Debunking Dr. Robert Lustig's Claims from The Huberman Lab Podcast | Educational Video | Biolayne
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ม.ค. 2024
- Huberman Lab Submissions:
www.hubermanlab.com/construct...
Citations:
docs.google.com/document/d/1-...
Get my research review REPS:
biolayne.com/REPS
Get my new nutrition coaching app, Carbon Diet Coach: onelink.to/9h4d62
My research based supplements: www.outworknutrition.com
Get my books on how to lose fat: www.biolaynestore.com
Take my online course "The Science of Nutrition": chfi.click/laynenorton_online
Get Custom Workouts by me for $12.99/month:
biolayne.com/workout-builder/
/ laynenorton
/ biolayne
/ biolayne
Thanks so much for having me Layne! I hope that I was able to bring appropriate nuance to this incredibly challenging topic.
Thank you for your contribution! Btw, can you share your opinion on Dr. Thomas Seyfried’s theory of “metabolic health approach to cancer” and successful clinical outcomes by putting patients on keto and removing glutamine for a short period?
@@k29lee yeah he isn’t accurate generally speaking. He needs to read currently literature before making such bold claims
I loved your contributions. It is valuable information and shows people how crucial it is to learn from experts working within their field. I’m a coach and when my clients ask me about cancer, I simply say, “That’s a question for an oncologist.”
@@dr.joezundellThanks. He claims to have had a much higher success rate in curing late stage cancers than the “medical establishment” has and argues that those success cases are all well documented. I have no way of proving these right, but if he did indeed have such success, would you ever care to look into them and maybe debate with him on this topic? I was super intrigued by his approach and really want to see someone with credibility to either prove or debunk him.
joe thanks for your input
Is there a link to where seyfreids work is looked at as lustigs was done in this one
Lustig and Seyfreid talk with similiar conviction
If I understand Dr. Lustig, his point is calories are not the same. If you eat 100 calories from sugar, your body responds differently than eating 100 calories from protein. Is he wrong?
Lusti is right. Layne has quite old school attitude to this.
Of course he’s not wrong. Why would different molecules have identical metabolic consequences inside the body? What sense does that make?
Exactly, because when amino acids converts to glucose, this is a totally different story. Cause it is just a few part of amino that may be converted into glucose, where as glucose is glucose and fructose will hit the liver cells to be converted into glucose.
Of course your body 'responds differently' from eating different macronutrients. 🙄🙄 Because they're different nutrients wityh different uses.
It should depend on the context. Energy expenditure will increase with the protein diet. If energy expenditure is controlled for, and one person is in a 1000 calorie surplus from protein, the other glucose, they will obviously gain the same amount of weight, unless their caloric sources differ in bioavailability.
No he isn't, anybody who defends added sugar is either wrong or has wrong intentions...
How is advicing people to eat less processed foods a bad advice??
Like i guess calorie in calorie out is the golden standard for health. According to that narratieve i can live on McDonald's and beer and be just as healthy as on a whole food diet so long as calories are the same. Normally i agree often with layne however i think there is many research regarding processed foods compared to whole foods.
This i a bit of a buyes if you asked me.
When protein is accounted for, yes, you can. You just might get one meal a day based on your calorie expenditure.
@@ConstancePetot there is more and more research available on fibers, however I still think eating a whole food diet is never a bad advice.
@@ConstancePetot also there is quite abig debate revarding the protein window, it might be more effectieve to spread your protein trougout the day, that will have a greater result for hypertrohy. Further more many atleten would follow a whole food diet rather then a junk food one. This has bin proven many times over the past decades perhaps check the research on ucsf.
This guy here is quite amazing in 2024 - maybe he has something to sell to the blind ! Where the video is valuable for many to open their eyes to the HFCS and processed food as a real challenge to health
@chefdenniseasycooked3790 I don't understand how people can't wrap their heads around this. CICO is not associated with health. it's associated with weight loss. These two are not mutually exclusive. The issue with this Lustig guy is that he's actively denying that CICO has any effect on weight loss.
Layne are you ever going to accept Dr Paul Mason offer where he is confident of rebutting a lot of your claims?
Lustig’s habit of asking Andrew a question that Andrew is very unlikely to know (e.g., How many pounds of fat do you need to gain to be metabolically unhealthy), revealing Andrew doesn’t know, and then providing the answer, is weird and kind of annoying, but it also seems like a rhetorical devise to try to bolster his perception of expertise. Lustig’s “cells either burn or build” statement definitely seemed like a gross oversimplification. Thanks for putting the work into this, Layne.
I kept noticing that behavior from Lustig as well and it was driving me crazy! I've since watched a few other interviews with him and he does this with everyone, as well as some other rhetorical tactics.
I wonder if it's his way of gauging how much bullsh!t he can get away with?
He’s infuriating. Absolute douche lord
It's called rhetorical questions.
@@StephenYuan No because he waits to elicit an answer
Dr Lustig convinced me to cut my level of sugar intake to almost none as well as processed foods. I only eat "real food" as Dr Lustig would call it and the health issues I was suffering from in my mid 50's are a thing of the past in my mid 70's. I do not know the science behind what happened. But life would have been much more enjoyable in my 40's into my mid 50's had I ate then how I eat now. Thank you Dr Lustig. You guys fight it out over the science. For me. I am loving getting up in the morning again. This was not always the case. Just saying.
I think this is a fair comment but to state the obvious, if you’re cutting out sugar completely then you’re basically cutting out most of the extremely calorically dense, hyper-palatable foods many of us struggle with today. Which is exactly what data says is the actual issue. And it’s great that it worked for you, but we have a responsibility to understand what’s actually going on and find the best ways to achieve what you’ve achieved, while constantly finding better and better ways to do that.
If you’re getting to the right place accidentally, that’s great, but most useful is something clearly understood, evidenced, repeatable, reliable, that can help inform and guide as many people as possible.
@@kristianrusten1241 exactly this! Spot on
Don't be discouraged for a second; you are on the right path. I encourage you to make a habit of reading the science as it is published rather than simply taking my word for it. Just be careful with ideologues.
Can you share the diet you having?
Ok - so you lost weight. How do know it wasn’t simply losing weight that helped rather than food choices? People have achieved amazing health gains on the McDonalds Diet. This is simply eating only from the McDonalds menu but in a calorie deficit.
It seems at about 11:30 that you gloss over an important nuance. That because of the fiber in fruit, the rate of absorption of fructose is significantly slower than that when you drink a soda with high fructose corn syrup. I have heard a number of scientific experts in the field discuss this. It's not the total amount which may be the same, but the peak rate at which fructose hits the liver which has to process it. This leads to the problems people discuss in terms of liver damage. Yes it's much easier to down two or three sodas in one sitting as opposed to 2-3 apples and so the former is likely to happen and latter is likely to almost never happen, but rate of fructose absorption is something to consider as a real difference also.
Then post evidence, no one gives a shit that you heard others say it.
@@user-fy7ri8gu8l You think fiber doesn't effect absorption rates? Y'all grasping for straws
@@nattyfatty6.0 We know it does. But no one would look at a bowl full of sugar and then a bowl 3/4ths of sugar and say, ah - the pile became a problematic hill just so, there. Where is the clinically significant change?
