Dr Lustig convinced me to cut my level of sugar intake to almost none as well as processed foods. I only eat "real food" as Dr Lustig would call it and the health issues I was suffering from in my mid 50's are a thing of the past in my mid 70's. I do not know the science behind what happened. But life would have been much more enjoyable in my 40's into my mid 50's had I ate then how I eat now. Thank you Dr Lustig. You guys fight it out over the science. For me. I am loving getting up in the morning again. This was not always the case. Just saying.

Caring only about the loss of body fat is terribly reductive. It seems like your just trying to be contrary. What I got from the podcast is that added processed sugar is terrible for you, it permeates most food available in stores, and is one of the major if not greatest contributor to conditions of metabolic disease and systemic inflammation. Everything he said and all of his evidence made sense to me, scientifically and now anecdotally.

If I understand Dr. Lustig, his point is calories are not the same. If you eat 100 calories from sugar, your body responds differently than eating 100 calories from protein. Is he wrong?

Thanks so much for having me Layne! I hope that I was able to bring appropriate nuance to this incredibly challenging topic.

Lustig’s habit of asking Andrew a question that Andrew is very unlikely to know (e.g., How many pounds of fat do you need to gain to be metabolically unhealthy), revealing Andrew doesn’t know, and then providing the answer, is weird and kind of annoying, but it also seems like a rhetorical devise to try to bolster his perception of expertise. Lustig’s “cells either burn or build” statement definitely seemed like a gross oversimplification. Thanks for putting the work into this, Layne.

I like Huberman, but he needs to vet his guests more diligently. People fallaciously assume that a neuroscientist from Stanford could never bring on a fraud, but that’s exactly what happened. Keep your eyes peeled. Always be skeptical online. Most people aren’t actually equipped to interpret research (sorry Dr. Berg).

How is advicing people to eat less processed foods a bad advice?? Like i guess calorie in calorie out is the golden standard for health. According to that narratieve i can live on McDonald's and beer and be just as healthy as on a whole food diet so long as calories are the same. Normally i agree often with layne however i think there is many research regarding processed foods compared to whole foods. This i a bit of a buyes if you asked me.

It isn't that I want to agree or disagree with you, but holding the calories equal isn't scientific IF the effect of one route is to naturally increase or decrease intake.

Huberman has the reach that Layne should have. Hard truths are hard for some people to listen to. They'd rather hear staring at the sun and ice baths will make you immortal.

