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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
@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.
@@albertschulz5575 did you buy 1 kilo of pure sugar and just ate it at home? no? why? doesn't taste so great, does it? So think a bit if you were addicted to sugar or to foods that contained high amounts of sugar.
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).
@@Macgee826 It is clear that Layne puts in way more effort to only spread information that is supported by actual scientific evidence. He doesn't ignore studies that don't support his narrative like Lustig does. Obviously, no one is perfect- Layne may have accidentally shared information that at one point he believed to be true, but has later been disproven or altered with new scientific evidence. But that is because he is just the medium through which people who don't take the time to read or can't understand peer-reviewed research articles get their information on the most current findings. He just takes actual available scientific findings and discusses them. Lustig literally makes shit up.
@@KaylaBrooks4 see to be honest I don't even know who dr lustig is ,iv never watched one of his videos ever. I just know who and what layne is and one day the penny might drop for you too. He talks a good game I ll give him that but at the end of the day that's all it is,a game!!
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 ❤
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.
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?
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.
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.
@@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
Were we listening to the same podcast? I think you missed the point... He is basically trying to explain that excess sugar is toxic for us just as alcohol is, and that we should eat real food instead, how is that bad 😢
Yeah this guy just farming views. Lustig even said: "I am not against dessert but I am against dessert for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks". Also the lack of professionalism when challenging Dr. Robert Lustigs is unacceptable and should not be encouraged in scientific discourse.
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.
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.
This guy is downright dangerous. I know who I listen to, and it's not this nonsense. Proves the old adage that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. 10 minutes of this and I've heard enough already!!!
@@aitbnb Lustig is about metabolic and cellular health. A nutritionist degree would barely get you any background for that. Maybe you should actually go through the points I made in the og comment and you'll understand how intellectually dishonest and/or lazy this troll and/or idiot this is.
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.
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
Yeah I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding there, he probably meant that fiber slows down metabolism and thus the rate at which monosacharides enter the blood
This guy is just trying to get attention and nothing more lol I know lustig can make mistakes, he is not GOD but I am sure he wouldn't make such basic mistakes, also when he attempted to debunk is calorie vs calorie statement and said calorie is a metric of energy and its the same whether it comes from fat or protein or carbs its just laughable lol its not like lustig said that a protein or fat calorie is half of the fructose calorie lol All Lustig wanted to say was that different calories metabolize differently.
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.
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.
@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?
Some people say that the sugar in fruits are “bonded” with fiber and not all of it is absorbed. And the fiber slows absorption reducing insulin spikes. Calories might be the same but how they get into your body makes a difference
Imagine being so arrogant that you are going to argue that sugar isn’t bad for you with an endocrinologist who has specialized in this field and subject 🙄
@@skynyrd1020 one of the problems with nutrition science has been that it’s experts are not experts in endocrinology, when all the latest science is leading toward understanding hormone response to macro nutrients as the absolute key to metabolic health.
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.
@@HolographicThoughtsand 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.
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.
Bro listen to your friends who are on low carb diet, especially the refined carbs. They know more that this Pseudo Dr. Or maybe you'll learn when you go to the medicine school if you got accepted lol
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
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.
Lustig is one of my favorites. He seems correct about uric acid, frutose, alcohol, seritonin-happiness above neck, dopamine-pleasure below neck. I subscribe to lustig/perlmutter's observations
One thing I ALWAYS check when researching: what’s this guy (Layne or Lustig in these cases) trying to sell me? Lustig has a few books but that is IT! No coaching, no supplements, no diet plans. Layne?? He’s trying to sell EVERYTHING! Sorry man, not interested in your “coaching” or content when it’s designed to push your products on people. I’ll stick with the amazing results I’ve gotten by actually following Lustig’s teachings… real food. Yeah, it’s that simple. And, WOW, how people are pushing back on that in your comments section. Great example of Confirmation Bias.
I agree with you, although I do see some value in highlighting the things Dr. Lustig says, regarding the science and data, which may be inaccurate. Nonetheless, I have not yet seen any proof that eating actual food, versus processed food, is bad. And that was the overall point of Dr. Lustig's message on Dr. Huberman's podcast. If the scientists want to fight it out over controlled studies and semantics, have at it. But they should at least acknowledge that Dr. Lustig is advocating for nutrition practices that will benefit your health, not the food manufacturers.
Holy shit. Layne struck yet again lol. I remember about 2 years ago I stated getting into health and fitness and was watching your videos a lot. I knew back then because of your videos that excess calories caused fat gain. When our biology teacher then asked the class what caused fat gain i raised my hand and confidently stated that it was calories. He said that i‘m wrong and that it‘s Insulin. From that day on i vowed to pick apart his claims and debunked several of his statements about milk, animal protein and artificial sweeteners. It ultimately inspired me to do my thesis paper on Ace-K, Cyclamate and Saccharin. A lot of my knowledge over these years has stemmed from you layne, and you also inspired my love for biochemistry which is why i‘ll be studying it at the Swiss federal Institute of technology in Zurich starting 2025. Thank you for all the useful and factual information that you spread on the internet, freely accessible to anyone. The internet needs more people like you Layne.
Explain it then. Defend your point. How does Calories in Calories Out work in the human body? How does it make more sense then insulin which is human biology 101? The CICO model is flawed and falls apart when you actually think about it. I feel sorry for you that you'll end up wasting your money and become a college failure because a nutritionist convinced you that the 1st law of thermodynamics (which applies only to a CLOSED thermodynamic system) applies to an open thermodynamic system. It's not a thing.
There is a talk by Petter Attia on Joe Rogan where this CICO is best explained on UA-cam in my opinion. Arguably everything in our body is driven by hormones, including the flux of fat in and out of our fat cells. Our hormones are the bridge between the environment (different types of energy sources) and our body and, according to our eating patterns, our hormones respond accordingly. Dr. RLustig and Dr. Ric Johnson have been studying fructose for decades and, as a result of their work, it is getting clearer that our body's response to the consumption of fructose is GET FAT and MOVE LESS, because of THE HORMONAL reactions it causes.
@@Ethereum1789 That's a pathetic response. You can't debunk my argument so you resort to that huh? Here's a link showing why Layne Norton and Calories in Calories Out is BS when you really think about it: ua-cam.com/video/MnyPFoL4-Oc/v-deo.htmlsi=1fSrfOPimiWCPwRZ
Dr Lustig is Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). He specializes in the field of neuroendocrinology, with an emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. His research and clinical practice has focused on childhood obesity and diabetes. Dr. Lustig holds a Bachelor’s in Science from MIT, a Doctorate in Medicine from Cornell University. Medical College, and a Master’s of Studies in Law from U.C. Hastings College of the Law. Layne is a professional youtuber and "debunker" who gets paid by the click. Guess who i will take advice from?
Thanks, was looking for a reply like this to see if someone else just got bad vibes from this channel..... I just get a feeling this guy is getting a paycheck from big pharma or coca cola companies lmao.
