Hacker News Reader

Comment by run4_too | Hacker News Reader

Based on wikipedia, he seems to have more knowledge of the subject that the "medical community" would have, to be honest, given he has the following qualifications:

Robert H. Lustig, MD

Nationality: American

Education: MIT, Cornell University Medical College

Medical career

Profession: clinical medical practice, teaching and research

Field: neuroendocrinology, pediatric endocrinology

Institutions: University of California, San Francisco, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital

Specialism: childhood obesity

Research: biochemical, neural, hormonal and genetic influences contributing to obesity

I don't know too much about him, but I'm curious as to whether or not any of his detractors have similar specialties. On the surface, most of the data would seem to agree with Dr. Lustig.

View on HN

It's not impossible for a person to have stellar research credentials, yet be a terrible research MD.

Could you point to the data which agrees with Lustig? can you vouch for its accuracy, compared to, say, some data people who don't agree with him?

I've talked extensively with people in the Biochemistry dept at UCSF (my phd is from biophysics there) and they mostly seem to think he's a buffoon.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

Admittedly, This isn't my area of expertise. However that's a 30 second google search compared to your "people I know say he's a buffoon" argument.

Given you are an anonymous voice in the inter-webs who may not even know how to get to UCSF, I'm pretty comfortable with my current assessment.

I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but "my buddies think he's a kook" is not exactly doing it for me.

(I'm confused ~ downvotes? There is absolutely nothing beyond ad homenem provided against me by dekhn, and yet I'm downvoted? Am I missing something here?)

Duno about the downvotes, but in short the first link says "may" in the title and the abstract concludes with this pointless statement "Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity." which tells me as a scientist nothing.

The second article isn't very helpful either.

We are looking for high quality data that meets the criteria required to make nutritional advice:

1) almost certainly needs to be a controlled clinical trial with double blinding 2) needs to be replicated by multiple indepdendent groups who do not share data or methods or design before publishing 3) after that, get a Cochrane REview and ideally also allow Glantz and others to pick apart the methodology.

From my second link:

In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.

Can you point me to something substantial that suggests I should not consider the above accurate? I appreciate that evidence in support of the Lustig claims may not be complete, but evidence against them seems non existent. Why should I ignore what seems obvious?

Sure. Let's remember that Lustig's goal is to actually ban substances which he says are causing MASSIVE HARM to people.

First, the conclusion that it's detriment is admitted by the authors as being uncertain "some data suggest it may".

Second, most people in the area would say that in the absence of data showing harm, one should not conclude something is harmful, and then take action.

Third, let's turn their argument around. They state: "in the absence of evidence, use professional judgment. If something has no use, it should be avoided." OK. If that's their professional judgement, then to be fair it should apply to everything in their demesne, right? AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

However, sugar makes food more palatable. So there are patients who don't want to eat food (cancer patients on chemo) but if the food is more palatable they eat it. Even sometimes getting kids to eat food is hard- shall I not add salt, or sugar if it gets them to eat a meal? Taken to its logical conclusion, their suggestion would shut down nearly all free choices that we make which have marginal risk concerns.

AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman based on an exaggeration of the quoted passage in the parent comment.

I don't agree at all. That's what the authors say, quite directly!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com