorite interviews. Thank you for the GREAT job you are doing. This blog thought me soooo much… and you are such a inspiration to me:) When i switched to low carb lifestyle i finally got my health back and came to my ideal weight even though i was never much overweight. I wanted to thank you and keep up the great work. Love to go to the cruiese as well. Can you give me a link with akk the details as i am in Europe.
Wish you all the best,
Toshe, Macedonia
Hey Toshe, THANKS so much for your support! Sure, the Annual Low-Carb Cruise web site is http://www.lowcarbcruiseinfo.com. Hope to see you with us in May 2011! 🙂
Man’s high bred, “Hybrid Corn”, Which is all corn, eaten as corn flakes and corn on the cob and corn tortilla and corn syrup and any of the other ways we eat corn, and “High Fructose Corn Syrup” differ only in concentrations. Hybrid Apples and hybrid oranges and hybrid bananas also have very unnatural and very high concentrations of fructose. — Fructose, sucrose, lactose, starch and refined sugar and hybrid carbohydrates, ie; hybrid potatoes, rice, wheat, fruit, nuts, vegetables, milk, etc etc etc, all profoundly spur our pancreas insulin secretion levels and cause diabetes and obesity because they are man made for a high sugar content and desirability and therefor salability. — A huge mistake and accident that is causing and destroying our mental and psychical health the world over. — A child’s first word is “op” for “pop”. The child is given no choice in what he eats and drinks. The “ratio’s” of “hybrid plants” in fiber and enzymes and nutrition in general, have been turned upside down in this high-breeding process. That’s why all of these, as well as HFCS, are destroying our health, not just one, but all. — A huge farming, processing, marketing mistake!
Most people aren’t aware that today’s fruit is crossbred “to the max” for high sugar content! Sugar beets have been crossbred, for maximum sugar content, for more than one hundred years now. I’ve heard that genes from sugar cane are spliced into corn to get an even higher sugar content than crossbreeding alone will allow.
Yep, most fruit in modern times are just a bunch of hybrid “sugar bombs.” And people think this stuff is healthy.
Too true!
I constantly hear “but humans have always eaten fruits and vegetables” to which I reply “sure, but before we had freezers and container ships we only ate what grew locally and in season AND have you ever seen the size of wild strawberries?”
As a boy growing up in the UK in he 1960’s the only time I’d see an orange was in my Christmas stocking… apples and berries in season.
As you say, Fruit has been bred for size and taste which basically means “sweetness. It bears little resemblance to it’s natural cousins. Then we “juice it” which further refines and concentrates the sugars and “drink as much as you like… it’s Good For You!” 😉
Just in case anyone reading has NOT ever seen wild strawberries…
http://visitcranelake.com/images/blog/Wild%20Strawberries.jpg
😉
Are those truly wild, or are they from your garden? My strawberries from my garden look exactly like those – LOL!
What can I say… fantastic interview. A lot of my questions have been answered or pu on track for more study. Ta
But now I guess I have to sit in front of the computer for 90 minutes!
kem
LOL! But it’s WELL worth your time, Kem!
Dr. Robert Lustig doesn’t realize that most, if not all, low carbers find most carbs extremely addictive! I can’t eat fruit or grains period. When I do they set off my cravings, big time. I must say that you knew exactly when not to speak. When this man gets together with Gary Taubes to write a book he’s going to learn a lot. I’m 67 and have been on Atkins for 10 years. One thing that I’ve learned in that time is that nearly all carbs, including raw carrots, set me off big time. Great job Jimmy!
THANKS Michael! I tried my best to hear him out on his reasons for opposing “low-carb” and we’re really not the far apart in ideology as he thinks.
I agree Jimmy, the more I listened to him the more I wondered now where is the guest today who does not believe in low carb. The ideologies are exactly the same and he even explained why low carbing works. He hits in nail on that insulin and subsequently leptin (sensitivity) are the major contributors to obesity and other health related problems. Funny how he mentioned the 50 gram fructose limit figure, sounds an awful lot to me exactly like the carb ketosis limit hmmm. Nope we really not that far apart, but I still believe sugar (carbs) = sugar = sugar = rat poison.
I think he’ll get to the carb connection eventually JayCee.
