Hmm that article seems to nitpick about the supporting data provided by Lustig (as well as some rather "rhetorical" devices) and does nothing to attack the information presented about how fructose is metabolised which, to me, was the most damning component of the talk.

The fundamental message is that the chronic effects of fructose are similar to the chronic effects of alcohol because they're metabolised almost identically in the liver.

Aragon's only argument against the biochemistry presented is that it's "all about dose and context" ... well if you chronically consume alcohol then you get pretty fucked up in the liver right? So if you're chronically consuming fructose in the same way you'll get fucked up, too.

Really, the article doesn't refute any of the core claims, it only says that we can eat some fructose just the same as we can eat some alcohol, big deal. That doesn't mean I'm going to start feeding my kids lollies, fizzy drinks, fruit juice and donuts now, does it?

I'm used to it, so ignored it, but I really wish Lustig would drop the conspiracy talk. I get that he's outraged. But it doesn't help.

I've been called out for citing Micheal Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma). I was shocked. But apparently anything that challenges the status quo is suspect.

This rebuttal doesn't seem to say that much about Lustig's central claim: that fructose is metabolized in a very different way from glucose, that large amounts of fructose metabolism harms the liver, and that this harm may be associated with metabolic syndrome.

What it does say is that overall calorie consumption has increased since 1970 but the fraction of calories from added sugar has not (no claim about fructose consumption specifically?), that fructose is almost always found along with glucose, so the fact that fructose does not induce an insulin response doesn't mean that foods containing fructose aren't satiating, that the Japanese do eat some fruit, that most fruits have less fiber than sugarcane, and that dosage is relevant to toxicity.

Couldn't Aragon be right about every one of these points without refuting Lustig's central claim? Can't it simultaneously be true that consuming too many total calories is harmful, and that consuming too much fructose is also harmful?

That was nearly four years ago; what's the current consensus on this issue? Has there been any new research that has come out in support of, or against, Lustig's conclusions?

Come on. He's a single-issue moralizing health crusader. I'm sure like everyone else who has focused on a single specific nutrient to blame, he's right in a few specifics, and massively overstating his case in a way that will ultimately be harmful to public health.

Remember when fat was the mortal enemy? Cholesterol? Carbs of any sort? Salt? Now it's fructose.

All of these things have, at one point or another, been singled out as one of the biggest threats to public health. And in all cases, while there has been some truth that in excess they can cause problems, it turns out that they aren't nearly as bad as some people made them out to be, and going on a crusade to eliminate them from diets has lead to either unhealthy elimination of necessary nutrients, or unhealthy substitution by something that's worse.

And yes, if you want more evidence, there have been studies that have shown that at low dosages, fructose can be beneficial:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&...

Basically, if you see someone singling out one single nutrient that has been a central part of our diet for thousands of years as being "toxic", you know you're being sold snake oil. Yes, almost anything can be consumed to excess. No, it is not "toxic".

Any diet plan should be based on your whole diet, not eliminating a single thing. Reducing refined sugar in your diet is generally good. Avoiding a cookie now and then, or some honey on your toast, is excessive (unless you are actually diabetic).

It can help a lot to cook yourself, and only prepare food from raw ingredients rather than processed foods or mixes, as then you see how much sugar and how much salt and how much fat goes into something. If you were to mix up a can of soda from scratch, you'd find it pretty gross how much sugar went in there; but many people are willing to grab a few and drink them throughout a day without thinking about it.

Thanks for the link.

<= 10g/meal, or <= 30g/day.

Half the typical consumption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2525476/

I'm reasonably certain that I'm hitting 30g/day eating fresh fruit. No HFCS required.

Really? You eat over more than three apples a day worth of fresh fruit? You do realize that the maxim is "an apple a day", not "three apples a day", right?

Anyhow, like anything, context matters here. Fresh fruit is high in fiber, which tends to lead to less absorption of sugars and other carbohydrates. The equivalent amount of fructose in soda or fruit juice is much worse for you than in the form of whole fresh fruits.

If you take a look at that study you link to about average consumption, over half of it comes from "sugar sweetened beverages" and "grains" (which includes cakes, pies, snacks, breads, and cereals). So, the average American could cut their fructose level in half, to under that suggested limit, by merely cutting out sodas and sweetened baked goods. My personal recommendation is to never drink soda, and only have sweetened baked goods occasionally, no more often than once a week.

Really don't know who you're arguing with here, or the point.

Sorry, didn't mean to be arguing, I was just surprised that you eat more than three apple's worth of fruit a day. I apologize if my tone came out argumentative.

My only point is that most Americans don't eat more than that amount in fruit, but rather that they go over that amount mostly due to sweetened beverages and baked goods.

We cool.

I've switched to a morning smoothie for convenience. 1/2 bunch of kale, chard, or spinach as a base. Plus variety of banana, apple, ginger, frozen fruits (blueberries, mango, peach, strawberries, etc), hemp hearts, heavy coconut milk, cinnamon, sometimes others stuff (mint, turmeric, yoghurt) to add variety.

Per Dr Terry Wahls, goal is to get 9 cups of veggies per day. I usually hit 6 cups.

It's not clear that you actually watched the video. He's not saying you should never eat fructose. E.g. he points out that fructose is metabolized in a similar way to alcohol with similar bad effects, but he never said "no alcohol" either. The issue he's raising is that Americans have been consuming far too much fructose, and this consumption has been driven by government intervention going back to Nixon.

No, I haven't watched the video, but I've read several of his articles like the one that started this thread (I tend to prefer to read content than watch a video of someone speaking it; quicker to read, less disruptive of people around me, easier to quote, easier to refer back to later to make sure I got his point right, etc; if you have reference to a written description of the same content I'd take a look). Calling fructose a "poison" or "toxin" is excessive. It twists the conventional meaning of those words.

I definitely agree that people are eating too much fructose, and too much sugar in general, and that it has been driven by several government interventions (fat-free diet advice, corn subsidies, etc). I just object to calling it a "toxin" or "poison", and find his single minded obsession with fructose to be a bit of a poor way to attack the problem in the same way that single minded obsessions with "fat free" or "no carb" were. Human diet is a complex topic, with a lot of interacting factors, and over-simplifying advice can be quite harmful.

The main problem for me is the artificial bias the government has induced in our diet through subsidy and taxation. He's fighting against this government interference with our diet, that's a good thing.

What measure of proof do you require?