Layne has PhD and thinks that make him qualified to debunke anything. Layne has a hustru of putting a lot crap on the internet. Though also some good info from time to time. He’s a CICO guy that doesnt think dysregulated hornones and sugar is a problem. Well, welcome to the real world. Let me tell you, for the people I treat, sugar and processed food is a MASSIVE problem. Which causes MASSIVE problems in every f*cking organ system. It’s so funny to see some people reference a shitty metaanalysis of often shitty RCT’s saying xyz doesnt work, when in the real world almost the same interventions work again, and again, and again, and AGAIN making countless people with all different sort of ailments healthy and medication free. I’m an MD btw. Agree on some of the stuff Laynes debunking though and so do achknowledge the work put in.
I disagree with you. I think he’s pretty sharp. I listen to Dr. Lustig a lot also. I’m 74 years old and I am a concerned about these doctors that push keto diets. People not getting enough fiber and raising their LDL is dangerous and unhealthy
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.
@@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.
There are a lot of academics that challenge Huberman and he ignores everyone. Layne you are an outlier, and I have to believe it’s because of your discipline.
As someone who lost his father to cancer that he battled for over 3 years and during that time we, as a family learned a lot about. Lustigs comments completely pissed my entire family off.
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.
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!
Hi Layne. In the Ridley Scott film The Martian, starring Matt Damon, his character, now stranded alone on Mars decides that his only chance of survival is… Quote… “In the face of overwhelming odds I’m left with only one option. I’m gonna have to science the sh*# out of this.” This is exactly what you have done in this clip. While this is primarily a debunking clip, it is also a master class on the inherent dangers of focusing on short-term mechanisms over long-term outcomes. Bravo Best, Martyn
What are Dr. Norton’s credentials? One thing he keeps repeating is, “I found one study that said …” As a doctor, he should know better. Plus, his presentation style seems a bit immature. That doesn’t make him wrong, but it isn’t very persuasive. I’ve been watching subject matter expert videos for 15 years, and this man is missing something.
He literally has a PhD in this. Dr. Lustig is a medical doctor. On paper, both are more than sufficient qualifications to speak on this. The problem is one person speaks in a nuanced manner based on the full body of data (Layne) and one makes bold claims based on cherry picked data.
Wrong Layne. I do not care about the loss body fat as much as I care about the need for excess insulin to metabolize the glucose in insulin resistant individuals.
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.
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!
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 gained weight (20 kg) on a 1000 kcal daily deficit, counting every gram of food and monitoring the loss... I am now at a 2250 kcal daily deficit, and now I lose weight. Either every commercial way we have to measure calorie burn is very much off, or the burn/intake is not 1:1 like a bomb calorometer...
On one side you got Lustig who is a scientist that spent his whole life studying this and has deep expertise, on the other side some social media clown like this guy. I wonder who to believe?
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.
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.
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.
8:50 it seems like he is over reacting to Lustig’s personification of the food industry lack of responsibility for producing nutrient poor foods without responsibility. Sugar and processed foods are horrible for our bodies and anyone to pick someone’s words apart who is trying to fight the food industry’s propaganda doesn’t seem very responsible
Robert lustig is making good points All calories have different effects on organs and health. Video didnt debunk anything and actually helped me appreciate orignal post more
He's making terrible points, I'm sorry. Even just the opening monologue at 6:40 contained a bunch of logical errors, misrepresentations of science and scientists, and logical fallacies.
I completely believe Dr Lustig than someone like you…you are also making vague points and you do not have a lifetime of real experience in relation to these matters. Your message will do more harm to those that might have made changes suggested by Lustig and will keep up their destructive consumption habits. As a reminder, anyone can rebut your arguments here just like you did. I think you have other motivations…admit it.
Did anyone praising this video look at the studies he mentioned? I got bored about half way through, but here's what I got from the studies in the first half. 9 mins An entry in the Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition 2013 "total Fructose consumption has increased by approximately 25% over the course of three decades." 11 mins High Fructose Corn Syrup has the same make up as table sugar. The difference is that the glucose and sucrose are not bonded in HFCS as the are in table sugar, making the HFCS absorb faster. Effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects ( that is a ridiculously long title for a study) "Compared to sucrose, JFC leads to greater fructose systemic exposure and significantly different acute metabolic effects." 12 mins The Relationship Between Major Food Sources of Fructose and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies This study lists different results for all of the different foods. It was a meta-analysis of 64 studies, only 2 of those studies were about cereal. 15:47 mins Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies Did you look at the conflicts of interest on this study? 27 mins The Effect of Fructose Feeding on Intestinal Triacylglycerol Production and De Novo Fatty Acid Synthesis in Humans This study only had 5 people in it! 28 mins Effect of Dietary Sugar Intake on Biomarkers of Subclinical Inflammation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies If you look at the conclusion, you find this gem, "However, the studies included in this review were heterogeneous, and several of the comparisons had only small numbers of studies, providing limited evidence. Consequently, the grading of meta-evidence was low for all comparisons. 29 mins The Dose Makes the Poison: Sugar and Obesity in the US. "On average, the US population still consumes more than 300% of the recommended amount of sugar." So, yes sugar consumption may have dropped, but it's still way too high, which is why obesity keeps rising.
Bro don't bother, they wanna hear that sugar is good for you and junk food is an excellent source of carbs, proteins and fats and that soda are magic potions that will keep you alive for eternity lol nobody is interested in science backed whole natural food, its boring, why would you eat an apple when you can drink an apple flavored soda, why would you eat broccoli, it tastes awful, you can instead eat a large McDonalds for cheaper and it tastes much better and has the same calories as a ton of broccoli lol don't bother bro I am just sick of it
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
Ok, I watched like 10 min of this video, but I feel like it’s worth debunking the debunker 😂 The article Dr. Layne referred to on the sugar addiction study “Sugar addiction: the state of the science” concludes the following: there’s no evidence of sugar being addictive but it does activate the pleasure center in the brain and indeed humans are prone to craving sugar. So if the author of this video wants to be very technical, then yes, in a medical sense we cannot be addicted to sugar (i.e. one will not have the same withdrawal syndrome on sugar like he will have on cocaine). BUT human crave sugar, i.e. for most of us it’s hard to control / restrict ourselves when it comes to sugar (let’s be honest, it’s never just 1 Oreo cookie 😂). And the point of Dr Lustig was exactly this: it’s hard for humans to restrict themselves to sugar consumption when they have unlimited access to it because it has a certain neurological affect on us (pleasure center activation). So, maybe the word “addiction” wasn’t used by DrLustig in a biblical sense, but the point he was making was spot on.
Your debunking sucks, what are you trying to accomplish with that? It's not the same when you eat a candy than a fruit, fruit has fiber etc., of course everything with measure. Counting calories is nonsense. Quality, real food, and moderation is all we need.
If so, half a liter pure fruit juice will give no different calorie uptake, insulin response or metabolic difference than eating 5 apples. I would be it does...
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.