Ironically, it was Huberman’s series with Dr. Andy Galpin that finally changed my mind on the calories in-calories out argument. Galpin talks about the molecular chain of events and explained food production and digestion through the lens of carbons. It was like a shockwave through every other weight loss video I had ever seen. Highly recommend.
Changed your mind from which position to which position?
@@Frank_Jones314from low carb to calories in calories out presumably.
Can confirm, the Huberman lab with Galpin is great. Huberman needs to take more responsibility for who he platforms. I don't think I've listened to an episode since he had that Neuralink hack on his show
Can you link which particular podcast with Galpin this is? I see a few different ones, thanks!
@@user-fd6pq4uc6k th-cam.com/video/oNkDA2F7CjM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=OipQx4JNauhnxs-T from the 22 minute timestamp to 41 minute timestamp
@@iago9711
I hadn't realized until recently that there are people out there claiming that CICO is false.
One thing I’ve noticed about guys like Lustig and Gundry, is that you never hear them say ‘I don’t know’. Be wary of so-called experts who don’t use this phrase. If you listen to a true expert in a field, they will use this term numerous times along with prefacing a statement by admitting something is out of their scope of practice. The more you know, the more you realize how little you actually know.
Gundry is a literal quack. Lustig on the other hand is a Guinness. On par with guys like Dr Jason Fung.
You can actually see him think about it at one point when Huberman asked him a question that he doesn't know the answer to. He pauses, and then decides, "Fuck it," and responds affirmatively, which perfectly highlights how much of this garbage he is just making up entirely 27:55
@@NockYT so true!
if u watch all his videos I remember of the top of my head Dr. Robert Lustig replying: Not to my knowledge.
Might have been with Dr. Peter Attia, not sure.
I feel like i've heard him say it a few times. But honestly I think you're making a really good point there.
I cut sugar and refined carbs out of my diet and i must say that i feel better than ever. First time ive been at a normal weight in my entire life.
Yeah at some point you just go with what works for you, Layne is very confident but can't help but think he misses the point sometimes
Think if I hadn’t sorts my inflammation but I have , I would just eat meat. all the studies are compromised ,
The proper human diet
The last hundred years seed oils grains and the food industry , money
I hope what ever diet you go with it works for you, I find eating the way I do twice a day , eating until I am full , over full to keep me from temptation and eating for pleasure, eating fat avocado eggs and bacon keeps me full ,
Surreal cereal is not bad with Greek yogurt for a change
That's good and Layne made the point that a lot of hyper palatable junk food tend to have refined sugar. His point isn't that we should eat whatever we want. It's that you can't point to one aspect and blame that for why people gain weight. You should look at the context of the entire diet and try to choose healthier options when possible. If the majority of your diet is healthy and you are not overconsuming, you can totally eat bread, pasta, or even a cookie once and a while. I think that's his point.
Eating sugar and carbs (even whole grain) gives me an immediate huge bloat. I don't understand why and the ultrasound just showed that there's too much air inside. I'm figuring it's something with the gut microbiome. ALSO, when I don't eat carbs, my appetite is lower and cravings are milder (my general appetite is high).
I don't know how to reconcile that with what Layne said. I know that Lustig is a quack but some parts of what he says ring true and seem intuitive.
I think Nick Norwitz made a video that debunks this video of saturated fat is worse than fructose and explains how Layne completely misunderstood that study and got it wrong. Sucks we have people skewing the results and showing that over fed sugar is less harmful to liver than saturated fat. I know the truth....These studies are already misleading. For every study that shows something is bad, there is a more compelling study that shows the opposite.
This guy doesn’t understand endocrinology at all and the role hormones plays in regulating metabolism.
Thats a wild take to have about someone who majored in biochemistry AND has a Phd in nutritional science.
It sounds like y'all agree on a lot of things. Also, the cancer guy saying how "stupid" Lustig is. What's the purpose of resorting to personal attacks?
I truly think some people want to be lied to and shielded from the truth...they will refuse to believe countless research studies and instead just blame nameless people or things.
What was Hubermans claim about alcohol that you were referring to in the beginning?
Time stamps...
● 00:00 Analyzing Dr. Robert Lustig's recent podcast appearance, addressing concerns about unsupported claims, and acknowledging the value of scientific integrity in discussions on Andrew Hubman's show.
● 02:19 Examining the theme of Dr. Robert Lustig's podcast, highlighting his focus on individual biochemical pathways and mechanisms, and discussing the distinction between mechanisms and outcomes in the context of dietary choices and insulin's effects on body fat.
● 04:38 Illustrating the importance of focusing on outcomes rather than individual mechanisms in understanding complex processes, using the analogy of a mutual fund versus an individual stock to emphasize the multifaceted nature of factors contributing to the loss or gain of body fat.
● 07:02 Challenging the claim that different sources of calories inherently differ, emphasizing that while sources like protein and fiber may impact appetite and energy expenditure, the fundamental principle remains that weight gain is a result of consuming excess calories for one's energy expenditure, questioning the attempt to shift blame from calorie consumption to specific food types like refined carbohydrates.
● 09:23 Addressing the argument of food addiction, debunking the notion of sugar addiction by highlighting research findings that lack evidence for such claims, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of hyper-palatability in foods, and questioning the inconsistency in arguments against sugar consumption, particularly in fruits, while acknowledging the health benefits associated with fruit consumption.
● 11:34 Clarifying the chemical similarity of fructose molecules in various sources, challenging the assertion that high fructose intake invariably leads to negative health outcomes by presenting data on decreased mortality associated with certain foods, and debunking the claim that calorie restriction is ineffective for weight loss by emphasizing the abundance of studies demonstrating its efficacy, attributing long-term challenges to adherence rather than the approach itself.
● 14:04 Challenging the argument that insulin is the sole antagonist in health issues, highlighting the flawed logic of attributing negative outcomes to short-term mechanisms without considering long-term benefits, and debunking the oversimplified notion that certain nutrients or activities, when isolated in short-term contexts, are universally harmful without acknowledging their positive impacts on long-term health outcomes.
● 16:35 Addressing mechanistic claims related to cancer biology, consulting an expert in cancer biology to debunk the misconception about oxygen promoting cell growth and emphasizing the role of oxygen in sustaining cell metabolism and survival, while providing historical context with Otto Warburg's Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the Warburg effect in cancer cells.
● 19:04 Exploring the complexities of tumor metabolism and oxygen availability, debunking the oversimplified notion that cancer cells solely thrive on oxygen, highlighting the significance of hypoxic regions in tumors, the role of angiogenesis in supplying oxygen to tumor cores, and the adaptability of cancer cells to use Warburg metabolism to sustain essential processes even in oxygen-deficient environments.
● 21:34 Exploring the misconception about tumor oxygen levels, debunking claims that hyperbaric oxygen would be beneficial for treating cancers, highlighting the importance of understanding tumor metabolism and the role of angiogenesis inhibitors in restricting oxygenation to impede tumor growth.
● 23:50 Examining the flaws in the argument supporting hyperbaric oxygen therapy for cancer treatment, debunking the notion that increased oxygenation directly kills tumors, and highlighting the complex dynamics of capillary physiology, concluding that hyperbaric oxygen therapy lacks specificity for cancer tissue and lacks sufficient supporting data for its effectiveness.
● 26:22 Challenging the claim that fructose leads to increased inflammation and leaky gut, debunking the proposed mechanisms with evidence from human studies that show fructose consumption does not elevate inflammation unless consumed in excess calories, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between mechanisms and actual outcomes.
