• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Cause of Obesity - Robert Lustig MD

P

pianoman

Well-Known Member
Messages
332
[youtube]m8dWNbEscOw[/youtube]

Professor Robert H. Lustig, MD, is an expert on obesity ...
Here professor Lustig describes why we get fat and what to do about it. It's not what most people think.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry but I dont buy it. He claims that 90% of obese people are obese due to insulin when in fact 90% of obese people are obese due to the fact that they eat too much.

He says whilst rubbishing the 'eat less - exercise more' mantra that people 'cant eat less????? Come on I think we have all seen mr and mrs average shopper with their baskets full of fizzy drinks, crisps, cream cakes and all sorts of other sugary snacks. Face it we in the west EAT TOO MUCH, is it really such a secret that this bloke doesnt know about it :lol:

If insulin is the route of all fat then why isn't everyone obese?

This seems to me to be just another ultra low carbers attempt to blame all the worlds ills on carbs, yes carbs arent good for diabetics but vast majority of people are not diabetic and carbs are not a problem for them.
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Sorry but I dont buy it. He claims that 90% of obese people are obese due to insulin when in fact 90% of obese people are obese due to the fact that they eat too much.
Click to expand...

No. 100% of obese people are overweight because they eat too much (first law of thermodynamics). The question is "why do they eat too much?", and "why are the excess calories partitioned as stored fat, rather than burned?".


So isn't everyone in the west obese then? How come some people can eat a trolley full of fizzy drinks, criss, cream cakes, chocolate hobnobs and other sugary snacks and yet never get fat?

The answer clearly isn't exercise (I've spent 4 hours running 18 miles this week, which cost me 2700 calories, which is less than a pound of fat).

Sid Bonkers said:
If insulin is the route of all fat then why isn't everyone obese?
Click to expand...

If insulin isn't the route of all fat and "in the west we EAT TOO MUCH" then how come everyone isn't fat?

[The answer is of course (according Taubes et al) that everyone has different insulin sensitivity to carbohydrates, some people produce an appropriate amount to quickly clear the excess blood glucose, others have a big spike, that lasts a long time, and means that the body is prevented from burning fat. ]

Sid Bonkers said:
This seems to me to be just another ultra low carbers attempt to blame all the worlds ills on carbs, yes carbs arent good for diabetics but vast majority of people are not diabetic and carbs are not a problem for them.
Click to expand...

So it's all a big conspiracy theory?
 
borofergie said:
So it's all a big conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...


Yep, a conspiracy to make money off fat people by selling them low carb diet books
 
I'm not aware that Dr Lustig is selling anything... has he even written a diet book?

In this interview he is quite clear that it is not all about carbohydrates. But hey, instead of trying to find some practical help from this expert in the field, let's just make him out to be an extremist nut or a self-promoting quack and dismiss everything he has to say -- after all the "eat less and exercise more" mantra is working so well for so many of us :roll:

Anyhow I know what approach has worked best for me... and over 25+ years of struggling with significant excess fat mass I've tried 'em all. I'm not looking for excuses and I take full responsibility for all my decisions BUT in order to do so, they need to be fully-informed decisions

---
borofergie said:
...100% of obese people are overweight because they eat too much (second law of thermodynamics). The question is "why do they eat too much?", and "why are the excess calories partitioned as stored fat, rather than burned?".
Click to expand...
I also see this as the crux of the issue... Dr Lustig explains at least one way that this can happen in this interview -- and it is about behaviour following biochemistry, rather than the other way around.
 
pianoman said:
But hey, instead of trying to find some practical help from this expert in the field, let's just make him out to be an extremist nut or a self-promoting quack and dismiss everything he has to say
Click to expand...

By his own admission no one else in the medical world agrees with him, so yes I would say your description is quite apt.

pianoman said:
Anyhow I know what approach has worked best for me...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean you are eating less than you used to which is exactly how most people lose weight and what this Dr says doesnt work :roll:

Yes "extremist nut" seems quite apt and as for not earning money from low carbing Borofergie mentioned Taubes who definately earns his living off low carbing and I'm pretty sure that as the Doc is an internet rock star celebrity (his words not mine) advertising revenue probably pays a few of his bills that and the talks he gives to anyone who will listen.
 
