Talk:Robert Lustig

--Edits

Untitled

I removed the bogus research that was used to make a false claim on the page. It's both unrelated to the person in question (his claims are his own and he has his own research). Refutation belongs in an article about sugar, not about the scientist. The articles referenced specifically are people directly funded by the sugar industry--example Kim-Anne Le is funded by Nestle` corporation. No big surprise their research would 'refute' any claim about sugar. If you are going to put research on this page to refute, suggesting 'most scientists don't agree'--you really should use better sources and not sources that have or will eventually have to retract their research as being bogus and industry-funded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.251.87 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Right on. Ricroz (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Alternative reliable viewpoints should be permitted

If Dr. Robert Lustig has taken an unconventional approach or has a unique opinion, it would not be unreasonable to mention his opinions and the counter arguments in the article, rather than make the reader search through the article on sugar. If there is a lot of detail, then a brief summary here with a link to an article about the debtate/controversy would be appropriate.Dig Deeper (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sugar is bad for you is not controversial. But he is exaggerating its effects. It's not a poison, like excess of alcohol. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

{{I agree that reliable alternate viewpoints should be noted—for example, articles published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. However, it also is reasonable to note if the opposing viewpoint may represent a conflict of interest. The criticism currently posted comes from a reputable journal; however, one authors discloses funding from or relationships with Dr Pepper, Snapple, Coca-Cola, and the European Fruit Juice Association, among others. CorkeyC (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)CorkeyC

It does not follow that those companies would be either against artificial sweeteners or against using sugar in their products. Since they gladly produce both kinds of drinks. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest are a Major Threat to Scientific Integrity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflicts_of_interest_in_academic_publishing

• Having funding from the quintessential industry that relies on sweeteners for profit is a MAJOR red flag. Please see the KQED article on this topic.
• The NY Times published this ominous article on how the sugar industry shifted the blame from sugar to fat:
• There are many many more articles easily found on this exact topic. Is is a major concern related to scientific integrity.

I think it is fair to note such conflicts of interest on a topic page. Such conflicts are germane to the understanding of the subject. I actually think it is essential to note these, at least briefly, as these conflicts pollutes the role of citations making science potentially up for sale. It is also worth noting that it is ESSENTIAL to keep the reference to critics, whatever the funding, as the research could be correct. The wiki reader must have both sides, the critic and the critics disclosed conflicts of interest the MAY contribute bias to the research.

References

The talk page is not a forum for your opinions, WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTFORUM, and the COI issue does not pertain to the article subject himself. There are no WP:SCIRS sources to indicate Lustig was inhibited by, or took part in, COI. Restrict your comments to improving the article with reliable sources. Zefr (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A paragraph was removed

that indicates that Mr. Lustig had a predecessor and his research is in line with an elder one. Sorry, so there is nowhere in Wikipedia mention about Mr. Yudkin anymore and there are apparently no resources to build an article about. Reverted by Zefr : statement has low relevance and is redundant anyway. (TW)) Please reconsider a return. ChJn (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin Nigel Campbell (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Another paragraph/sentence was removed, from an industry paid for supplement

which was specifically in a journal supplement paid for by the sugar industry, contrary to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sponsored_content. It isn't worthy of Wikipedia entry. As iin above Talk entries, sugar industry funded research cannot be neutral, and certainly should not be quoted as if it represents an unbiased academic source. If Lustig is wrong or overstating, we must be able to find well-sourced research to quote.

We're talking about this: "Khan, T. A; Sievenpiper, J. L (2016). "Controversies about sugars: Results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on obesity, cardiometabolic disease and diabetes". European Journal of Nutrition. 55 (Suppl 2): 25–43. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1345-3. PMC 5174149. PMID 27900447." User Zefr wanted to revert it, but didn't give coherent reasons, because it's a supplement to a publication, paid for, and not a reliable journal article as per Wikipedia guidelines, so I undid his re-addition of this unreliable source.

