Robert Lustig's "Fat Chance" Book

[svenskamae]

Others here may be interested in reading Dr. Robert Lustig's new book, Fat Chance: Beating the Odds against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease (published December 27, 2012). Lustig's lecture condemning sugar went viral on youtube; he's a specialist in treating pediatric obesity at University of California San Francisco.

Some of the good points: He argues:
1) All calories are not the same
2) Obesity isn't just caused by gluttony and sloth and isn't solved by saying "Eat less, move more"
3) Eat real food. Sugar and processed junk are central to global increases in obesity in recent decades, and sugar is in almost all processed food
4) He acknowledges Atkins as an okay approach, though he says some people who "dabble in" Atkins don't eat enough veggies and they may lack some essential nutrients because they don't drink milk (hello? HWC? cheese?)
5) He acknowledge paleo as an okay approach but says only rich people can afford to eat that way. (Hmmm, it's pretty much what he recommends, but without the whole grains, dairy, and legumes.)
6) He says sugar and fast food are addictive.
7) He admits that not all obese people will become non-obese by following his directives, in terms of what to eat and not eat.
8) He doesn't see any problem with eating saturated fat (it's "neutral"), but he does seem to believe that polyunsaturated processed vegetable oils (e.g., canola) are good for people, unfortunately.

I'd be interested to hear what others think of the book. It seemed more in line with a lowcarb approach than most books about nutrition, and Gary Taubes has a favorable blurb on the cover.

[nolcjunk]

Seems like he is off on so many things- advocating canola, thinking paleo is only for rich people, not knowing that you can get the nutrients that are in milk from better sources.

I do agree with the other things, especially that Atkiners tend to skimp on vegetables (or stick to small amounts of a few veg only like iceberg) and use their carbs on other things.

What kind of bread does he want people to eat? Seems like that goes against his processed food point.

I'm kind of over diet books at the moment. I pretty much have my diet set, have done a ton of reading, and I'm healthy so I figure what else can I learn? Maybe in a few years.

[GME]

Sounds like a good read.

About #5, there are some pretty hard-core paleo/primal people that only eat grass-fed, organic, pastured, local, etc and it would be awfully expensive to feed a family that way. Where I live it isn't so bad (farming year-round, lots of organic options), but there are towns and areas where the only organics are some shriveled up beets for $4/lb. Grass fed butter? Not likely.

[sunday]

I enjoyed his HFCS research, but don't get the reasoning behind some of these ideas. He is spot on w/ 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7.

I will read.

[sunday]

Yes, I agree with GME, the reasoning behind #5 would be the cost and difficulty obtaining organic/grassfed & hormone free beef, food items. I even get weary and I no longer feed a full family of 4.

[nolcjunk]

I don't think you need to be rich. You just need to prioritize your food budget over other spending like going out, starbucks, take out, impulse buys, new phones and technology all the time. Obviously if you are a single parent on food stamps then that's a different story but I'm a student and I manage just fine by shopping wisely, buying just enough so no food goes to waste, and making most of my meals, and budgeting for everything else that's discretionary around my food costs. Plus, I don't buy any lc products or special ingredients or snacks so that saves a lot as well.

[DiamondDeb]

I'm not rich & I eat pretty close to #5. I've found eating differently causes health problems & makes it difficult to function. But I admit I am one person & not a family of four.

[sunday]

Well, I am weary and have the money, so I can only imagine what someone who is watching money like college age and newlyweds with several mouths to feed may feel.

I admit, it is important to me, so I pay the price, but if I was trying to feed a large family, I would definitely feel the pain that he is speaking of.

[svenskamae]

It's really more of a public policy book than a diet book, though he does include a table about what to eat regularly/occasionally/very occasionally or never. I'd say it's the same sort of book, in terms of genre, as Gary Taubes' books, but with more of an emphasis on sugar and public policy, and from the perspective of a medical practitioner.