Time stamps... ● 00:00 Analyzing Dr. Robert Lustig's recent podcast appearance, addressing concerns about unsupported claims, and acknowledging the value of scientific integrity in discussions on Andrew Hubman's show. ● 02:19 Examining the theme of Dr. Robert Lustig's podcast, highlighting his focus on individual biochemical pathways and mechanisms, and discussing the distinction between mechanisms and outcomes in the context of dietary choices and insulin's effects on body fat. ● 04:38 Illustrating the importance of focusing on outcomes rather than individual mechanisms in understanding complex processes, using the analogy of a mutual fund versus an individual stock to emphasize the multifaceted nature of factors contributing to the loss or gain of body fat. ● 07:02 Challenging the claim that different sources of calories inherently differ, emphasizing that while sources like protein and fiber may impact appetite and energy expenditure, the fundamental principle remains that weight gain is a result of consuming excess calories for one's energy expenditure, questioning the attempt to shift blame from calorie consumption to specific food types like refined carbohydrates. ● 09:23 Addressing the argument of food addiction, debunking the notion of sugar addiction by highlighting research findings that lack evidence for such claims, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of hyper-palatability in foods, and questioning the inconsistency in arguments against sugar consumption, particularly in fruits, while acknowledging the health benefits associated with fruit consumption. ● 11:34 Clarifying the chemical similarity of fructose molecules in various sources, challenging the assertion that high fructose intake invariably leads to negative health outcomes by presenting data on decreased mortality associated with certain foods, and debunking the claim that calorie restriction is ineffective for weight loss by emphasizing the abundance of studies demonstrating its efficacy, attributing long-term challenges to adherence rather than the approach itself. ● 14:04 Challenging the argument that insulin is the sole antagonist in health issues, highlighting the flawed logic of attributing negative outcomes to short-term mechanisms without considering long-term benefits, and debunking the oversimplified notion that certain nutrients or activities, when isolated in short-term contexts, are universally harmful without acknowledging their positive impacts on long-term health outcomes. ● 16:35 Addressing mechanistic claims related to cancer biology, consulting an expert in cancer biology to debunk the misconception about oxygen promoting cell growth and emphasizing the role of oxygen in sustaining cell metabolism and survival, while providing historical context with Otto Warburg's Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the Warburg effect in cancer cells. ● 19:04 Exploring the complexities of tumor metabolism and oxygen availability, debunking the oversimplified notion that cancer cells solely thrive on oxygen, highlighting the significance of hypoxic regions in tumors, the role of angiogenesis in supplying oxygen to tumor cores, and the adaptability of cancer cells to use Warburg metabolism to sustain essential processes even in oxygen-deficient environments. ● 21:34 Exploring the misconception about tumor oxygen levels, debunking claims that hyperbaric oxygen would be beneficial for treating cancers, highlighting the importance of understanding tumor metabolism and the role of angiogenesis inhibitors in restricting oxygenation to impede tumor growth. ● 23:50 Examining the flaws in the argument supporting hyperbaric oxygen therapy for cancer treatment, debunking the notion that increased oxygenation directly kills tumors, and highlighting the complex dynamics of capillary physiology, concluding that hyperbaric oxygen therapy lacks specificity for cancer tissue and lacks sufficient supporting data for its effectiveness. ● 26:22 Challenging the claim that fructose leads to increased inflammation and leaky gut, debunking the proposed mechanisms with evidence from human studies that show fructose consumption does not elevate inflammation unless consumed in excess calories, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between mechanisms and actual outcomes. ● 28:43 Disputing the claim that increased sugar consumption is the primary driver of obesity and diabetes by presenting evidence that sugar intake has decreased over the last 30 years while obesity rates continue to rise, highlighting the role of dietary fat, especially ultra-processed foods, in inducing insulin resistance and negatively impacting overall health. ● 30:55 Disputing the coherence of the argument that ultra-processed food inhibits mitochondrial processes and growth in cancer cells by highlighting the increased mitochondrial biogenesis observed in cancers associated with ultra-processed food consumption, emphasizing the multifaceted health risks linked to such diets, including mortality, and underscoring the correlation between added sugars in unbalanced diets and various health issues like microbial disbiosis, altered insulin signals, and metabolic disruptions. ● 33:12 Disputing the claim that weight loss is solely influenced by insulin and not calorie intake, citing a meta-analysis of human randomized control trials that equated calories and protein, revealing a small but statistically significant advantage for low-fat diets in terms of fat loss, contrary to the hypothesis that insulin is the primary driver of weight loss. ● 35:49 Disputing the claim that excess branch chain amino acids (BCAAs) lead to fat gain by debunking the notion that deaminated BCAAs turn into fat, citing studies in lab rodents and highlighting the minimal difference in BCAA content between fish and other animal proteins, questioning the relevance of BCAAs in diet-induced fat accumulation. ● 38:35 Challenging the idea that pasture-fed meat can alter the amino acid composition of muscle tissue in cows, emphasizing that amino acid composition is genetically determined and cannot be changed by dietary factors, while also questioning the claim that animal sources of protein do not raise insulin levels, citing studies showing insulin response comparable to carbohydrates. ● 41:10 Challenging the low-carb community's emphasis on small dense LDL particles as the main concern, asserting that both small dense and large buoyant LDL particles can penetrate the endothelium, depositing similar amounts of cholesterol, and questioning the cherry-picked association of LDL with longevity, suggesting reverse causality and highlighting the importance of well-controlled Mendelian randomized control trials showing the persistent link between LDL and mortality in the elderly. ● 43:35 Challenging the assertion that gaining 10 kilos of body fat won't necessarily lead to metabolic unhealthiness, refuting the claim that cortisol, not calories, is the primary driver of visceral fat by presenting studies demonstrating the role of overfeeding calories, and highlighting the disingenuous omission of saturated fat as a major contributor to liver fat compared to fructose in a head-to-head study. ● 46:03 Addressing the omission of saturated fat criticism and emphasizing that overfeeding any nutrient, including polyunsaturated fats and saturated fat, can increase liver fat; challenging the belief that sugar and fructose lead to liver and body fat when calories are equated, citing studies, including one with high fructose intake, showing no increase in liver or body fat; debunking the notion that fructose is addictive and clarifying that both reduced carbohydrate and reduced fat diets, when calorie-equated, reduce liver fat, with low-fat diets showing greater reduction in liver fat than low-carb diets. ● 48:37 Clarifying that overfeeding fructose does increase liver fat but not uniquely, and overfeeding saturated fat increases it more; addressing the misconception about intermittent fasting reducing liver fat more than caloric restriction when calories are equated; debunking the claim that artificial sweeteners induce an insulin response and pointing to studies, including a famous Copenhagen study, showing non-nutritive sweeteners have no effect on insulin or glycemia, and can contribute to weight loss compared to sugared soda intake. ● 51:13 Analyzing a study cited by the speaker claiming a 10-kilo weight gain from diet soda, debunking the misinformation by presenting accurate data from the study, revealing that diet soda did not lead to weight gain but rather showed weight loss tendencies in comparison to other beverage groups, and emphasizing the importance of accurately representing research results without cherry-picking data. ● 53:39 Critiquing the speaker's misrepresentation of a study, suggesting two possibilities for the inaccuracies - either not reading the study and relying on someone else's account or intentionally distorting the information, emphasizing the importance of evidence-backed claims in academic discussions, acknowledging some valid points made by the speaker about the impact of fiber and processed foods on health, and calling for a shift away from nutrient demonization to address the complex issues of an obesogenic food environment and sedentary lifestyle. ● 55:57 Expressing concern over the podcast, emphasizing the need for scientists, especially those with advanced degrees, to uphold rigorous standards, urging viewers to develop skills in interpreting research to distinguish between evidence-based claims and misinformation, and expressing hope that the discussed individual may reconsider and improve the accuracy of future claims given their influential platform.