● 28:43 Disputing the claim that increased sugar consumption is the primary driver of obesity and diabetes by presenting evidence that sugar intake has decreased over the last 30 years while obesity rates continue to rise, highlighting the role of dietary fat, especially ultra-processed foods, in inducing insulin resistance and negatively impacting overall health.
● 30:55 Disputing the coherence of the argument that ultra-processed food inhibits mitochondrial processes and growth in cancer cells by highlighting the increased mitochondrial biogenesis observed in cancers associated with ultra-processed food consumption, emphasizing the multifaceted health risks linked to such diets, including mortality, and underscoring the correlation between added sugars in unbalanced diets and various health issues like microbial disbiosis, altered insulin signals, and metabolic disruptions.
● 33:12 Disputing the claim that weight loss is solely influenced by insulin and not calorie intake, citing a meta-analysis of human randomized control trials that equated calories and protein, revealing a small but statistically significant advantage for low-fat diets in terms of fat loss, contrary to the hypothesis that insulin is the primary driver of weight loss.
● 35:49 Disputing the claim that excess branch chain amino acids (BCAAs) lead to fat gain by debunking the notion that deaminated BCAAs turn into fat, citing studies in lab rodents and highlighting the minimal difference in BCAA content between fish and other animal proteins, questioning the relevance of BCAAs in diet-induced fat accumulation.
● 38:35 Challenging the idea that pasture-fed meat can alter the amino acid composition of muscle tissue in cows, emphasizing that amino acid composition is genetically determined and cannot be changed by dietary factors, while also questioning the claim that animal sources of protein do not raise insulin levels, citing studies showing insulin response comparable to carbohydrates.
● 41:10 Challenging the low-carb community's emphasis on small dense LDL particles as the main concern, asserting that both small dense and large buoyant LDL particles can penetrate the endothelium, depositing similar amounts of cholesterol, and questioning the cherry-picked association of LDL with longevity, suggesting reverse causality and highlighting the importance of well-controlled Mendelian randomized control trials showing the persistent link between LDL and mortality in the elderly.
● 43:35 Challenging the assertion that gaining 10 kilos of body fat won't necessarily lead to metabolic unhealthiness, refuting the claim that cortisol, not calories, is the primary driver of visceral fat by presenting studies demonstrating the role of overfeeding calories, and highlighting the disingenuous omission of saturated fat as a major contributor to liver fat compared to fructose in a head-to-head study.
● 46:03 Addressing the omission of saturated fat criticism and emphasizing that overfeeding any nutrient, including polyunsaturated fats and saturated fat, can increase liver fat; challenging the belief that sugar and fructose lead to liver and body fat when calories are equated, citing studies, including one with high fructose intake, showing no increase in liver or body fat; debunking the notion that fructose is addictive and clarifying that both reduced carbohydrate and reduced fat diets, when calorie-equated, reduce liver fat, with low-fat diets showing greater reduction in liver fat than low-carb diets.
● 48:37 Clarifying that overfeeding fructose does increase liver fat but not uniquely, and overfeeding saturated fat increases it more; addressing the misconception about intermittent fasting reducing liver fat more than caloric restriction when calories are equated; debunking the claim that artificial sweeteners induce an insulin response and pointing to studies, including a famous Copenhagen study, showing non-nutritive sweeteners have no effect on insulin or glycemia, and can contribute to weight loss compared to sugared soda intake.
● 51:13 Analyzing a study cited by the speaker claiming a 10-kilo weight gain from diet soda, debunking the misinformation by presenting accurate data from the study, revealing that diet soda did not lead to weight gain but rather showed weight loss tendencies in comparison to other beverage groups, and emphasizing the importance of accurately representing research results without cherry-picking data.
● 53:39 Critiquing the speaker's misrepresentation of a study, suggesting two possibilities for the inaccuracies - either not reading the study and relying on someone else's account or intentionally distorting the information, emphasizing the importance of evidence-backed claims in academic discussions, acknowledging some valid points made by the speaker about the impact of fiber and processed foods on health, and calling for a shift away from nutrient demonization to address the complex issues of an obesogenic food environment and sedentary lifestyle.
● 55:57 Expressing concern over the podcast, emphasizing the need for scientists, especially those with advanced degrees, to uphold rigorous standards, urging viewers to develop skills in interpreting research to distinguish between evidence-based claims and misinformation, and expressing hope that the discussed individual may reconsider and improve the accuracy of future claims given their influential platform.
"Debunking the myth that Fructose is addictive"?? Nah, you lost me there. As a lifelong sugar addict who couldn't stick to a healthy diet before finally reckognizing and treating my cravings as a mental health problem - addiction - instead of a mere blood sugar problem, I can tell you with confidence you're wrong.
Wow... thx! This was a lot of work.
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to share these notes. You saved me most of the hour it would have taken to watch this video. ;-)
@albertschulz5575 the point is that people can be addicted to anything. But it's not that everything is addictive. Who likes sugary taste more likely develop ''addiction'' to sugar. As far as I know there are two types of addiction: psychological and medical. I believe that Lustig is talking about psychological and Layne about medical addiction. As Lustig is a doctor not a psychologist he should talk about medical stuff.
Alan Aragon tore Lustig's claims to shreds 14 years ago. Shame he is still spouting bollocks despite these debunks
And Huberman is giving him a platform. Disgraceful, and so damaging to popular science communication.
Most of what he says on the podcast is “don’t consume copious amounts of sugar or eat processed foods, it will harm you.” Which I can get behind. I don’t care about weight gain as a consequence of any behavior, it’s just solid health advice to axe processed foods and sugars from your diet.
No. Ur completly wrong. He claims a lot of Bs, calories doesn t matter according to him? So I can eat as much as I want if it a not processed. I won t get fst right? WRONG! Obesity it s nr 1 killer in the modern word so if you think it s not important you should think again! And btw do you really need a charlatan like lusting to tell you that ultra processed food are bad? Seriously bro?
No. Ur completly wrong. He claims a lot of Bs, calories doesn t matter according to him? So I can eat as much as I want if it a not processed. I won t get fst right? WRONG! Obesity it s nr 1 killer in the modern word so if you think it s not important you should think again! And btw do you really need a charlatan like lusting to tell you that ultra processed food are bad? Seriously bro?
Interesting
I started seeing videos of this guy and wondered what you would say about his claims! great timing!
Go listen yourself and you will learn and unlearn, then come back and make a valid contribution.
You always have someone out there that has a varying opinion. Do what works for you,do what makes you feel better, do what gets you closer to your goals.
The increase in sugar intake has increased the incidence of non alcoholic fatty liver. If you over consume like any other poison it depends on the dosage overwhelming your body's defenses.
not sugar - specifically fructose in high fructose corn syrup
Huberman has the reach that Layne should have. Hard truths are hard for some people to listen to. They'd rather hear staring at the sun and ice baths will make you immortal.
I liked huberman the first couple of times I watched him, then realised he is occasionally good but more often a bull artist.
@@billking8843
Unfortunately like most smart people, money matters more integrity.
By writing this I’ll probably get death threats from his fans so rip bye guys.
This is absolutely right. I was quite thrilled when I first discovered these HL podcast episodes appearing, and I still watch his interviews. The problem appeared for me in those protocol videos he does. They seem to reach hasty or dubious conclusions from shallow research.
