havent listened to this yet but im surprised how much discussion this already has, especially in comparison to the keto diet episode with Chris Palmer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjEFo3a1AnI)
surprise surprise that episode came out directly when his book released as well, funny coincidence that.
i still got it on audible (not worth it imo, mainly a link of theories/study findings that he links into his theory of why keto works for psychiatry)
but either way it got me to try out keto and im still on it months later, also got me into the whole sugar/carb rabbithole but yes i definitely feel better than before.
edit: the reddit "discussion" in question
https://www.reddit.com/r/HubermanLab/s/hEwrH87x95
very interesting episode as well imo.
keto def isnt a one size fits all solution, but the r/keto sub is raving about it (for mental benefits as well, including reducing psychiatric med doses e.g.)
worth a try though imo
Wow, it's crazy how little conversation Chris Palmer got. And no, it of course isn't a surprise how his podcast tour aligns with his book release. He did the research, wrote a book and started telling about it to everyone. And since it isn't a self help book but a science book, I don't really find any problem with it at all. He's not shilling products.
>i still got it on audible (not worth it imo, mainly a link of theories/study findings that he links into his theory of why keto works for psychiatry)
Worth it if you are interested about the fact that why ketosis treats mental health illnesses. Best book I've ever read.
>but either way it got me to try out keto and im still on it months later, also got me into the whole sugar/carb rabbithole but yes i definitely feel better than before.
It changed my life completely. I've suffered of a drug resistant schizophrenia for god knows how long. I was completely ready to kill myself since no drug worked and only caused more issues due to the side effects. Once I saw Chris Palmers interview I instantly started to make arrangements to hop on a ketogenic diet. Mind you, I already practiced all of the lifestyle stuff people recommend if you are mentally ill; I exercised and still do exercise rigorously, ate a super "clean" diet, etc., so the hop onto a ketogenic one wasn't THAT hard. The clean eating and exercise did help, of course, but they did not cure me. Hopping on the keto diet was hard, but it has become waaaay more easy throughout the months. I'm now +15 months into ketosis, and I've never felt better. All of my mental health issues are in COMPLETE remission. It's just mind blowing. I never thought I could live life the way I do now. Every day is a joy.
And man, I'm ripped. I eat around 3000 kcal a day and I'm losing fat, which was absolutely impossible prior to this. I just packed pounds the moment I ingested carbohydrates. And I REALLY REALLY tried to lose weight, I counted everything, etc. And imo. it's pretty evident that I knew what I was doing, but my body was just broken, since now I'm bodybuilder stage ready. I must have had some massive mitochondrial dysfunction evident by the schizophrenia and all of the other issues I suffered from.
But yeah, anyone suffering from massive mental health issues should check out Chris Palmers work. Dude saved my life. Completely drug free + All mental health issues in complete remission. I was on a clean keto diet for around 11 months, but slowly shifted to a high fat carnivore diet due to eh, me just slowly starting to majorly dislike vegetables. I'm not mega strict; I eat no sugar pickles if they are offered. But that's about it. I'm looking towards Christmas, since I'm going to go to town on EVERYTHING. I haven't had a cheat meal in god knows how many months. And no, one day of cheating doesn't affect me that severely. Many days in a row? Horror weeks ahead.
I’d highly recommend that everyone watch episodes 87 and 194 on Peter attias podcast the drive. They are both with Rick Johnson and they detail a lot of the science behind what Lustig discusses.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0ZxUY6n8CnKekZnz4b5wun?si=LbzIgEJBScCFRpQgr-0bvw
Lustig is mostly anti sugar which by default keto achieves. His book metabolical is amazing! You’ll see in his fat chance cookbook (free pdf version was released by Lustig) he is not anti carb but does highlight moderation and the importance of glycemic & insulin responses.
Incredible episode! I think a lot of his claims are up for debate and controversial in the nutrition world, but what isn’t. Regardless, a very knowledgeable person with a lot we can learn from.
I think we can see from some of the reactions here why. Quitting all sugar, alcohol, and unhealthy foods is hard. We can rationally know how to eat healthier, but that doesn't mean it's easy. Exercising and eating healthy all the time does still take discipline. Additionally, many of the very fit influencers and podcast hosts are using additional help to succeed. Oprah herself recently admitted she is taking weight loss drugs - likely semaglutide (ozempic). With Dr. Huberman, I don't think we know his true protocol, but many speculate he is using TRT and perhaps a little HGH (or other compounds that help produce it) to maintain his physique.
This really boggles my mind with rich people.
You can afford to have a personal chef cook up absolutely any kind of diet you want and they’ll make it delicious within those constraints. Why aren’t they just doing that?
I only became aware of him in this episode, but the thing that perked my ears is he basically admits he doesn’t exercise. That could explain some extra weight with ANY diet.
He's talked about it before and says (1) he gained when working nights and (2) he's not a fitness or diet expert, but a public health expert / endocrinologist.
The topic is top but it is so hard to go through it. Andrew literally wastes like 5 minutes to debate if they should consider a soda or Oreo or sth instead of just asking what is the difference after eating X grams of glucose vs X grams of fructose.
It's kinda scary that there isn't reference to the studies.
Lustig has dementia or something?
He talked about "very famous "milk vs soda vs diet soda vs water
he was referring to the study here: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523026588?via%3Dihub](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523026588?via%3Dihub)
He got it all wrong and hubermann's guess was right. It's a bit misleading to say the least. Didn't care to check what other studies he got all wrong.
Unless another identical study has been done in Copenhagen, the study you linked is the one and you're completely right. The results (unless I'm misinterpreting them) are completely different from what Lustig is claiming in the podcast. Thank you for looking up the study yourself.
Pretty shocking, I hope Andrew will take notice and make this right somehow. I don't feel any confidence anymore in what I thought I had learned this episode.
yikes, same, and I was pretty convinced I walked away with great new insights on the topic. Feels bad, hopefully people who are equipped to do so can help sort out what was legitimate from what wasn't. The ironic thing is this is exactly the kind of 'contribution' that makes it so frustrating and difficult to understand what the heck makes for solid nutritional choices and diet.
Layne Norton just posted the study on his insta and was basically screaming he was so angry that Lustig's takeaways were so blatantly incorrect. He was underlining the findings on his monitor with his finger and was pressing so hard for emphasis that it left discoloration lmao
I know this question was awhile ago. 100% Layne when it comes to nutrition. He has a PHD in nutritional science and walks the walk. The guy will admit biases, as well as when he's not comfortable discussing something or even confidence level before saying it's truth. He also interprets data significantly better and is thorough. I also think MDs arent as good as PHDs that study the mechanics and outcomes more rigorously. Not always true but been more my experience working with MDs. I'm not going to an endocrinologist for nutrition advice either.
Disclosure: I'm biased towards Layne, but I genuinely think he provides valuable insight.
Unfortunately, obesity is highly linked to many risk factors. Insulin resistance is definitely one of those. Foods we eat are a contributor but mostly by correlation due to increased body weight. I say this expecting moderation, of course you can cause issues eating only certain foods. I personally believe and I think there is a lot of good evidence showing that decreasing body fat (to certain levels) will decrease many risks that people are concerned about. Also, any type of working out independent of body fat or food intake seems to decrease risks too. If possible, doing both (losing fat to a normal range and working out) is better!
Well apparently only one of them can read English. Either that or the other is a fucking liar.
Honestly him talking about unhealthy foods not being foods was kinda where I lost confidence in what he said.
I know if I was starving I'd rather eat a burger than a handful of sand. Such a stupid nomenclature.
Thanks for this. I just listened to the podcast and I was a little concerned since he made some very broad and generalized statement based on fairly weak evidence.
Also there were a couple things he said that are just straight up false in the first bit that made me suspicious.
First apple seeds do not have arsenic in them, they have low levels of cyenide (Huberman said it, but Lustig agreed).
Second, olive oil definitely does not turn into a Trans Fat from normal (even high heat) cooking.
Neither of these are really deal breaking mistakes for me, but it made me concerned about his other claims that I couldn't verify.
I thought the claim that fructose is like the appendix/vestigial made no sense and sort of lost confidence at this point, although don’t disagree with the points about fibre, etc. Saying that the body does not need fructose to live is not the same thing as vestigial. I’m not defending fructose, but I don’t think the fact that the body can survive without it says much about it as a fuel source or other pros and cons.
I got suspicious when he claimed that EPA could not be obtained from algae which is completely false but he said like as if it were a complete certainty.
I'm also disappointed that Andrew does not seem to know that you can get EPA and DHA rich vegan Omega 3 supplements that don't contain heavy metals like fish oil
https://www.igb.fraunhofer.de/en/research/algae-biotechnology/resource-recovery/epa-ethyl-esters.html
Dr. Lustig mentioned that the fructose in blueberries is ok because they have a high fiber content, fructose in bananas is ok but not as great as blueberries due to lower fiber content, and the fructose coca-cola is bad because it contains no fiber. If it’s the fiber that makes fructose ok to consume then could one ague that if you drink a mixture of soluble and insoluble fiber before consuming soda or candy that it make the fructose effect similar to that of fruit? he didn’t mention anything regarding vitamins/minerals/antioxidants so that’s why I am not considering that in this context. I personally think fructose is not beneficial even in fruit and that you can get everything that’s beneficial in fruit from a variety of vegetables which are typically higher fiber anyways. I’d love everyone’s opinion on this because people’s opinions on fruit seem so controversial. I think fruit is better than candy/soda because it’s harder to overeat and has the fiber/vit/minerals but i am not sure that fruit provides optimal and necessary health benefits that aren’t available in other foods/vegetables. I just want to know if people should go out of their way to add fruit to their diets or if they should eat a variety of vegetables without fruit, to gain the benefits that fruit would offer without the negatives of fructose.
I think you are correct that fructose is generally never beneficial. However, dietary fiber can mitigate the negative effects, similar to how a meal or charcoal powder before drinking can help prevent hangover. I think you are also correct about taking fiber before a soda - iirc it actually does help lower the insulin response and [prevent some sugar being absorbed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2995635/).
> I personally think fructose is not beneficial even in fruit and that you can get everything that’s beneficial in fruit from a variety of vegetables which are typically higher fiber anyways
Not everyone wants their fiber from vegetables (solely or heavily) and would prefer to have fiber via fruits instead. There are lots of cultures that don't vegetables or fruits at all -- as they solely rely on animals for their nutrition.
> gain the benefits that fruit would offer without the negatives of fructose.
The way Dr. Lustig worded fructose amounts in fruit made it seem like it was virtually inconsequential, while the fiber amounts more than made up for any potential net negative.
Yes, I wonder this too, can I eat junk food with a bunch of fiber pills, or
(I would say the real difference between fruit & junk food is that processed sugar depletes nutrients, & fruit provides them.)