I feel it could be reasonable instead - if it were deemed important to add a contrary viewpoint - to add a sentence or paragraph talking explicitly and clearly about how the sugar industry responds to Lustig's work, making the industry interest and backing absolutely clear in the text. Richardhod (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Richardhod: You appear to be misreading the funding sources, ethics statement, and journal quality. 1) The study wasn't funded by industry. Under "Funding": "Aspects of this work were supported by the Canadian Diabetes Association, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis Program (Funding Reference Number 102078) and Programmatic Grants in Food and Health through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists’ Network (Funding Reference Number 129920). None of the sponsors had a role in any aspect of the present study, including design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, approval of the manuscript or decision to publish." 2) Sievenpiper is a renowned metabolism scientist, with over 200 publications listed on PubMed over 20+ years, and no industry conflicts declared. In his "Compliance with ethical standards statement", he acknowledges various funding sources, but there is nothing unusual about a university faculty member receiving industry funding - nearly everyone worth his/her salt does this to support a university research program. 3) The European J Nutrition is Medline-indexed with a 2021 impact factor of 5.6, a respectable score, two journal qualities making it suitable as a source. There are no concerns with this journal for Wikipedia, and the article was a review, WP:MEDSCI. We do need a reputable counterpoint to Lustig's misinformation, and this secondary source provides it adequately. You tried to insert unusable content and sources in January this year with this reverted edit. Let it rest until you can provide stronger evidence, if it exists (doubtful). Zefr (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It's Not a journal article. It's part of a paid for supplement by Rippe Health. It's both funded by industry and in a supplement paid for by the sugar industry. Supplements to journals are not as reliable as journals, because they are sponsored, paid content and Wikipedia guidelines insist they should be treated similarly to newspaper ads and paid content. Professors are well known to make research errors when funded well to come up with a particular viewpoint. And one is explicitly on the industry's payroll. Yet the authors are irrelevant, given Wikipedia guidelines. It's the status of the supplement which demonstrates the problem. Which is why the wikipedia guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sponsored_content EXPLICITLY say this.

Let's quote it to be clear: 'Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such shill articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.'

The fact that this one is paid for by the Rippe Health, https://www.rippehealth.com/partners/index.htm, owned by this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rippe a Sugar Industry shill, is quite clear. Facts.

I'd love to see some independent research here instead. I am not an expert in sugar or metabolism, and I dare say you aren't either. So, we go by Wikipedia guidelines, surely. We're here to provide *impartial* sources. This is not that. Looks nice, reviewing things, but if you're paid to do so, you can use very fancy-looking methods and still very biased, or wrong. Why are you so wedded to this piece, and seem to want to own this page? I'm keen to get resolution here, but I can't understand your position and why you are taking it Richardhod (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore I have just noticed that you have sneaked in an article by Rippe himself, which fails the Reliable Sources criteria again: it is both the proceedings of a Symposium AND is in a supplement to the journal, not the journal itself. Rippe is a cosultant for the sugar industry. This is the citation, which I have now removed. Rippe, J. M; Angelopoulos, T. J (2016). "Relationship between added sugars consumption and chronic disease risk factors: Current understanding". Nutrients. 8 (11): 697. doi:10.3390/nu8110697. PMC 5133084. PMID 27827899.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). Not helpful, when trying to engage fruitfully on maintaining wikipedia's impartiality and transparency.