It's a bit odd to hear him dismiss paleo as only for rich people when what he advises people to eat freely coincides with it so much (e.g., grassfed beef). In terms of what bread to eat--he criticizes 31 of the 32 kinds of bread sold at his supermarket as having added sugar and not being really whole grain, so he's pretty picky about what gets labelled healthy (most of the fiber must be left in, and sugar must be left out). The discussion of Atkins and paleo occupies only about 2 pages of a 300 page book (and isn't all negative), and I thought there was a lot that was valuable. I hope the book gets a lot of press/media coverage.

[marieze]

I just wanted to say thanks for the brief synopsis of the book!!

[Arctic_Mama]

The Atkins quote is my biggest pet peeve. If it is being done correctly, the bulk volume of the diet is PRODUCE. I do pure, by the book DANDR, and am eating 4 cups of veggies every day as a bare minimum. Many days more than than. Grrr....

[svenskamae]

Originally Posted by Arctic_Mama

The Atkins quote is my biggest pet peeve. If it is being done correctly, the bulk volume of the diet is PRODUCE. I do pure, by the book DANDR, and am eating 4 cups of veggies every day as a bare minimum. Many days more than than. Grrr....

Yes, I agree. Not everyone follows the Atkins books' directive to eat at least a minimum amount of vegetables on Atkins, but people who avoid veggies on Atkins would probably avoid eating vegetables on any other way of eating, including the standard American diet and a lowfat/highcarb diet--and those approaches aren't blamed fostering for veggie avoidance.

[nolcjunk]

Originally Posted by Arctic_Mama

The Atkins quote is my biggest pet peeve. If it is being done correctly, the bulk volume of the diet is PRODUCE. I do pure, by the book DANDR, and am eating 4 cups of veggies every day as a bare minimum. Many days more than than. Grrr....

I think this is why he refers to them as Atkins dabblers- the people not really following the real plan and doing what they think they know about it and what is said about the plan in the media.

[sfmom]

I pre-ordered his book really looking forward to reading it and was disappointed with the Atkins statement and also the statements that people who are obese won't get or keep all of their weight off. Why would you flat out tell people that neither of those 2 things are possible, when they are?

[Arctic_Mama]

I don't actually disagree that failure to adhere to the plan is what gives Atkins a bad name - being judged by the failures of those who didn't ever really even DO his plan, let alone for maintenance. And unfortunately Lustig isn't wrong that some folks will never overcome obesity except in lessening the degree, both by metabolism and choice.

I kind of wish he was wrong on those points, and they are bothersome, but not untrue. As with all doctors and scientists dealing with the field of obesity research and endocrinology, the good and bad must be sorted to find the truth. I don't think a single one of them is completely correct, they all have their biases and hypotheses to work out and no perfect model yet exists, including the one from Lustig.

[PianoAl]

I'm a fan of his, but I don't agree with his idea that the fructose in an apple is OK because there's some fiber there too. In his famous youtube speech he says something like "When God makes a poison, he includes the antidote." That's a ridiculous argument.

[svenskamae]

Originally Posted by PianoAl

I'm a fan of his, but I don't agree with his idea that the fructose in an apple is OK because there's some fiber there too. In his famous youtube speech he says something like "When God makes a poison, he includes the antidote." That's a ridiculous argument.

I suppose for some people who aren't really insulin resistent or diabetic, eating the apple (with the fiber) may be manageable, but it seems like an overstatement for many of us, who have observed first hand our blood glucose shooting up, our cravings or binges or out-of-control hunger set off, etc. And adding a caveat about eating fat with the fruit (say, spreading the apple slices with almond butter or eating a piece of sharp cheddar with the apple) to tamp down the blood sugar spikes would have been helpful, too. Still, I do appreciate his emphasis on fruit juice is like drinking sugar and his criticism of sugar/HFCS added to practically every processed food.

[amundson]

Great post svenskamae! It sounds like the book is very useful and your summary of key points is useful. I do believe that people have individual differences in their metabolisms and each person needs to experiment to find out what works for him or her.