Consumption of 100% Fruit Juice and Body Weight in Children and Adults

The fibre reduces the amount of sugar you absorb from the juice in the fruit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You yourself are falling for the exact same trap you are chastising other parents for. Sugar intake has nothing to do with hyperactivity.

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.

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.

That’s a pretty violent straw man you brought to this comment thread.

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

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...

    "[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."

And arouvd 10:50 Layne counters that

    "I could find no evidence that fiber inhibits the absorption of fructose"

But searching for "fiber slows glucose absorption" on google scholar gives me a few frequently cited results [1], making me doubt Layne's research.

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/