(07-07-2011 12:43 AM)Jon Wrote: If somebody misinterprets Lustig's speech and skips fruit, that's their fault. Lustig specifically says that the problem is fructose far beyond what people consume by eating fruit and without the fiber that cmes with eating fruit. He also says right at the beginning that sugar and hfcs are the same. He points out that the corn syrup lobby makes this argument and they are right. Also, show me the evidence that obesity is linked to lack of activity. There is an arguable correlation (although there isn't really good data on activity levels going far back) but given that increasing activity levels does not correlate with more than nominal weight loss, it's not clear if there is causation. He does cite rodent studies, but there's also plenty of human research as well. Picking and choosing from among the data does nothing.
Okay, show me his applicable research in humans he cites. I must have missed that.
What's his exact point then in your opinion?
To reduce obesity:
- don't drink sugary drinks
- eat more fiber
Of course, I agree. But where is the controversy?
Exercise is relevant (or even critical) in regards to weight maintenance and thus one of the reasons people tend to overeat and get fat. And yeah, it's really healthy + improves body composition on a diet.
Quote:In terms of academic vs in the trenches knowledge, the problem with citing experts "in the trenches" is that there are huge problems with confirmation bias among people actually treating obesity. You have to look at academic studies to parse out which ones work. And those studies show that calorie unrestricted, low carbohydrate diets do as well as or better than calorie restricted diets in termms of weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors. The results aren't overwhelmingly impressive with low carb diets either. The reality is nobody has come up with a diet that 1) most people follow and 2) can eliminate obesity in most people who follow it.
Well, why is fructose responsible for the obesity problem, if consumption in most cases stays below the "danger" threshold of 50g or even 100g for most people? It's just not relevant and leads people to focus on something that just doesn't matter. There are some benefits to a low fat diet as well (sometimes higher HDL, lower ldl than low carb), sometimes better adherence. And you don't have to go to the extremes; you can do a moderate carb, moderate fat diet as well. Lipids always improve on a diet (see twinkie guy as well). But the jury is still out on how useful blood lipids are anyway; they are looking for specific lipoproteins ATM.
Bottom line is, just do what works better for you (which will likely change as BF drops). For many a moderate approach works best, the fatter you are, the more lower carbs tend to be helpful.
I never said in the trenches vs. academic. I said "+". It's about combining those and using the scientific method to find out what really works. As you said.
The main problem as you pointed out is compliance/adherence. It's hard to change. It will likely be solved by drugs for many. There just isn't a magic pill (yet).
I just don't understand where you see the controversy then?