You would be guessing wrong Sid... it is more about the quality of what I eat, as opposed to the quantity.

For anyone who watched the video/interview, you would have heard the interviewer describing Dr Lustig as a "Medical Doctor and a Researcher, an Expert in Paediatric Obesity, and an Internet Superstar" -- the latter based presumably on his "Sugar: the bitter truth" presentation which has so far had 1.75 million hits on YouTube -- at which Dr Lustig is visibly embarrassed and says "Hardly... Just remember, it's about the message, not the messenger".

As for his other qualifications those are freely available... here for example: http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm

But if you are suggesting that: we ignore any findings put forward by anyone with a vested interest in staying employed or paying their bills, then does that leave anyone we can trust other than ourselves? My own approach to this dilemma is: to try and gather evidence-based information from as many sources as possible, looking for corroboration between multiple sources, and seeing what makes most sense for me.

You seem stuck in the "eat less and exercise more" paradigm which is clearly NOT working for the vast majority of the obese and soon to be obese. It is high time for an open-minded re-examination of that dogma and to ask why it is failing so many? I'd remind you once again that Galileo's view of the cosmos was also not accepted by the consensus... that did not make him any less right.

I'd urge anyone with an interest in this topic, to spend the 16 minutes it takes to watch this presentation and make up your own mind.
 
pianoman said:
You seem stuck in the "eat less and exercise more" paradigm which is clearly NOT working for the vast majority of the obese and soon to be obese. It is high time for an open-minded re-examination of that dogma and to ask why it is failing so many?
Click to expand...

Ok you obviously like to akin yourself with outsiders, answer me this.

Why do you think that people in this country and in fact throughout europe were so thin and fit during and between the two great wars, Id wager that you could count the amount of morbidly obese people in hundreds and they would no doubt have had some sort ofmedical condition thyroid etc.

Let me help you draw a conclusion, people ate less because of rationing. There easy isnt it eat less and lose weight we proved it in the 1900/1950's. It is only the last few generations where things have got out of hand because there is more food freely available, and more junk food, what junk food was there during the 2nd world war?
 
Easy isn't it.. just eat less. Funny how I tried that for over 25 years without any long-term success. I suppose you would say that shows some lack in my willpower, or perhaps my mental capability? Am I really too stupid to realise that eating too much will make me fat? Do I enjoy being obese and having to squeeze into clothes or seats on public transport? ..or getting out of breath with the slightest exertion? Such fun!

Am I really the only one for which this "simple" model was a complete failure? I don't think so and I'll thank you not to judge me.

Prior to and between WWI and WWII there was not an obesity epidemic -- just look at any movies or newsreel footage to see how lean most people were back then. Now look at how our food supply has changed dramatically since the 1950s; with significant increases in sugars (chiefly fructose) and refined starches... look at all the advice to eat manufactured low-fat foods, too often with added sugars and starches to make up for the lack of natural fats -- now watch Dr Lustig's presentation to understand the biochemical changes that such a diet would cause... in short these changes are a recipe for obesity and a slew of other so-called diseases of western civilisation.

Sid, you are not bringing anything new to the table -- I have heard this same story trotted out hundreds of times and even bought into it myself for many years. It does not help, nor evidently does it work -- the obesity epidemic is getting worse while people like you hang onto platitudes.
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Why do you think that people in this country and in fact throughout europe were so thin and fit during and between the two great wars
Click to expand...

Because they didn't have unlimited supplies of processed carbohydrates?

Here is a list of the weekly ration per person:
Bacon and ham: 4oz (peak of 8oz)
Sugar: 8oz (1lb)
Tea: 2oz (4oz)
Meat: One shilling-worth (2s 2d)
Cheese 1oz (8oz)
Preserves: 8oz a month (1lb for four weeks)
Butter: 4oz (8oz)
Further ration of cooking fat and margarine

That's about 40g of carbs per person, per day (sugar plus jam). Bernstein, Atkins and Taubes would endorse that diet!
 
And what wasnt rationed Stephen?