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 am a research scientist and I really appreciate these videos. One mechanism usually can’t explain a complex process. This is usually true across nature. I think it’s fair to give someone like Lustig the ability to voice their opinion for open debate. Huberman is a neuroscientist, but was able to point out some flaws in the argument, though he didn’t explicitly challenge the dude. I guess the problem is that people may just take Lustig’s word for it without the ability to really dive into the literature. Having these videos that present data and evidence to the contrary is a great balance. We should all applaud the time and energy it takes to really break down, find supporting citations, and then compose a video that tells a story like this.
any scientist who watched both videos would understand that Lustig went way beyond "voicing an opinion for open debate" but rather made many claims that are directly contradicted by current research findings. Furthermore, in the case of the Copenhagen study, he egregiously misreported research findings to fit his narrative. your comment misrepresents the degree to which Lustig made scientifically irresponsible and unsupported statements
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!
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
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.
I appreciate you analyzing Lustig's claims. He definitely set off my BS meter and I tuned out after his oxygen contradictions. HOWEVER, your blanket statement that sugar isn't addictive is equally BS. YES, people do chug granulated sugar, esp teenagers - I've seen them using sugar packets as after school currency. I've dealt with carb cravings all my life and the only thing that provided relief is extreme limitation or complete elimination. Frankly, I have no idea how you could justify your claim otherwise.
Way too much ranting and flexing. And criticize science , don't waste time on interpretations of commonly understood stuff. Lustig knows what's a calorie....
Nobody is “defending” sugar. It’s about providing accurate information so people can make informed choices. Excess sugar is very deleterious to health. But if you tell people it’s not the amount but the type, they’ll end up not eating fruit or some nonsense because it has the evil sugar in it.
I am with Dr. Lustig on this one. Yes, he made mistakes and egregious claims especially on cancer, yet the main line of arguments around insulin-carbohydrate model vs. energy balance model are mostly correct. Calories do matter, but the whole picture, where insulin resistance, leptin resistance, mitochondrial health, gut health and systemic inflammation status, is far more important than the over-simplistic calories in calories out -model can ever be. I am studying to be an M.D. in my country where the general knowledge on these subjects is still quite low but ever so growing. I will be showing Dr. Lustig's claims and Dr. Norton's claims to my professors, biochem students and M.D:s in order to get different non-bieased opinions on these subjects. Still, the general shift has already been going to a direction that calories -model should be push to the side and more holistic approaches ought to presented when dealing with obesity, metabolic desease, type 2 diabetes and other chronic illnesses. As a side note, It means absolutely nothing but l cured my fat belly, moderate depression and gut issues with a lifestyle change that is basically almost no sugar, low carb, high fat and high fibre diet and the blood work agrees. I will continue to construct my eating on low insulin based diet without any regard on calories as it would be a waste of time to count them. Still such a good video, l appreciate it and l will look at the studies you discussed. It is vital to try to prove one's own opinions and arguments wrong and I will continue to do so.
Agreed. Most of these rebuttals are mischaracterizations of the argument or nitpicks. Not that misinformation isn't important to point out, it is critical. But this isn't a "debunk" as much as Dr. Norton thinks it is.
I’m sorry but all the evidence suggest it’s all about calories in vs calories out when it comes to weight loss. Layne has been tackling claims such as yours about this low carb diet.
@@aznstride4325Weight loss / maintenance is about calories in versus calories out ultimately. But health is about much more. You can eat 1500 calories a day of Pop-Tarts and be perfectly thin. But you're not going to be perfectly healthy. Metabolic syndrome of varying types occurs in people who have a perfectly fine energy balance. Calories in versus calories out is the start of wisdom. But it's not the end point.
@@pwykersotzweight loss is the biggest lever for health. And it’s hands down calories in calories out. This is the message that most people don’t understand. People will often be misled by various types of diets like low carb thinking that somehow by eating low carb they’ll magically lose weight. In fact; you can do low carb diet and over consume calories and make you gain even more weight. Bottom line is, if people are obese they should cut their calories. They should especially know that cutting their calories is how they will lose weight - you can do low carb on top of that if it makes you feel better. But that’s not the most important thing. Also just look at the outcome studies, as Layne often talks about. Low carb is ultimately not better than other types of diets. You need to get in your macro nutrients, and micro nutrients, and nothing else typically matters (according to data) . You can speculate all you want about mechanisms but if it’s not showing in outcome, then who cares
Thanks so much for this video and all the work that went into it. The episode of the Huberman podcast felt suspiciously “perfect”. No matter the topic or question the guest had a seemingly succinct answer. All of his set up questions for Huberman that weren’t really questions at all, just a chance to try and make himself look good, were really annoying too.
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
I’m on Lustig’s side. I think pharma and big industry food have failed us. Layne needs to step outside of these studies and follow the money of what institutions are putting on all his studies and who benefits. People are fatter and sicker than ever .
BiG pHaRmA I’m thankful for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s the reason we live past 30… they aren’t force feeding anyone. Take some accountability ffs
@@Cheezwizzz ROFLOL🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yeah bro, check it out I'm so upset 🤣🤣🤣🤣. Dude whatever, If you want to follow Lustig, the guy who intentionally misrepresents scientific studies like he did on Andrew Huberman, go for it 🤣
Fantastic point on distinctions between mechanism & outcome. Many folks gloss over this-you not only brought it up but gave us a concise & memorable explanation. Appreciate your content!
You are incorrect. Table sugar also contains a molecule of glucose in addition to the fructose. Fruit contains fructose only. Sorry, but when it comes to metabolism, I believe a Pediatric Endocrinologist with decades of studies and experience under his belt over…you.
Please check out fruits yes it has the mono named fructose, but it also has glucose and it should have a whole bunch of minerals and other phyto nutrients. According to me.. fruits was ment for the "large intestine bacterial" to keep them well and happy. which will make you happy also. But today's fruits is a little different because of mass farming, which mean a fruit 2024 is has little minerals but has the glucose and fructose et al. However, according to me. If we eat this fruit on the most "cleared passage way" aka the empty stomach, it will move to the colon quickly and feed those colon bacteria. These bacteria eats fiber, but are attracted to fiber that is tied up to fructose - aka fruits. Drinking fruits juice aka HFCS or squeezed juices will cause the load of fructose to be absorbed into the Small Intestine and not get to the targeted "Large Intestine" and them those bacteria will start moving up ward, hance we say "SIBO"
Lustig was was one the better nutri scientists at one time, but he seems to have gone off the cliff in recent years. 3 decades + I have been doing this, pathways and mechanisms are a yawn for me: show me where they (humans...) got stronger, leaner, improved performance, or some outcome that we care about, otherwise I don't care.
I was fascinated listening to Dr Lustig. He was very factual and had a great wealth of knowledge. I listened to the whole 3 hours. Most of it was highly beneficial. 1 or 2 things I held as ‘unsure’ but the point is… we take what people say, mix it with our own power of reasoning, and conclude what we think makes sense. What I do not find beneficial is this video scrutinising every word said and picking bones out of every statement made. Every single person on the planet is imperfect. We will all say something that may not be entirely inaccurate. I find videos and channels like this incredibly boring. Making money off the back of others who are genuinely trying to bring value into the world and lives of others to help them whereas this video is just making money off those people by slagging them off. That’s my opinion. Try adding value off your own back and give your own advice rather than giving your advice based on the back of someone else’s.