00:00 Intro 00:17 Layne’s Bias 03:05 Difference between mechanisms and outcomes 06:21 Debunking Myth No.1: Explaining what is a calorie and why people gain body fat 08:59 Debunking Myth No.2: Explaining that sugar is not addictive, and showing its correlation with mortality 12:50 Debunking Myth No.3: Layne is explaining that claiming caloric restriction doesn't lead to weight loss has been proven wrong multiple times. 14:17 Debunking Myth No.4: Layne is explaining why the statement that “Glucose rise tends to Endothelial dysfunction“ is not true 16:27 Debunking Myth No.5: Dr. Joseph Zundell Responding to Lustig's claims about cancer. 25:13 Debunking Myth No.6: Many enzymatic reactions in the body require ATP hydrolysis 26:34 Debunking Myth No.7: Layne showing that Consuming fructose does not increase intestinal de novo lipogenesis 27:41 Debunking Myth No.8: Layne shows that when you do not overconsume fructose it doesn’t increase inflammation. 28:56 Debunking Myth No.9: Layne shows the relationship between sugar consumption, obesity, and insulin insensitivity 30:08 Debunking Myth No.10: Dr. Joseph Zundell Responding to Lustig's claims about cancer. 33:24 Debunking Myth No.11: Layne shows HUMAN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS showing how calories are what matter the most when it comes to fat loss. 35:38 Debunking Myth No.12: Layne flexing his knowledge of protein metabolism. 40:38 Debunking Myth No.13: Layne is explaining the difference between small and large LDL particles and how LDL is associated with increased mortality 43:12 Debunking Myth No.14: Layne clarifies the relation between cortisol and visceral fat 45:01 Debunking Myth No.15: Layne clarifies the different effects of Saturated fats and fructose on Liver fat. 48:56 Debunking Myth No.16: Layne shows that intermittent fasting is not superior to a normal energy deficit where calories are equated 49:29 Debunking Myth No.17: Layne clarifies that Non-nutritive sweeteners have no effect on insulin or glycemia 54:14 Outro A big fan of you Layne!!, thanks a lot