Answer er, bread and potatoes and all other root vegetables that people were encouraged to grow :thumbup:

Would Bernstein, Atkins and Taubes endorse that diet! :lol: :lol:
 
Not joining the low carb battle but thought I would post this "favourite" recipe from WW2 - Woolton Pie- I made this with my son for our WW2 project (I homeschool) - pure stodge and a carbfest! - I had 1 spoonful just because he made it - an interesting quote from the page -


fitter than it had ever been? what on all those carbs :wink:

http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/woolton.html
 
And what exactly does a one year study tell us about long term effects of this diet? We all know that in the short term it works although having said that their do seem to be a lot of low carbers who just can't seem to lose weight, why is that do you think?
 
Sid Bonkers said:
....they would no doubt have had some sort ofmedical condition thyroid etc.

quote]

I'm sure that if you Googled 'why can't I loose weight on low carb' you would get other examples - if your own dosen't serve :wink:
Click to expand...
 
Average diet UK 1943 :34.1% fat, 12.9% protein,53% carb (source NFS Defra)
********************************************************************************************************
Taubes and Lustig don't come from the same viewpoint although that interview might make it seem so.
Lustig deals with child obesity. His other lectures show that he believes that sugar and fructose from HGFS are major players in causing obesity. In particular he seems to blame the frequent drinking of large amounts of soft drinks for keeping insulin levels high etc . This might be so for his specific population in the US but it doesn't accord with data on sucrose/fructose consumption in the UK and Australia (I've posted about that before)

He is Director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Program at UCSF
There is no evidence that he advises the use of a low carb diet in his clinic. This is the healthy plate from his clinic
2 parts (1/2 plate) fruit, vegetables and/or a salad
1 part (1/4 plate) lean protein
1 part (1/4 plate) whole grain

very similar to that advocated by my dietitian (though she would replace whole grain with all starches )

The rest of the Healthy Diet Tips from the WATCH Clinic (for children and families)
http://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/edu ... index.html

************************************************************************************************
Leptin for anyone interested in it.

Lustig briefly touches on leptin. Leptin deficiency/resistance has been shown to lead to increased appetite and thus obesity (and subsequently increased insulin production/ insulin deficiency) It appears that leptin reduces appetite, increases fat release from fat tissue and increases the metabolic rate. Leptin, just to complicate things also seems to act in the hypothalamus on the reward centre of the brain, inhibiting rewarding behaviours, including eating for pleasure.

This (long) lecture is by Jeffrey Friedman, the discoverer of leptin who explains the basics and where the research may lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcTNNThGsB8
He includes his recipe for reducing weight in the state of present knowledge. (conventional but don't be surprised it you put on weight again)
 
Lustig is saying that the condition known as hyperinsulinemia drives weight gain. One way you can get that condition is by drinking lots of soda with high fructose corn syrup. But some people will do that and not become fat. Why? Because their particular metabolism is resistant to hyperinsulinemia. Some people will get it and some won't. Simples.
 
I thought the really interesting thing in this debate was in some posts Phoenix made to me on another thread the other day.

If I remember it showed that in the UK the carb / fat ratio has remained pretty constant over the past 30 years or so where as in the States the ratio has risen progressively towards the fat end but in Australia its gone the other way. Yet in all 3 countries diabetes is increasing so from that perspective what people are eating seems to make very little difference.

Of more importance seems to be the link between social class and obesity and activity and obesity and hence an implied link between social class and diabetes and activity with diabetes.

In my mind nowadays I can't see why a upper class person is going to be necessarily any more active than a lower class person. The difference as far as I think must be either something to do with the quantity or quality (or a combination of both) that the different classes eat. So for example rich people can afford on average to eat food that is of a higher quality and higher quality food is normally served in smaller portion sizes.

Of course this leaves you to discuss what "quality" of food is but it appears to be something more subtle than just the carb / fat / sugar balance.
 
xyzzy said:
Of course this leaves you to discuss what "quality" of food is but it appears to be something more subtle than just the carb / fat / sugar balance.
Click to expand...

The nutrient density of food tends to drop with the price, so part of the problem could be that cheap calories aren't being supplied with the nutrients the body needs to process them properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…