Thank you Dr. Robert Lustig. I only started seeing your videos a week ago. I think you will be my hero, like for so many others. To PhD Norton: 1) Talk slowly emphasising your points clearly (like Dr. Lustig) so that people can understand you better 2) Do not misinterpret others to get your points across 3) Do not use non-convincing scientific papers to get your points across 4) Try to support your claims with people who will write here how you have improved their lives and made them happier 5) Always get a big picture when assessing someone's scientific contribution. Think what the scientists overall impact is. 6) Get a proper job; annoying a lot of people on UA-cam by overcriticising a great doctor and person does not do any good for you.
Loved this video and all the evidence shown. Love Huberman Lab also but Dr Lustig's episode was a hard watch and I couldn't even get half way through so grateful you've debunked this and hopefully been able to help others on the right track. Misinformation is REAL out there esp with diet and fitness so appreciate your service Layne xoxo
I don’t think it’s fair to throw out Robert Lustigs claims just because he tries to simplify key ideas for the audience. Obviously a calorie is a calorie but Lustig points out how where you get your calories matters. Is this video sponsored by Coca-cola?
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?
Thnx for debunking all of the nonsense. All of your content really helps me as a sportsphysiotherapist and future lifestylecoach to help my clients to the best I can based on evidence. It really is hard sometimes, even for me as a graduate MSc, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Keep doing what you are doing and I'm amazed you haven reached a million subscribers yet...
No matter what your stance is you can find citations to prove or disprove your position. Not all studies are legitimate and many many of the studies have conflicts of interest. The absolute bottom line is ONLY REAL FOOD WITHOUT INGREDIENT LISTS. Side note: Herein, Dr. Norton says sugar isn’t addictive because there are no studies to prove it true. I WHOLEHEART-EDLY COULDN’T DISAGREE MORE. (Not yelling, just emphasizing.) Just stop eating and drinking crap and eat real whole food, that’s it, plain and simple.
I deal with morbidly obese patients (its my job). I have seen everything under the sun as far as people trying to lose weight. The one thing you are failing to consider is that 70% of the country is obese and 5-20% is morbidly obese. These people have severe metabolic issues. They can NOT follow the same advice that I would give to a healthy person trying to stay healthy. It is the same problem that the government has when they try to tell the country how to eat. What you are saying may apply to 30% of Americans but they most likely do not need your help to begin with. Lets take the sleeve gastrectomy for example - these people are NOT eating to many calories. Even with a surgery that limits you to sub-1200 calories, you still see non-responders, weight regain, etc. If it was all about calories, these people would be doing amazing. My take away (no paper to quote because I believe every paper is bought and paid for), if you are healthy and within 20 lbs of you ideal weight or body composition, sure calories matter. If you are over that, you have hormonal/metabolic issues and you have bigger issues than creating a calorie deficit.
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
@@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.
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.
Your explanation of mechanisms vs outcomes is clear. In the example you gave, you presented fat loss as the outcome. Lustig rarely presents (subcutaneous) fat gain/loss as a primary outcome, though. He usually focuses on other consequences.
When I originally listened to the Huberman/Lustig podcast, everything felt off. Everything he said felt like it contradicted everything I knew. Glad Layne came out and put my brain back to normal after being tossed about by Lustig’s nonsense. Thank you kind sir lol
I'm so glad you did this because after mentioning the Copenhagen study, Dr Lustig also referenced the Tey study in Singapore. This study DID say something that supported his assertion. However, the study is (in my humble layman's opinion) quite flawed. It takes individuals given different sweeteners, then measures their insulin and glucose, and says, 'Aha! The under the curve amount is identical between sucrose and non nutrative sweeteners. The problem? If you look at their charts, the sucrose consumers still have heightened levels of insulin and glucose when the ad habitum lunch was started. So naturally the sucrose people had blunted appetites and lower insulin response overall. If they'd brought the insulin and glucose back to baseline before the test, the outcome might have been very different. Also, they obviously had plenty of carbs in the lunch. What happens if you eat low carb, or if you're fasting? I was pulling my hair out over this because I could find no studies that said that NNS caused a rise in insulin, and in fact Dr Lustig pointed this out before he contradicted himself by saying there was an insulin response. Look, I think that Dr. Lustig is a brilliant man, but he's only human.
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
not much merit on what this uneducated guy here says. I see more logic in Dr. Lustigs claims, plus he has actually studied and has long term experience, and is not just a youtuber who creates clickbait.
This is an exemplar of how we should disagree with our peers in a kind but firm way. What a time to live in where the scientific duel can be publicly disseminated, instead of town square or auditorium we get witness it on UA-cam. Chapeau Dr. Layne👏👏👏
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.
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
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.
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.
@@albertschulz5575 did you buy 1 kilo of pure sugar and just ate it at home? no? why? doesn't taste so great, does it? So think a bit if you were addicted to sugar or to foods that contained high amounts of sugar.
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.
Dr Lustig is the reason we don't eat refined sugars, and my family and health are SO much better for it!
Yeah it’s good you guys aren’t over eating, but that doesn’t mean that Robert Lustig isn’t spreading false information!
@@KaylaBrooks4and you think this clown doesn't spread false information?
@@Macgee826 It is clear that Layne puts in way more effort to only spread information that is supported by actual scientific evidence. He doesn't ignore studies that don't support his narrative like Lustig does. Obviously, no one is perfect- Layne may have accidentally shared information that at one point he believed to be true, but has later been disproven or altered with new scientific evidence. But that is because he is just the medium through which people who don't take the time to read or can't understand peer-reviewed research articles get their information on the most current findings. He just takes actual available scientific findings and discusses them. Lustig literally makes shit up.
@@KaylaBrooks4 see to be honest I don't even know who dr lustig is ,iv never watched one of his videos ever.
I just know who and what layne is and one day the penny might drop for you too.
He talks a good game I ll give him that but at the end of the day that's all it is,a game!!
@Macgee826 you sound unhinged
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.
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...
A medical doctor being debunked by a nutrition "doctor" not even a dietitian. Sit down rookie.
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!
@@D84-m2l ua-cam.com/video/oNkDA2F7CjM/v-deo.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.
Were we listening to the same podcast? I think you missed the point... He is basically trying to explain that excess sugar is toxic for us just as alcohol is, and that we should eat real food instead, how is that bad 😢
Yeah this guy just farming views. Lustig even said: "I am not against dessert but I am against dessert for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks".
Also the lack of professionalism when challenging Dr. Robert Lustigs is unacceptable and should not be encouraged in scientific discourse.
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.
Rob Lustig seems far more trustworthy than both Andrew and Layne.
What was Hubermans claim about alcohol that you were referring to in the beginning?
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.
This guy is downright dangerous. I know who I listen to, and it's not this nonsense. Proves the old adage that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. 10 minutes of this and I've heard enough already!!!
A nutricionist is not qualified to talk about nutrition?
@@aitbnb Lustig is about metabolic and cellular health. A nutritionist degree would barely get you any background for that. Maybe you should actually go through the points I made in the og comment and you'll understand how intellectually dishonest and/or lazy this troll and/or idiot this is.