What I heard him say is that until the science has proved it/proper research has been done, he’s not going to say definitely that carbs do the same as fructose. Didn’t he say they could? Also didn’t he say that he saying that fructose was the only cause of obesity? Thanks so much for the interview. Life changing.
If sugar and fructose are harmful at a certain level, why even eat them at all? I have heard Dr.Lustig describe fiber as the antidote to sugar in fruits. Fiber is indigestible plant material, what is the benefit of fiber? Why eat sugar or fiber at all? He has still not convinced me that fructose alone is the problem, both carbohydrates and sugar raise insulin and both are the causes of fat storage.
He hasn’t convinced me neither and as he said…he may have to admit he was wrong 10 years from now and he’s ready to do as much. Perhaps Gary Taubes will help change his mind.
Hi Jimmy and thanks for a great site and podcast.
Here is how I currently conceive of obesity: (My “model” if you will)
It has the advantage of merging the Lustig view with the Taubes view without much friction. It also explains many observations that at first glance seem to contradict the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity.
In short: 1: Prolonged exposure to high doses of “neolithic agents” (I.e Sugar primarily, perhaps other substances such as gluten, etc.) wreck the glucometabolism of the “victim”. I.e. insulin resistance develops / leptin feedback fails, etc.
2: With a failed glucometabolism, all carbohydrate becomes toxic. What would normally be safe carbohydrate intake a la Japan turns into unsafe carb intake a la the USA. Diabetes, obesity and many other ills follow.
This simple two-step model merges the Lustig view (Sugar is the problem) and the Taubes view (Carohydrate intake and insulin response determines weight loss). I suspect this is the model that we are moving towards, that´s at least the impression I get from listening to Taubes´ more recent lectures.
Again, keep up the good fight!
I found myself slightly confused @ Lustig’s non-support of carb-restriction, seeing as how he blames insulin for fat storage, but then asserts that fructose doesn’t activate insulin response, and yet fructose makes people fat. Even though I (somewhat) understand the fat storage being caused by the citrates that fructose creates, it gets frustrating, because if you aren’t on your toes, it creates an avenue for someone to refute your argument when you debate this stuff with fervent low-fat fanatics, (which I frequently like to do!) I hope he gets some good results from his study, and I’d like to look at the results.
Trent, that was perplexing to me as well. But Dr. Lustig’s thinking tells him that eating fiber with carbs makes them okay since the blood sugar and insulin rise is slower. But there’s still a rise. This sounds like the same argument Dr. Dean Ornish shared with me when I interviewed him.
I believe Dr. Lustig has nothing at all against Low Carb, but that he feels it is not the only end-all avenue. He says Low Carb works, but I think he would be okay with a Dean Ornish style diet also. Because of the high fiber, low-glycemic, non-processed foods of that type of diet. From his experience, a higher carb-content of a diet like that, is not as important if it can keep insulin in check. And he menioned that fructose doesn't work directly on insulin, only indirectly, and controlling its intake is vital. He mentioned the experiment of replacing fructose with other carbs, and people improved. I think he leans more towards fructose being harmful than carbs in general. He is looking at diet through the lense of how it effects insulin and the liver, and how that relates to obesity and metabolic syndrome. A milder rise in insulin is not as important to him as a large insulin spike. But he does say that different things work for different people, and thats why he doesn't specifically support any one diet in overall.
By the way Jimmy, this was one of my favorite interviews! Keep up all the GREAT work you do!
This is a great interview Jimmy.
One point I would like to make is that the liver does not turn all fructose into fat. It does that when glycogen stores are full. In a person who is low in liver and/or muscle glycogen, like a runner after a marathon, fructose together with glucose will facilitate glycogenesis. Those substances will be turned into glycogen, not fat.
I do agree with Dr. Lustig on that when you get your fructose from natural sources, such as fruits, you are on a different world than if you consume refined fructose. He also hit the nail on the head when he discussed the glycemic load. Here are two relevant posts:
Fructose in fruits may be good for you, especially if you are low in glycogen:
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/06/fructose-in-fruits-is-good-for-you.html
The huge gap between glycemic loads of refined and unrefined carbohydrate-rich foods:
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/04/huge-gap-between-glycemic-loads-of.html
Finally, Dr. Lustig’s statements apply mostly to normoglycemic folks. If one’s insulin resistance is higher than a certain level, carrots will abnormally raise blood glucose and insulin.