@@C0d0ps does he have a cult following? Reminds me a lot of Michael Moseley, who started off good, then monetised and has become increasingly sketchy.
@@billking8843
What famous person doesn’t have a cult following?
Huberman is very well known across TH-cam.
I’ve seen plenty of people hate on Layne Norton and I don’t know why.
I hope Andrew has you back on to address all these valid points, and it will be great to have you both iron out the confusion, this topic deserves its own podcast. Well done Layne, cool shirt, for Algor 👊😎
It would be great to see Layne debate Lustig on the show!
Defending sugar and beverage industry, what ever the stimulant is. not only unethical but also hopless. No body can hide the truth forever.
Sugar industry is paying to some so called scientest to dedend sugary products. They are criminal as same as promoting tabacco smoking.
Promoting or defending sugar consumption is as criminal as promoting tabacco smoking
I lost 50 pounds and had a huge increase in energy when I stopped eating sugars and processed foods.
But maybe Layne wants to argue these pounds back on me? I should just be a good little sugar eater and return to eating processed sugars and beverages, while urging everyone else to do the same.
You're both idiots. He never said that. If you lost weight, it's because you were in a calorie deficit. Cutting out sugar is a method you used to do that, but it's not inherently better than cutting calories from elsewhere
Good for you in your loss of weight!
12:35 Our findings should be considered when developing dietary guidelines to reduce intake of added sugars, especially fructose, for improving cardiovascular health.
Thats the last sentance of that study layne quotes. Seems to me he didnt even read it fully.
All calories are not the same, it is a fact
Uhm yes they are? How can the same measurement if energy differ from one another? That's like saying not every celsius or farenheit is the same. The strawman that some caloric sources take more energy to break down is stupid because that is covered by the calories out part of CICO, specifcally TEF. The strawman that some calories are less bioavailable is also stupid, because that only means that they are not absorbed and metabolized for energy, they are still calories, and still contain the same amount of energy as a calorie, even if they are not absorbed.
Saying that we 'burn more calories' digesting protein, hence a calorie isn't a calorie, is stupid because saying we 'burn more calories' is already acknowledging the validity of a calorie, by using that as the energy measurement.
We're still controlled by the law of energy in energy out, and the little difference the thermic effect of different macronutrients makes, or the different bioavailability of different caloric sources, are not significant enough to make a big difference in most cases.
Dr. lustig never asserts that the fructose in fruit is different than fructose in soda. I guess you weren’t as sedulous with observation as you thought . He actually explicitly addresses the indictment you are making. He does however assert the total matrix of a whole fruit including but not limited to fiber (polyphenols, antioxidants) buffers glucose metabolization.
lustig is a crackpot
That's why evaluating someone by quotes can be flawed, because it's not the entire breadth of information someone knows. Even I would have intuited that presence of fibre would slow down the GI of any food , and it's not only raw amount, but absorption time that leads to metabolic insults.
Exactly. I’m just started this video and I can say for sure this guy is wrong here both on what Lustig said and on how fructose in fruit v. drink affects blood sugar. I just experienced this with a diabetic who wears a continuous glucose monitor. They’d been eating an apple everyday with no significant blood sugar spike - maintaining
so basically everything Lustig said is true. „not all tumor cells rely of increased glucose consumption“ - this is called debunking?
It isn't that I want to agree or disagree with you, but holding the calories equal isn't scientific IF the effect of one route is to naturally increase or decrease intake.
go listen to the pod cast and you will hear the full statement. You will understand the truth in the statement, listen not to piece of the edit.. very misleading like fake news.
I listened to this entire podcast and was very angry during portions but stuck it out to hear a different perspective. Glad you took the time to drop this diss-track and call out his BS. Some points were good, and he has good goals like making school lunches healthier, but man, he zooms too much in the microscope.
I agree there is some good in his claims, like reducing ultra-processed foods, wanting healthier school lunches for kids and also understanding how to read labels correctly given all the sneaky terms they make up for ingredients these days.
Also, he never says not to eat fruit (at least not in this particular interview), just that whole fruits are better than fruit juices and other processed forms that remove the fiber and concentrate the sugar.
He is trying to create an approach that feels manageable for a lot of people - don't worry too much about counting calories, just avoid ultra-processed foods. I know in reality, there's more to it, but if the vast majority of Americans just made that one switch for most meals, we'd be a lot healthier for it. A lot of people try calorie counting, get overwhelmed/burnt out and quit.
All that said, I also didn't agree with everything he said and there was for sure some claims that haven't been back up.
@@beachnap this debunk is poorly done. A lame job. Lots of contradictions. I put lots of PubMed articles.
@@beachnapyeah his interview was mostly spot on. Honestly this response video is like a hit piece.
Edit: Actually on watching all of it, the criticism is deserved but the cutting down on processed foods advice is good
What exactly did Dr. Lustig say that was wrong? Layne doesn’t understand endocrinology or the role hormones play in metabolism at all.
@@estrogen_intolerant
Literally everything from 12:50 to 13:13 is ludicrously wrong.
Really appreciate Layne’s dedication to educating his audience and also being brave to debunk these “experts” and “scientists” and “conspiracies”
Love this channel
Dr. Robert Lustig is no slouch: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (BS, 1976)
Cornell University Medical College (MD, 1980)
University of California, Hastings College of the Law (MSL, 2013)
@@foraminutethere23 A lot of his accreditations are VERY outdated in the sense of the education and educational standards. His inability to understand nuanced concepts tracks when you see how long it's been since he's had a formal education on the topics he discusses.
@@ThrowinBombs80 Yeah sorry to say that I agree after watching the whole video. This video got me searching for other criticisms of him as well. The saturated fat study was the nail in the coffin for me.
@@foraminutethere23
This Dr Layne is a pure sophist
He would never debate Bikman,Fung, Dagostino or Lustig ,Dr Palmer
It's easy to pretend you are right in an echo chamber
Look at carb consumption over the last 3-4 decades and obesity
CICO is a myth
You can't lose appreciable weight long term by starving yourself
On starvation diets ,you lose approximately half muscle,half fat
On keto you lose approximately 95% fat,5% muscle
He claimed he can't find 23x fructose consumption increase
I found the source in 10 seconds
people are taking table sugar and eating it! I know from first hand experience have been regrettably married to a woman that this just that! Personally, I consider myself a carb addict and suffer tremendous withdrawal when I stop using sugar and eating process carbs, i.e. flour, corn meal etc. Even after detoxing from such, I still can smell sugar, corn products, except fresh corn, and I can not be around them without finally giving in to cosumming them, then the sugar spikes ets. I find it hard to believe that someone who most likely is not either type1 or 2 diabetic can even come close to understanding the addiction process in its entirety.
This is great Layne! Thankyoufor your hard work ❤
if you looking for a comfort blanket about eating industrial food ingredients and regime narratives Layne's channel is a good place
Why doesn’t Layne address that he has called out by Nick Norowitz for making false claims
I first saw your discussion with A. Huberman, liked it and that sent me here. Before commenting, I'd like to say I'm an MD and Clinical Pharmacologist, so most of the things Clinical Trial related spark my interest. I am also doing mountain bike touring and I have recently started to dwelve into the sports nutrition thing more closely (as this isn't approached in the medical school).