@@aitbnb Its not nutrition he is talking about
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
Yeah I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding there, he probably meant that fiber slows down metabolism and thus the rate at which monosacharides enter the blood
This guy is just trying to get attention and nothing more lol I know lustig can make mistakes, he is not GOD but I am sure he wouldn't make such basic mistakes, also when he attempted to debunk is calorie vs calorie statement and said calorie is a metric of energy and its the same whether it comes from fat or protein or carbs its just laughable lol its not like lustig said that a protein or fat calorie is half of the fructose calorie lol All Lustig wanted to say was that different calories metabolize differently.
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.
You seem to work for the sugar industry,
Because the only possible way someone could have information that goes against your dogma is if they're a shill. Lol.
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.
@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?
Some people say that the sugar in fruits are “bonded” with fiber and not all of it is absorbed. And the fiber slows absorption reducing insulin spikes. Calories might be the same but how they get into your body makes a difference
Imagine being so arrogant that you are going to argue that sugar isn’t bad for you with an endocrinologist who has specialized in this field and subject 🙄
Imagine not understanding that an endocrinologist isn't an expert in nutrition.
@@skynyrd1020 his understanding of the effects of sugar on your hormones is deeper than strictly nutrition
@@skynyrd1020
😂💀🙈
@@skynyrd1020 one of the problems with nutrition science has been that it’s experts are not experts in endocrinology, when all the latest science is leading toward understanding hormone response to macro nutrients as the absolute key to metabolic health.
Imagine not being able to tell the difference between a grifter and a scientist....
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.
@@HolographicThoughtsand 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.
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.
Bro listen to your friends who are on low carb diet, especially the refined carbs. They know more that this Pseudo Dr. Or maybe you'll learn when you go to the medicine school if you got accepted lol
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.
Lustig is one of my favorites. He seems correct about uric acid, frutose, alcohol, seritonin-happiness above neck, dopamine-pleasure below neck. I subscribe to lustig/perlmutter's observations
One thing I ALWAYS check when researching: what’s this guy (Layne or Lustig in these cases) trying to sell me? Lustig has a few books but that is IT! No coaching, no supplements, no diet plans. Layne?? He’s trying to sell EVERYTHING! Sorry man, not interested in your “coaching” or content when it’s designed to push your products on people.
I’ll stick with the amazing results I’ve gotten by actually following Lustig’s teachings… real food. Yeah, it’s that simple. And, WOW, how people are pushing back on that in your comments section. Great example of Confirmation Bias.
Great example of "I got paid to bash Layne Norton questioning Dr. Lustig's ideas" bias in your comment! God you're a dumbass 😂😂😂
None of what Dr. Norton says is wrong.
I agree with you, although I do see some value in highlighting the things Dr. Lustig says, regarding the science and data, which may be inaccurate.
Nonetheless, I have not yet seen any proof that eating actual food, versus processed food, is bad. And that was the overall point of Dr. Lustig's message on Dr. Huberman's podcast. If the scientists want to fight it out over controlled studies and semantics, have at it. But they should at least acknowledge that Dr. Lustig is advocating for nutrition practices that will benefit your health, not the food manufacturers.
The amount of dedication that takes to publish a video like this is remarkable! Great content as always Layne 🙌🏽
Holy shit. Layne struck yet again lol. I remember about 2 years ago I stated getting into health and fitness and was watching your videos a lot. I knew back then because of your videos that excess calories caused fat gain. When our biology teacher then asked the class what caused fat gain i raised my hand and confidently stated that it was calories. He said that i‘m wrong and that it‘s Insulin. From that day on i vowed to pick apart his claims and debunked several of his statements about milk, animal protein and artificial sweeteners. It ultimately inspired me to do my thesis paper on Ace-K, Cyclamate and Saccharin. A lot of my knowledge over these years has stemmed from you layne, and you also inspired my love for biochemistry which is why i‘ll be studying it at the Swiss federal Institute of technology in Zurich starting 2025. Thank you for all the useful and factual information that you spread on the internet, freely accessible to anyone. The internet needs more people like you Layne.
You rock!
Explain it then. Defend your point. How does Calories in Calories Out work in the human body?
How does it make more sense then insulin which is human biology 101?
The CICO model is flawed and falls apart when you actually think about it.
I feel sorry for you that you'll end up wasting your money and become a college failure because a nutritionist convinced you that the 1st law of thermodynamics (which applies only to a CLOSED thermodynamic system) applies to an open thermodynamic system. It's not a thing.
There is a talk by Petter Attia on Joe Rogan where this CICO is best explained on UA-cam in my opinion.
Arguably everything in our body is driven by hormones, including the flux of fat in and out of our fat cells. Our hormones are the bridge between the environment (different types of energy sources) and our body and, according to our eating patterns, our hormones respond accordingly.
Dr. RLustig and Dr. Ric Johnson have been studying fructose for decades and, as a result of their work, it is getting clearer that our body's response to the consumption of fructose is GET FAT and MOVE LESS, because of THE HORMONAL reactions it causes.
@@darkglass3011 Blah Blah Blah anime pfp.
@@Ethereum1789
That's a pathetic response. You can't debunk my argument so you resort to that huh? Here's a link showing why Layne Norton and Calories in Calories Out is BS when you really think about it:
ua-cam.com/video/MnyPFoL4-Oc/v-deo.htmlsi=1fSrfOPimiWCPwRZ
Dr Lustig is Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). He specializes in the field of neuroendocrinology, with an emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. His research and clinical practice has focused on childhood obesity and diabetes. Dr. Lustig holds a Bachelor’s in Science from MIT, a Doctorate in Medicine from Cornell University. Medical College, and a Master’s of Studies in Law from U.C. Hastings College of the Law. Layne is a professional youtuber and "debunker" who gets paid by the click. Guess who i will take advice from?
Thanks, was looking for a reply like this to see if someone else just got bad vibes from this channel.....
I just get a feeling this guy is getting a paycheck from big pharma or coca cola companies lmao.
Layne has PhD and thinks that make him qualified to debunke anything. Layne has a hustru of putting a lot crap on the internet. Though also some good info from time to time.
He’s a CICO guy that doesnt think dysregulated hornones and sugar is a problem. Well, welcome to the real world.
Let me tell you, for the people I treat, sugar and processed food is a MASSIVE problem. Which causes MASSIVE problems in every f*cking organ system.
It’s so funny to see some people reference a shitty metaanalysis of often shitty RCT’s saying xyz doesnt work, when in the real world almost the same interventions work again, and again, and again, and AGAIN making countless people with all different sort of ailments healthy and medication free. I’m an MD btw. Agree on some of the stuff Laynes debunking though and so do achknowledge the work put in.
@@Papkazz laynes PHD is a Paycheck Harnessed Debunk...
I disagree with you. I think he’s pretty sharp. I listen to Dr. Lustig a lot also. I’m 74 years old and I am a concerned about these doctors that push keto diets.
People not getting enough fiber and raising their LDL is dangerous and unhealthy
Ray Peat also disagrees with him maybe pull his titles?
if you are looking for a comfort blanket about eating industrial food ingredients and regime narratives Layne's channel is a good place
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.
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.