Great interview Jimmy. I find to my pleasure that you and Dr. Lustig do very much agree. A) in any case restrict fructose, B) forcing back sucrose and hfcs = forcing back fructose, C) keep insulin low by not overdoing it on the glucose and the starch. Gary and Dr. Lustig will make a strong duo.
Hopefully in 10 years time, somebody clever with a lot of money will have created an insulin secreation monitor. That way we can test for ourselves what secretes insulin and we might just be surprised!
Would not be surprised to see that very thing JayCee.
Good interview.
If the rate at which carbohydrates like amylopectin break down into glucose and is absorbed into the bloodstream matters to insulin secretion, obesity and the effect on the liver– then we are dealing with carbohydrate restriction being important to the extent that it slows the rate at which glucose enters the system. We might principally concern ourselves with how this affects insulin. But, eating high carbohydrate but low glycemic load foods seems like a somewhat unreliable way to make sure that glucose, and insulin, doesn’t go too high. Low carb seems like a good failsafe for this reason. It at least removes this one variable of the rate of glucose absorption from the equation.
Saturated fat protects against the effect of alcohol on the liver, to some degree. Dr Mike did a blog about this a few years back. I wonder if it helps with fructose?
Fantastic interview-perhaps your best yet!Thanks for all you do, Jimmy.
Thanks for the great interview, Jimmy.
After a second listen, a few things stuck out that I’m going to need more data to convince me of.
1.) He talks about his double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 44 adults near the beginning of the interview. Only 8 people had the result he was hoping for, but he seems to be claiming this biochemical intervention as a cause and effect. It can’t be cause and effect if only 18% experience the benefit.
2.) While he does a good job showing the biochemically destructive pathway of fructose, I think he takes an unsupported leap when he gives such high praise to fiber. Our bodies can’t use fiber, so I don’t understand why he would say that we don’t want to eat the orange for the nutrients but for the fiber. I have a type one diabetes friend who has to take the same amount of insulin for a glass of orange juice as an orange, assuming they are the same amount of calories. The difference in blood sugar spike is just a few minutes. I just think it was a stretch to say that since some fiber was found in cave feces that we should all eat food for the fiber. That study said nothing of the health of those people who had all of the fiber. I’ve read many studies in recent years disputing the positive benefit that many had thought fiber had given to people.
Thanks again for the interview!
His views on fiber being the key to negating the impact of carbohydrate on blood sugar and insulin seemed odd to me. If it were that simple, then why wouldn’t diabetics just carry around a big bottle of Metamucil with them everywhere? I don’t put my hope in fiber saving me from the ravages of the carbs I consume.
Because Metamucil contains aspartame! 🙂
Well I think Lustig has a point though – Jimmy I’m sure you know about the New Guinea Kitavans who eat 70+ percent of their diet as carbs (sweet potatoes/tubers + fruits) with a bit of fish and coconut milk thrown in. Not only are they extraordinary healthy and long-lived, but they remain lean their entire lives with minimal exercise. No diabetes or high blood pressure at all.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the carbs they do get are wrapped up in fiber. Of course the fact that they consume no refined sugar/starch, vegetable oils, or any grains plays a huge part.
Natural, fiber-bound forms of fructose or starch are not in any way comparable to refined sugars and refine carbs and one does not necessarily need to eliminate them as a matter of principle. The Kitavans seem to show that you can in fact consume MAINLY fiber-bound carbs as your staple foods and still remain thin, healthy, and robust.
I know you understand the difference between refined food and natural ones 🙂 I just wanted to repeat it here in the context of fructose and fiber because I think the two tend to get conflated in the low-carb world.
But just because they have apparent good health by forgoing some of the 4 legs of the SAD that lead to the diseases of civilization (grains, sugar, seed oils, excessive carbohydrate) doesn’t mean that the Kitavans have optimal health.
Not all paleolithic foods were good for man. I would count honey and starchy tubers among these. But if its a matter of starving to death or eating a non optimal food to live again another day, then the choice is obvious.
In today’s climate of abundant calories (for most of us) there is no reason to eat a non optimal food. Just think how healthy the Kitavans could be should they give up that fourth leg.
Not sure how to quantify “good for man”?
I expect that honey served a vital purpose in supplying energy to an opportunistic hunter gatherer — probably at the cost of some stings until he discovered fire and smoke — but I very much doubt there was a ready supply of honey in the vicinity that would lead to it’s regular consumption.
By a similar token, starchy tubers require a great deal of work to find, dig up and even then possibly significant time and effort preparing to remove any toxins… some of these would only have been used as food sources after everything else was becoming exhausted. And as discussed elsewhere in these comments, please remember that we are not talking here about modern high-yield hybrids of starchy roots.
😉
Considering the Kitavans, on the a whole, enjoy low bodyfat levels throughout old age, have essentially non-existent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers, rheumatoid arthritis etc AND routinely live until their 90s.. what MORE do you want of them? How more “optimal” do you expect their health to be?
They also smoke throughout their lives and avoid lung cancer – if that’s not a sign of a robust immune system I don’t know what is. Whenever members of their group leave the island and live in the “civilized” world they suffer all the same ills as the rest of us.
I personally eat a low carb diet because that’s how I feel best, but Kitavans (and others) show that the human body is very well adapted to all sorts of NATURAL diets that vary widely in macro nutrient ratios. From mainly animal protein to mainly starchy carbs, healthy hunter gatherer populations ran the gamut depending on latitude.
Again, the key thing is an emphasis on whole, natural foods not processed and refined “food substitutes” To me THAT is the biggest take away from looking ancestral populations, many of whom consumed lots of natural starches and fructose.
BTW, you should consider modern tobacco as just another processed, refined commodity (cured with sugar). In it’s natural state, it is probably not as dangerous or addictive as the stuff available commercially on the market, with all of the garbage added (I’m not advocating smoking – I quit 17 years ago!).
Great interview Jimmy! I agree with Dr Lustig about insulin being the focus rather than carbohydrates per se. If you could control your insulin response and keep it low then theoretically you eat a carby meal and have none of it stored as fat. Unfortunately there is no way for the average person to control their insulin response except by dietary carbohydrate manipulation.
The thing I am a bit unclear on is why he would come to the conclusion that insulin is responsible for weight gain but not target refined carbs along with fructose as the culprits. I was obese long before I ever had sugary soda and he freely admits that obesity existed long before HFCS was invented so how are we to reverse our obesity??
If Dr Lustig ever got the funding to compare a no fructose diet side by side with a low carb diet, I have no doubt that the low carb would show better results simply because insulin secretion would be lower. I would imagine that a carbohydrate restriction would be necessary to induce a satisfactory loss of all over adipose fat (not just liver fat) at least during the weight loss phase of treatment.
Also on the issue of fibre, while it may slow the absorption of carbs, the carbs WILL eventually raise blood glucose when they are digested hence ‘Mr Fat Storer’ insulin will still be required to deal with it. Sorry Dr Lustig, I don’t think fibre is the answer but who knows, maybe in another few hundred years the human body will adapt to higher carb intakes and none of this will matter . . . but for now, carb restriction is the only effective way to deal with obesity.
Thanks for the interview Jimmy!
We need that comparison study ASAP.
I like the phrase ‘healthy carbs’, trouble is carbohydrates in the western diet are anything but. There really should be commonly agreed subtypes of carbs, as there is a world of difference between say refined sugar and a celery stick.
Lustig has the data to support his assertion that fructose is a cause of insulin resistance. There is yet to be similar data to show that repeated elevation of blood sugar/insulin over decades does the same.
Nevertheless it seems prudent to me to avoid over-production of insulin. I now minimize eating refined carbs, high GL carbs, nutritionally ’empty’ carbs or just too many carbs period. Maybe this is overkill, but I’d rather err on the side of caution.
Lustig acknowledged that obesity has been around longer than this particular epidemic. I agree that carbs per se are not the problem, however it seems to me that as people age their ability to metabolize carbs decreases, the middle-aged spread a sign of insulin resistance. Young bodies because they are still growing are a bit like the elite athletes Lustig talks about – able to get away with eating anything. Getting older and living well means being more strategic – Going for maximum nutrition, and adopting a lifestyle that aids the body rather than setting up massive hurdles.