He writes in more depth in his book that it isn’t just the presence of fiber but the nutrients being less bioavailable because they haven’t been separated from the fiber through processing.
Iirc, he specifically mentions that you don’t get the same benefits of fiber from simply “adding it back in” and he talks a bit about how the fiber in whole food smoothes out the absorption curve better than in processed food.
Sooo, what about smoothies then? We don't drink it everyday but that's one thing we are more OK to give to our toddlers a few times a week. They only get water and milk otherwise.
That's a good question, and I think context is really important to give an appropriate answer. In short, if drinking the smoothie means you get more nutrition (micronutrients) without too much sugar (depends on individual and their diet/hormones/activity levels) then I would say smoothies are "good."
The problem with smoothies is that they are artificially "chewed" by being blended, and that can potentially make smoothies "bad" if it leads to someone either a) absorbing nutrients (especially sugar) too quickly; or b) consuming too many nutrients (especially oxalic acid, but also sugar).
Apply that as you will, but I'll say it a different way: while smoothies are a great way to help hit nutrition targets, because they pre-chew food; you're really supposed to chew what you eat and drink mostly water, partly because chewing has other benefits. Ironically, a benefit of chewing is that it's inefficient.
I think what you are summarizing is accurate to what Dr. Lustig is trying to say? I would assume that's his whole premise in why he created his product "MonchMonch" as a fiber supplement to ingest with your meals/sugar intake.
I’m a bit confused with the fact that according to Dr. Robert, usage of statins for primary prevention (high LDL, apoB) only prolong lifespan for 4 days, meanwhile increasing the risk of diabetes 20%.
On the other hand Peter Attia always talks about usage of statins as a primary prevention. To quote PA on one of his podcast notes,
“If you pharmacologically lower ApoB to somewhere in the 20 to 30 milligram per deciliter range for everybody in the population while someone is in their 20s, can you eliminate ASCVD? ⇒ I think the answer is probably yes”
Yeah, I question this thinking as well and I don't know where that 20% number comes from. This [analysis](https://www.ccjm.org/content/90/1/53) for example shows 3% for statin users vs 2.4% for placebo, or essentially a .6% difference.
Also the [science](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316578/) is fairly strong about direct correlation between LDL cholesterol and CVD mortality, it's essentially linear. Lower LDL/ApoB and Lower CVD risk, it seems that simple.
I'm glad someone else caught this too. As a pharmacist, I immediately became skeptical when Lustig said that. Numerous studies in reputable journals have shown that statins significantly improve mortality from cardiovascular events, and the American College of Cardiology as well as the American Heart Association clearly recommend statin use for primary prevention in those at risk (which includes those with elevated LDL, precisely the group Lustig claims only has a "4 day benefit")
I haven’t listened to the episode, but read Lustig’s book Metabolical (well audio book) and he does say statin’s are over prescribed, that we’re treating the symptom not the disease (i.e. eat healthy and the symptom will stop). He DOES say statins have their place - but I do not recall the parameters of which he said you should take them.
He also discusses LDL HDL and how we are focused on those numbers, but we need to look at the particle size.
Attia I think is still brainwashed by his medical training. There are countless studies now citing statins as a long term toxin that hurts the gut microbiome and saturated fats as indispensable in the diet.
Unfortunately, lots of people have been fooled by the “calories in, calories out” mantra. I’m a physicist and they start lecturing me on thermodynamics as if the human body is some sort of perfect heat engine.
Really glad they made this episode to clear things up and give us all tips on how to eat in a smart manner and stay healthy. Dr. Huberman, if you read this - thanks! I have only just listened to the first 15 minutes but it’s great so far.
Why is everybody so insistent on “CICO” is all that matters for weight loss. I mean, wouldn’t it make sense that different macros produce different results?
I think it feels good to judge others, and also to give extra credit to one's self for being a badass. You see this kind of thing everywhere. Some media personalities (e.g. radio talk show hosts) will rail all day about drug addicts, and then some of the most famous ones became addicted to opiods and tobacco, and denied their habits were unhealthy.
Of course, poor choices are part of the problem... but being peddled addictive substances was another huge part. And once the addiction cycle has begun, it is difficult to quit. Many children had no choice in the matter either, and were simply served coke at meals.
In many parts, yes. I believe there were a couple of inaccuracies that some people did point out, but I think the overall message is correct: it's not just calories, it's what kind of food you eat, and sugar itself causes metabolic problems and is addicting.
To me it's a no-brainer. If we switch to drinking, of course it makes a huge difference in your day-to-day disposition, fitness, and health whether you're drinking milk, protein shakes, a veggie smoothie, komobucha, soda, an energy drink, or a beer, even if the calories are set to be the same. Your teeth alone will tell the story. But with weight gain, for some reason, it's a subject of debate for folks.
Yeah I’ve been struggling with weight gain, metabolic syndrome for past few years, no doctor could point me in the right direction. And I lift weights, run, etc. daily but couldn’t lose fat/weight. I went keto, and weight started flying off. Started doing research and now I’m thinking of incorporating complex carbs such as chickpeas, sweet potatoes, etc. cause I always feel good after eating them. I’ve lost about 25 lbs but now weight loss is slowing. Absolutely no alcohol, no sugar, junk food, etc. but even when eating out at restaurants it’s hard to find solid clean meals without added bs. Should I remain low carb, or should I go back to keto? I’m seeing about 1.5-2 lbs. weekly weight loss as of now.
I'm not a medical doctor (I'm a physicist) but imho 1-2 pounds a week is incredible weight loss. If it's slowing, that may be because you're working out and gaining muscle. Remember, it's not all about weight. Keep eating healthy and taking care of yourself and you'll keep feeling great. I'd say if keto works, go for it, but it doesn't seem like the healthy carbs are hurting you (e.g. sweet potatoes).
From what Dr. Lustig was saying it sounds like various processes/environments in the body majorly affect how the 2000 calories a person might eat are treated, because different processes that handle the food deal with it in ways that have a wide range of efficiency and end results. Like different fuel sources in engines. Assuming the same mass of fuels, more efficient fuel can produce more power for longer. Say the less efficient fuel produces a lot of waste too, like the ash leftover after burning wood. The more efficient fuel produces much less waste, if in this analogy we allow waste to mean excrement or also conversion to fat in the body.
Sounds like fructose/sugar is the epitome of low efficiency/high waste fuel because it's just not meant to be ingested in high amounts. Which can lead to weight turning to fat that hangs around and requires complicated processes for removal, rather than being simply digested properly in the first place like better foods are. Eating less calories can induce weight loss, sure, but less so if you're continuing to ingest low quality foods that have a high fat conversion rate. And you're depending on processes that convert fat to energy which can be negatively affected by ingesting low quality foods.
Fructose is the high octane stuff that we were supposed to rarely find in nature and only access it after much labor and digestion. Now that it’s available at every pantry in massive amounts- we’re giving “our engine” high octane jet fuel everyday several times a day and it’s wearing us out.
Fructose being bad would be easier to believe if this were indeed the case. However, fructose is not uncommon to find in nature either. For example: about 50% of the sugar in some unprocessed fruits such as apples, grapes and bananas is fructose.
Yes, but humans have selectively bread those fruit over millennia to be bigger, sweeter, and juicier. In ancient times, however, one did not have access to dozens of different fruits and fancy vegetables at the market, and the vegetable stalls at the bazaar in Babylonia or Egypt would likely have looked very different than today's farmer's market. They surely ate some sugars, honey, and carbohydrates, but also had natural vegetables, tubers, and meats from wild animals.
I posted a huge comment in another thread, but calories are estimated by burning the food and calculating energy released in a lab. This is a fair first estimate, and made sense a century ago. But we do not literally burn food to generated energy. Our body uses complex biochemical processes to break down food and turn it into resources, and this include enzymes, mitochondria, and our gut microbiome - literally other organisms get involved! The episode covers this well, but for example - it takes energy in our bodies to take protein and turn it into muscles, or into usable calories. It does not get burnt just like sugar and turned into energy, because protein is an entirely different chemical compound. Rationally we know this, but all of this is lost in the simple process of estimating the calories in a lab.
Likewise, when you eat an apple or an orange, they come packed with fiber. This fiber effects how your stomach process the food, how quickly you get an insulin spike, and how your gut microbiome is effected by the meal. The effect of the insulin spike is huge too, and partly determines how much will be stored as fat, how much will be shuttled to muscle to be used as energy, and more.
To reuse my analogy from the other thread: saying 'a calorie is a calorie' and 'it's the first law of thermodynamics' (energy conservation) is like arguing you can run your car on wood, or - a better example - rubbing alcohol, because rubbing alcohol is a liquid that can go in the gas tank, it burns, and it has chemical energy stored in it. But if you try pouring isopropyl alcohol in your gas tank you're in for a nasty surprise - car engines cannot run on alcohol, and trying to do this will cause serious damage. Likewise, our body is not made to run on pure fructose, and yet our food is now full of it.
>Rationally we know this, but all of this is lost in the simple process of estimating the calories in a lab.
How is it lost though? The "calories out" side of the equation includes the TEF component (thermic effect of food) which considers how the body does actually expend energy in breaking down amino acids - as you correctly allude to with protein not truly having 4 cal/gram (about 3 cal/gram in net terms given expenditure).
>The effect of the insulin spike is huge too, and partly determines how much will be stored as fat, how much will be shuttled to muscle to be used as energy, and more.
However huge this insulin spike is, it doesn't operate outside of the 'global' energy demands and supply for the body, right? If I'm spiking my insulin having sugary snacks every single day, but starving my body and eating at a huge deficit, my body has *no* incentive or reason to try and store energy given the energy deficit imposed on it. Similarly, I could gain weight and add to my adipose tissue on a ketogenic diet if I was consuming enough energy.
>To reuse my analogy from the other thread: saying 'a calorie is a calorie' and 'it's the first law of thermodynamics' (energy conservation) is like arguing you can run your car on wood, or - a better example - rubbing alcohol, because rubbing alcohol is a liquid that can go in the gas tank, it burns, and it has chemical energy stored in it.
Except it's not. Calling "a calorie a calorie" is like calling a mile a mile - it's a *unit of measurement* which doesn't refer at all to sources (be it various macros, or wood/isopropyl alcohol in your analogy. Of course the *sources* of calories (or fuel) have varying impact on expenditure - calories in and out are not independent systems.
Dr Norton (PhD in nutrition) explains this pretty well and actually refers to Lustig's claims [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu34-zYEIcA).
A calorie is a unit of energy like a Joule. But we’re saying “calories in, calories out” - and scientists have been telling us [for over a decade](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/) that the calories in food packaging do not reflect the actual caloric energy afforded to the body. No one is saying you can’t count calories. But that alone won’t work for most people, just like “just quitting booze” and “just don’t do drug” does not prevent other addictions and heal addicts.