Dr. Lustig's videoclips were among the first I saw on YT when starting to look for new nutrition info. Those led me to many others. It resonated with my initial desire to lose some belly fat and reduce my waist to under 1/2 of my height (I was 179 cm, 79 kg and 96 cm on waist in August 2023, now dropped to 69 kg and 86 cm waist, by reducing caloric intake from 2200 to 1800 kcal daily, with carbs representing max 30%). It worked, now I am just maintaining it (as a lifelong purpose), continuing to keep carbs calories under 30% (many days under 25%, because protein and fat keep me full).
Now coming back to your comments on Dr. Lustig claims: - the statin RCTs outcomes.
I found 3 large meta-analyses of statin RCTs (vs placebo or active control) - the first and oldest, to which I think he was referring to, is: Kristensen ML, et al. BMJ Open 2015 - The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement - indeed, the author's concludion was that median postponement of death in the 11 RCTs for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively.
The second is: Hansen et al - J Gen Intern Med - Society of General Internal Medicine (Denmark) 2019 - Postponement of Death by Statin Use: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
They included 16 RCTs of at least 1000 patients, in which a statin intervention (any type) was compared with placebo using a predefined primary or secondary
outcome of death by any cause and having a minimumtrial follow-up of 2 years. Their analysis revealed a survival gain of 12.6 days within the trial duration (up to 7 years).
The third is: Hansen et al (same as second) - Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021 - Postponement of cardiovascular outcomes by statin use: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
They included 19 trials with at least 1000 patients each. For four major outcomes,the summary outcome postponement in days was as follows: cardiovascular mortality,
9.27 days; non-vascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 1.5 days; any myocardial infarction 18.0 days; and any stroke, 6.1 days. Their conclusion: Statin treatment provided a small, average postponement of cardiovascular outcomes during trial duration.
Now, granted, I am not a statistician and as I understand, they are propsosing a new method of evaluating postponement of outcomes. Also there is a limiting by calculating the outcome postponement only as long as the trial takes place (7 years was the longest) and making a lifelong extrapolation isn't easy.
The point is - do statins tend to be overprescribed? And aren't there patients (especially in primary prevention) that would benefit from a change in lifestyle, as long as they are committed to adhere to it permanently?
Regarding the "war on the calorie" - I don't agree with him that the calorie should be eliminated, after all it is an useful tool and a numeric parameter we base our research on, amongst other. Maybe not many people are able to count their calories on a day by day basis (except data nerds, which I hope I qualify for). But in starting to understand they are overeating, the calorie count, if well explained by their healthcare provider, is a starting point.
Did you really try to argue, that sugar is not addictive? For real? I need to try one sweet and i cannot stop until the box is empty.
You are one of those „cigaretes dont cause cancer“ type of guys in the 50s, dont you?
Sugar independent of other caloric nutrients is not addictive. If it was people would be drinking pure sugar. The most addictive sugary foods are those that are just as high in, if not higher, in fat.o
@@croissantsaregreat856 Its not about glucose. Its about fructose. Fructose is addictive and damaging to your liver. Sugar is 50% fructose
@@croissantsaregreat856 How much fat is in a can of soda?
@@nikitafomin795 Most foods! C'mon, people point fingers at chocolate and whine about how it's 'high sugar', as if it doesn't have like two times more fat in terms of calories.
@@nikitafomin795 I just think it's silly to whine about sugar addiction when other addatives and food proccesings play just as big of a role. But no one ever talks about 'fat addiction'.
Also soda still has addatives added to it to make it far more palitable than eating pure fructose.
57 minutes I will never back
Dear Layne
Who paid, wich industry paid to you to defend fructose and sugar consumption? Could it be pepsi or coke?
Why not just set up a debate with these guys instead of sitting in your command center, picking apart their arguments when they can't offer a rebuttal?
I was surprised when Andrew referenced him in a previous episode but really surprised when he actually invited him knowing that Robert did not change much on what he was saying years ago.
Been really looking forward to this. Actually I'm baffled that no one before has debunked some of the ridiculous claims of Dr. Lustig. It's not just this appearance on the huberman podcast, there are tons of videos and articles where Lustig spreads misinformation. Great work again, Layne ❤
I watched 5 videos and he speaks like a parrot all same stories… sad but true
Yeah the only think I really agree with him on is that lots of unrefined sugar is bad for your liver. Both excess refined sugar, and excess alcohol can cause similar medical issues so I don't think it's a horrible comparison.
He takes it too far though.
I like Huberman, but he needs to vet his guests more diligently.
People fallaciously assume that a neuroscientist from Stanford could never bring on a fraud, but that’s exactly what happened.
Keep your eyes peeled. Always be skeptical online. Most people aren’t actually equipped to interpret research (sorry Dr. Berg).
Huberman just suggested using a sauna and ice bath as suitable replacements for the flu vaccine. With a sum total of... 0 peer reviewed studies to back up that wild claim. Suffice to say, Huberman is losing credibility fast and is doing a disservice to his profession.
Yeah this is annoying me too. I watched a little of the channel "a diary of a ceo" and then his guests started showing showing up here for their bullshit. And I was like..If they havent been vetted properly..what about the rest? And stopped watching.
Stanford could never have a fraud as a president either...oh wait.
He needs to vet himself more diligently too.
I've said for a long time "I like Huberman, I think he's probably a great guy, BUT..." and now I'm to the point that I just don't think he's a good person anymore. He wants to be THE AUTHORITY on everything, and, apparently, will do almost anything to be seen as such. He wants notoriety more than he wants to do the right thing, and I just can't stomach that anymore.
if sugar causes inflammation when you overconsume it, is anything above the 36 grams recommended = overconsumption?
This is gold. I wish Andrew would put a link to this video in the podcast description
Hey Layne, appreciate all your content! Just dropping this for the algorithm, this was a ridiculous amount of work for this video and you're doing a great thing. The amount of times I see people I know getting sucked into content like this with some guy on a podcast or interview is insane.
100% agree. Well done Layne.
Lustig isn't some guy on a podcast lol.
It's scary how someone can be so wrong, yet be so confident. Most people don't know how to interpret the science... So thank you Layne, for clarifying all of the lies this guy told.
Dunning Kruger effect unfortunately the less you know the more confident you are
@@kenny1138 Ha, this was my first thought as well after reading 'wrong' and 'confident' in one sentence.
Both are biased 😅. It just shows that you can design a study to support ANY claim. Eat intuitively and only real food cooked from scratch! Check your blood markers for signs of inflammation twice yearly and adjust your nutrition. It is that simple.
@@juliazubko1589 The problem is when your intuition sucks...
@@juliazubko1589 'intuitively', I also hear that from fat people
Thank you! I appreciate your enormous effort.
Sugar is not addictive?? Please!! Not sure if you have kids, if you do you would of caught them trying to climb walls to get to the sugar.
That's called anecdotal and worthless compared to human studies
kids would do the same for some nice cold cuts or cheese or literally any tasty foods in this world. People succumbing to their desires of wanting to eat tasty things is really far from a proper proof that sugar is particularly addictive.
Layne explained well that this would be DEPENDENCE, not addiction. There's a difference
Big food and big pharma are real. These naysayers know better and remind me of particular political figures denying facts that are right in front of their eyes!
@@slavbarbie There is no difference. Get real
Thank you. I couldn't get more than 30 minutes into the interview before I had so many studies pulled up and was ready to make a book of a comment. I kept thinking I wished you were there, Layne, to put things in their proper context. Thank you so so much for doing just that!