Dr. lustig never asserts that the fructose in fruit is different than fructose in soda. I guess you weren’t as sedulous with observation as you thought . He actually explicitly addresses the indictment you are making. He does however assert the total matrix of a whole fruit including but not limited to fiber (polyphenols, antioxidants) buffers glucose metabolization.

I truly think some people want to be lied to and shielded from the truth...they will refuse to believe countless research studies and instead just blame nameless people or things.

Alan Aragon tore Lustig's claims to shreds 14 years ago. Shame he is still spouting bollocks despite these debunks

It seems at about 11:30 that you gloss over an important nuance. That because of the fiber in fruit, the rate of absorption of fructose is significantly slower than that when you drink a soda with high fructose corn syrup. I have heard a number of scientific experts in the field discuss this. It's not the total amount which may be the same, but the peak rate at which fructose hits the liver which has to process it. This leads to the problems people discuss in terms of liver damage. Yes it's much easier to down two or three sodas in one sitting as opposed to 2-3 apples and so the former is likely to happen and latter is likely to almost never happen, but rate of fructose absorption is something to consider as a real difference also.

Layne are you ever going to accept Dr Paul Mason offer where he is confident of rebutting a lot of your claims?

What was Hubermans claim about alcohol that you were referring to in the beginning?

I cut sugar and refined carbs out of my diet and i must say that i feel better than ever. First time ive been at a normal weight in my entire life.

It sounds like y'all agree on a lot of things. Also, the cancer guy saying how "stupid" Lustig is. What's the purpose of resorting to personal attacks?

12:15: he can find no evidence that fiber inhibits absorption of fructose. Bro, the benefits of fiber are well known. It inhibits absorption in general, evidence of this abounds, it’s commonly accepted wisdom. If you can’t find evidence you clearly aren’t looking.

One thing I’ve noticed about guys like Lustig and Gundry, is that you never hear them say ‘I don’t know’. Be wary of so-called experts who don’t use this phrase. If you listen to a true expert in a field, they will use this term numerous times along with prefacing a statement by admitting something is out of their scope of practice. The more you know, the more you realize how little you actually know.

Ironically, it was Huberman’s series with Dr. Andy Galpin that finally changed my mind on the calories in-calories out argument. Galpin talks about the molecular chain of events and explained food production and digestion through the lens of carbons. It was like a shockwave through every other weight loss video I had ever seen. Highly recommend.

You always have someone out there that has a varying opinion. Do what works for you,do what makes you feel better, do what gets you closer to your goals.

Did you really try to argue, that sugar is not addictive? For real? I need to try one sweet and i cannot stop until the box is empty. You are one of those „cigaretes dont cause cancer“ type of guys in the 50s, dont you?

Really appreciate Layne’s dedication to educating his audience and also being brave to debunk these “experts” and “scientists” and “conspiracies”

It's scary how someone can be so wrong, yet be so confident. Most people don't know how to interpret the science... So thank you Layne, for clarifying all of the lies this guy told.

Sugar is not addictive?? Please!! Not sure if you have kids, if you do you would of caught them trying to climb walls to get to the sugar.

All calories are not the same, it is a fact

My sugar addiction has gotten the best of me for over 2 decades and caused me a host of liver issues and insomnia. I crave carbs like mad if I eat them and will eat myself sick....The carb free diet is working wonders for me as I am now ripped, sleeping better than ever and have finally kicked my dependance on sugar. I must be built different than the studies show...