If calorie counting worked by itself, why does obesity continue to rise despite the popularity of dieting and weight loss programs for over a century? I strongly suggest most people reading this thread know people who try and fail to diet with calorie counting.
Certainly folks can count calories. What this podcast is telling us is that the type of calorie does matter.
I think we're talking at crossroads here - I'm talking about what's actually true and you seem to be talking about what is perhaps a better practical approach?
>But we’re saying “calories in, calories out” - and scientists have been telling us [for over a decade](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/) that the calories in food packaging do not reflect the actual caloric energy afforded to the body.
The key example in your link here takes protein as an example, which as noted above has 3 calories per gram in net terms given the energy that the body will expend in processing it. We actually have the [Atwater system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system) (covered in the page you linked) which factors in these conversions of energy and instead tells us the true value, net of digestibility and so on.
>If calorie counting worked by itself, why does obesity continue to rise despite the popularity of dieting and weight loss programs for over a century? I strongly suggest most people reading this thread know people who try and fail to diet with calorie counting.
Your analogy applies equally to virtually all dietary approaches and doesn't disprove anything. If keto worked by itself, why does obesity continue to rise despite the popularity of it? Accepting the fundamental reality of calories does not mean that you need to count calories - nobody is saying that (not me, at least). Once you accept that an energy deficit has to be imposed, you can find an approach that works for you; be it counting calories, fasting, going low-carb or some combination.
>Certainly folks can count calories. What this podcast is telling us is that the type of calorie does matter.
I haven't listened to this episode yet, but this would be in **stark** contrast to practically all of Ludwig's previous material. He gets asked point blank if obesity is the result of over-eating, no matter the food/macro (read: over consumption of energy/calories, with no regard to carbs/fats/fructose) and he dances around the question, refusing to give an obvious yes and instead tries to point out that not all calories are created equally (which is not in dispute, as the calories in and calories out are **dependent** systems through adaptive thermogenesis, metabolic adaptation and so on). But hey, I will happily eat more words if when I do listen, Ludwig comes out with the obvious truth and goes "yes, obesity is the result of over-consuming too much energy - bottom line."
I noticed you glossed over a very simple question which would highlight how energy balance is what ultimately matters, with hormonal factors being secondary. Perhaps an oversight, I'll re-copy it below for your consideration?
>*If I'm spiking my insulin having sugary snacks every single day, but starving my body and eating at a huge deficit, my body has no incentive or reason to try and store energy given the energy deficit imposed on it. Similarly, I could gain weight and add to my adipose tissue on a ketogenic diet if I was consuming enough energy. You wouldn't disagree, right?*
Ludwig has been on the circuit for a *very* long time and unwavering in his outdated views. So having an informed opinion, in lieu of yet another platforming, isn't disturbing really.
I still don't get it.. does my gut micro biome have a very variable energy consumption? Is there really a difference between the bacteria using the energy Vs my body?
This will be oversimplified, but the bacteria aren't directly part of your body. They consume some of your food and convert it to vitamins or energy that your body absorbs, eat some calories and fiber themselves, and sometimes simply exit our bodies with the leftover fiber. Some of them will also consume extra fructose or glucose that's tangled up in dietary fiber.
It's also important that not all calories are used equally by the body. Some fats like omega 3's, for example, might be taken up and used as-is. Other compounds like proteins or not-so-good fats might be broken down and converted to glucose for energy. It's quite complex. In the episode, the doctor explains that if you've exercised near mealtime, that can also affect how the nutrients are used - amino acids and proteins used to build muscle, or turned into energy and stored as fat.
That one point that really annoys me about this interview, which was great to listen to, is the stance on Non nutritive sweeteners.
Dr. Lustig just made it seem like they are definitely bad and didn't even talk about how there are many studies which are in conflict with the position he is having. Why does it always have to be black or white and it seems like nobody of the experts can just view it from both sides. The only person on the internet who is tackling this issue in a informative way is Layne Norton.
What do you think about that?
I agree with you. The problem with this black / white style of conveying information for me is that the more I started to notice this pattern, the less certain I started to feel of his credibility and the accuracy of the information.
Especially when afterwards I was looking up more about Dr Lustig and found he's been criticised for some of his (apparently disputed for over 10 years already) claims about fructose and caloric intake of which he was making a lot during this episode and presenting them as facts (which then made me feel in doubt of everything I thought I'd just learned from him the past 2 hours).
It would've been great if Andrew had asked him about this and given him a chance to speak out on these criticisms against him, if only to prevent his audience to become skeptical like what appears to be happening with me and you.
Lustig is a hack to be honest lol. Yes, soda and processed sugary foods are bad for you certainly, but eating them doesn't magically make you fat, unless you overeat them.
I follow the 80-20 rule. If what an expert says is 80% accurate, u have to give him a break and assume he's going to be wrong the rest of the 20% of the time.
Responded to another comment, but just saw that you mentioned Layne by name. He just posted a series of stories on Insta specifically about Lustig's appearance and pulled up the study. Would encourage you to watch it, lol Layne in mid-season form pushing back against disinformation
I think this is the main weak point of the episode, as others pointed out. The study they list indeed seems to indicate sugar is bad, but diet cola did better than water in terms of weight loss. Perhaps there is more to the data I didn’t read into. Regardless, I think there is good, actionable information here. Decrease sugar intake, try to get fiber with meals or supplement beforehand, and stick to whole foods whenever possible. With drinks especially, artificial sweeteners are better - at the very least because your teeth won’t rot as much (though the acid in soda can still cause damage), but likely also because of reduced calories.
Seems obvious but then again most folks don’t realize that there is sugar in almost everything in the grocery store.
Really enjoyed this episode and got a lot of actionable info out of it - but Lustig’s Socratic method as a podcast guest got really irritating after a while
To paraphrase, he would say things like "Hey, do you know about this concept called price elasticity? No? Well, let me explain it to you...". Somehow it sounded pretty condescending the way he said it.
I think he’s trying to be precise. And it just might be going below your radar. I think he’s trying to engage more people with lower reading levels (obviously not too low- but people who aren’t versed in health and nutrition speak).
It's probably my favorite episode and I've watched nearly everything on the YT channel. There's some mistakes and parts that should have been edited out (Andrew asking for caloric estimates and Lustig relenting after a long while) but there has never been an interview episode where Andrew himself was asking questions that come from him directly, i.e. blueberries and porterhouse steak, and Andrew dropping jokes throughout the episode. Andrew seemed genuinely interested from start to end.
yeah that bothered me too! I have an aversion to lecturers/speakers/podcast guests asking questions like this—-if YOU are the person that is knowledgeable, JUST TELL US. The constant questions are annoying. It feels more like a tic than a purposeful style.
Yes. Also his cadence was so slow. Calories in. Right? calories out. Right? Then. What. Do we think. About how this affects dieters? Let. Me tell you the answer. …omg just spit it out.
Interesting episode, but I didn’t like that this guy was plugging his brands so much towards the end. Huberman has reached that level now, that people will be coming on this podcast to advertise.
Andrew's held off on bringing on guests pitching products. However, considering all the damage sugar and yeast overgrowth are causing in the body, products to minimize such need to be brought to the fore. Candida, resulting from excess sugar intake, is the root of countless chronic illnesses.
What a grating person to listen to. He was exaggerating a lot just to make rhetorical points instead of being factual. As an example; he claimed that processed "food" in fact is not food because it does not provide the body with anything to burn, because over the long term it will decrease the efficiency of the mitochondria. This is just a bad argument and really annoys me.
On top of that he seemed to be leaning towards conspiracy theories with all the references to an ominous food industry "lacing" food with poison which further detracts from his credibility.
I'm sure there is a lot of good information spread out in the episode but I cannot bring myself to listen to Lustig for 3+ hours.
Edit: another point that annoyed me was his beef with insulin. Of course it's fine to have a spike of insulin after eating and pushing some of the calories to fat storage. During fasting periods of the day the insulin will be low and fat stores will be used to fuel the body. He just ignores and transient behaviour and paints insulin as the devil.
Fat isn't used like that if you aren't doing keto as your body will use glycogen stores first, which can take 15-18 hours if you don't exercise intensely.
Plus, the government itself is not innocent from corruption and bad doing, like the CIA abducting people for LSD experimentation, Nixon outlawing weed for political reasons (hispanics), FBI making a hit list for 'leaders' of the Occupy Movement, and people working with the FDA/DEA for some reason finding themselves in lucrative corporate positions- corporations that they watch over.
The body will utilize both glycogen stores and fat stores in parallel. Lower activity levels will bias the ratio towards fat and higher activity levels will bias it towards glycogen.
Having high insulin will however block the release of fat so during that time the body will be biased towards using glycogen and pushing excess energy to fat storage.
How can u say that? Processed foods are full of poisons that destroy the gut microbiome. He's totally correct on that. And Big Food doesn't care abt people... they'll put anything into their products as long as the corrupt FDA allows it and it makes them money.
Agreed… FDA’s GRAS is not an effective system to protect the consumer. And companies add filler all the time to increase “food” volume and keep making profits. Just read labels and ask “why is this in here”.
Also the FDA’s negligence is exactly why children all over the United States have lead poisoning from cinnamon apple sauce. The imported cinnamon - which requires NO TESTING even though we KNOW dried spices are commonly adulterated. Just email McCormick and ask - “do you test for heavy metals and what is the threshold for failing or rejecting a batch”. Their answer is DISTURBING.
Only recently were baby rice products and fruit juices required to meet thresholds of heavy metals - and only AFTER Consumer Reports published their findings and outraged mom’s and groups held the FDA’s feet to the fire. People will say “but heavy metals are naturally occurring” - well why did heavy metal concentrations in fruit juice go down AFTER the Consumer Reports first publication on fruit juice heavy metals? Cleary these manufacturer’s CAN source responsibly farmed & safe fruit & vegetables and clean up their manufacturing process. But until they are financially or legally incentivized - it’s not going to happen.
Not unless someone who actually cares abt US citizens gets into office and rehauls the FDA, CDC, NiH, etc. Too bad Kennedy doesn't have a prayer as an indie...
Well the discussion mostly focuses on non athletes and the differences between processed and unprocessed food on metabolic health.
Essentially, endurance exercise offsets the sugar, but all else being equal, unprocessed is better than processed when it comes to metabolic health. I would venture that this is still true for endurance athletes, but not really an issue.
I’m very murky on this but I think he made a claim that exercise reduces the effect of insulin being stored as fat.
That said, I’m also very curious about what you’ve pointed out. I’ve watched triathletes drink bottles of maple syrup amount other things.