Layne, im only 12:30 into the video but you mention there’s no evidence corroborating the claim that fiber inhibits fructose absorption. Maybe on an area under the curve basis that is true, but I interpreted the claim in the past as “fiber lowers glycemic index” rather than “fiber makes you poop out sucrose”. What is the status of the claim “fiber lowers glycemic index” (regardless of whether glycemic index matters, which is a different question)
Another follow up, regardless of whether the mechanism is correct, i’ve heard repeatedly that things like beer, meat, and fruit can all be chronic triggers for gout. How does fructose increase uric acid, if it does?
I'm not sure where the inhibition claim comes from, but yeah the lowering of GI is the critical factor that separates sodas with added fructose from fruits. Layne emphasizes that the fructose amounts are similar and the molecule is identical, but the absorption rate matters A LOT and that's why sodas are terrible - it will trigger a high spike of insulin versus a gradual curve from fruit, an obvious home run in the anti-sugar camp that I feel like didn't have to be challenged.
@@haydenmackenzie918and if you understood what lustig is saying he’s saying that is why fruit is good too even at the same fructose amount it makes it further down the gut before absorption, it’s just semantics, so it does inhibit the absorption, just further up. This guy seems to just not like lustig and I wonder why, he must be trying to sell something. And I think I know what it is he wants fat people to buy his shit and pay him to help them get into shape
As a first timer to the channel, I tried giving a nutritionist a chance to speak on topic he shouldn't be qualified for. I'm only into the first 12min of the video as I write this:
7:25 It's not just appetite and energy expenditure (limit of a simple-minded nutritionist's ontology). it's the whole cascade of complicated down metabolic effects, one of which Lustig is touching on.
9:25 Hugs and skin contacts are not suspected to cause metabolic issues.
9:43 Right, no evidence for sugar "addiction" in humans according to DSM criteria (what papers are referring to) therefore absolutely safe. Anything that's doesn't fit the strict definition of this addiction must be completely safe right?
12:00 Again, simple-minded approach of a nutritionist: "fructose is fructose". it's not about the fructose molecule per se, although Lustig does use the word for rhetorical convenience. His message is once again clear: it's the metabolic and systemic effects the way in the longer run.
12:32 Study is saying fructose containing fruit is better than SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages). Either the doofus didn't even bother to read the conclusion of the study he cites, or is a dishonest piece of shite who likes to deliberately takes things out of context to support his simple-minded worldview.
So that's more than enough strikes for me at 12th minute. I'm out.
It seems that in the calorie debate the tribalism is so strong, that no one is capable to form a consensual argument. I get what the two sides are claiming, but they are doing it in a way that the both sound right and wrong at the same time.
All the dietary shit is like that. Vegans, gym bros, keto freaks, paleo cavemen. There is so much ideology its hard for a mere mortal to grt something out of it
Sweet, I am so glad I can lose weight on high carb/ low fat diet. I'm sure I will be fine on my Red Bull and chicken breast diet. So glad there no difference in calories. It's just like how there is no difference in people.
00:00 Intro
00:17 Layne’s Bias
03:05 Difference between mechanisms and outcomes
06:21 Debunking Myth No.1: Explaining what is a calorie and why people gain body fat
08:59 Debunking Myth No.2: Explaining that sugar is not addictive, and showing its correlation with mortality
12:50 Debunking Myth No.3: Layne is explaining that claiming caloric restriction doesn't lead to weight loss has been proven wrong multiple times.
14:17 Debunking Myth No.4: Layne is explaining why the statement that “Glucose rise tends to Endothelial dysfunction“ is not true
16:27 Debunking Myth No.5: Dr. Joseph Zundell Responding to Lustig's claims about cancer.
25:13 Debunking Myth No.6: Many enzymatic reactions in the body require ATP hydrolysis
26:34 Debunking Myth No.7: Layne showing that Consuming fructose does not increase intestinal de novo lipogenesis
27:41 Debunking Myth No.8: Layne shows that when you do not overconsume fructose it doesn’t increase inflammation.
28:56 Debunking Myth No.9: Layne shows the relationship between sugar consumption, obesity, and insulin insensitivity
30:08 Debunking Myth No.10: Dr. Joseph Zundell Responding to Lustig's claims about cancer.
33:24 Debunking Myth No.11: Layne shows HUMAN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS showing how calories are what matter the most when it comes to fat loss.
35:38 Debunking Myth No.12: Layne flexing his knowledge of protein metabolism.
40:38 Debunking Myth No.13: Layne is explaining the difference between small and large LDL particles and how LDL is associated with increased mortality
43:12 Debunking Myth No.14: Layne clarifies the relation between cortisol and visceral fat
45:01 Debunking Myth No.15: Layne clarifies the different effects of Saturated fats and fructose on Liver fat.
48:56 Debunking Myth No.16: Layne shows that intermittent fasting is not superior to a normal energy deficit where calories are equated
49:29 Debunking Myth No.17: Layne clarifies that Non-nutritive sweeteners have no effect on insulin or glycemia
54:14 Outro
A big fan of you Layne!!, thanks a lot
Thank you for putting this summary with timestamps! I wish all videos had this.
Hey Fan-boy, where does "Lame Norton" address the FACT that Alzheimers is now recognized as Type 3 DIABETES? "Flex" that or STFU.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246646/
And still you can become diabetic eating in maintance or even light deficit...
Citation?
@@biolayne1 You've never met a skinny diabetic? You're seriously gonna try to pull "anecdote" deflection on something so obvious?
Thanks once again Layne for this amazing work!
12:15: he can find no evidence that fiber inhibits absorption of fructose. Bro, the benefits of fiber are well known. It inhibits absorption in general, evidence of this abounds, it’s commonly accepted wisdom. If you can’t find evidence you clearly aren’t looking.
Then can you cite some? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm asking you to cite some.
Resistant starch: the effect on postprandial glycemia, hormonal response, an satiety
A Raben et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Oct.
This is so bizarre, this is one of those taken for granted things in nutrition that was figured out a long time ago...this is in textbooks!
@@carlag147 Thanks for this, I'll have a look!
Great work, Layne.
You put out great content too, Nick! There are very few science educators I trust in these spaces now, but you are definitely one of them. Thanks for your efforts, too.
Thanks :)
Layne you are one of my favorite people in the nutrition and exercise science space. I respect you immensely. That being said please fix your audio it's really hard to listen to these otherwise excellent videos. Your audio is clipping so you need to turn down your microphone again. You have a bad echo so you need a noise gate, and if that doesn't work you may need a few foam panels in your room. I don't know if you're using a pop filter but your p's and s's are quite harsh. If after turning down your input gain you find your peaks and valleys are too much you need to add compression. I really want to send these videos to friends but they find it difficult to make it very far in these videos because of the audio.
My sugar addiction has gotten the best of me for over 2 decades and caused me a host of liver issues and insomnia. I crave carbs like mad if I eat them and will eat myself sick....The carb free diet is working wonders for me as I am now ripped, sleeping better than ever and have finally kicked my dependance on sugar. I must be built different than the studies show...
Where were you getting your "sugar"? Were you getting them from fruits, vegetables, wholegrains and legumes? Or were you eating sweets, pastries, cakes, refined foods etc?
