Talk:Robert Lustig/Archive 1

whats up with this article?
Why does this article read in such a biased manner? Would someone clean it up please! This is a very serious topic and its impossible to get any clear sense of the research, its implications and impacts. The article appears to be saturated with detailed technical interjection on points that were never introduced or explained.

I would like to see an objective clear description of the research and the potential health ramifications without any confusing interjections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.194.166 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Lack of a Neutral Point of View?
It seems that this article mainly seeks to refute Robert Lustig's conclusions, without presenting any of the evidence that he has shared. While I appreciate being able to see all evidence, including the evidence against his arguments, I don't think that the current Wikipedia article is painting a full picture about the potential issues with Fructose, especially given the chemical reaction argument made by Lustig, and some of the meta-studies he cites. --Jacob J. Walker (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bitter Truth video
In athletes requiring sugar for caloric needs, fructose may actually enhance exercise performance by stimulating nutrient absorption and energy metabolism.[9]

A conclusion alternate to Lustig's is that fructose-related metabolic syndrome is mainly a result of excessive calorie intake, and that fructose should not be singled out because it is the normal natural monosaccharide prevalent in all fruits having a natural sweet taste.[7][10]

These two issues are addressed in the "Bitter Truth" video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.242.42 (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that the statement above (...normal natural monosaccharide prevalent in all fruits having a natural sweet taste.) be amended to include words to the effect that 1) Dr. Lustig indicates that the toxicity is dose-related and that the average amount of fructose consumed daily through non-natural additions to food via processing has increased greatly since before WWII, and 2) The fibre content in natural fruits slows the absorption by the body so that the fructose in the fruit can be processed safely by the liver. (Note that this is a draft conveying the general gist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buboetherat (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit by Oluies on Low-Carbohydrate Diets
This edit concerns overall calorie consumption from carbohydrates, not necessarily the fructose specificity as speculated by Lustig. Following is Oluies' comment and list of references, improperly formatted re: WP:REF. --Zefr (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In support of Lustig's there are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:

Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359(3);229–41. Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and learn Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women. The a to z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969–977. Brehm BJ, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617–1623. Samaha FF, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074–81. Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253–8. Aude YW, et al. The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat. A Randomized Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141–2146. Volek JS, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:13. Yancy WS Jr, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia. A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:769–777. Nichols-Richardsson SM, et al. Perceived Hunger Is Lower and Weight Loss Is Greater in Overweight Premenopausal Women Consuming a Low-Carbohydrate/High- Protein vs High-Carbohydrate/Low-Fat Diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1433–1437. Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents. J Pediatr 2010;157:252-8. Summer SS, et al. Adiponectin Changes in Relation to the Macronutrient Composition of a Weight-Loss Diet. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar 31. [Epub ahead of print] Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86:580–7. Dyson PA, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabet Med. 2007 Dec;24(12):1430-5. Keogh JB, et al. Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with abdominal obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:567–76. Volek JS, et al. Carbohydrate Restriction has a More Favorable Impact on the Metabolic Syndrome than a Low Fat Diet. Lipids 2009;44:297–309. Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2006 Jan;23(1):15–20. Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low- glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Metab (Lond.)2008 Dec 19;5:36.

Bad reference format
Could someone help?

There is some bad reference definition of BJN. Can someone fix it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by פרה (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Zefr (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See Also moved
These older books are non-annotated and questionable if related, as they are scientifically outdated. They also do not have wiki links. Removed from Article and placed here for comment. --Zefr (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Books with similar themes:'''
 * Low Blood Sugar and You, 1969 by Carlton Fredericks
 * Sugar Blues, 1975 by William Dufty

(Some?) Studies that contradict his work seem to be industry funded.
I'm seeing that [8] and [13] are from industry-sponsored folks. (8 would seem to be coke people, 13 more generic). Anyone care to check out the remaining studies?Hobit (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, looked more closely. 6: I'd call it neutral on the matter.  7: Can't find.  8: Coke listed as a COI (among others).  9: Coke listed as a COI (among others).  10: More corp support and seems to be a wash in any case.  11: Can't find.  12: Just a summary of a COI paper. 13: Big time COI.  This isn't looking pretty. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Shitty attempts at debunking
The whole point is that subjects eat MORE when allowed to eat ad libitum if fructose is in their diet. The isocaloric studies say nothing about his claims unless unless you're strawmanning him as contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. Only ad libitum studies are relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.153.79 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article edited by the sugar industry
I came to this page looking to read something informative and impartial about the work of Robert Lustig. Instead I read something that any reasonable person would view as having been edited by lobbyists hired by the sugar industry. In fact, I don't think I've ever read a Wikipedia article that bears such obvious signs of tampering.