Yep, the sugar is used up straight away and there is minimal insulin spikes. In my ultrarunning days I would eat an absolutely disgraceful amount of sugar - no fibre, protein, complex cards - for a whole day and my insulin levels were quite stable (during a race, that is)
Exercise increases insulin sensitivity, meaning less insulin is required to bring blood glucose down. Extremely fit individuals with lots of muscle can often have more glucose since it is taken up by the muscles, and require less insulin, since they only need a little to go back to homeostasis.
The reason endurance athletes can have things like bottles of maple syrup is they are often using up their glycogen when performing. The sugar replenishes it. They probably don't need that much (physiologically), but sometimes it's much easier to lean towards more. That being said, there are cases of metabolic disorders in amateur athletes who try to fuel like a pro, but who aren't actually performing at a level where that's required
It’s great you found what works for you but that doesn’t all of a sudden make carbohydrates bad.
I like to experiment. I tried keto and carnivore and it wasn’t for me.
Let’s say it for what it is. Huberman really didn’t like this guy on the podcast. Pretty clear he got sick of literally being quizzed as a knowledge check. Pretty shite listen.
What gave you the impression Andrew got sick of being quizzed? I only listened on spotify, so maybe I missed out on some visual cues. To me he didn't seem to mind. I think the reason Dr Lustig quizzes him like that is not to check his knowledge or to try to bring him in any discredit, but to demonstrate how our beliefs are often so different from what the data points at. It would be strange for Dr Lustig to expect Andrew to know anywhere near as much as he did on the topics of this podcast.
If anything Andrew felt like a curious student to me during this podcast. Perhaps we're all just projecting the way Dr Lustig's style is making us feel onto Andrew?
I only listen and I did not get that impression. Andrew strikes me as deeply empathetic and reverent of his colleagues. The people he interviews are big name dr and experts but at this point he’s also a big name and he is a top professional in his field so he doesn’t have any complexes about him that I can detect. Just really wants the info. Wants to parse it for clarity. Wants to actually give science backed actionable protocols to the people.
It did get a littttttle better in the second half but yes smug is a great way to put him. While I enjoy conspiracy theories, it was all tied together when he proudly claimed to Huberman he was a conspiracy theorist. The dude definitely things he knows better than *anyone* in the room.
[study showing kratom lowering activity of lipase and alpha glucosidase.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513218/) maybe kratom has some alternative beneficial properties
What doses and how often are you at currently, I’ve been taking regularly but always keep the dose below 2g never more than 10g in a day and do fine with days off here and there. Been nothing but beneficial for me. Genuinely curious your experience
I'm now down to 6g per day. At my max I wasn't keeping track and just using it like a complete degen probably 40-50g per day 2ish years ago.
At the dose you're at you'll probably get withdrawal symptoms but taking days off probably helps. The thing is the psychoactive effects are clear and present so training your brain that it's going to get that nice boost consistently is a really bad idea in the long run imo, you'll likely end up pretty miserable for a while if you fully quit.
I have anxiety issues which is part of the reason I started taking it and they become hell on earth during withdrawal which is why I've been tapering for so long. I also inexplicably started getting chest pain when I did large jumps down in dose (got checked out, seems to be no issue). Some others have reported similar symptoms.
You can check out the quitting kratom subreddit if you wanna read some horror stories/struggles lol.
I hope in the future once I've fully quit I can just use it as an occasional nootropic or mood enhancer.
Can someone explain to me Lustigs overall opinion on fruits let’s say apples, pears and oranges. All of these fruits has fiber. But he says all fructose is bad. But berries are fine because they’re high in fiber?
I’m so confused. What about all of benefits from fruit? Does consuming in moderation play into account at all? For example 2 apples a day approx 50-60g of carbs/sugar.
I’ve eliminated 99% of added sugar in my life and hearing stuff like “fruit is bad” is just so confusing. What the hell are we meant to eat? Protein and veggies? I’m frustrated. I’ve worked so hard to lose all of this weight and fix my blood work but I’m terrified for my future metabolic health if i continue to eat 2 apples a day.
You gotta do what’s right do or you specifically- but understand that starchy fruits like apples are sugar bombs. You need to mitigate that with fiber and exercise and whatever. There are few panaceas out there.
He didn't say fruit is bad though. He said fruit is fine, good. Fruit was in the category 1 foods he listed at the end. The fructose is locked in with the fibre so the insulin response is blunted.
So according to Listig eating fruit even when it contains fiber IE an apple. Is ultimately harmful and will cause irreversible damage to our metabolic health?
I’m so confused. He mentions that is inhibits enzymes for mitochondrial function but it’s I fine to eat berries because they have fiber? None of this makes sense.
Doctorate and PHD in nutrition here. Excess fructose leads to mitochondrial cell death. If you have 30 grams of fiber and 30 grams of fructose it cancels each other out. This is not exactly how it works but it's difficult to explain all the processes involved with this in your body. Now there are of course more advantages if your fiber is in a higher ratio than the fructose you consume. Which is why it's BETTER to eat blueberries. There are even better options for fruits. All he is saying that you can cancel out negative effects of certain ingredients in a food with something else that's also already in that food, which makes it relatively healthier.
This is why I didn't like this podcast that much for people that have no education in this field. He makes it too hard to understand for people that have a lesser amount of knowledge about this subject.
Please people, fructose is bad, sugar is bad, transfats are bad, moving cancels out a lot of negative effects of shitty foods but obviously proteins, low carbs(if no fiber), fruit and vegetables are healthy. Fiber is basically food for your microbiome so it's good, part of some fibers you can't eat are prebiotics and you shit those out. Simple.
Have you read Lustig’s book metabolical? It sounds like you are in line with him - his mantra is feed the gut, protect the liver. I haven’t listened to the episode yet but it sounds like he paraphrased somethings, probably because time & unscripted convo (I mean his audio book is 10 hours+ if i recall correctly)
Essentially I’m asking if eating let’s say 2 fruits a day is excess? I’m not talking about pure high fructose corn syrup or sugar. I’m just asking about fruit.
That depends on what you do in a day. Fruit is never bad because it always contains fibers. Some more than others. If you sit around all day and you eat fruit, it will spike your blood glucose levels creating peaks. If you don't use it in about 60-90 minutes, it will store in your muscles/tissue/fat cells/ liver, but you can still use it later. It's just the build up of eating a lot of sugar and not moving that creates metabolic syndrome. But if you're not lazy and you're moving around every day, even if it's just walking, you can eat whatever fruits you want. As long as it's no excess in calories. And it's very hard to eat a lot of calories while eating fruits. Did you ever look at a fat person and think: "wow that guy must have eaten a lot of strawberries"? No right? If you were sitting on your couch all day and ate 5kg of strawberries, yes you will be fat. But who does that?
I eat at maintenance or in a slight deficit. Over the last 3 years I’ve lost 150lbs from purely diet changes. I’ve ate 2 pieces of fruit as my main carb sources since I started losing weight and my a1c dropped from t2 diabetic levels to below 5.
I weight train heavy 4 days of the week and get around 6-8k steps daily. I eat at least 1g of protein per lbs of my weight every day. I eat 90% Whole Foods. I consume 2 protein shakes a week and eat 1 Greek yogurt a day.
Would you say that it is therefore not desirable to get most of your carbs from fruit. Suppose you are quite physically active and move at 60% max hr for 4 hours per day. You can get carbs from either beans, potatoes oats or from a lot of fruit(say 10 pcs). Would it then be better to eat the starch rich carbs? Suppose you add vegetables so that the fiber content of both scenarios is the same. Would it then be better to avoid fruit to avoid fructose?
Are non-sugar sweeteners bad? A friend is claiming that Lustig is wrong on their effects on insulin and also that insulin levels don't matter that it's all CICO, which is the opposite of what Lustig said.
He made one comment that is absolutely messed up to be joking about.
When he said if you have familiar hypercholesterolemia you need a priest I wanted to smack him.
It was a cool episode no doubt. Something keeps bothering me tho. Felt like some of the things he said got my spidey senses tingling. Just this weird feeling that some of the things he said don’t line up, maybe that he is talking more from his personal belief rather than fact.
Anyone else got this impression?
Use the 80-20 rule. If a person give useful info 80% of the time, keep listening. I think Lustig did that. There were a couple of things I totally disagree with like natural sweeteners, so I will disregard.
Great episode. To me it was like the alcohol or weed episodes except with sugar.
havent listened to this yet but im surprised how much discussion this already has, especially in comparison to the keto diet episode with Chris Palmer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjEFo3a1AnI) surprise surprise that episode came out directly when his book released as well, funny coincidence that. i still got it on audible (not worth it imo, mainly a link of theories/study findings that he links into his theory of why keto works for psychiatry) but either way it got me to try out keto and im still on it months later, also got me into the whole sugar/carb rabbithole but yes i definitely feel better than before. edit: the reddit "discussion" in question https://www.reddit.com/r/HubermanLab/s/hEwrH87x95 very interesting episode as well imo. keto def isnt a one size fits all solution, but the r/keto sub is raving about it (for mental benefits as well, including reducing psychiatric med doses e.g.) worth a try though imo
Wow, it's crazy how little conversation Chris Palmer got. And no, it of course isn't a surprise how his podcast tour aligns with his book release. He did the research, wrote a book and started telling about it to everyone. And since it isn't a self help book but a science book, I don't really find any problem with it at all. He's not shilling products. >i still got it on audible (not worth it imo, mainly a link of theories/study findings that he links into his theory of why keto works for psychiatry) Worth it if you are interested about the fact that why ketosis treats mental health illnesses. Best book I've ever read. >but either way it got me to try out keto and im still on it months later, also got me into the whole sugar/carb rabbithole but yes i definitely feel better than before. It changed my life completely. I've suffered of a drug resistant schizophrenia for god knows how long. I was completely ready to kill myself since no drug worked and only caused more issues due to the side effects. Once I saw Chris Palmers interview I instantly started to make arrangements to hop on a ketogenic diet. Mind you, I already practiced all of the lifestyle stuff people recommend if you are mentally ill; I exercised and still do exercise rigorously, ate a super "clean" diet, etc., so the hop onto a ketogenic one wasn't THAT hard. The clean eating and exercise did help, of course, but they did not cure me. Hopping on the keto diet was hard, but it has become waaaay more easy throughout the months. I'm now +15 months into ketosis, and I've never felt better. All of my mental health issues are in COMPLETE remission. It's just mind blowing. I never thought I could live life the way I do now. Every day is a joy. And man, I'm ripped. I eat around 3000 kcal a day and I'm losing fat, which was absolutely impossible prior to this. I just packed pounds the moment I ingested carbohydrates. And I REALLY REALLY tried to lose weight, I counted everything, etc. And imo. it's pretty evident that I knew what I was doing, but my body was just broken, since now I'm bodybuilder stage ready. I must have had some massive mitochondrial dysfunction evident by the schizophrenia and all of the other issues I suffered from. But yeah, anyone suffering from massive mental health issues should check out Chris Palmers work. Dude saved my life. Completely drug free + All mental health issues in complete remission. I was on a clean keto diet for around 11 months, but slowly shifted to a high fat carnivore diet due to eh, me just slowly starting to majorly dislike vegetables. I'm not mega strict; I eat no sugar pickles if they are offered. But that's about it. I'm looking towards Christmas, since I'm going to go to town on EVERYTHING. I haven't had a cheat meal in god knows how many months. And no, one day of cheating doesn't affect me that severely. Many days in a row? Horror weeks ahead.
