http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
Key takeaway that Lustig ignores - USDA numbers by the way:
Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000
Key takeaway is that Lustig doesn't make any claim that you can't get fat by eating too many calories, regardless of the source. Lustig's research is on the metabolic pathways for fructose and glucose, and they are substantially different.
He also speaks to the effect of insulin resistance, and how the very rapid metabolism of fructose in the liver (7x faster than glucose) can lead to insulin resistance. Insulin spikes redirect calories eaten directly to fat, without them ever being metabolized into energy. As a result you gain fat and have less energy available, leaving you both fatter and hungrier.
Essentially, if you treat sucrose and fructose as a condiment, rather than as a key source of kCal, you will be consuming simple sugars, protein and fat, food that actually nourishes and sates you directly, versus sucrose and fructose that in high doses simply transform to fat.
Per Lustig, it's important to differentiate between starches found in bread, potatoes etc., that break down to simple sugars like glucose that are metabolized directly by the body, and added sucrose and fructose that are metabolized in the liver to fat. For people saying that our carb consumption was the same back in early 20th Century, take a look at how much of that was likely breads and the like, versus the highly sweetened cereals of today.
edit: added a para on why looking at 'carbs', misses Lustig's point.
Big people burn more calories even when still. Active people burn more than still people of the same size. Muscular people burn more calories than the non-muscular as they have to feed their bigger muscles.
In sealed room tests fat people use more calories than thin people.
Skinny people who can eat anything they want without putting on weight tend to be very fidgety - they never keep totally still. Just wiggling a leg all day can use a large amount of energy.
Hm, this is interesting. I've never heard that before, but it seems intuitive. Do you have any sources for that idea? (Not that I'm challenging, just curious.)
Many people's body's response to overfeeding is to up NEAT, up fidgetyness. But not always. Your body thinks getting fat is a good thing. Famine used to be common. When dieting almost everyone down-regulates NEAT. On a severe diet you feel like being very still.
Those factors are not enough. The human body has many more important factors in play there, like hormones, intestinal flora, and so on.
Taubes says we eat too much because we eat carbs. If people had eaten a carb-free diet since 1970 we wouldn't be seeing that spike in calorie intake. Therefore the fact that calorie intake increased is in complete support of Taubes and Lustig's ideas.
Carbs increase insulin secretion, which encourages fat cells to take in blood sugar and turn it into fat, and discourages the body from burning fat for fuel.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usd...
History tells us the answer. In the early part of the 20'th century, we ate nothing but carbs. We weren't fat.
The big difference is that we eat more calories, less carbs, more fat and more sugar.
There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.
Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!
Interesting that whole milk dropped off so sharply in the 1970s and 80s - about the time that 'fat is bad' started up? From what I've read, low fat milk contributes to heart disease too - something about the level of fat-soluble vitamins?