This page says virtually nothing about the work of Lustig. It seems to say his chief contribution is a popular YouTube video, and then the remaining 75% of the article refutes information never provided by the article. I see no reason why these portions of the article should not be deleted. What Lustig has done (though it is omitted from the article) is provided a interpretation of the evidence garnered in several studies -- this is what scientists do. Many people regard his interpretation as reasonable.

I will say this. If you were looking for evidence that the sugar industry has it out for Lustig, you need not look beyond this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goateeki (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles like this is often written by so called "sceptics". Their leadership is industry front group lobbyists. Se: http://buggesblogg.blogspot.se/

Sugar synonyms
This subtopic was added today by user AlexOcampo907. It is not encyclopedic content and as a reference is WP:PRIMARY, but can reside here for discussion, if warranted. --Zefr (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In his TedxBermuda talk titled "Sugar -- the elephant in the kitchen". Dr. Lustig states that the public is unaware of how much sugar is added to our food in part because there are 56 different names food companies use for sugar. Dr. Lustig lists the various names as follows:

Controversies
Moreover, in two of his tlaks, Dr. Lustig repeatedly stated that fructose is not metabolised to gylcogen (unlike glucose) in liver, but this is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.165.35 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Lustig's assertion that the food sugar fructose is a "poison" or "toxin" that augments body fat storage — thus representing a (or the) primary cause of the obesity now prevalent in the Western world — is disputed by several researchers."

Whoever wrote that should provide evidence that Lustig asserts that fructose is a primary cause of obesity. Where does he say that? Show me. What he DOES assert is that fructose is a major cause in metabolic dysfunction, NOT obesity. Lustig doesn't care about obesity so much as metabolic dysfunction. And yes, fructose is a chronic dose dependent hepatotoxin (it's converted to saturated fatty acid in the liver), so using the word "toxin" in quotations is interesting. Also, his so-called "assertion" that he never even makes is disputed by several researchers? Show me the several researchers, and show me independent studies that would suggest that. Tedmosby83 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Several studies show that for small doses (less than 10 grams per meal), fructose consumption may actually have a catalytic effect that reduces blood glucose levels with no consequent change in body weight.[10][11]"

So what? Why is this on this page? Lustig never says anything about small doses of fructose contributing to weight gain. His assertion is that HIGH consumption of fructose leads to metabolic dysfunction. I don't get why this is on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmosby83 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Some scientists report that the combination of medical disorders known as metabolic syndrome (syndrome X) results mainly from excessive caloric intake and that fructose should not be singled out[6][13]"

This will be changed to "One study reported that" rather than "Some scientists" because there is not a plurality of sources. The second link actually talks about the link between fructose and obesity, rather than the link between fructose and metabolic syndrome. Indeed, fructose has very little impact on obesity but a large impact on metabolic syndrome, Lustig clearly argues that point. Talks of obesity and fructose are misguided, obesity is largely driven by high insulin levels which are a by-product of high blood glucose levels. Those high glucose levels are caused by excessive sugar and starch intake, but not fructose per se. Hence the edit. Tedmosby83 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

External link
Hi User:Zefr and others.


 * Sugar: The Bitter Truth video on University of California Television

It was removed in this edit. The bulk of this article is a controversy section over exactly what he says in this talk. Plus, he is perhaps best know for this video. Why is not not a suitable ext link? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. I reverted use of the video by following WP:YT and WP:ELPOV. --Zefr (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article
I agree with what is written above. Most of this article is about controversy and criticism. I wonder if the industry people have been working on this article. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section sure does differ from what is written at Fructose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the "controversy" is out of place. This is a biography so we should not go into discussions of the science; it should suffice to say that his view/research is controversial.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * and, I agree that the article was problematic. I've reduced the research section by summing up Lustig's view, adding a couple of sentences about there being no scientific consensus, and adding one sentence about the recent guidance from the WHO. I've also tidied up the rest of the article. SarahSV (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, SarahSV. Good edits! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . SarahSV (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)