Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Colpo's response to Lustig, Taubes and Toxic Sugar

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    333

    Colpo's response to Lustig, Taubes and Toxic Sugar

    http://anthonycolpo.com/luke-sissyfa...h-journalists/

    I'm currently trying to form my own opinions based on sound understanding, but jeez it's a challenge sometimes.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    I really like Colpo. He's very aggressive and well-researched, and his book was outstanding.

    Some don't like him because he comes off disrespectful at times, but it's only after he's been attacked.

    However, one of the things I don't like about his arguments is that he often uses body composition as a measure of the accuracy of someone's argument. Of course, he does this along with citing the research, but as we all know, appearance has nothing to do with knowledge on a subject.

    But all in all, Colpo is a great resource, and this was a great article in my opinion (everyone knows by now that I'm pretty anti-Taubes/Lustig though, so this should come as no surprise ).
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,432
    There was a whole Colpo vs Eades thing a few years back if you wanna follow the back and forth between them two. Then there is the more semirecent Colpo and Jaminet thing as he took issue with their protein recommendations or something like that. And then there is the Colpo vs His own ego thing.... yeah his ego body slammed him then grew so large so as to eclipse the sun and send the Earth into 10,000 years of darkness.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    There was a whole Colpo vs Eades thing a few years back if you wanna follow the back and forth between them two. Then there is the more semirecent Colpo and Jaminet thing as he took issue with their protein recommendations or something like that. And then there is the Colpo vs His own ego thing.... yeah his ego body slammed him then grew so large so as to eclipse the sun and send the Earth into 10,000 years of darkness.
    I don't think you can attack Colpo's ego without attacking Eades' ego as well . That was a two-sided exchange.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,432
    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    I don't think you can attack Colpo's ego without attacking Eades' ego as well . That was a two-sided exchange.
    Quite true they both give as well as they can take...

    I will say that Taubs and Lustig could "walk the talk" a little better.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-14-2013 at 05:24 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,791
    That was hilarious!

    That said. There will always be a small group of people who will believe anything and everything Taubes says. I used to believe some of it as well. Some people will cling to the fallacy that carbohydrate releasing insulin = the body storing fat.
    Those would be the type of people who want the easier way to healthy body at normal weight. Sorry to break it to you, but that's simply not how nature works.
    As to Lustig, even back when I believed in very low-carb, he lost all credibility with me when I saw him proclaiming that sugar and high fructose corn syrup are both affecting the human body in the same way and are equally as bad for us.
    I wouldn't trust my child's healthcare to someone who spews such nonsense.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Graycat View Post
    <<snip>>
    As to Lustig, even back when I believed in very low-carb, he lost all credibility with me when I saw him proclaiming that sugar and high fructose corn syrup are both affecting the human body in the same way and are equally as bad for us.
    I wouldn't trust my child's healthcare to someone who spews such nonsense.
    I'm with Lustig on this. 55% vs 50% fructose is the difference. Insignificant in the scheme of things
    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Quite true they both give as well as they can take...

    I will say that Taubs and Lustig could "walk the talk" a little better.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    I'm with Lustig on this. 55% vs 50% fructose is the difference. Insignificant in the scheme of things
    Yeah, I agree with Lustig on this point as well.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    I'm with Lustig on this. 55% vs 50% fructose is the difference. Insignificant in the scheme of things
    I think this is valid and can see why he takes this position - however I have also read that not all HFCs is 55% so I'm not sure if he's correct or not. Either way, avoiding HFCs helps you avoid a bunch of processed junk so it can't be a bad idea.

    What I took from lustig was mostly 1. Sugar in excess, particularly soft drinks, has contributed to obesity in the us. I think it's hard to argue with this (although I know many will!). Cutting cokes helped me lose a fair bit of weight so this tracks with my personal experience.

    2. Stuff like rice and pasta is ok. Not sure what I think of this.

    3. Fruit is ok. Agree.

    I think taubes added a lot to the discussion, whether you agree with conclusions or not, because he pointed out how very, very bad all this "science" and diet advice has been. Also I have not exactly been looking for swimsuit photos but he looked fine last I saw a picture.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by lea View Post
    I think this is valid and can see why he takes this position - however I have also read that not all HFCs is 55% so I'm not sure if he's correct or not.
    The two more commonly used are HFCS 55 and HFCS 42.

    Either way, avoiding HFCs helps you avoid a bunch of processed junk so it can't be a bad idea.
    Can't disagree, however I don't think there's any reason to fear it.

    What I took from lustig was mostly 1. Sugar in excess, particularly soft drinks, has contributed to obesity in the us. I think it's hard to argue with this (although I know many will!). Cutting cokes helped me lose a fair bit of weight so this tracks with my personal experience.
    My problem with many of his arguments is that they stem from studies using massive amounts of pure fructose, which is extremely uncommon in "real life". Fructose is always accompanied by some amount of glucose.

    I think taubes added a lot to the discussion, whether you agree with conclusions or not, because he pointed out how very, very bad all this "science" and diet advice has been.
    I don't want to turn this into a Taubes sh*tstorm, but much of the "science" that Taubes presents is equally as faulty as what he's attempting to refute.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

Posting Permissions

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