Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Gary Taubes / Robert Lustig Conundrum page

  1. #1
    Wyatt's Avatar
    Wyatt is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Gary Taubes / Robert Lustig Conundrum

    Shop Now
    Last night I watched the new "Authors@Google" video with Gary Taubes. The Lecture was "Why we get fat," which reflects the position most of us know so well and which was very well exemplified in Mark's recent "Paradigm" post.
    Video Here: YouTube - ‪Authors@Google: Gary Taubes‬‏

    At Google, Taubes mentions his recent NY times article "Is Sugar Toxic" which I read next, Taubes talks first and foremost about Robert Lustig, who believes sugar is toxic and "the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years." The particular sugar in the article is fructose and high-fructose corn syrup. Taubes gives a disclaimer (by page 3 or 4) that he thinks Lustig is right.
    Found here:

    I clicked through to Lustig lecture "Sugar: the Bitter Truth" from 2009 (USF), and from Lustig learned, most importantly, that Fructose does not drive insulin. (Lustig goes so far as to refer to glucose as something like the "food of life") Found Here:
    YouTube - ‪Sugar: The Bitter Truth‬‏

    Lustig asks Taubes why he ignored sucrose at the end of another Taubes lecture from 2009 from which Taubes sort of admits that "it is concievable that sugar [sucrose, fructose] is the primary problem."
    YouTube - ‪Robert Lustig yells at Gary Taubes about ignoring dangers of Fructose sugar 11/27/07‬‏ asked

    So I guess the problem is pretty obvious by now. Taubes has said many times carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat. The only carb he can be talking about here is glucose. But if you say fructose drives fat without driving insulin, then insulin doesn't appear to be fundamental in fat storage.

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    rayout's Avatar
    rayout is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    He's speaking in reference to the "obesity" epidemic. Lustig is postulating that obesity rates would not be as high as they are if it were not for the massive sugar consumption in the western diet. Taubes agrees based on the science that is out there.

    This is not to say that people who have damaged metabolisms or who are naturally insulin resistant would not still be obese if they cut out sugar from their diet. Carbohydrate consumption in the form of glucose can still lead to the insulin rollercoaster that drives obesity. But would fewer people be fat if sugar was not so prevalent in diet? Most likely.

  3. #3
    Tadas's Avatar
    Tadas is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Lustig: Sugar -> Lots of Fructose -> Insulin resistance
    Taubes: Carbs + Insulin resistance -> fat accumulation

  4. #4
    Digby's Avatar
    Digby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Eastern PA
    This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it. Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Any given day you are surrounded by 10,000 idiots.
    Lao Tsu, founder of Taoism

  5. #5
    swfowkes's Avatar
    swfowkes is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    I believe that Lustig argues that fructose's effect on obesity is not directly mediated through insulin and insulin resistance but rather on hepatic metabolic pathways that suppress beta-oxidation and promote fat neogenesis. The fructose analogy is to alcohol, which rapidly shuts down ketogenic liver pathways in favor of glycolytic activity. Therefore, the adverse effect of the combination of fructose and glucose, or fructose and alcohol, on obesity is compounded. I hope this superficial explanation is sufficient and makes sense. Clarifications and elaborations are invited.

  6. #6
    Pitter's Avatar
    Pitter is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    there isn't really a conundrum here as Taubes and Lustig are fans of each others work. +1 to what swfowkes said.

  7. #7
    Diana's Avatar
    Diana is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Richmond, VA

    Question I know I'm late to this conversation...

    But my thought would be why do they have to be mutually exclusive? The fat storage caused by insulin could be equally as deleterious and the fat production of the liver from Fructose. I don’t see how they have to be mutually exclusive…

  8. #8
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Or maybe they are a couple of jackasses.

  9. #9
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    sunshine state
    The main problem I have with 'nutrition expert' explanations is that they tend to sound good on paper, but they don't take into account that we actually know very little about the complex interactions that happen in our bodies when we consume food and their theories thus end up being simplistic and superficial.

    My personal experience has shown me that eating high fat/low carb depresses my metabolism and causes fat gain.

    When I lower dietary fat intake and increase carbs in the form of both starches and sugars (sucrose AND fructose), my metabolism increases and I lose fat without really trying.

    Also, my appetite is significantly lower on a higher carb/low fat diet.

    So, I'm experiencing the OPPOSITE of what Taubes' or Lustig predict would happen, which tells me they are missing a big piece of the puzzle somewhere.

  10. #10
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Learn More
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadas View Post
    Lustig: Sugar -> Lots of Fructose -> Insulin resistance
    Taubes: Carbs + Insulin resistance -> fat accumulation
    +1......seems to sum up their differences quite well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts