Consumption of 100% Fruit Juice and Body Weight in Children and Adults(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Consumption of 100% Fruit Juice and Body Weight in Children and Adults
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38227336/
66 comments
If anyone is interested in how every cup of 100% Tropicana juice tastes the same, I highly recommend this article: https://www.foodrenegade.com/secret-ingredient-your-orange-j...
So a daily, single serving of 100% fruit juice results is a small-but-measurable increase in child BMI (0.01-0.05, roughly 1 ounce), and little to no measurable effect in adults. Given the middling results, i'm surprised how strongly other commenters here are taking this.
> "studies that did adjust for energy intake (-0.08 kg; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05 kg; P for meta-regression <.001)"
> "in adults, studies that did not adjust for energy showed greater body weight gain (0.21 kg; 95% CI, 0.15-0.27 kg)"
> "Among cohort studies in children, each additional serving per day of 100% fruit juice was associated with a 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) higher BMI"
> "studies that did adjust for energy intake (-0.08 kg; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05 kg; P for meta-regression <.001)"
> "in adults, studies that did not adjust for energy showed greater body weight gain (0.21 kg; 95% CI, 0.15-0.27 kg)"
> "Among cohort studies in children, each additional serving per day of 100% fruit juice was associated with a 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) higher BMI"
i don’t think most adults, let alone kids, know what the “serving” is. They just don’t look at the nutrition label. Or they don’t care.
I’d bet most kids have 2-3 servings of juice without realizing it. The serving size is usually tiny. That’s not counting all the other junk they might eat in a single day, like cereal.
I’d bet most kids have 2-3 servings of juice without realizing it. The serving size is usually tiny. That’s not counting all the other junk they might eat in a single day, like cereal.
Fruit juice is the type of food that is often overlooked when talking about highly/ultra-processed foods. You're much better off eating the fruit.
It's fair to label fruit juices for what they are - high sugar high calorie foods. But by the "processed" classification of food done by the UN, fruits juices are in GROUP 1 Unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
[1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf
[1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf
It surely depends on the juice? There's "freshly squeezed at the store as you buy it" to "long shelf life with only a passing resemblance to the original fruit taste", and a couple of in betweens.
And drinking water
I don't really think it's appropriate to draw conclusions from studies that control for caloric intake. Most people don't treat food as fungible calories. Often, drinking juice is additive in calories.
Both are important. Controlling for calories demonstrates yet again that sugar is not uniquely bad (the claim that it is is very prevalent in the health and fitness online space). Ad libitum studies demonstrate that the foods we eat have differential effects on appetite, satiety, etc.
> Controlling for calories demonstrates yet again that sugar is not uniquely bad
No, you can’t draw that conclusion, which is my point.
No, you can’t draw that conclusion, which is my point.
“Among cohort studies in children, each additional serving per day of 100% fruit juice was associated with a 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) higher BMI change.”
Isn’t that a tiny effect? How much juice can a person drink? 5 additional servings per day of juice would be associated with at most a 0.25 BMI increase.
However, you could imagine that it affects different kids differently, and that small effect size reflects a mix of zero effect on most kids and a medium-sized effect on the kids who are more susceptible for whatever reason.
Isn’t that a tiny effect? How much juice can a person drink? 5 additional servings per day of juice would be associated with at most a 0.25 BMI increase.
However, you could imagine that it affects different kids differently, and that small effect size reflects a mix of zero effect on most kids and a medium-sized effect on the kids who are more susceptible for whatever reason.
I was surprised to note that 100% fruit juice, Coca-Cola and fruit mousse for toddlers all contain approximately the same amount of sugar(s) - ~10% by weight.
The worst offender in my cupboard is a mousse by HiPP (a brand that supposedly focuses on quality) - 12,6%. Weirdly, a juice box from the same manufacturer has just 3,7%.
In any case, except for the juice box, that's a lot of sugar.
The worst offender in my cupboard is a mousse by HiPP (a brand that supposedly focuses on quality) - 12,6%. Weirdly, a juice box from the same manufacturer has just 3,7%.
In any case, except for the juice box, that's a lot of sugar.
If a fruit mousse is the same thing in your country as it is in mine, it's just whipped fruit purée with egg whites and an arbitrary amount of sugar, because the sugar isn't serving a physical or chemical purpose the way it does in a sorbet. So if you make it at home you can make it with as little sugar as you want, and toddlers are still going to be extremely pleased.
That conflict of interest section is quite long, not really sure what to make of it.
TL:DR is the researchers may be biased in their conclusion because they've:
a) Worked at/for a clinical research company, health NPOs and others.
b) Had their education funded by the government & NPO.
c) Received research funding from NPOs, advocacy groups, research institutes.
a) Worked at/for a clinical research company, health NPOs and others.
b) Had their education funded by the government & NPO.
c) Received research funding from NPOs, advocacy groups, research institutes.
What's weird is that eating the fruit is healthy. Something about the fiber cancels out the effects of the sugar. I've never seen a good explanation for the mechanism of how that works.
Water is healthy, but drowning is not.
It is the same concept, your body can only process and use a limited amount of carbohydrates before it makes you obese and give you diabetes.
You can only drink a cup sized amount of water at a time. A building sized amount of water dumped on you would kill you.
It is the same concept, your body can only process and use a limited amount of carbohydrates before it makes you obese and give you diabetes.
You can only drink a cup sized amount of water at a time. A building sized amount of water dumped on you would kill you.
There's no good explanation beacause fibre doesn't 'cancel out' sugar.
Then why is eating fruit healthy?
The fibre reduces the amount of sugar you absorb from the juice in the fruit.
Likely the amount. How many times have you eaten eight apples in one sitting vs how many times have you had a glass of apple juice.
Google says a cup is 3 apples. Doesn't seems too excessive.
I drank orange juice with every meal growing up. I'm not overweight but I feel like it may have contributed to the severe acid reflux I experience now as an adult.
Not drinking calories is low effort high impact weight management rule.
But when you’re a kid they almost force feed you juice or they did when I was young.
Less so now. I’m pretty adamant about not giving my kids juice except as a special treat, and that seems to be the norm with many other parents I know.
Same. Typically plain water, or 90% water, 10% fruit juice at best. Rarely do they get a full strength fruit juice.
What are the reasons? Calories? Sugars? Little to no health benefits?
Yep! All of the above. I’m less concerned about a few excess calories in childhood and more about instilling a habit of needing every drink to taste like something.
Is this a surprise at all? Fruit juice is just soda with maybe some different vitamins in terms of calories. No satiety, and but lots of calories.
Not a surprise to anyone on this site or who has a regular access to a pediatrician, but lots of juice manufacturers play up the “100% all natural non-gmo organic pure apples” thing and updress their product to distance themselves from artificial juice, when they’re really a lot closely related in reality. This definitely fools a lot of parents.
One doesn't need to consult a pediatrician to look at the nutrition table. Even wealthy, intelligent people I know consume highly-processed garbage on a regular basis without thinking twice about what they put in their bodies.
This is specifically about juice that is 100% juice. Reading the ingredients label isn't going to help which is kinda the point of the study.
Edit: It looks like you changed your comment to reference nutritional table instead of ingredients list. See other comment on why that still is problematic.
Edit: It looks like you changed your comment to reference nutritional table instead of ingredients list. See other comment on why that still is problematic.
I think they meant the nutrition table that’s usually above the ingredients.
The nutritional label doesn't provide clarity either. It doesn't differentiate between types of sugars, and although there is the newly required "Added Sugars" category, it doesn't include sugars from concentrated fruit juices, which can be misleading since these are technically added sugars too.
That is what I meant. Thanks. I updated my comment.
Wealthy and intelligent people make plenty of suboptimal choices.
Ironically the fittest people I know with the best diet (they eat like their grandmas used to) are quite rural and don't know anything about nutrition.
If they did they would probably fare worse. I obsessed over diet, spent countless hours studying thr subject and reviewing the latest in nutrition science. I wonder how much of that was funded by Nestle. I tried a processed vegetarian diet for a decade before having health issues and ending up eating only meat. After 1 year of that I was able to reintroduce small amounts of carbs / veggies without having adverse reactions, but at this point I don't even care about doing it.
Ironically the fittest people I know with the best diet (they eat like their grandmas used to) are quite rural and don't know anything about nutrition.
If they did they would probably fare worse. I obsessed over diet, spent countless hours studying thr subject and reviewing the latest in nutrition science. I wonder how much of that was funded by Nestle. I tried a processed vegetarian diet for a decade before having health issues and ending up eating only meat. After 1 year of that I was able to reintroduce small amounts of carbs / veggies without having adverse reactions, but at this point I don't even care about doing it.
If, in 2024, this fools a parent, then I'd rather be concerned about other aspects of their parenting, too...
During my long travels, where I meet (mostly wealthy-enough-to-travel) people I see this often: kids are sugar shocked in the early morning (fruit juice, jelly, breakfast-is-the-most-important-nonsense-cereals, snacks at 10AM, etc) and then by noon their parents are exhausted due to trying to handle the kids' hyperactivity. All I can think is that at least these kids' response is to burn those calories, and avoid being obese later (hopefully).
And not only kids. I don't know what exactly is going on in the US/Canada, but my observation is that they MUST chew every one or two hours; force feeding (comforting?) themselves. This behavior, the obsessive snacking, I never see from European / Asian travelers.
During my long travels, where I meet (mostly wealthy-enough-to-travel) people I see this often: kids are sugar shocked in the early morning (fruit juice, jelly, breakfast-is-the-most-important-nonsense-cereals, snacks at 10AM, etc) and then by noon their parents are exhausted due to trying to handle the kids' hyperactivity. All I can think is that at least these kids' response is to burn those calories, and avoid being obese later (hopefully).
And not only kids. I don't know what exactly is going on in the US/Canada, but my observation is that they MUST chew every one or two hours; force feeding (comforting?) themselves. This behavior, the obsessive snacking, I never see from European / Asian travelers.
You yourself are falling for the exact same trap you are chastising other parents for. Sugar intake has nothing to do with hyperactivity.
Possibly. By hyperactivity I didn't mean the chronic medical (psychological?) condition, but the temporary boost that individuals experience upon glucose intake.
Nevertheless, I will still think that it's stupid to pump your kid with refined sugar worth of hundreds of calories by noon.
Nevertheless, I will still think that it's stupid to pump your kid with refined sugar worth of hundreds of calories by noon.
I was also meaning the temporary boost in activity. It just doesn't exist. You can take glucose to restore energy. But it won't make you more active. No one is taking glucose for an activity boost, else you would be seeing droves of people ditching coffee for dextose energy. But no one does that because it just doesn't work like that.
You can see it in Europe too, albeit less so. We're catching up in terms of obesity too.
Kids do eat a lot because they're growing but if you start feeding them meat (fat particularly) they will feel full earlier and stop munching sugar (fruit included) every 30m.
I eat once a day on a carnivore diet and I don't experience hunger.
The grain industry really brainwashed everyone.
Kids do eat a lot because they're growing but if you start feeding them meat (fat particularly) they will feel full earlier and stop munching sugar (fruit included) every 30m.
I eat once a day on a carnivore diet and I don't experience hunger.
The grain industry really brainwashed everyone.
> The grain industry really brainwashed everyone
Pretty sure pre industrial agricultural groups had a higher average grain to meat ratio than today though? I think grain just scales better than animals.
Pretty sure pre industrial agricultural groups had a higher average grain to meat ratio than today though? I think grain just scales better than animals.
The real issue isn't grains imo, it's grains that had all the fibre removed.
White bread is terrible for you. Brown bread is good for you, good for cholesterol(due to soluble fiber), has a low glycemic index(due to insoluble fiber), and has much more protein, vitamins and minerals than white bread.
I honestly believe white flour is much more responsible for lifestyle related health issues in the US than anything else.
Turns out, stripping the nutrients out of your food is bad.
White bread is terrible for you. Brown bread is good for you, good for cholesterol(due to soluble fiber), has a low glycemic index(due to insoluble fiber), and has much more protein, vitamins and minerals than white bread.
I honestly believe white flour is much more responsible for lifestyle related health issues in the US than anything else.
Turns out, stripping the nutrients out of your food is bad.
Just careful with how "brown" it is. I saw stores selling sliced brown bread that differ from white bread only due food coloring. FWIW the packaging doesn't state it's more fibrous or healthier...
This is, I guess, the same trap people walk into, as with the "100% natural" (therefore assumably healthier) juices.
This is, I guess, the same trap people walk into, as with the "100% natural" (therefore assumably healthier) juices.
That's revolting. I live in Norway, I don't think that exists here. Bread is well marked with the percentage of grain thats's whole.
Just because this is such a pervasive idea. Is it actually true that sugar correlates to any kind of hyperactivity? In the past I have seen studies concluding no correlation between sugar intake and energy. Also anecdotally, a few teaspoons of sugar has never given me the ability to run faster, or a little bit longer. It’s never made me become more active or wired. If it did, I’d be more prone to strategically use it to “gain an edge”.
That is to say, I’m even a victim of joking about this with other parents. But I do because I felt that it is a pervasive “truth” and I encounter no human that is willing to entertain the contrary. To the same extent, I’ve also never witnessed any adult sneak a tablespoon of sugar to get that hyperactivity boost.
Fat is also more calorically dense than gasoline. But I’ve also never seen someone bounce off the walls after consumption.
That is to say, I’m even a victim of joking about this with other parents. But I do because I felt that it is a pervasive “truth” and I encounter no human that is willing to entertain the contrary. To the same extent, I’ve also never witnessed any adult sneak a tablespoon of sugar to get that hyperactivity boost.
Fat is also more calorically dense than gasoline. But I’ve also never seen someone bounce off the walls after consumption.
> To the same extent, I’ve also never witnessed any adult sneak a tablespoon of sugar to get that hyperactivity boost.
Cyclists and runners take sugar to gain an edge.
Fat is more calorically dense but the energy pathway is slower than sugar.
I think it's safe to keep joking about, it's probably one of the more accurate nutrition "facts".
Cyclists and runners take sugar to gain an edge.
Fat is more calorically dense but the energy pathway is slower than sugar.
I think it's safe to keep joking about, it's probably one of the more accurate nutrition "facts".
When you remove the fiber from fruit you pull the pin from the fructose bomb within.
Calorie in, calorie out. If you have more calorie than the control group, no matter what substance that is - brownies, Cliff Bar, apples picked by Tim Cook, fruit juice, or Coca-Cola, and you expend as much energy as control, you’re going to end up heavier. Where are the calories gonna go? They’re going to stay in the body. You put them in there, they didn’t, and you didn’t do more stuff to take them out.
I think the hand wringing about natural vs processed is really about how appealing a given food is - anyone is more likely to overindulge in hyper palatable foods, so if natural foods are less palatable it’s good for that reason. Fruit (juice) is an example of a natural food that can be hyper palatable. So, beware just as you’d beware of Cheetos or Almond Roca.
I think the hand wringing about natural vs processed is really about how appealing a given food is - anyone is more likely to overindulge in hyper palatable foods, so if natural foods are less palatable it’s good for that reason. Fruit (juice) is an example of a natural food that can be hyper palatable. So, beware just as you’d beware of Cheetos or Almond Roca.
Calories in calories out is pretty conclusively proven to not be how it works.
I’m starting to think this is somehow like the Bayesian vs Frequentist debate among people who study statistics.
My hastily assembled reading from googling “calorie in calorie out myth” mostly seems to discuss that changes in basal metabolic rate happen as you are trick calories (so, account for that in the equation) and that people eating hyper palatable foods tend to eat more of them (so, now you know to avoid those to make it easier to keep the calorie count under control). Also control for thermic effect of food. I’m not saying model the body as a gasoline engine. You need the complexity for the equation to balance.
Calorie in calorie out is not a strategy - of course there’s a wide variety of ways to make a healthy diet and the best strategy for one person might not be the same for another. I’m not a calorie counting advocate. But I struggle to understand the alternate to calorie in calorie out - like, where else will mass/energy come from or go to in the system? Mass is summoned magically by genetics from zero point energy?
Anyways, this is why I mostly look at studies that have calorie equated groups and their weight - because such a study takes into account all the little details happening inside the body, and we’re going to average the different groups to control for personal genetic and diet differences.
My hastily assembled reading from googling “calorie in calorie out myth” mostly seems to discuss that changes in basal metabolic rate happen as you are trick calories (so, account for that in the equation) and that people eating hyper palatable foods tend to eat more of them (so, now you know to avoid those to make it easier to keep the calorie count under control). Also control for thermic effect of food. I’m not saying model the body as a gasoline engine. You need the complexity for the equation to balance.
Calorie in calorie out is not a strategy - of course there’s a wide variety of ways to make a healthy diet and the best strategy for one person might not be the same for another. I’m not a calorie counting advocate. But I struggle to understand the alternate to calorie in calorie out - like, where else will mass/energy come from or go to in the system? Mass is summoned magically by genetics from zero point energy?
Anyways, this is why I mostly look at studies that have calorie equated groups and their weight - because such a study takes into account all the little details happening inside the body, and we’re going to average the different groups to control for personal genetic and diet differences.
There's a very easy explanation, (well two):
1. The commonly known variation of metabolic processes means some people are just more fidgety or have their bodies generating more waste heat. You could reasonably argue this constitutes "calories out", but if it's unconscious, unmeasurable, and varies arbitrarily it doesn't really fit the paradigm of "It's simply a matter of behavioral difference"
2. The part that everyone forgets: human waste contains a non-zero amount of calories, and this varies between people. If your body thinks it doesn't have enough calories (obviously an oversimplification) it will work harder to extract more calories from what you eat. If your body thinks it has enough calories, it'll ignore calories it doesn't want and simply excrete them. The body can tune the amount of calories it gets from food based on its understanding of your environment, and so it's possible to cut down on the amount of calories you ingest and still net more calories from your food than you started with.
Thus, calories in calories out is as much of a fallacy as telling people without money that all they're missing is a simple paradigm of cash in cash out, as if loans can't be adjusted based on the fed's interest rate, their landlord can't decide to charge them more, gas and food can't get more expensive, and they can't lose their job, all outside of their control. This is going to be a poor metaphor, because the human body isn't capable of this, but if a society was super reliant on energy efficiency, tried sticking uranium in a furnace and concluded that it's a poor, useless fuel, they'd be missing that through another process you can get far more energy from uranium. But that's how we look at food: caloric content is measured by literally burning it and measuring how much energy it gives off, as if that's a reasonable analogy for the human body.
1. The commonly known variation of metabolic processes means some people are just more fidgety or have their bodies generating more waste heat. You could reasonably argue this constitutes "calories out", but if it's unconscious, unmeasurable, and varies arbitrarily it doesn't really fit the paradigm of "It's simply a matter of behavioral difference"
2. The part that everyone forgets: human waste contains a non-zero amount of calories, and this varies between people. If your body thinks it doesn't have enough calories (obviously an oversimplification) it will work harder to extract more calories from what you eat. If your body thinks it has enough calories, it'll ignore calories it doesn't want and simply excrete them. The body can tune the amount of calories it gets from food based on its understanding of your environment, and so it's possible to cut down on the amount of calories you ingest and still net more calories from your food than you started with.
Thus, calories in calories out is as much of a fallacy as telling people without money that all they're missing is a simple paradigm of cash in cash out, as if loans can't be adjusted based on the fed's interest rate, their landlord can't decide to charge them more, gas and food can't get more expensive, and they can't lose their job, all outside of their control. This is going to be a poor metaphor, because the human body isn't capable of this, but if a society was super reliant on energy efficiency, tried sticking uranium in a furnace and concluded that it's a poor, useless fuel, they'd be missing that through another process you can get far more energy from uranium. But that's how we look at food: caloric content is measured by literally burning it and measuring how much energy it gives off, as if that's a reasonable analogy for the human body.
Can you explain more about this? I personally don't see anything wrong with what the original poster said, so I'd be curious to hear if I'm working with outdated information.
I wrote a(n overly) lengthy response to a different reply, but basically, the human body can tune itself to be more or less efficient with its calories depending on how much of a surplus it thinks it has.
The very simple explanation is that human waste has a non-zero calorie content, and can be higher or lower depending on how interested your body is in extracting every last calorie from your food.
This is of course without getting into satiety and the challenges of people society considers too fat being expected to just be hungry all the time, or the actual science showing that dieting is far more harmful for your body than being "overweight", just a very simple explanation for why calories in and calories out aren't as useful of a measure as everyone (including me, by the way) would love for them to be.
The very simple explanation is that human waste has a non-zero calorie content, and can be higher or lower depending on how interested your body is in extracting every last calorie from your food.
This is of course without getting into satiety and the challenges of people society considers too fat being expected to just be hungry all the time, or the actual science showing that dieting is far more harmful for your body than being "overweight", just a very simple explanation for why calories in and calories out aren't as useful of a measure as everyone (including me, by the way) would love for them to be.
Yes, all those people in concentration camps just had high metabolisms and we're not being starved by the Nazis.
And all the obese Americans eating pizza and fast food regularly just have hormone issues.
And all the obese Americans eating pizza and fast food regularly just have hormone issues.
Do you think it's possible that your net consumption of calories could affect your body weight without being as straightforward or useful of a concept as commonly portrayed?
Why, in a conversation about how valuable metrics are for tracking health, were you so moved as to necessitate using the Holocaust as an example? Do you think that was an appropriate comparison?
Does what I said make you angry? Is it important to you to shock me, to grab my attention at any cost, in order to make your point? Is this how you would respond to someone you perceive being wrong about other points, or is it specific to this topic?
I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers
Why, in a conversation about how valuable metrics are for tracking health, were you so moved as to necessitate using the Holocaust as an example? Do you think that was an appropriate comparison?
Does what I said make you angry? Is it important to you to shock me, to grab my attention at any cost, in order to make your point? Is this how you would respond to someone you perceive being wrong about other points, or is it specific to this topic?
I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers
I'm genuinely curious as to why you are avoiding the topic of this thread?
Is it possible that someone who regularly eats 4000 calories of pizza and fast food in a day would gain less weight than someone who eats 800 calories of bread in a day?
Is it possible that someone who regularly eats 4000 calories of pizza and fast food in a day would gain less weight than someone who eats 800 calories of bread in a day?
That’s a pretty violent straw man you brought to this comment thread.
Intermittent fasting proved that it is not totally the case. Time plays a big role in moderating "hunger" hormones, and if fat is burned to produce keton when long periods of no glucose intake happen.
I’d like to learn more about this; does its effect show up in any human studies comparing intermittent fasting vs not for the same calorie intake?
Here, educate yourself https://open.spotify.com/episode/1MDqwjo3TfL1w7NJo1wldR?si=A...
This guy says a lot of interesting things, and I like the sound of his voice. But, googling for stuff that really quantifies these effects isn’t turning up much. Like if 130 kcal of almond get absorbed in one part of the digestive tract, and 30kcal get absorbed farther down, it still sounds like 160kcal of almond is going into the body, and has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there.
Here’s some influencer content thats addressing that influencer content: https://youtu.be/LZPKTaVB1IU?si=AasQ6bP6WCinea_r?t=18s
Here’s some influencer content thats addressing that influencer content: https://youtu.be/LZPKTaVB1IU?si=AasQ6bP6WCinea_r?t=18s
I've listened to about half of each and I think I believe the spotify / Lustig argument more.
For example, around 25:00 Lustig claims...
Also in terms of background, Lustig is a professor guest starring on a podcast sponsored by various companies (including one that sells supplements [2] [3]) versus Layne who runs a company that sells workout guides / supplements [4]. Not to say there's any obvious conflict of interest here, but I think the professor actively involved in research has more credibility.
---
> [the 30kcal] has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there.
That's a good point. I'd love to know what the practical difference between my gut bacteria consuming energy vs rest-of-me consuming energy is too.
But yeah Lustig saying sugar was as addictive as heroin also raised a red flag for me. Maybe true in a technical sense but definitely shows he's trying to push a point (anti-corpo maybe?).
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fiber+slows+fructose+ab...
[2] https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-robert-lustig-how-sug... -- see sponsors in timestamps
[3] https://drinkag1.com/
[4] https://biolayne.com/
For example, around 25:00 Lustig claims...
"[fructose in] fruit is okay because of the fiber and the fiber is what mitigates the absorption
[...]
you're feeding your microbiome. that frucose isn't for you."
"I could find no evidence that fiber inhibits the absorption of fructose"
Also in terms of background, Lustig is a professor guest starring on a podcast sponsored by various companies (including one that sells supplements [2] [3]) versus Layne who runs a company that sells workout guides / supplements [4]. Not to say there's any obvious conflict of interest here, but I think the professor actively involved in research has more credibility.
---
> [the 30kcal] has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there.
That's a good point. I'd love to know what the practical difference between my gut bacteria consuming energy vs rest-of-me consuming energy is too.
But yeah Lustig saying sugar was as addictive as heroin also raised a red flag for me. Maybe true in a technical sense but definitely shows he's trying to push a point (anti-corpo maybe?).
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fiber+slows+fructose+ab...
[2] https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-robert-lustig-how-sug... -- see sponsors in timestamps
[3] https://drinkag1.com/
[4] https://biolayne.com/
Can you give a brief summary? This is a three and a half hour podcast.
I prefer 100% fruit juice over the kind with added sugar.
If it's too sweet, add more water.