Lmao wtf are you saying?@@spicemobileGrenada-dq9fs
There are a lot of academics that challenge Huberman and he ignores everyone. Layne you are an outlier, and I have to believe it’s because of your discipline.
As someone who lost his father to cancer that he battled for over 3 years and during that time we, as a family learned a lot about. Lustigs comments completely pissed my entire family off.
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.
😂😂😂 you just made me laugh, there are no studies suggesting sugar is addictive. Are you kidding???
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!
Hi Layne.
In the Ridley Scott film The Martian, starring Matt Damon, his character, now stranded alone on Mars decides that his only chance of survival is… Quote… “In the face of overwhelming odds I’m left with only one option. I’m gonna have to science the sh*# out of this.”
This is exactly what you have done in this clip. While this is primarily a debunking clip, it is also a master class on the inherent dangers of focusing on short-term mechanisms over long-term outcomes.
Bravo
Best,
Martyn
What are Dr. Norton’s credentials? One thing he keeps repeating is, “I found one study that said …” As a doctor, he should know better.
Plus, his presentation style seems a bit immature. That doesn’t make him wrong, but it isn’t very persuasive.
I’ve been watching subject matter expert videos for 15 years, and this man is missing something.
He literally has a PhD in this. Dr. Lustig is a medical doctor. On paper, both are more than sufficient qualifications to speak on this. The problem is one person speaks in a nuanced manner based on the full body of data (Layne) and one makes bold claims based on cherry picked data.
Wrong Layne. I do not care about the loss body fat as much as I care about the need for excess insulin to metabolize the glucose in insulin resistant individuals.
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!
@nattyfatty6.0 yes it is 😂
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.
The whole concept of food being simplified only to calories and macros is beyond absurd
I gained weight (20 kg) on a 1000 kcal daily deficit, counting every gram of food and monitoring the loss... I am now at a 2250 kcal daily deficit, and now I lose weight. Either every commercial way we have to measure calorie burn is very much off, or the burn/intake is not 1:1 like a bomb calorometer...
Why don’t you challenge him to an actual in-person debate? I bet he would be up to it.
I have multiple times
That’s because he researched you and deemed you irrelevant as do most of us listening to your gibberish.
@@biolayne1Where's the video???
@@biolayne1
Debate Bart Kay. I think your viewership would get a huge boost if you get in contact with him.
On one side you got Lustig who is a scientist that spent his whole life studying this and has deep expertise, on the other side some social media clown like this guy. I wonder who to believe?
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!
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 !
Couldn’t agree more.
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.
8:50 it seems like he is over reacting to Lustig’s personification of the food industry lack of responsibility for producing nutrient poor foods without responsibility. Sugar and processed foods are horrible for our bodies and anyone to pick someone’s words apart who is trying to fight the food industry’s propaganda doesn’t seem very responsible
Robert lustig is making good points
All calories have different effects on organs and health.
Video didnt debunk anything and actually helped me appreciate orignal post more
He's making terrible points, I'm sorry. Even just the opening monologue at 6:40 contained a bunch of logical errors, misrepresentations of science and scientists, and logical fallacies.
I completely believe Dr Lustig than someone like you…you are also making vague points and you do not have a lifetime of real experience in relation to these matters. Your message will do more harm to those that might have made changes suggested by Lustig and will keep up their destructive consumption habits. As a reminder, anyone can rebut your arguments here just like you did. I think you have other motivations…admit it.
Man with all these references this is a masterclass. It's all about overconsumption, and not specific things
Took you 20hrs to script and film. Gonna take me 20 days of rewatch to fully understand all the concepts. Congrats for the job Layne!
I’m on my third watch now 😅
Did anyone praising this video look at the studies he mentioned?
I got bored about half way through, but here's what I got from the studies in the first half.
9 mins
An entry in the Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition 2013
"total Fructose consumption has increased by approximately 25% over the course of three decades."
11 mins
High Fructose Corn Syrup has the same make up as table sugar. The difference is that the glucose and sucrose are not bonded in HFCS as the are in table sugar, making the HFCS absorb faster.
Effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects ( that is a ridiculously long title for a study)
"Compared to sucrose, JFC leads to greater fructose systemic exposure and significantly different acute metabolic effects."
12 mins
The Relationship Between Major Food Sources of Fructose and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies
This study lists different results for all of the different foods. It was a meta-analysis of 64 studies, only 2 of those studies were about cereal.
15:47 mins
Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies
Did you look at the conflicts of interest on this study?
27 mins
The Effect of Fructose Feeding on Intestinal Triacylglycerol Production and De Novo Fatty Acid Synthesis in Humans
This study only had 5 people in it!
28 mins
Effect of Dietary Sugar Intake on Biomarkers of Subclinical Inflammation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies
If you look at the conclusion, you find this gem,
"However, the studies included in this review were heterogeneous, and several of the comparisons had only small numbers of studies, providing limited evidence. Consequently, the grading of meta-evidence was low for all comparisons.
29 mins
The Dose Makes the Poison: Sugar and Obesity in the US.
"On average, the US population still consumes more than 300% of the recommended amount of sugar." So, yes sugar consumption may have dropped, but it's still way too high, which is why obesity keeps rising.
Bro don't bother, they wanna hear that sugar is good for you and junk food is an excellent source of carbs, proteins and fats and that soda are magic potions that will keep you alive for eternity lol nobody is interested in science backed whole natural food, its boring, why would you eat an apple when you can drink an apple flavored soda, why would you eat broccoli, it tastes awful, you can instead eat a large McDonalds for cheaper and it tastes much better and has the same calories as a ton of broccoli lol don't bother bro I am just sick of it
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.
Layne are you ever going to accept Dr Paul Mason offer where he is confident of rebutting a lot of your claims?
Ok, I watched like 10 min of this video, but I feel like it’s worth debunking the debunker 😂
The article Dr. Layne referred to on the sugar addiction study “Sugar addiction: the state of the science” concludes the following: there’s no evidence of sugar being addictive but it does activate the pleasure center in the brain and indeed humans are prone to craving sugar.
So if the author of this video wants to be very technical, then yes, in a medical sense we cannot be addicted to sugar (i.e. one will not have the same withdrawal syndrome on sugar like he will have on cocaine). BUT human crave sugar, i.e. for most of us it’s hard to control / restrict ourselves when it comes to sugar (let’s be honest, it’s never just 1 Oreo cookie 😂).
And the point of Dr Lustig was exactly this: it’s hard for humans to restrict themselves to sugar consumption when they have unlimited access to it because it has a certain neurological affect on us (pleasure center activation).
So, maybe the word “addiction” wasn’t used by DrLustig in a biblical sense, but the point he was making was spot on.
Running is addictive. Looking at puppies is addictive. Watching movies is addictive.
Your debunking sucks, what are you trying to accomplish with that? It's not the same when you eat a candy than a fruit, fruit has fiber etc., of course everything with measure. Counting calories is nonsense. Quality, real food, and moderation is all we need.
Because accurate information is important?
If so, half a liter pure fruit juice will give no different calorie uptake, insulin response or metabolic difference than eating 5 apples. I would be it does...