Okay doc, I’m on a low insulin diet! not a low carb diet! I’ve changed the name! I don’t care about carbs either! they raise my insulin! There, I said it for you!:) thank you showing up:)
“It is better if you had never known.” Now that I know what causes my insulin level to rise in my own body, it would be my fault to be obese, if I followed the easy route and ate the “american” way.
Although he is not a promoter of low-carb, he is in favor of a low glycemic load diet. For people who are basically healthy, avoidance of fructose and a low glycemic diet (which means avoidance of sugar, bread, etc.) would probably be good enough. At the very least, it would be a huge change from what most people eat. Those of us with metabolic issues, i.e. diabetes, have to be more strict about carbs, but he isn’t saying we shouldn’t be.
He also mentioned that GL is more important than GI and that one should only go by GL.
The difference between the two is that the GL counts incorporates the CARB count. So if this ‘CARB count’ is what is so important then he advocates low carbing! I think he just don’t know it.. *8-)
Great guest and interview, Jimmy… thanks!
We may find a few points to ‘nit-pick’ about, but I hope we are all agreed that Dr Lustig is courageous in taking on the huge army of stakeholders who are intent on maintaining the status quo. His commitment to improving the health of human beings through real science feels rare and extremely welcome, at least to me.
Jim, I couldn’t agree more. 🙂
Dr. Lustig lost me on the fiber issue. If our paleo, caveman type ancestors ate mostly meat, fish and some nuts, veggies and few fruits, how could they have gotten well over 100 grams of fiber per day? I just don’t see it. You’d have to eat a LOT of veggies and fruits to make that happen.
That seemed kinda wild to me too. I bet their poop was humongous! 😀
Fruits,veggies & tubers have been bred to have less fiber and more sugar than their ancesters . Bananas weren’t yellow, soft and sugary, they were green, fibrous and practically inedible. Meat would be opportunistic, so you’d be eating lots of starchy fibrous roots, berries, hard fruits, unskinned nuts, lots of opportunities for incidental fiber. I know a guy who used to eat roasted peanuts, shell and all. weirdo, but imagine the amount of fiber in a handful of unshelled peanuts or unshelled pumpkin seeds for example. Many people used to eat the apple core as well, and if you were hungry, you won’t scrape out the stringy fibrous innards of a squash, you’d eat it. Imagine all the vegetable refuse you currently throw in the trash (apple skin, cucumber seeds, pumpkin strings, cabbage cores, carrot tops,the bottom of asparagus, the pith in bellpeppers, the leaves and ribs on cauliflower, the stem on brocolli…) being instead as part of your daily ration for survival. We throw it away cause it’s too tough. It’s tough because of fiber.
This was one of the best podcasts I’ve ever heard.
Thanks for listening!
Hey Jimmy,
Wow, what a great interview! But I’m confused. I get that he does not like fructose and thinks insulin is at the root of the problem too, and supports eating a low GL diet. So it sounds like he supports a “low carb” diet, but it seems as if he is hesitant to say so for fear people will construe low carb to mean no carb.
Sounds like a brilliant guy, but I find it somewhat dubious that he has such passion for the dangers of fructose, and then is equally as dispassionate about the dangers associated with insulin creating carbs! Am I missing something?
Regards,
Zuckdawg
Nope, your analysis pretty much nails his conundrum in thinking.
Really enjoyed that podcast, excellent! Great info! Learnt a lot.
Thanks Ann Marie!
Thank you for the interview, it had to take persistance. I’m glad its not my fault and diabetes 2 (only had it for 1.5yrs) is just the result of the envivornemt. When I visit the doctor no need to hide the fries,diet coke and the big mac. Well I think low carb gives a person with d2 a choice and a chance regardless of the biologist wish to contol the envirnment then behavior. I have been listening to your podcast for a year and half and you have been a god send, slong with the peoples comments. Thank you again zaq
THANKS for listening, buddy! It was well worth the wait. 🙂
Jimmy, just finished listening for the second time. This is one of those that is so rich in information that I’m sure I will listen again. You did an excellent job of winding him up and letting him go. This is so much better than other interviewers that for some reason feel like they have to be part of the show. Your questions and comments were few but pertinent and well placed. Bravo! Good job!
THANKS Stephen! I suppose Dr. Lustig’s original hesitation about coming on the show made me want to make this one the best it could be because I knew he would have a lot to contribute.