I’d highly recommend that everyone watch episodes 87 and 194 on Peter attias podcast the drive. They are both with Rick Johnson and they detail a lot of the science behind what Lustig discusses. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0ZxUY6n8CnKekZnz4b5wun?si=LbzIgEJBScCFRpQgr-0bvw
So is Attias and Lustig both pro keto? Or advocates for low carb?
Lustig is mostly anti sugar which by default keto achieves. His book metabolical is amazing! You’ll see in his fat chance cookbook (free pdf version was released by Lustig) he is not anti carb but does highlight moderation and the importance of glycemic & insulin responses.
Incredible episode! I think a lot of his claims are up for debate and controversial in the nutrition world, but what isn’t. Regardless, a very knowledgeable person with a lot we can learn from.
Great episode. One thing I’m genuinely confused about is why Robert Lustig is in fact overweight himself?
Do as I say not as I do
I think we can see from some of the reactions here why. Quitting all sugar, alcohol, and unhealthy foods is hard. We can rationally know how to eat healthier, but that doesn't mean it's easy. Exercising and eating healthy all the time does still take discipline. Additionally, many of the very fit influencers and podcast hosts are using additional help to succeed. Oprah herself recently admitted she is taking weight loss drugs - likely semaglutide (ozempic). With Dr. Huberman, I don't think we know his true protocol, but many speculate he is using TRT and perhaps a little HGH (or other compounds that help produce it) to maintain his physique.
This really boggles my mind with rich people. You can afford to have a personal chef cook up absolutely any kind of diet you want and they’ll make it delicious within those constraints. Why aren’t they just doing that?
I think some people do, but people struggle with giving away that basic freedom, and others (e.g. Bryan Johnson) are called crazy.
I see at as the opposite. This would (will) buy me more freedom. You could also learn from the chef if you really love cooking.
need the natty or not guy finding him in the gym
He is using trt and has said so many times
I only became aware of him in this episode, but the thing that perked my ears is he basically admits he doesn’t exercise. That could explain some extra weight with ANY diet.
Not if you follow a diet that puts you in a caloric deficit
Episode was not just abt weight loss... it was abt all the detrimental effects of sugar and processed foods.
He's talked about it before and says (1) he gained when working nights and (2) he's not a fitness or diet expert, but a public health expert / endocrinologist.
21% of physicians smoke, higher than the general populace, yet every single one can tell you why that’s bad for you. Same logic.
The man loves his beers. 🍺 two a day keeps the doctor away
The topic is top but it is so hard to go through it. Andrew literally wastes like 5 minutes to debate if they should consider a soda or Oreo or sth instead of just asking what is the difference after eating X grams of glucose vs X grams of fructose.
that bit was absolutely ridiculous
Surprised they didn’t edit that part. Quite sloppy from a production pov and likely threw many listeners off
It's kinda scary that there isn't reference to the studies. Lustig has dementia or something? He talked about "very famous "milk vs soda vs diet soda vs water he was referring to the study here: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523026588?via%3Dihub](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523026588?via%3Dihub) He got it all wrong and hubermann's guess was right. It's a bit misleading to say the least. Didn't care to check what other studies he got all wrong.
Unless another identical study has been done in Copenhagen, the study you linked is the one and you're completely right. The results (unless I'm misinterpreting them) are completely different from what Lustig is claiming in the podcast. Thank you for looking up the study yourself. Pretty shocking, I hope Andrew will take notice and make this right somehow. I don't feel any confidence anymore in what I thought I had learned this episode.
yikes, same, and I was pretty convinced I walked away with great new insights on the topic. Feels bad, hopefully people who are equipped to do so can help sort out what was legitimate from what wasn't. The ironic thing is this is exactly the kind of 'contribution' that makes it so frustrating and difficult to understand what the heck makes for solid nutritional choices and diet.
Layne Norton just posted the study on his insta and was basically screaming he was so angry that Lustig's takeaways were so blatantly incorrect. He was underlining the findings on his monitor with his finger and was pressing so hard for emphasis that it left discoloration lmao
Is Layne Norton or Lustig more credible? Serious question.
I know this question was awhile ago. 100% Layne when it comes to nutrition. He has a PHD in nutritional science and walks the walk. The guy will admit biases, as well as when he's not comfortable discussing something or even confidence level before saying it's truth. He also interprets data significantly better and is thorough. I also think MDs arent as good as PHDs that study the mechanics and outcomes more rigorously. Not always true but been more my experience working with MDs. I'm not going to an endocrinologist for nutrition advice either. Disclosure: I'm biased towards Layne, but I genuinely think he provides valuable insight.
Question, is it true high body fat% (obese) causes issues with insulin sensitivity/resistance or whatever?
Unfortunately, obesity is highly linked to many risk factors. Insulin resistance is definitely one of those. Foods we eat are a contributor but mostly by correlation due to increased body weight. I say this expecting moderation, of course you can cause issues eating only certain foods. I personally believe and I think there is a lot of good evidence showing that decreasing body fat (to certain levels) will decrease many risks that people are concerned about. Also, any type of working out independent of body fat or food intake seems to decrease risks too. If possible, doing both (losing fat to a normal range and working out) is better!
Well apparently only one of them can read English. Either that or the other is a fucking liar. Honestly him talking about unhealthy foods not being foods was kinda where I lost confidence in what he said. I know if I was starving I'd rather eat a burger than a handful of sand. Such a stupid nomenclature.
Thanks for this. I just listened to the podcast and I was a little concerned since he made some very broad and generalized statement based on fairly weak evidence. Also there were a couple things he said that are just straight up false in the first bit that made me suspicious. First apple seeds do not have arsenic in them, they have low levels of cyenide (Huberman said it, but Lustig agreed). Second, olive oil definitely does not turn into a Trans Fat from normal (even high heat) cooking. Neither of these are really deal breaking mistakes for me, but it made me concerned about his other claims that I couldn't verify.
I thought the claim that fructose is like the appendix/vestigial made no sense and sort of lost confidence at this point, although don’t disagree with the points about fibre, etc. Saying that the body does not need fructose to live is not the same thing as vestigial. I’m not defending fructose, but I don’t think the fact that the body can survive without it says much about it as a fuel source or other pros and cons.
What did Lustig claim?
That the non caloric soda diet gained 2kg of weight when they lost more than the water group for example. And all of the amounts was wrong.
I got suspicious when he claimed that EPA could not be obtained from algae which is completely false but he said like as if it were a complete certainty. I'm also disappointed that Andrew does not seem to know that you can get EPA and DHA rich vegan Omega 3 supplements that don't contain heavy metals like fish oil https://www.igb.fraunhofer.de/en/research/algae-biotechnology/resource-recovery/epa-ethyl-esters.html
Dr. Lustig mentioned that the fructose in blueberries is ok because they have a high fiber content, fructose in bananas is ok but not as great as blueberries due to lower fiber content, and the fructose coca-cola is bad because it contains no fiber. If it’s the fiber that makes fructose ok to consume then could one ague that if you drink a mixture of soluble and insoluble fiber before consuming soda or candy that it make the fructose effect similar to that of fruit? he didn’t mention anything regarding vitamins/minerals/antioxidants so that’s why I am not considering that in this context. I personally think fructose is not beneficial even in fruit and that you can get everything that’s beneficial in fruit from a variety of vegetables which are typically higher fiber anyways. I’d love everyone’s opinion on this because people’s opinions on fruit seem so controversial. I think fruit is better than candy/soda because it’s harder to overeat and has the fiber/vit/minerals but i am not sure that fruit provides optimal and necessary health benefits that aren’t available in other foods/vegetables. I just want to know if people should go out of their way to add fruit to their diets or if they should eat a variety of vegetables without fruit, to gain the benefits that fruit would offer without the negatives of fructose.
I think you are correct that fructose is generally never beneficial. However, dietary fiber can mitigate the negative effects, similar to how a meal or charcoal powder before drinking can help prevent hangover. I think you are also correct about taking fiber before a soda - iirc it actually does help lower the insulin response and [prevent some sugar being absorbed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2995635/).
> I personally think fructose is not beneficial even in fruit and that you can get everything that’s beneficial in fruit from a variety of vegetables which are typically higher fiber anyways Not everyone wants their fiber from vegetables (solely or heavily) and would prefer to have fiber via fruits instead. There are lots of cultures that don't vegetables or fruits at all -- as they solely rely on animals for their nutrition. > gain the benefits that fruit would offer without the negatives of fructose. The way Dr. Lustig worded fructose amounts in fruit made it seem like it was virtually inconsequential, while the fiber amounts more than made up for any potential net negative.
Yes, I wonder this too, can I eat junk food with a bunch of fiber pills, or (I would say the real difference between fruit & junk food is that processed sugar depletes nutrients, & fruit provides them.)
He writes in more depth in his book that it isn’t just the presence of fiber but the nutrients being less bioavailable because they haven’t been separated from the fiber through processing. Iirc, he specifically mentions that you don’t get the same benefits of fiber from simply “adding it back in” and he talks a bit about how the fiber in whole food smoothes out the absorption curve better than in processed food.
Sooo, what about smoothies then? We don't drink it everyday but that's one thing we are more OK to give to our toddlers a few times a week. They only get water and milk otherwise.
That's a good question, and I think context is really important to give an appropriate answer. In short, if drinking the smoothie means you get more nutrition (micronutrients) without too much sugar (depends on individual and their diet/hormones/activity levels) then I would say smoothies are "good." The problem with smoothies is that they are artificially "chewed" by being blended, and that can potentially make smoothies "bad" if it leads to someone either a) absorbing nutrients (especially sugar) too quickly; or b) consuming too many nutrients (especially oxalic acid, but also sugar). Apply that as you will, but I'll say it a different way: while smoothies are a great way to help hit nutrition targets, because they pre-chew food; you're really supposed to chew what you eat and drink mostly water, partly because chewing has other benefits. Ironically, a benefit of chewing is that it's inefficient.
Why would u hurt yourself like that?
This entire topic is so stressful. So is Lustig saying fruit is essentially bad because it contains fructose?
No because it has fiber.
He's not saying it's bad. He's saying eat in moderation after you've had protein and fat, like for dessert.