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.
58 minutes?? Guess I'll settle in for this one. 👌🏾
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!
Thank you! I appreciate your enormous effort.
I am a research scientist and I really appreciate these videos. One mechanism usually can’t explain a complex process. This is usually true across nature. I think it’s fair to give someone like Lustig the ability to voice their opinion for open debate. Huberman is a neuroscientist, but was able to point out some flaws in the argument, though he didn’t explicitly challenge the dude. I guess the problem is that people may just take Lustig’s word for it without the ability to really dive into the literature. Having these videos that present data and evidence to the contrary is a great balance. We should all applaud the time and energy it takes to really break down, find supporting citations, and then compose a video that tells a story like this.
any scientist who watched both videos would understand that Lustig went way beyond "voicing an opinion for open debate" but rather made many claims that are directly contradicted by current research findings. Furthermore, in the case of the Copenhagen study, he egregiously misreported research findings to fit his narrative. your comment misrepresents the degree to which Lustig made scientifically irresponsible and unsupported statements
Yeah after I subscribed to Layne's Carbon app I know he's a sellout. That app is garbage
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!
Didn't even know who you were before this podcast, Layne, but you have a new fan! Go you!
Eating diet high in carbohydrates don’t make you fat excess calories makes you fat
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!
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.
I appreciate you analyzing Lustig's claims. He definitely set off my BS meter and I tuned out after his oxygen contradictions. HOWEVER, your blanket statement that sugar isn't addictive is equally BS. YES, people do chug granulated sugar, esp teenagers - I've seen them using sugar packets as after school currency. I've dealt with carb cravings all my life and the only thing that provided relief is extreme limitation or complete elimination. Frankly, I have no idea how you could justify your claim otherwise.
Agree
Way too much ranting and flexing. And criticize science , don't waste time on interpretations of commonly understood stuff. Lustig knows what's a calorie....
Ha. You can find any study to help you with a counter point. Anyone defending sugar is going to be on the wrong side of history.
Ha
Debunking ROBERT LUSTIG??? What???? How you dare? 😅
Nobody is “defending” sugar. It’s about providing accurate information so people can make informed choices. Excess sugar is very deleterious to health. But if you tell people it’s not the amount but the type, they’ll end up not eating fruit or some nonsense because it has the evil sugar in it.
I am with Dr. Lustig on this one. Yes, he made mistakes and egregious claims especially on cancer, yet the main line of arguments around insulin-carbohydrate model vs. energy balance model are mostly correct. Calories do matter, but the whole picture, where insulin resistance, leptin resistance, mitochondrial health, gut health and systemic inflammation status, is far more important than the over-simplistic calories in calories out -model can ever be. I am studying to be an M.D. in my country where the general knowledge on these subjects is still quite low but ever so growing. I will be showing Dr. Lustig's claims and Dr. Norton's claims to my professors, biochem students and M.D:s in order to get different non-bieased opinions on these subjects. Still, the general shift has already been going to a direction that calories -model should be push to the side and more holistic approaches ought to presented when dealing with obesity, metabolic desease, type 2 diabetes and other chronic illnesses. As a side note, It means absolutely nothing but l cured my fat belly, moderate depression and gut issues with a lifestyle change that is basically almost no sugar, low carb, high fat and high fibre diet and the blood work agrees. I will continue to construct my eating on low insulin based diet without any regard on calories as it would be a waste of time to count them. Still such a good video, l appreciate it and l will look at the studies you discussed. It is vital to try to prove one's own opinions and arguments wrong and I will continue to do so.
Agreed. Most of these rebuttals are mischaracterizations of the argument or nitpicks. Not that misinformation isn't important to point out, it is critical. But this isn't a "debunk" as much as Dr. Norton thinks it is.
I’m sorry but all the evidence suggest it’s all about calories in vs calories out when it comes to weight loss. Layne has been tackling claims such as yours about this low carb diet.
@@aznstride4325Weight loss / maintenance is about calories in versus calories out ultimately. But health is about much more. You can eat 1500 calories a day of Pop-Tarts and be perfectly thin. But you're not going to be perfectly healthy. Metabolic syndrome of varying types occurs in people who have a perfectly fine energy balance. Calories in versus calories out is the start of wisdom. But it's not the end point.
@@pwykersotzweight loss is the biggest lever for health. And it’s hands down calories in calories out. This is the message that most people don’t understand.
People will often be misled by various types of diets like low carb thinking that somehow by eating low carb they’ll magically lose weight. In fact; you can do low carb diet and over consume calories and make you gain even more weight.
Bottom line is, if people are obese they should cut their calories. They should especially know that cutting their calories is how they will lose weight - you can do low carb on top of that if it makes you feel better. But that’s not the most important thing.
Also just look at the outcome studies, as Layne often talks about. Low carb is ultimately not better than other types of diets. You need to get in your macro nutrients, and micro nutrients, and nothing else typically matters (according to data) . You can speculate all you want about mechanisms but if it’s not showing in outcome, then who cares
If I’m 600 pounds, and I lose 300 pounds because all I ate was pop tart, then I guess I’m more healthier compared to before aren’t I?
Thanks so much for this video and all the work that went into it.
The episode of the Huberman podcast felt suspiciously “perfect”. No matter the topic or question the guest had a seemingly succinct answer. All of his set up questions for Huberman that weren’t really questions at all, just a chance to try and make himself look good, were really annoying too.
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
I’m on Lustig’s side. I think pharma and big industry food have failed us. Layne needs to step outside of these studies and follow the money of what institutions are putting on all his studies and who benefits. People are fatter and sicker than ever .
Yeah great idea, let's ignore the science and just jump into wild conjecture 😅😅😅 gullible much?
BiG pHaRmA
I’m thankful for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s the reason we live past 30… they aren’t force feeding anyone. Take some accountability ffs
@@seitanbeatsyourmeat666When you’re too lazy to make lifestyle changes just swallow more pills! Great advice
@@MrG-ed9keThe overall advice is eat good food and exercise, but that upsets you some how, I think it’s too much sugar!
@@Cheezwizzz ROFLOL🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yeah bro, check it out I'm so upset 🤣🤣🤣🤣. Dude whatever, If you want to follow Lustig, the guy who intentionally misrepresents scientific studies like he did on Andrew Huberman, go for it 🤣
Dear Layne
Who paid, wich industry paid to you to defend fructose and sugar consumption? Could it be pepsi or coke?
You're such a loser lmao. You were presented with coherent arguments and all your feeble little brain could come up with was "who paid you"
Fantastic point on distinctions between mechanism & outcome. Many folks gloss over this-you not only brought it up but gave us a concise & memorable explanation. Appreciate your content!
Yes, this is where Nick Horowitz is getting caught up in all the low carb crazy.
Dr Lustig speaks with considerably more authority on this subject than you could ever hope to have.
You are incorrect. Table sugar also contains a molecule of glucose in addition to the fructose. Fruit contains fructose only. Sorry, but when it comes to metabolism, I believe a Pediatric Endocrinologist with decades of studies and experience under his belt over…you.
Fruit contains fructose only 😂 C'mon now... Do you really believe that?