Just listened today. What a wonderful interview. I don’t agree that fructose deserves all the blame for the sudden rise in obesity since 1977, since I started gaining weight as an eight-year old in the 1960’s. I would, however, agree about its escalation since the introduction of HFCS in the 1970s. Perhaps the addition of other artificial crappy chemicals could be equally blamed for ruining our metabolisms as well back then? In addition, imagine what we were ingesting in the way of chemicals that have since been made illegal (like DDT). I like to think of it as a great big rabbit hole – who knows how far down it goes? Great interview, Jimmy!
I can understand and actually respect why he hesitates to say he’s a proponent of low carb diets — since he is a specialist in pediatric medicine and a research doctor — and as we know, low carb diets encompass a wide umbrella of individual recommendations etc.
I was an obese child — low protein, probably moderate on/off fat diet, and high carb diet. We drank soda like water. I still remember when my mother stopped buying milk because we were drinking it like water… how different would it have been if we simply hadn’t drank the soda and juice? Would the energy levels of a child been enough to burn off the refried beans, bread, muffins, tortillas, pasta etc?
But one thing is for sure — I’m so sensitive to grains especially now, that with working with a personal trainer, one bowl of oatmeal shoots any hope of weightloss to hell for a few days.
But my question to Dr. Lustig– variations in individual metabolic makeup aside: did that large intake of fructose as a growing child damage my metabolic system for life?
FROM TAUBES’ GCBC RE LEPTIN (which Dr. Lustig puts onus on) p. xviii “One consequence of this sub-specialization of modern medicine is the belief, often cited in the lay press, that the causes of obesity and the common chronic diseases are complex and thus no simple answer can be considered seriously. Individuals involved in treating or studying these ailments will stay abreast of the latest “breakthroughs” in relevant fields – the discovery of allegedly cancer-fighting phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables, of genes that predispose us to obesity or diabetes, of molecules such as leptin and ghrelin that are involved in the signaling of energy supply
and demand around the body. They will assume rightfully, perhaps, that the mechanisms of weight regulation and disease are complex, and then make the incorrect assumption that the fundamental causes must also be complex. They lose sight of the observations that must be explained – the prevalence of obesity and chronic disease in modern societies and the relationship between them – and they forget that Occam’s razor applies to this science, just as it does to all sciences: do not invoke a complicated hypothesis to explain the observations, if a simple hypothesis will suffice. By the same token, molecular biologists have identified a multitude of genes and proteins involved in the causation and spread of cancer, and so it could be argued, as well, that cancer is much more complex than we ever imagined. But to say that lung cancer, in over 90 percent of the cases, is caused by anything other than smoking cigarettes is to willfully miss the point.”
THANKS for sharing that, Paula. Taubes has made this point in many of his lectures and it’s an important one to remember. This isn’t as complex as people think–STOP EATING THE FATTENING CARBS! 🙂
Paula – excellent post!
I really enjoyed this interview, Jimmy, fabulously well done. Most of Dr. L’s conclusions are so well founded and logical, I was surprised by his ‘fiber leap.’ He’s using a study of pre-fire hominids and applying that to what you and I, post fire hominids, should eat. While I think it’s great if he has time to chew the food that would be required to get 300g of fiber down the hatch (and perhaps he gets his reading done on the toilet), surely he must know there are many paleolithic peoples with fabulous health who ate primarily meat, with very little if any fiber. Further, I know of no intervention study which demonstrates improved mortality with higher fiber intake, and he cites no such study. Lastly, if fiber is so important, why are the massively meat eating Mormons so healthy?
Dr. L has the same faith in government which contaminates nearly all public health medical professionals, but even so, his work will benefit many people. I hope it will also stimulate more/better/larger studies on the role of fructose in metabolic syndrome.
Jimmy – any chance you could get a link to the studies Dr. L did – in which he manipulated fructose intake – and post on the show notes? Thanks, Paul
Seems like he jumps around quite a bit..
Fructose generates higher uric acid which leads to hypertension and possible fat gain….
but is it a defective leptin receptor or the the vegas nerve or insulin that causes leptin insenstivity?
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Finally, he thinks highly of fiber, but what about fiber from wheat? Doesn’t the lectin in gluten cause inflammation?