@@TheStruggler101 who cares where the sugar comes from. according to Lustig 25 grams of fructose from high fructose corn syrup is the same as 25 grams of (insert whatever fruit here). I don’t agree with that logic by the way.
@@JJ305JJthis is not what Lustig said at all, idk if you’ve even listened to the podcast. He says fruit is amazing and you should eat it. Even though it also contains sugar per se, due to its fibre content, the sugar in fruits acts differently in our body than the sugar in other foods (e. g. sweets). Therefore eating fruits or generally food that contains sugar in combination with enough fiber is perfectly healthy. In the last few minutes of the podcast Lustig is directly asked if fruit is good and he agrees.
I would pay no heed to any studies that lane spouts about.youd be doing yourself a huge favour !
You have to distinguish calories ingested and absorbed, know the difference between glycemic index and glycemic load. If you consume 100g of rice right after cooking, you will absorb 100%. If you leave the rice in the fridge for 2 hours before eating, you will absorb far less than the same 100g ration as the rice will turn into resistant starch, which is harder to digest and a good portion won't be absorbed essentially functioning as fibre.
Oooh I'd been hoping you would make this video Layne!! I can't believe you actually did. Going to be watching this with great attention. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
I figured it would be too time intensive and it wouldn't happen but you still did it for us! Much appreciated
Same!! I knew Layne would have something to say about those outrageous claims.
Thank you for making these videos! Appreciate the work you put in
Well done sir, you are a true gentleman and a scholar.
I admire your determination to appraise claims and truly appreciate your work. Thank you and I hope you will continue this endeavour!
Thanks for this Layne. I haven’t listened to the entirety of the huberman lab episode so this has been something interesting to listen to before going back to the HL episode.
Layne I really appreciate you making this video. Even though I originally found you from the Huberman Lab Podcast I wish you could do this for all his videos. I know that's not realistic, but so many people find podcasts like Huberman's and never cross reference or critical think about his guests (the most extreme version of this is Joe Rogan's podcast). I really hope that you know you are making a difference with this kind of content, and I'll forever ride with you dawg!
This review has been brought to you by the food industry....
You actually compared fructose to hugs? Seriously…
I can tell that you must’ve either peer-reviewed or even wrote systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses because in video form you’ve done a great deal of critical analysis that reminds me of SR articles that tear papers into pieces before extracting any information from them. Awesome stuff! Hope you can make more of these videos especially like this one in your field of expertise. Cheers!
I was so hoping you were going to present a video about this podcast . So good, Thank you Layne!
How is Layne funded? Just curious if any funding comes from commercial sources.
Selling seminars and unproven uncertified health products.
@@1Esteband damn what's he selling, do tell do tell. Didn't know about this.
He sells whey-based supplements - quite well known carcinogen :) on his products online you cannot see any type of ingredients list. So maybe high corn fructose syrup is there (I bet! Cheap to make!).
Anyway Layne’s comments about statins are a huge mistake.
@@krzysztofjezierski4101 quite well known even. Please do not hesitate to cite your sources!
He’s funded by big Pop Tart.
Absolutely love this type of educational video, super informative and eye opening. Thank you Dr. Layne, much appreciated and I’m looking forward for more of your videos to come 🙏❤️
What if the outcome you care about is overall health and longevity (not weight loss)? Is high or low insulin still irrelevant?
1 hour episode 😍
Hey Layne,
Thank you so much for making this video and taking the 20+ hours to do so. Much appreciated!
I also appreciate the less anger approach in this reaction. I have some low carb friends who believe in similar fallacies as Lustig, and I do believe this manner is less likely to trigger defensiveness and lead to a more productive conversation
Thanks again!
I’m really, really grateful for your channel. You’ve reduced a ton of food anxiety for me, increased my ability to decipher good from poor research. I also hope to go into medicine, so indirectly, you’ve influenced the health of future potential patients as well
Take care!
Not all of the counterarguments against Dr. Lustig's statements add up, though. The discussion of fructose amounts in an apple vs soda have Layne describe them as similar amounts, and harps on about how the fructose molecule is identical. Well obviously. Layne's ascribing this as Lustig's way to make "fruit look bad" when really the effects of fructose are mitigated precisely because its bundled with fibre. Layne admits its easier to drink that fructose than eat it, but Layne had ignored that the net effect of fibre is lowering the Glycemic Index of fruit, meaning the absorption of fructose from fruit is significantly slower and so is not as strong of a metabolic insult.
Now, if you had a soda with added fructose, that's gonna be absorbed very quickly and be devastating to insulin levels - that's exactly why he points out the dangers of sodas as a whole, because it will always cause a sharp increase in blood glucose.
Saying the molecule is identical as a "gotcha" or the levels are comparable don't play out when given the proper context.
I made this fake account to see the reaction and here you are sheeple.
Amazing rebuttal! Thank you for all of your hard work. This guy is someone the masses would love to listen to.
Thank you for your work! But why would you put hidden sugar in aliments if it is not addictive ?
58 minutes?? Guess I'll settle in for this one. 👌🏾
Yayyyyy!!! I'm so glad you did this. 😁 I clicked so fast.
Appreciate the breakdown, these are some pretty substantial rebuttal/dismissal claims. At this point it becomes experts vs experts, science vs science, claims vs claims, and honestly entrenched beliefs vs entrenched beliefs. You know you have them Layne. Before I personally decide which side to lean toward, I would love to see/hear Lustig specifically, but Huberman also, have the opportunity to respond directly to this video.
true, i also caught some inconsistency in some of his claims
He didn’t debunk shit. Ask yourself if a calorie (source) is a calorie source in terms of toxicity. Are trans fat and ethanol EQUALLY benign/ beneficial as whey?
I frigging love you. Keep me sane in the mad confusing nutrition world. This was a real treat. I watch you like others binge watch a Netflix show.
Damn he roped me in - bought his book last year but the more he talked my gut told me something wasn’t right. Especially with artificial sweeteners. Thank you Layne x100 for sharing this with us today.
Heart emoji times 3, crying laughing emoji times 3
You bought yourself some expensive toilet paper😐
Yeah I got roped in by his confidence briefly also. When he said in a talk that the whole medical establishment was against him I cued in though.
If you found the secret to some horrible disease was literally just a single item, yes whatever lobby will come after you. If doctors were already decrying that thing, they wouldn't cancel you over it.
Like if we found out alcohol also literally rots your toes off, Dr's aren't going to tell everyone that you're a crackpot for saying alcohol is bad. He literally thinks that the reason his colleagues don't like him is because he said sugar is bad.
Artificial sweeteners trigger an insulin response from the brain sensing sweetness on the tongue. It's pretty easy to look up. Dr. Lustig is changing the food industry for the better. Layne Norton is picking on the wrong guy...just like he's had to save face with Thomas DeLauer. He's a punk.
@@the_notorious_bas Not as expensive as Norton's Ph.D. certificate.
"Calories in, Calories out" is Thermodynamics 1st law, no one has a magical body that doesn't obey Thermodynamics 1st law (except for the people that have nuclear reactions within their bodies, gods amongst men). So saying energy balance is not a real thing, is very, very, very... stupid. Of course a lot things affect energy in and energy out, but that is the basic equation that determines our body's mass change.
fwiw isnt the percentage risk reduction Layne talks about at 40:55 relative risk as opposed to absolute risk?
Your hard work is really appreciated!