Please check out fruits yes it has the mono named fructose, but it also has glucose and it should have a whole bunch of minerals and other phyto nutrients. According to me.. fruits was ment for the "large intestine bacterial" to keep them well and happy. which will make you happy also.
But today's fruits is a little different because of mass farming, which mean a fruit 2024 is has little minerals but has the glucose and fructose et al.
However, according to me. If we eat this fruit on the most "cleared passage way" aka the empty stomach, it will move to the colon quickly and feed those colon bacteria.
These bacteria eats fiber, but are attracted to fiber that is tied up to fructose - aka fruits.
Drinking fruits juice aka HFCS or squeezed juices will cause the load of fructose to be absorbed into the Small Intestine and not get to the targeted "Large Intestine" and them those bacteria will start moving up ward, hance we say "SIBO"
almost all fruits contain sucrose, glucose, fructose, and sometimes starch
Lustig was was one the better nutri scientists at one time, but he seems to have gone off the cliff in recent years. 3 decades + I have been doing this, pathways and mechanisms are a yawn for me: show me where they (humans...) got stronger, leaner, improved performance, or some outcome that we care about, otherwise I don't care.
I was fascinated listening to Dr Lustig. He was very factual and had a great wealth of knowledge. I listened to the whole 3 hours. Most of it was highly beneficial. 1 or 2 things I held as ‘unsure’ but the point is… we take what people say, mix it with our own power of reasoning, and conclude what we think makes sense. What I do not find beneficial is this video scrutinising every word said and picking bones out of every statement made. Every single person on the planet is imperfect. We will all say something that may not be entirely inaccurate. I find videos and channels like this incredibly boring. Making money off the back of others who are genuinely trying to bring value into the world and lives of others to help them whereas this video is just making money off those people by slagging them off. That’s my opinion. Try adding value off your own back and give your own advice rather than giving your advice based on the back of someone else’s.
1 hour episode 😍
That was a mixture of misquoting, misunderstanding and misrepresenting Lustig’s points. What a waste of time.
Yeah could you clarify some of your “counter-points”?
Specific example please
Hatin' 🤦🏿♂️
Thank you Dr. Robert Lustig. I only started seeing your videos a week ago. I think you will be my hero, like for so many others.
To PhD Norton:
1) Talk slowly emphasising your points clearly (like Dr. Lustig) so that people can understand you better
2) Do not misinterpret others to get your points across
3) Do not use non-convincing scientific papers to get your points across
4) Try to support your claims with people who will write here how you have improved their lives and made them happier
5) Always get a big picture when assessing someone's scientific contribution. Think what the scientists overall impact is.
6) Get a proper job; annoying a lot of people on UA-cam by overcriticising a great doctor and person does not do any good for you.
Yeah he came off completely agitated, not in a manner typically held by doctors or experts in the field.
Loved this video and all the evidence shown. Love Huberman Lab also but Dr Lustig's episode was a hard watch and I couldn't even get half way through so grateful you've debunked this and hopefully been able to help others on the right track. Misinformation is REAL out there esp with diet and fitness so appreciate your service Layne xoxo
I don’t think it’s fair to throw out Robert Lustigs claims just because he tries to simplify key ideas for the audience. Obviously a calorie is a calorie but Lustig points out how where you get your calories matters. Is this video sponsored by Coca-cola?
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?
Thnx for debunking all of the nonsense. All of your content really helps me as a sportsphysiotherapist and future lifestylecoach to help my clients to the best I can based on evidence. It really is hard sometimes, even for me as a graduate MSc, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Keep doing what you are doing and I'm amazed you haven reached a million subscribers yet...
Layne keep up the good work, it makes me hopeful for the world and humanity.
I’m really grateful that you exist❤️
No matter what your stance is you can find citations to prove or disprove your position. Not all studies are legitimate and many many of the studies have conflicts of interest. The absolute bottom line is ONLY REAL FOOD WITHOUT INGREDIENT LISTS.
Side note: Herein, Dr. Norton says sugar isn’t addictive because there are no studies to prove it true. I WHOLEHEART-EDLY COULDN’T DISAGREE MORE. (Not yelling, just emphasizing.)
Just stop eating and drinking crap and eat real whole food, that’s it, plain and simple.
I deal with morbidly obese patients (its my job). I have seen everything under the sun as far as people trying to lose weight. The one thing you are failing to consider is that 70% of the country is obese and 5-20% is morbidly obese. These people have severe metabolic issues. They can NOT follow the same advice that I would give to a healthy person trying to stay healthy. It is the same problem that the government has when they try to tell the country how to eat. What you are saying may apply to 30% of Americans but they most likely do not need your help to begin with. Lets take the sleeve gastrectomy for example - these people are NOT eating to many calories. Even with a surgery that limits you to sub-1200 calories, you still see non-responders, weight regain, etc. If it was all about calories, these people would be doing amazing. My take away (no paper to quote because I believe every paper is bought and paid for), if you are healthy and within 20 lbs of you ideal weight or body composition, sure calories matter. If you are over that, you have hormonal/metabolic issues and you have bigger issues than creating a calorie deficit.
Your time and effort in making this type of content is very much appreciated, Layne. I'm certainly learning a lot.
This Guy rattles like an empty can....
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.
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.
Your explanation of mechanisms vs outcomes is clear. In the example you gave, you presented fat loss as the outcome.
Lustig rarely presents (subcutaneous) fat gain/loss as a primary outcome, though. He usually focuses on other consequences.
When I originally listened to the Huberman/Lustig podcast, everything felt off. Everything he said felt like it contradicted everything I knew. Glad Layne came out and put my brain back to normal after being tossed about by Lustig’s nonsense. Thank you kind sir lol
I'm so glad you did this because after mentioning the Copenhagen study, Dr Lustig also referenced the Tey study in Singapore. This study DID say something that supported his assertion. However, the study is (in my humble layman's opinion) quite flawed. It takes individuals given different sweeteners, then measures their insulin and glucose, and says, 'Aha! The under the curve amount is identical between sucrose and non nutrative sweeteners. The problem? If you look at their charts, the sucrose consumers still have heightened levels of insulin and glucose when the ad habitum lunch was started. So naturally the sucrose people had blunted appetites and lower insulin response overall. If they'd brought the insulin and glucose back to baseline before the test, the outcome might have been very different. Also, they obviously had plenty of carbs in the lunch. What happens if you eat low carb, or if you're fasting? I was pulling my hair out over this because I could find no studies that said that NNS caused a rise in insulin, and in fact Dr Lustig pointed this out before he contradicted himself by saying there was an insulin response. Look, I think that Dr. Lustig is a brilliant man, but he's only human.
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
any other miracles that your precious keto diet did for you? dumbass spam bot
not much merit on what this uneducated guy here says. I see more logic in Dr. Lustigs claims, plus he has actually studied and has long term experience, and is not just a youtuber who creates clickbait.
This is an exemplar of how we should disagree with our peers in a kind but firm way. What a time to live in where the scientific duel can be publicly disseminated, instead of town square or auditorium we get witness it on UA-cam. Chapeau Dr. Layne👏👏👏