I can’t imagine spending as much time as he does simply trying to show us how wrong everyone else is.

I think Nick Norwitz made a video that debunks this video of saturated fat is worse than fructose and explains how Layne completely misunderstood that study and got it wrong. Sucks we have people skewing the results and showing that over fed sugar is less harmful to liver than saturated fat. I know the truth....These studies are already misleading. For every study that shows something is bad, there is a more compelling study that shows the opposite.

Layne, im only 12:30 into the video but you mention there’s no evidence corroborating the claim that fiber inhibits fructose absorption. Maybe on an area under the curve basis that is true, but I interpreted the claim in the past as “fiber lowers glycemic index” rather than “fiber makes you poop out sucrose”. What is the status of the claim “fiber lowers glycemic index” (regardless of whether glycemic index matters, which is a different question)

I listened to this entire podcast and was very angry during portions but stuck it out to hear a different perspective. Glad you took the time to drop this diss-track and call out his BS. Some points were good, and he has good goals like making school lunches healthier, but man, he zooms too much in the microscope.

All these battles on KZfaq Channels who is right, who is wrong, what to eat, do this, don’t do that, eat meat, don’t eat meat, eat carbs, don’t eat carbs, sugar is the problem, no not sugar. it is fat. On and on it is so confusing for anyone. In the last 50 years as a whole we are fatter, sicker, obesity is on the rise, type 2 diabetes on the rise, heart disease, HBP, cancer, metabolic disease all on the rise so no one has it seems no one as it right. Seems KZfaqrs want is who gets the most followers, thumbs up, subscribers, and on and on. The winners are Parma and Insurance companies that are the winners.

Dr. Norton, did you even bother to read The Huang et. al study? It showed correlation between fructose and all cause mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. We can easily pull any information we'd like from the endless studies on nutrition. While lustig may be wrong on a lot, nobody is perfect. What's important is that we promote the reality of bioindividuality when it comes to our lifestyle and how it affects our biological markers. I do not agree with your tone in addressing Dr. Lustig. We should not be bashing others with the same end goal, optimal health.

This guy doesn’t understand endocrinology at all and the role hormones plays in regulating metabolism.

As someone who lost his father to cancer that he battled for over 3 years and during that time we, as a family learned a lot about. Lustigs comments completely pissed my entire family off.

so basically everything Lustig said is true. „not all tumor cells rely of increased glucose consumption“ - this is called debunking?

Literally, just by this guy's attitude, I'd say he needs to debunk himself. Dr Lustig speaks clearly, with scientific data, and a clear breakdown of what does what to your body. Quit hating on the sugar guy who's changing lives.

Dr Lustig is the reason we don't eat refined sugars, and my family and health are SO much better for it!

I was surprised when Andrew referenced him in a previous episode but really surprised when he actually invited him knowing that Robert did not change much on what he was saying years ago.

Sweet, I am so glad I can lose weight on high carb/ low fat diet. I'm sure I will be fine on my Red Bull and chicken breast diet. So glad there no difference in calories. It's just like how there is no difference in people.

I am a research scientist and I really appreciate these videos. One mechanism usually can’t explain a complex process. This is usually true across nature. I think it’s fair to give someone like Lustig the ability to voice their opinion for open debate. Huberman is a neuroscientist, but was able to point out some flaws in the argument, though he didn’t explicitly challenge the dude. I guess the problem is that people may just take Lustig’s word for it without the ability to really dive into the literature. Having these videos that present data and evidence to the contrary is a great balance. We should all applaud the time and energy it takes to really break down, find supporting citations, and then compose a video that tells a story like this.

people are taking table sugar and eating it! I know from first hand experience have been regrettably married to a woman that this just that! Personally, I consider myself a carb addict and suffer tremendous withdrawal when I stop using sugar and eating process carbs, i.e. flour, corn meal etc. Even after detoxing from such, I still can smell sugar, corn products, except fresh corn, and I can not be around them without finally giving in to cosumming them, then the sugar spikes ets. I find it hard to believe that someone who most likely is not either type1 or 2 diabetic can even come close to understanding the addiction process in its entirety.

