It amazes me how people takes the words of Taubes and Lustig without question, whilst both their advice will lead to dramatic weight loss their bottom line message are easily disproved.
First Taubes....how can he attribute obesity to carbohydrates when bread and potatoes have been the staples of European diets for centuries with no obesity until the last 100 years? Not to mention the Kitavan study but that is so much of a cliché now that I cringe even bringing it up. A clear example of this is the Irish Potato Famine, the country was so dependent on the potato that half the population even died or emigrated, I challenge anybody to find any reference to obesity in Ireland at this time or at any time before. It is very clear that Taubes theory is incorrect.
Now onto Lustig, whilst he is correct to single out sugar in the obesity epidemic, it is not via the mechanism he champions. I am very surprised the Paleo masses haven't latched onto this....Lustig claims the fructose in sugar causes fatty liver, which causes hepatic insulin resistance, which causes elevated insulin levels all over the body and that insulin blocks leptin in the brain as they share the same receptor. All very believable, I for a while believed this as it was the most viable theory I knew of. Then one day I decided to test the theory, I started to look for a drug which resolved fatty liver...if it cleared up the fatty liver, improved insulin sensitivity and caused weight loss then that would be proof to me that Lustig was right. However this was not the case, I came across a nutrient that disproves Lustig beyond all doubt, that nutrient is Choline. Choline resolves fatty liver in 100% of cases, the only question is how much Choline is needed to do so. The human studies I found showed that around 750mg (1 egg has 125mg) was the maximum needed to resolve the worse case of fatty liver. Did these studies also show improved insulin sensitivity once the fatty liver was resolved? No. Did these studies show weight loss? No, not even slightly. Any Lustig worshipers out there that still believe his theory after this and would love to here your explanation.
It is now clear as day that the major cause of obesity is food palatability, it stands the test against any evidence available and when you think about it, it's just common sense. Although Omega 6 and to a lesser extent Wheat probably play a role they are secondary to palatibility when it comes to weight gain even though they cause a host of other health problems.
I thought Stephan Guyenet was a quack at first, but he's on point. No offence to Taubes and Lustig but they just seem like chancers trying to make money now even though I was big fans of them at first.