Gary Brecka also dropped some ridiculous claims about PFEP mats and grounding changing pH of body and hydrogen water on Joe Rogan that deserve debunking.
Thank you for taking time out your day to make such a incredible video. With education as your starship, Layne. I wish you could appreciate how much good you make in this world
Can we get some citations that show beneficial effects on outcomes from phytonutrients?
You aren't capable of it or something: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9102588/
I think sugar is addictive
Not just sugar , I agree
Dr Robert lustig makes sense
Insulin resistance is a thing
Brought on by glucose
Carbs and over eating,
My body has changed with his advise and others, Keto
Low carb for sure
My inflammation has gone
I have lowered my calories maybe, but no grains rice and potatoes and bread, have got my blood glucose under control , perfect blood pressure, No medication statin therapy, only good health
I watched every second of this video with a smile on my face. Holding people accountable is so important with what the internet has done to promote sensationalism. I appreciate your effort more than i can articulate. Also you have very cool friends. Thanks for being such pillar for science.
Derek
Your time and effort in making this type of content is very much appreciated, Layne. I'm certainly learning a lot.
I have cancer and getting rid of sugar and fructose has helped considerably. I also exercise regularly after I eat to get glucose out of the blood and into the muscles, rather than feeding the cancer. In my humble opinion actually practicing what he was saying seems to have had positive results in my life. Do you think fructose is good for you? Do you think he was wrong about processed food? It seems to me the only part of the conversation you had any interest in was what was of interest to you. This makes sense and I think all of us do the same thing. I'm not so sure I would be judging Doctor Lustig or debunking his claims. Rather I would be stating that I disagreed with some of his claims and stating my reasons for disagreeing. He has published over a hundred papers on the subject he was talking about. Also, Doctor Rick Johnson has published over a hundred papers on the subject of fructose, sugar etc. Also Dr. Thomas Seyfried has published over a hundred papers on the effect of sugar on cancer. So, are we going to discredit these peer reviewed papers based on one thing he said, and you disagreed with? You may be right, in fact,
I am sure you have researched and found studies that agree with you on what seems to be a technical issue. Just out of curiosity, how many papers have you published?
I don't think I agree with anyone on everything. However, I think the point Dr. Lustig was trying to make is processed food and all this added fructose is bad for you. In your opinion is he right or wrong? I am sure there are a lot of technical issues that various scientists will disagree on. Who knows which scientist is right, or which one is wrong, obliviously studies themselves do not always show the same outcome. Things science once believed are now rejected. I think what Doctor Lustig was getting at is that processed foods, added sugar, fructose etc. are causing metabolic diseases. Do you think this is true or false. It's okay if you think it's false. It's okay if you think it's true. That's seems to me was what the podcast was about. Is his assumption about metabolic disease right or wrong? The particulars can be up for debate, and have you taking this up with him, who knows maybe he would stand corrected. Or maybe he would have an opinion on the study you are referring too. At the same time, I thank you for giving us a different set of facts to look at. We shouldn't take anything anyone says at face value. We should also take in the fact that we are all different and what works for one person may not work for someone else. After all studies are done on the normal or average human being. So yes, I am defending Doctor Lustig, but one hundred percent for sure I am also defending you and thanking you for showing us other facts and evidence. I would love to hear a reply from Dr. Lustig. He does seem like a very intelligent person, and it seems that you are very intelligent as well. Also the way you presented it, or the headline was eye catching and got my attention, and you gained a viewer. So, you did your job correctly. Why don't you invite Doctor Lustig on your podcast and see how it goes. Might be interesting. Hey, you are giving us all some great facts and some interesting thoughts. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much Dr Norton! Really appreciate your work on this topic.
Thank you so much for this detailed analysis, Layne. I (and it seems like many others) would love to see more long-form content like this from you, if you're willing!
Mutual fund analogy is a daily affirmation for this dude
Didn't even know who you were before this podcast, Layne, but you have a new fan! Go you!
What from Andrew Huberman's alcohol podcast did you call him out on on Twitter?
I have to add after decades in healthcare, if you are metabolically unhealthy you can calorie restrict drastically and not lose a pound. I’ve watched it. Try one bowl or half bowl of cheerios and a cup of milk once a day over weeks and the person loses zip. I would be a skeleton but I’m metabolically healthy for the most part.
Fat people don’t always over eat. Yes if they exercise and improve their metabolic health the pounds will drop but simple calorie restriction won’t do it
This has also been my experience.
Actually, not only was my experience the same, but I didn't start to lose weight until I followed Lustig's recommendations.
@@Michael-vc2cs there is no blanket for everyone
I grew up not eating sugar and refined foods etc and everyone that lived that was was amazingly healthy
I grew up SDA and they are known for longevity because of their lifestyle, so while I don’t doggedly trust or follow a time I know much of what lustig says is factual and a part of functional medicine now just not big food and big pharma
crazy take not backed by science
@@faith.W There is a real life example of this. So the fact is people can have conditions which cause their body to reduce their calorie burn to extremely low levels. While this is rare, it illustrates the power of the hormones with respect to basal metabolic rate.
Now while that's a subset of the data, you can't claim it's not backed by science. My whole problem with Layne, Physionic, and others is they dismiss these real world observations as unscientific while citing studies which, if randomized and controlled, are still too short in duration to be informative with respect to long term outcomes. Long term studies often use food surveys. That's not science at all IMO.
If by science you mean it's not fully researched in a controlled experiment then I agree. But all scientific research starts with a real world observation and hypothesis, followed by a controlled experiment, documented according to the carefully selected parameters, and hopefully you've accounted for the proper parameters because otherwise all that work was in vain anyway. Once you have your conclusion you can make another observation but don't assume you will get the full picture from one experiment.
To my knowledge there has only been one study, which I've read, on basal metabolic rate back in the 1930s I believe. Everything has changed since then from the ubiquitous use of plastics all the way to the elimination of saturated fat from our diets and even the addition of added sugar to our foods. Many conclusions have been made based on one study under one set of parameters. To my knowledge, there has never been another metabolic rate study for each medical condition which could confound the previous basal metabolic research.
Did you control every little morsel the patients ate or drank every day over a period of a couple of months? And in addition control every movement before and after the food reduction? If not it is only anecdotal evidence.
Joseph speaking really demonstrates Layne’s superpower: his ability to take insanely complex information and make it palatable for the average person.
Keep fighting the good fight Layne!
Data > Feelings
Dude it’s so challenging lol.
Dr. Joseph you did an amazing job, it wasn’t meant to be negative at all towards you. I hope you didn’t take it that way. Thank you so much for working to stop the spread of misinformation and for giving the average person and those in the fitness industry the tools that they need to combat these lies.
I disagree for me. My trigs went up over 350 on a WFPB regimen. I had completely cut out table sugar, sweeteners, process food. I was eating potato, peas, banana, apple, dark leafy greens, walnut dressing. I didn’t gain any weight at all but I got a cavity, and I had not had one for over 20 years. Never again.
This is why we need discourse and debate. Thanks for all the work to highlight spurious claims that SEEM so compelling from a charismatic "expert". It is dangerous to espouse false imfo to the public. A dash of humility would go a long way with Dr. Lustig's work.
Okay, but I found issues with the counterarguments as well.. we'd need counter-fact checking to be sure the criticism is valid.
Best idea is to see what the consensus is rather than investing too hard in individuals.