I hope Andrew has you back on to address all these valid points, and it will be great to have you both iron out the confusion, this topic deserves its own podcast. Well done Layne, cool shirt, for Algor 👊😎

Hey Layne, appreciate all your content! Just dropping this for the algorithm, this was a ridiculous amount of work for this video and you're doing a great thing. The amount of times I see people I know getting sucked into content like this with some guy on a podcast or interview is insane.

12:35 Our findings should be considered when developing dietary guidelines to reduce intake of added sugars, especially fructose, for improving cardiovascular health. Thats the last sentance of that study layne quotes. Seems to me he didnt even read it fully.

if sugar causes inflammation when you overconsume it, is anything above the 36 grams recommended = overconsumption?

I started seeing videos of this guy and wondered what you would say about his claims! great timing!

It seems that in the calorie debate the tribalism is so strong, that no one is capable to form a consensual argument. I get what the two sides are claiming, but they are doing it in a way that the both sound right and wrong at the same time.

I first saw your discussion with A. Huberman, liked it and that sent me here. Before commenting, I'd like to say I'm an MD and Clinical Pharmacologist, so most of the things Clinical Trial related spark my interest. I am also doing mountain bike touring and I have recently started to dwelve into the sports nutrition thing more closely (as this isn't approached in the medical school). Dr. Lustig's videoclips were among the first I saw on YT when starting to look for new nutrition info. Those led me to many others. It resonated with my initial desire to lose some belly fat and reduce my waist to under 1/2 of my height (I was 179 cm, 79 kg and 96 cm on waist in August 2023, now dropped to 69 kg and 86 cm waist, by reducing caloric intake from 2200 to 1800 kcal daily, with carbs representing max 30%). It worked, now I am just maintaining it (as a lifelong purpose), continuing to keep carbs calories under 30% (many days under 25%, because protein and fat keep me full). Now coming back to your comments on Dr. Lustig claims: - the statin RCTs outcomes. I found 3 large meta-analyses of statin RCTs (vs placebo or active control) - the first and oldest, to which I think he was referring to, is: Kristensen ML, et al. BMJ Open 2015 - The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement - indeed, the author's concludion was that median postponement of death in the 11 RCTs for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively. The second is: Hansen et al - J Gen Intern Med - Society of General Internal Medicine (Denmark) 2019 - Postponement of Death by Statin Use: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. They included 16 RCTs of at least 1000 patients, in which a statin intervention (any type) was compared with placebo using a predefined primary or secondary outcome of death by any cause and having a minimumtrial follow-up of 2 years. Their analysis revealed a survival gain of 12.6 days within the trial duration (up to 7 years). The third is: Hansen et al (same as second) - Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021 - Postponement of cardiovascular outcomes by statin use: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. They included 19 trials with at least 1000 patients each. For four major outcomes,the summary outcome postponement in days was as follows: cardiovascular mortality, 9.27 days; non-vascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 1.5 days; any myocardial infarction 18.0 days; and any stroke, 6.1 days. Their conclusion: Statin treatment provided a small, average postponement of cardiovascular outcomes during trial duration. Now, granted, I am not a statistician and as I understand, they are propsosing a new method of evaluating postponement of outcomes. Also there is a limiting by calculating the outcome postponement only as long as the trial takes place (7 years was the longest) and making a lifelong extrapolation isn't easy. The point is - do statins tend to be overprescribed? And aren't there patients (especially in primary prevention) that would benefit from a change in lifestyle, as long as they are committed to adhere to it permanently? Regarding the "war on the calorie" - I don't agree with him that the calorie should be eliminated, after all it is an useful tool and a numeric parameter we base our research on, amongst other. Maybe not many people are able to count their calories on a day by day basis (except data nerds, which I hope I qualify for). But in starting to understand they are overeating, the calorie count, if well explained by their healthcare provider, is a starting point.