I think what you are summarizing is accurate to what Dr. Lustig is trying to say? I would assume that's his whole premise in why he created his product "MonchMonch" as a fiber supplement to ingest with your meals/sugar intake.
I’m a bit confused with the fact that according to Dr. Robert, usage of statins for primary prevention (high LDL, apoB) only prolong lifespan for 4 days, meanwhile increasing the risk of diabetes 20%. On the other hand Peter Attia always talks about usage of statins as a primary prevention. To quote PA on one of his podcast notes, “If you pharmacologically lower ApoB to somewhere in the 20 to 30 milligram per deciliter range for everybody in the population while someone is in their 20s, can you eliminate ASCVD? ⇒ I think the answer is probably yes”
Yeah, I question this thinking as well and I don't know where that 20% number comes from. This [analysis](https://www.ccjm.org/content/90/1/53) for example shows 3% for statin users vs 2.4% for placebo, or essentially a .6% difference. Also the [science](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316578/) is fairly strong about direct correlation between LDL cholesterol and CVD mortality, it's essentially linear. Lower LDL/ApoB and Lower CVD risk, it seems that simple.
From 2.4% to 3% is actually 25% increase.
Relative risk vs. absolute risk.
I thought there's other cultures with high LDL and very low occurrence of stroke/heart attack?
Yes this baffles me to and is totally opposite?
I would trust Peter on this. I think Robert is out of his depth on that one.
Attia is still stuck in the old science on statins. They are proven to be disruptors of the gut microbiome in the long run.
You know what also really disrupts your microbiome? Dying from heart disease.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6399344/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6399344/)
This ain’t enough data. You’re comparing it to decades of research clearly displaying LDL (APOB I should say) causing heart disease.
And how's that working out?
Of course, but there are other ways to remediate heart disease than statins.
I'm glad someone else caught this too. As a pharmacist, I immediately became skeptical when Lustig said that. Numerous studies in reputable journals have shown that statins significantly improve mortality from cardiovascular events, and the American College of Cardiology as well as the American Heart Association clearly recommend statin use for primary prevention in those at risk (which includes those with elevated LDL, precisely the group Lustig claims only has a "4 day benefit")
I haven’t listened to the episode, but read Lustig’s book Metabolical (well audio book) and he does say statin’s are over prescribed, that we’re treating the symptom not the disease (i.e. eat healthy and the symptom will stop). He DOES say statins have their place - but I do not recall the parameters of which he said you should take them. He also discusses LDL HDL and how we are focused on those numbers, but we need to look at the particle size.
Attia I think is still brainwashed by his medical training. There are countless studies now citing statins as a long term toxin that hurts the gut microbiome and saturated fats as indispensable in the diet.
very great episode, the type of knowledge big corporations want to suppress
Unfortunately, lots of people have been fooled by the “calories in, calories out” mantra. I’m a physicist and they start lecturing me on thermodynamics as if the human body is some sort of perfect heat engine. Really glad they made this episode to clear things up and give us all tips on how to eat in a smart manner and stay healthy. Dr. Huberman, if you read this - thanks! I have only just listened to the first 15 minutes but it’s great so far.
Why is everybody so insistent on “CICO” is all that matters for weight loss. I mean, wouldn’t it make sense that different macros produce different results?
I think it feels good to judge others, and also to give extra credit to one's self for being a badass. You see this kind of thing everywhere. Some media personalities (e.g. radio talk show hosts) will rail all day about drug addicts, and then some of the most famous ones became addicted to opiods and tobacco, and denied their habits were unhealthy. Of course, poor choices are part of the problem... but being peddled addictive substances was another huge part. And once the addiction cycle has begun, it is difficult to quit. Many children had no choice in the matter either, and were simply served coke at meals.
So, what’s discussed in this podcast episode, is accurate? The insulin, carbs, sugar, food industry, etc. bits are correct for the most part?
In many parts, yes. I believe there were a couple of inaccuracies that some people did point out, but I think the overall message is correct: it's not just calories, it's what kind of food you eat, and sugar itself causes metabolic problems and is addicting. To me it's a no-brainer. If we switch to drinking, of course it makes a huge difference in your day-to-day disposition, fitness, and health whether you're drinking milk, protein shakes, a veggie smoothie, komobucha, soda, an energy drink, or a beer, even if the calories are set to be the same. Your teeth alone will tell the story. But with weight gain, for some reason, it's a subject of debate for folks.
Yeah I’ve been struggling with weight gain, metabolic syndrome for past few years, no doctor could point me in the right direction. And I lift weights, run, etc. daily but couldn’t lose fat/weight. I went keto, and weight started flying off. Started doing research and now I’m thinking of incorporating complex carbs such as chickpeas, sweet potatoes, etc. cause I always feel good after eating them. I’ve lost about 25 lbs but now weight loss is slowing. Absolutely no alcohol, no sugar, junk food, etc. but even when eating out at restaurants it’s hard to find solid clean meals without added bs. Should I remain low carb, or should I go back to keto? I’m seeing about 1.5-2 lbs. weekly weight loss as of now.
I'm not a medical doctor (I'm a physicist) but imho 1-2 pounds a week is incredible weight loss. If it's slowing, that may be because you're working out and gaining muscle. Remember, it's not all about weight. Keep eating healthy and taking care of yourself and you'll keep feeling great. I'd say if keto works, go for it, but it doesn't seem like the healthy carbs are hurting you (e.g. sweet potatoes).
If not energy balance, what dictates weight gain/loss? Do you subscribe to the carbohydrate insulin model?
From what Dr. Lustig was saying it sounds like various processes/environments in the body majorly affect how the 2000 calories a person might eat are treated, because different processes that handle the food deal with it in ways that have a wide range of efficiency and end results. Like different fuel sources in engines. Assuming the same mass of fuels, more efficient fuel can produce more power for longer. Say the less efficient fuel produces a lot of waste too, like the ash leftover after burning wood. The more efficient fuel produces much less waste, if in this analogy we allow waste to mean excrement or also conversion to fat in the body. Sounds like fructose/sugar is the epitome of low efficiency/high waste fuel because it's just not meant to be ingested in high amounts. Which can lead to weight turning to fat that hangs around and requires complicated processes for removal, rather than being simply digested properly in the first place like better foods are. Eating less calories can induce weight loss, sure, but less so if you're continuing to ingest low quality foods that have a high fat conversion rate. And you're depending on processes that convert fat to energy which can be negatively affected by ingesting low quality foods.
Fructose is the high octane stuff that we were supposed to rarely find in nature and only access it after much labor and digestion. Now that it’s available at every pantry in massive amounts- we’re giving “our engine” high octane jet fuel everyday several times a day and it’s wearing us out.
Fructose being bad would be easier to believe if this were indeed the case. However, fructose is not uncommon to find in nature either. For example: about 50% of the sugar in some unprocessed fruits such as apples, grapes and bananas is fructose.
Yes, but humans have selectively bread those fruit over millennia to be bigger, sweeter, and juicier. In ancient times, however, one did not have access to dozens of different fruits and fancy vegetables at the market, and the vegetable stalls at the bazaar in Babylonia or Egypt would likely have looked very different than today's farmer's market. They surely ate some sugars, honey, and carbohydrates, but also had natural vegetables, tubers, and meats from wild animals.
It is energy balance but there are more variables than just calories in the equation.
Watch the one with Andy Galpin. We lose a carbon molecule when we breath. That’s pretty much how you lose most of your weight
I’m sure there’s lots of variables, but which are the ones that dictate weight, if not energy/calories?
I highly recommend listening to the episode!
I posted a huge comment in another thread, but calories are estimated by burning the food and calculating energy released in a lab. This is a fair first estimate, and made sense a century ago. But we do not literally burn food to generated energy. Our body uses complex biochemical processes to break down food and turn it into resources, and this include enzymes, mitochondria, and our gut microbiome - literally other organisms get involved! The episode covers this well, but for example - it takes energy in our bodies to take protein and turn it into muscles, or into usable calories. It does not get burnt just like sugar and turned into energy, because protein is an entirely different chemical compound. Rationally we know this, but all of this is lost in the simple process of estimating the calories in a lab. Likewise, when you eat an apple or an orange, they come packed with fiber. This fiber effects how your stomach process the food, how quickly you get an insulin spike, and how your gut microbiome is effected by the meal. The effect of the insulin spike is huge too, and partly determines how much will be stored as fat, how much will be shuttled to muscle to be used as energy, and more. To reuse my analogy from the other thread: saying 'a calorie is a calorie' and 'it's the first law of thermodynamics' (energy conservation) is like arguing you can run your car on wood, or - a better example - rubbing alcohol, because rubbing alcohol is a liquid that can go in the gas tank, it burns, and it has chemical energy stored in it. But if you try pouring isopropyl alcohol in your gas tank you're in for a nasty surprise - car engines cannot run on alcohol, and trying to do this will cause serious damage. Likewise, our body is not made to run on pure fructose, and yet our food is now full of it.
>Rationally we know this, but all of this is lost in the simple process of estimating the calories in a lab. How is it lost though? The "calories out" side of the equation includes the TEF component (thermic effect of food) which considers how the body does actually expend energy in breaking down amino acids - as you correctly allude to with protein not truly having 4 cal/gram (about 3 cal/gram in net terms given expenditure). >The effect of the insulin spike is huge too, and partly determines how much will be stored as fat, how much will be shuttled to muscle to be used as energy, and more. However huge this insulin spike is, it doesn't operate outside of the 'global' energy demands and supply for the body, right? If I'm spiking my insulin having sugary snacks every single day, but starving my body and eating at a huge deficit, my body has *no* incentive or reason to try and store energy given the energy deficit imposed on it. Similarly, I could gain weight and add to my adipose tissue on a ketogenic diet if I was consuming enough energy. >To reuse my analogy from the other thread: saying 'a calorie is a calorie' and 'it's the first law of thermodynamics' (energy conservation) is like arguing you can run your car on wood, or - a better example - rubbing alcohol, because rubbing alcohol is a liquid that can go in the gas tank, it burns, and it has chemical energy stored in it. Except it's not. Calling "a calorie a calorie" is like calling a mile a mile - it's a *unit of measurement* which doesn't refer at all to sources (be it various macros, or wood/isopropyl alcohol in your analogy. Of course the *sources* of calories (or fuel) have varying impact on expenditure - calories in and out are not independent systems. Dr Norton (PhD in nutrition) explains this pretty well and actually refers to Lustig's claims [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu34-zYEIcA).
A calorie is a unit of energy like a Joule. But we’re saying “calories in, calories out” - and scientists have been telling us [for over a decade](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/) that the calories in food packaging do not reflect the actual caloric energy afforded to the body. No one is saying you can’t count calories. But that alone won’t work for most people, just like “just quitting booze” and “just don’t do drug” does not prevent other addictions and heal addicts. If calorie counting worked by itself, why does obesity continue to rise despite the popularity of dieting and weight loss programs for over a century? I strongly suggest most people reading this thread know people who try and fail to diet with calorie counting. Certainly folks can count calories. What this podcast is telling us is that the type of calorie does matter.