Not debunking, just one scientist’s interpretation vs another

I look around and estimate 99.999% of athletes in the world eat a variety of foods, mostly carbs. Im not even a smart person and i can see this basic fact. "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now realize, half of those people... are stupider" - George Carlin

This is great Layne! Thankyoufor your hard work ❤

What from Andrew Huberman's alcohol podcast did you call him out on on Twitter?

Holy shit. Layne struck yet again lol. I remember about 2 years ago I stated getting into health and fitness and was watching your videos a lot. I knew back then because of your videos that excess calories caused fat gain. When our biology teacher then asked the class what caused fat gain i raised my hand and confidently stated that it was calories. He said that i‘m wrong and that it‘s Insulin. From that day on i vowed to pick apart his claims and debunked several of his statements about milk, animal protein and artificial sweeteners. It ultimately inspired me to do my thesis paper on Ace-K, Cyclamate and Saccharin. A lot of my knowledge over these years has stemmed from you layne, and you also inspired my love for biochemistry which is why i‘ll be studying it at the Swiss federal Institute of technology in Zurich starting 2025. Thank you for all the useful and factual information that you spread on the internet, freely accessible to anyone. The internet needs more people like you Layne.

Defending sugar and beverage industry, what ever the stimulant is. not only unethical but also hopless. No body can hide the truth forever.

Can we all just just take the time to appreciate the hours of effort, work and research Layne went through to debunk all of Lustig's false claims ! You're the fkn Man Layne 👊🏽

As Layne states at the end of the video, Lustig provides sexy - and straight forward -explanations on why we are fat, sick, etc. People (including myself) find easier to follow this kind of advise than the more nuanced, detailed and correct, which takes more time to aquire. "Cut sugars", "cut processed": pretty simple to follow, and works. Also, for a lot of people, going cold turkey is also easier. Being keto now myself, I know that if I eat a bowl of pasta after a workout, or If I have an overnight oatmeal for breakfast I'll stay healthy, but I also open the door for the pastries and ice creams which got me sick in the first place (GI problems).

Thank you! I appreciate your enormous effort.

Mutual fund analogy is a daily affirmation for this dude

58 minutes?? Guess I'll settle in for this one. 👌🏾

Could you please please invite Lustig to a debate? That would be so good!

What if the outcome you care about is overall health and longevity (not weight loss)? Is high or low insulin still irrelevant?

I have to add after decades in healthcare, if you are metabolically unhealthy you can calorie restrict drastically and not lose a pound. I’ve watched it. Try one bowl or half bowl of cheerios and a cup of milk once a day over weeks and the person loses zip. I would be a skeleton but I’m metabolically healthy for the most part. Fat people don’t always over eat. Yes if they exercise and improve their metabolic health the pounds will drop but simple calorie restriction won’t do it

Joseph speaking really demonstrates Layne’s superpower: his ability to take insanely complex information and make it palatable for the average person. Keep fighting the good fight Layne! Data > Feelings

Dear Layne Who paid, wich industry paid to you to defend fructose and sugar consumption? Could it be pepsi or coke?

Thanks for bringing this information, which makes me think deeper into this. I have some naive questions though: 1) when you mention results from human trials, it seems you use body weight as the metric, what about body composition? E.g., body fat percentage or position (like liver fat). Two groups might have the same weight, but one might be much healthier due to lower body fat. Does the studies also provide these metrics? 2) Is the claim true that glucose is essential for survival, but fructose is not? If this is true, why shouldn't we avoid eating it while knowing there is at least one known mechanism that might hurt us? 3) The results you mentioned about the artificial sweetener are really interesting, but are you aware of similar studies that have longer time periods that confirm the results?

I did A level biology 16 years ago, and even that remnant of old textbook knowledge made Lustig’s claims sound extremely suspect… Lustig is an example of how steel faced confidence can mimic credibility

Surely Huberman makes enough from ad reads to fund professional fact checkers.

Hey Layne can you please get a mic? The echo is at a level which it does distract from your voice and content. Thank you.