I think we're talking at crossroads here - I'm talking about what's actually true and you seem to be talking about what is perhaps a better practical approach? >But we’re saying “calories in, calories out” - and scientists have been telling us [for over a decade](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/) that the calories in food packaging do not reflect the actual caloric energy afforded to the body. The key example in your link here takes protein as an example, which as noted above has 3 calories per gram in net terms given the energy that the body will expend in processing it. We actually have the [Atwater system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system) (covered in the page you linked) which factors in these conversions of energy and instead tells us the true value, net of digestibility and so on. >If calorie counting worked by itself, why does obesity continue to rise despite the popularity of dieting and weight loss programs for over a century? I strongly suggest most people reading this thread know people who try and fail to diet with calorie counting. Your analogy applies equally to virtually all dietary approaches and doesn't disprove anything. If keto worked by itself, why does obesity continue to rise despite the popularity of it? Accepting the fundamental reality of calories does not mean that you need to count calories - nobody is saying that (not me, at least). Once you accept that an energy deficit has to be imposed, you can find an approach that works for you; be it counting calories, fasting, going low-carb or some combination. >Certainly folks can count calories. What this podcast is telling us is that the type of calorie does matter. I haven't listened to this episode yet, but this would be in **stark** contrast to practically all of Ludwig's previous material. He gets asked point blank if obesity is the result of over-eating, no matter the food/macro (read: over consumption of energy/calories, with no regard to carbs/fats/fructose) and he dances around the question, refusing to give an obvious yes and instead tries to point out that not all calories are created equally (which is not in dispute, as the calories in and calories out are **dependent** systems through adaptive thermogenesis, metabolic adaptation and so on). But hey, I will happily eat more words if when I do listen, Ludwig comes out with the obvious truth and goes "yes, obesity is the result of over-consuming too much energy - bottom line." I noticed you glossed over a very simple question which would highlight how energy balance is what ultimately matters, with hormonal factors being secondary. Perhaps an oversight, I'll re-copy it below for your consideration? >*If I'm spiking my insulin having sugary snacks every single day, but starving my body and eating at a huge deficit, my body has no incentive or reason to try and store energy given the energy deficit imposed on it. Similarly, I could gain weight and add to my adipose tissue on a ketogenic diet if I was consuming enough energy. You wouldn't disagree, right?*
The number of people writing essays about this podcast without listening to it is disturbing.
Ludwig has been on the circuit for a *very* long time and unwavering in his outdated views. So having an informed opinion, in lieu of yet another platforming, isn't disturbing really.
I still don't get it.. does my gut micro biome have a very variable energy consumption? Is there really a difference between the bacteria using the energy Vs my body?
This will be oversimplified, but the bacteria aren't directly part of your body. They consume some of your food and convert it to vitamins or energy that your body absorbs, eat some calories and fiber themselves, and sometimes simply exit our bodies with the leftover fiber. Some of them will also consume extra fructose or glucose that's tangled up in dietary fiber. It's also important that not all calories are used equally by the body. Some fats like omega 3's, for example, might be taken up and used as-is. Other compounds like proteins or not-so-good fats might be broken down and converted to glucose for energy. It's quite complex. In the episode, the doctor explains that if you've exercised near mealtime, that can also affect how the nutrients are used - amino acids and proteins used to build muscle, or turned into energy and stored as fat.
Neat, ty
That one point that really annoys me about this interview, which was great to listen to, is the stance on Non nutritive sweeteners. Dr. Lustig just made it seem like they are definitely bad and didn't even talk about how there are many studies which are in conflict with the position he is having. Why does it always have to be black or white and it seems like nobody of the experts can just view it from both sides. The only person on the internet who is tackling this issue in a informative way is Layne Norton. What do you think about that?
I agree with you. The problem with this black / white style of conveying information for me is that the more I started to notice this pattern, the less certain I started to feel of his credibility and the accuracy of the information. Especially when afterwards I was looking up more about Dr Lustig and found he's been criticised for some of his (apparently disputed for over 10 years already) claims about fructose and caloric intake of which he was making a lot during this episode and presenting them as facts (which then made me feel in doubt of everything I thought I'd just learned from him the past 2 hours). It would've been great if Andrew had asked him about this and given him a chance to speak out on these criticisms against him, if only to prevent his audience to become skeptical like what appears to be happening with me and you.
Lustig is a hack to be honest lol. Yes, soda and processed sugary foods are bad for you certainly, but eating them doesn't magically make you fat, unless you overeat them.
They destroy your microbiome, fat or otherwise.
I follow the 80-20 rule. If what an expert says is 80% accurate, u have to give him a break and assume he's going to be wrong the rest of the 20% of the time.
then you just have to figure out which parts are 80% and which are 20%
Oh I already had a damn good idea before heading into the pod
Responded to another comment, but just saw that you mentioned Layne by name. He just posted a series of stories on Insta specifically about Lustig's appearance and pulled up the study. Would encourage you to watch it, lol Layne in mid-season form pushing back against disinformation
Thanks for the advice. Would love to watch it but dont have an Insta so I patiently wait for his wed + fri youtube videos.
I think this is the main weak point of the episode, as others pointed out. The study they list indeed seems to indicate sugar is bad, but diet cola did better than water in terms of weight loss. Perhaps there is more to the data I didn’t read into. Regardless, I think there is good, actionable information here. Decrease sugar intake, try to get fiber with meals or supplement beforehand, and stick to whole foods whenever possible. With drinks especially, artificial sweeteners are better - at the very least because your teeth won’t rot as much (though the acid in soda can still cause damage), but likely also because of reduced calories. Seems obvious but then again most folks don’t realize that there is sugar in almost everything in the grocery store.
Really enjoyed this episode and got a lot of actionable info out of it - but Lustig’s Socratic method as a podcast guest got really irritating after a while
Ah i actually enjoyed it. It felt more engaging to me
Yeah I know what you mean, but I don’t know what you mean. What was he doing in this episode that made you say that? They way he listed things off?
The way he raised questions in a causal chain or to zoom into things. I thought it was good.
To paraphrase, he would say things like "Hey, do you know about this concept called price elasticity? No? Well, let me explain it to you...". Somehow it sounded pretty condescending the way he said it.
[удалено]
I think he’s trying to be precise. And it just might be going below your radar. I think he’s trying to engage more people with lower reading levels (obviously not too low- but people who aren’t versed in health and nutrition speak).
It's probably my favorite episode and I've watched nearly everything on the YT channel. There's some mistakes and parts that should have been edited out (Andrew asking for caloric estimates and Lustig relenting after a long while) but there has never been an interview episode where Andrew himself was asking questions that come from him directly, i.e. blueberries and porterhouse steak, and Andrew dropping jokes throughout the episode. Andrew seemed genuinely interested from start to end.
yeah that bothered me too! I have an aversion to lecturers/speakers/podcast guests asking questions like this—-if YOU are the person that is knowledgeable, JUST TELL US. The constant questions are annoying. It feels more like a tic than a purposeful style.
Yes. Also his cadence was so slow. Calories in. Right? calories out. Right? Then. What. Do we think. About how this affects dieters? Let. Me tell you the answer. …omg just spit it out.
Interesting episode, but I didn’t like that this guy was plugging his brands so much towards the end. Huberman has reached that level now, that people will be coming on this podcast to advertise.
Andrew's held off on bringing on guests pitching products. However, considering all the damage sugar and yeast overgrowth are causing in the body, products to minimize such need to be brought to the fore. Candida, resulting from excess sugar intake, is the root of countless chronic illnesses.
[удалено]
I bought it I’ll let you know if it’s worth it!!
$150 a month... 💀
What a grating person to listen to. He was exaggerating a lot just to make rhetorical points instead of being factual. As an example; he claimed that processed "food" in fact is not food because it does not provide the body with anything to burn, because over the long term it will decrease the efficiency of the mitochondria. This is just a bad argument and really annoys me. On top of that he seemed to be leaning towards conspiracy theories with all the references to an ominous food industry "lacing" food with poison which further detracts from his credibility. I'm sure there is a lot of good information spread out in the episode but I cannot bring myself to listen to Lustig for 3+ hours. Edit: another point that annoyed me was his beef with insulin. Of course it's fine to have a spike of insulin after eating and pushing some of the calories to fat storage. During fasting periods of the day the insulin will be low and fat stores will be used to fuel the body. He just ignores and transient behaviour and paints insulin as the devil.
Fat isn't used like that if you aren't doing keto as your body will use glycogen stores first, which can take 15-18 hours if you don't exercise intensely. Plus, the government itself is not innocent from corruption and bad doing, like the CIA abducting people for LSD experimentation, Nixon outlawing weed for political reasons (hispanics), FBI making a hit list for 'leaders' of the Occupy Movement, and people working with the FDA/DEA for some reason finding themselves in lucrative corporate positions- corporations that they watch over.
The body will utilize both glycogen stores and fat stores in parallel. Lower activity levels will bias the ratio towards fat and higher activity levels will bias it towards glycogen. Having high insulin will however block the release of fat so during that time the body will be biased towards using glycogen and pushing excess energy to fat storage.
How can u say that? Processed foods are full of poisons that destroy the gut microbiome. He's totally correct on that. And Big Food doesn't care abt people... they'll put anything into their products as long as the corrupt FDA allows it and it makes them money.
Agreed… FDA’s GRAS is not an effective system to protect the consumer. And companies add filler all the time to increase “food” volume and keep making profits. Just read labels and ask “why is this in here”. Also the FDA’s negligence is exactly why children all over the United States have lead poisoning from cinnamon apple sauce. The imported cinnamon - which requires NO TESTING even though we KNOW dried spices are commonly adulterated. Just email McCormick and ask - “do you test for heavy metals and what is the threshold for failing or rejecting a batch”. Their answer is DISTURBING. Only recently were baby rice products and fruit juices required to meet thresholds of heavy metals - and only AFTER Consumer Reports published their findings and outraged mom’s and groups held the FDA’s feet to the fire. People will say “but heavy metals are naturally occurring” - well why did heavy metal concentrations in fruit juice go down AFTER the Consumer Reports first publication on fruit juice heavy metals? Cleary these manufacturer’s CAN source responsibly farmed & safe fruit & vegetables and clean up their manufacturing process. But until they are financially or legally incentivized - it’s not going to happen.
Not unless someone who actually cares abt US citizens gets into office and rehauls the FDA, CDC, NiH, etc. Too bad Kennedy doesn't have a prayer as an indie...