Your hard work is really appreciated!

Damn he roped me in - bought his book last year but the more he talked my gut told me something wasn’t right. Especially with artificial sweeteners. Thank you Layne x100 for sharing this with us today.

Been really looking forward to this. Actually I'm baffled that no one before has debunked some of the ridiculous claims of Dr. Lustig. It's not just this appearance on the huberman podcast, there are tons of videos and articles where Lustig spreads misinformation. Great work again, Layne ❤

If you can add a second camera at a 3/4 angle, it’ll give you something to cut away to so you don’t have the choppy cuts, and will make the video much smoother to watch.

The increase in sugar intake has increased the incidence of non alcoholic fatty liver. If you over consume like any other poison it depends on the dosage overwhelming your body's defenses.

Took you 20hrs to script and film. Gonna take me 20 days of rewatch to fully understand all the concepts. Congrats for the job Layne!

Gary Brecka also dropped some ridiculous claims about PFEP mats and grounding changing pH of body and hydrogen water on Joe Rogan that deserve debunking.

Did you even look at Lustig’s data?

I wanted to know wether his claim on "fructose inhibits emzymes in the mitochondria" was true or not

Was hoping / half expecting this video after suffering through 60 minutes of that interview.

There are a lot of academics that challenge Huberman and he ignores everyone. Layne you are an outlier, and I have to believe it’s because of your discipline.

The pasture/grass vs pen/corn cows is the same as people: more movement and eating higher-fiber/lower energy foods results in a leaner/less fatty animal.

Thank you for your time on this!

It is so difficult, as a layman, to know who to trust when it comes to dietary health. It is frustrating not to know if the person you’re putting your trust in, is leading you down the correct path to health and longevity.😓

This is utter rubbish.

Don’t eat sugar and processed food guys, eat this completely natural and processed powdered veggies infused with vitamins and minerals that never came in those veggies in the first place.

Why don’t you challenge him to an actual in-person debate? I bet he would be up to it.

Layne I really appreciate you making this video. Even though I originally found you from the Huberman Lab Podcast I wish you could do this for all his videos. I know that's not realistic, but so many people find podcasts like Huberman's and never cross reference or critical think about his guests (the most extreme version of this is Joe Rogan's podcast). I really hope that you know you are making a difference with this kind of content, and I'll forever ride with you dawg!

Ha. You can find any study to help you with a counter point. Anyone defending sugar is going to be on the wrong side of history.

I think sugar is addictive Not just sugar , I agree Dr Robert lustig makes sense Insulin resistance is a thing Brought on by glucose Carbs and over eating, My body has changed with his advise and others, Keto Low carb for sure My inflammation has gone I have lowered my calories maybe, but no grains rice and potatoes and bread, have got my blood glucose under control , perfect blood pressure, No medication statin therapy, only good health

Doc, please do a part 2. People need your help.

You are incorrect. Table sugar also contains a molecule of glucose in addition to the fructose. Fruit contains fructose only. Sorry, but when it comes to metabolism, I believe a Pediatric Endocrinologist with decades of studies and experience under his belt over…you.

The amount of dedication that takes to publish a video like this is remarkable! Great content as always Layne 🙌🏽

We only need Dr. Norton and Dr. Israetel

Thank you, for making these videos!

"Calories in, Calories out" is Thermodynamics 1st law, no one has a magical body that doesn't obey Thermodynamics 1st law (except for the people that have nuclear reactions within their bodies, gods amongst men). So saying energy balance is not a real thing, is very, very, very... stupid. Of course a lot things affect energy in and energy out, but that is the basic equation that determines our body's mass change.

Huberman tends to pander to his guests and engages in audience capture. Plenty of anti scientific claims on his platform

Well. I lost him when I attacked the a calorie is not a calorie. Lustig says humans are not calorie meters. Dr Layne could then by his own logic “debunking” Lustig just put gasoline in a diesel car. Energy is energy.

The fact that you threw some of this over to an expert in the field he was talking about is amazing.