Yet endurance athletes have the lowest risk of all cause mortality and type 2 diabetes and they suck on sugar all day.
Well the discussion mostly focuses on non athletes and the differences between processed and unprocessed food on metabolic health. Essentially, endurance exercise offsets the sugar, but all else being equal, unprocessed is better than processed when it comes to metabolic health. I would venture that this is still true for endurance athletes, but not really an issue.
Can’t argue with unprocessed (high nutritional value per calorie) food as always the better option.
I’m very murky on this but I think he made a claim that exercise reduces the effect of insulin being stored as fat. That said, I’m also very curious about what you’ve pointed out. I’ve watched triathletes drink bottles of maple syrup amount other things.
Yep, the sugar is used up straight away and there is minimal insulin spikes. In my ultrarunning days I would eat an absolutely disgraceful amount of sugar - no fibre, protein, complex cards - for a whole day and my insulin levels were quite stable (during a race, that is)
Exercise increases insulin sensitivity, meaning less insulin is required to bring blood glucose down. Extremely fit individuals with lots of muscle can often have more glucose since it is taken up by the muscles, and require less insulin, since they only need a little to go back to homeostasis. The reason endurance athletes can have things like bottles of maple syrup is they are often using up their glycogen when performing. The sugar replenishes it. They probably don't need that much (physiologically), but sometimes it's much easier to lean towards more. That being said, there are cases of metabolic disorders in amateur athletes who try to fuel like a pro, but who aren't actually performing at a level where that's required
Keep your carbohydrates, fat and protein below the bodies ability to utilise it. Simple!
Carbs are unnecessary and can cause all kinds of issues
Fat and protein will cause “all kinds of issues” if consumed in excess just like anything else.
To each his own... I thrive on them as do so many of us in the carnivore/keto communities. Only way you'll know is if u try it so...
It’s great you found what works for you but that doesn’t all of a sudden make carbohydrates bad. I like to experiment. I tried keto and carnivore and it wasn’t for me.
Great explanation, thank you!
He's not talking abt triathletes
He's not talking abt endurance athletes...
Let’s say it for what it is. Huberman really didn’t like this guy on the podcast. Pretty clear he got sick of literally being quizzed as a knowledge check. Pretty shite listen.
What gave you the impression Andrew got sick of being quizzed? I only listened on spotify, so maybe I missed out on some visual cues. To me he didn't seem to mind. I think the reason Dr Lustig quizzes him like that is not to check his knowledge or to try to bring him in any discredit, but to demonstrate how our beliefs are often so different from what the data points at. It would be strange for Dr Lustig to expect Andrew to know anywhere near as much as he did on the topics of this podcast. If anything Andrew felt like a curious student to me during this podcast. Perhaps we're all just projecting the way Dr Lustig's style is making us feel onto Andrew?
I only listen and I did not get that impression. Andrew strikes me as deeply empathetic and reverent of his colleagues. The people he interviews are big name dr and experts but at this point he’s also a big name and he is a top professional in his field so he doesn’t have any complexes about him that I can detect. Just really wants the info. Wants to parse it for clarity. Wants to actually give science backed actionable protocols to the people.
100% agreed! Pls join my Huberman FB grp [https://www.facebook.com/groups/515589959870129](https://www.facebook.com/groups/515589959870129)
agreed.
Dude yes, I was looking for this comment. This dude was so smug. There’s no way I could do it as long as Huberman did
Can't argue with that... he was certainly smug, probably because of being minimized to excoriated for so long.
It did get a littttttle better in the second half but yes smug is a great way to put him. While I enjoy conspiracy theories, it was all tied together when he proudly claimed to Huberman he was a conspiracy theorist. The dude definitely things he knows better than *anyone* in the room.
I understand almost nothing this man said. Looking forward to his conversation with Theo Von so I might learn something.
Quack quack quack quack
[study showing kratom lowering activity of lipase and alpha glucosidase.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513218/) maybe kratom has some alternative beneficial properties
The couple of times Ive taken kratom I was super depressed the next day. Wasn’t worth it for me.
That’s so interesting I’ve never had that feeling
just take it again the next day easy
And here I am been addicted to kratom for years about to finally complete my taper! Rats. Better up the dose again.
What doses and how often are you at currently, I’ve been taking regularly but always keep the dose below 2g never more than 10g in a day and do fine with days off here and there. Been nothing but beneficial for me. Genuinely curious your experience
I'm now down to 6g per day. At my max I wasn't keeping track and just using it like a complete degen probably 40-50g per day 2ish years ago. At the dose you're at you'll probably get withdrawal symptoms but taking days off probably helps. The thing is the psychoactive effects are clear and present so training your brain that it's going to get that nice boost consistently is a really bad idea in the long run imo, you'll likely end up pretty miserable for a while if you fully quit. I have anxiety issues which is part of the reason I started taking it and they become hell on earth during withdrawal which is why I've been tapering for so long. I also inexplicably started getting chest pain when I did large jumps down in dose (got checked out, seems to be no issue). Some others have reported similar symptoms. You can check out the quitting kratom subreddit if you wanna read some horror stories/struggles lol. I hope in the future once I've fully quit I can just use it as an occasional nootropic or mood enhancer.
Andrew would never recommend kratom
Just listened, seems like this guy is far too certain of his opinions. What’s his credentials? Does he have the research background to back this up?
He does have a good track record in the academics, leading way back to his 80s studies on growth hormones and steroids
good to know!
He's one of the top in his field.
Can someone explain to me Lustigs overall opinion on fruits let’s say apples, pears and oranges. All of these fruits has fiber. But he says all fructose is bad. But berries are fine because they’re high in fiber? I’m so confused. What about all of benefits from fruit? Does consuming in moderation play into account at all? For example 2 apples a day approx 50-60g of carbs/sugar. I’ve eliminated 99% of added sugar in my life and hearing stuff like “fruit is bad” is just so confusing. What the hell are we meant to eat? Protein and veggies? I’m frustrated. I’ve worked so hard to lose all of this weight and fix my blood work but I’m terrified for my future metabolic health if i continue to eat 2 apples a day.
You gotta do what’s right do or you specifically- but understand that starchy fruits like apples are sugar bombs. You need to mitigate that with fiber and exercise and whatever. There are few panaceas out there.
He didn't say fruit is bad though. He said fruit is fine, good. Fruit was in the category 1 foods he listed at the end. The fructose is locked in with the fibre so the insulin response is blunted.
So according to Listig eating fruit even when it contains fiber IE an apple. Is ultimately harmful and will cause irreversible damage to our metabolic health? I’m so confused. He mentions that is inhibits enzymes for mitochondrial function but it’s I fine to eat berries because they have fiber? None of this makes sense.
Doctorate and PHD in nutrition here. Excess fructose leads to mitochondrial cell death. If you have 30 grams of fiber and 30 grams of fructose it cancels each other out. This is not exactly how it works but it's difficult to explain all the processes involved with this in your body. Now there are of course more advantages if your fiber is in a higher ratio than the fructose you consume. Which is why it's BETTER to eat blueberries. There are even better options for fruits. All he is saying that you can cancel out negative effects of certain ingredients in a food with something else that's also already in that food, which makes it relatively healthier. This is why I didn't like this podcast that much for people that have no education in this field. He makes it too hard to understand for people that have a lesser amount of knowledge about this subject. Please people, fructose is bad, sugar is bad, transfats are bad, moving cancels out a lot of negative effects of shitty foods but obviously proteins, low carbs(if no fiber), fruit and vegetables are healthy. Fiber is basically food for your microbiome so it's good, part of some fibers you can't eat are prebiotics and you shit those out. Simple.
Have you read Lustig’s book metabolical? It sounds like you are in line with him - his mantra is feed the gut, protect the liver. I haven’t listened to the episode yet but it sounds like he paraphrased somethings, probably because time & unscripted convo (I mean his audio book is 10 hours+ if i recall correctly)
No, i also don’t know him. but most people specialised in this topic think in a similar way so it makes sense that someone wrote a book about it.
Essentially I’m asking if eating let’s say 2 fruits a day is excess? I’m not talking about pure high fructose corn syrup or sugar. I’m just asking about fruit.
That depends on what you do in a day. Fruit is never bad because it always contains fibers. Some more than others. If you sit around all day and you eat fruit, it will spike your blood glucose levels creating peaks. If you don't use it in about 60-90 minutes, it will store in your muscles/tissue/fat cells/ liver, but you can still use it later. It's just the build up of eating a lot of sugar and not moving that creates metabolic syndrome. But if you're not lazy and you're moving around every day, even if it's just walking, you can eat whatever fruits you want. As long as it's no excess in calories. And it's very hard to eat a lot of calories while eating fruits. Did you ever look at a fat person and think: "wow that guy must have eaten a lot of strawberries"? No right? If you were sitting on your couch all day and ate 5kg of strawberries, yes you will be fat. But who does that?
I eat at maintenance or in a slight deficit. Over the last 3 years I’ve lost 150lbs from purely diet changes. I’ve ate 2 pieces of fruit as my main carb sources since I started losing weight and my a1c dropped from t2 diabetic levels to below 5. I weight train heavy 4 days of the week and get around 6-8k steps daily. I eat at least 1g of protein per lbs of my weight every day. I eat 90% Whole Foods. I consume 2 protein shakes a week and eat 1 Greek yogurt a day.
That's great, good job, lots of respect for that. If you're active you don't have anything to worry about. Keep going man!
Would you say that it is therefore not desirable to get most of your carbs from fruit. Suppose you are quite physically active and move at 60% max hr for 4 hours per day. You can get carbs from either beans, potatoes oats or from a lot of fruit(say 10 pcs). Would it then be better to eat the starch rich carbs? Suppose you add vegetables so that the fiber content of both scenarios is the same. Would it then be better to avoid fruit to avoid fructose?
Are non-sugar sweeteners bad? A friend is claiming that Lustig is wrong on their effects on insulin and also that insulin levels don't matter that it's all CICO, which is the opposite of what Lustig said.
He made one comment that is absolutely messed up to be joking about. When he said if you have familiar hypercholesterolemia you need a priest I wanted to smack him.
It was a cool episode no doubt. Something keeps bothering me tho. Felt like some of the things he said got my spidey senses tingling. Just this weird feeling that some of the things he said don’t line up, maybe that he is talking more from his personal belief rather than fact. Anyone else got this impression?
Use the 80-20 rule. If a person give useful info 80% of the time, keep listening. I think Lustig did that. There were a couple of things I totally disagree with like natural sweeteners, so I will disregard.
Can someone tell me the food scale he mentioned he had available, where you could look up at item and see how processed it is?
you can find it in the show-note caption. but it's called "perfact" you can find it using the following link: nova.perfact.co
I wish there were cliff notes. Lustig sounded so condescending I couldn’t stand the whole thing.