As a compromise I have added that the original article is sugar-industry funded (which is as I have demonstrated, obvious), rather than continue to push for its deletion immediately. Richardhod (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I can onlhy conclude that user Zefr is funded by the sugar industry. You are simply ignoring that it's an industry-funded supplement, and what the Wikipedia guidelines, linked multiple times above say. I'm getting dispute resolution in here. Richardhod (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That accusation is ridiculous. WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:MEDSCI - in the Reception section, we acknowledge that Lustig's views are not in the mainstream of clinical science on obesity and metabolic syndrome. We don't have rigorous published rebuttals specifically of his opinions, but discussions and news reports over the decades (Google search) would show most scientists think he is a kook. What mainstream scientist would spend time and lab funding on such an endeavor? From BLPBALANCE, the statement "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all" challenges editors to provide the mainstream view to Lustig's opinions (which are the "small minorities"), edited now in this version. Zefr (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly counters are welcome, absolutey and every article should have them. But they should be transparently represented. And they should be from articles IN journals, not in industry-paid for supplements, which this clearly is. This is the issue here, nothing else. Your views on Professor Lustig's academic competence here are irrelevant. Richardhod (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Lustig has appeared on many low-carb blogs/websites so he clearly has his own agenda, to promote a low-carb high-fat animal based diet. He is a low-carb/high fat promoter and cholesterol denialist (he thinks saturated fat doesn't increase heart disease), and he promotes grass-fed beef as a health food. Here he is appearing on the pseudoscientific Weston A. Price Foundation [1] trying to link sugar to every disease known to man. There are many in this camp (Mark Hyman, Aseem Malhotra, Gary Taubes, Ronald Krauss) "Cut out all the sugar and eat non-processed meat!!". These people write books but have a very poor understanding of nutritional science. It needs to be made clear his ideas are very much fringe. This guy might have many followers on YouTube and published many papers in his field but his views on nutrition are clearly fringe science, not evidence-based. In the "reception" section a false balance has been added. "Other reviews suggest, in agreement with Lustig, that the consumption of fructose-containing beverages is a cause of weight gain and obesity", none of these reviews mention Lustig specifically, it is false balance and original research. The reviews must specifically mention Lustig or they cannot be cited. I searched for book reviews for his book "Fat Chance" and some do exist [2], [3]. So the article should be expanded but only with suitable sources that mention Lustig. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Lustig that could be added to the reception section. "Lustig and Taubes are propagating the ONAAT fallacy. Like Atkins and others who have come before them, they appear to be dualists who divide the spectrum and subtleties of food into good vs. evil; and iconoclasts who get attention by challenging conventional wisdom." [4]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is useful information, and context is useful, thank you @Psychologist Guy. However, the point remains: the article I removed - which Zefr has revertged multiply without good response to my actual issue and is way too strongly attached to - clearly appears to be located in exactly the kind of source that Wikipedia EXLPLICITLY warns against in its guidelines (See links, multiply, above.

I'm very in favour of explanations such as yours (maybe toned down to be more neutral), in a counter-narratives section, since the Reception section should show how people received it, whether correctly or not, IMHO, and I'd love it if somebody gave a nicely-referenced explanation such as yours. I'm no expert in this, and this process is teaching me something about Lustig's deficiencies, which are not adequately represented in this article - and indeed elsewhere on the www.

So, please, I encourage this for sure, but let's not use that reference! @Zefr I'd like to resolve this intelligently, rather than dogmatically, with undertanding that my issue is technical, about how Wikipedia references should be made. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you. I think this article could be clearer and more explnatatory for those without understanding of the state of the art in nutrition and health (like me and millions of others). I'm here because the articles referenced weren't good enough by Wikipedia's own standards, as I (academic not in this field) was seeking some kind of more transparent perspective. Richardhod (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, on further examination, it seems it's been replace dby other, probably better sources, and this dispute has raised better questions. I very much would support some clearer, more explicit discussion and links of these issues, and the questions and state of the data and interpretations of the current nitrition/health science. IT's an area fill of woo, and even academic nons[ecialists are confused by where to look. I suggest this would be a very useful addition, here or on the specific pages on metabolism sugar, and linked to from here. Richardhod (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Lustig's (mis)interpretation of sugar metabolism?

Over the last decade, Lustig has not been active in the clinical field of interpreting the role of sugar in onset of obesity and metabolic syndrome, providing his last review in 2012 here. The edits today by ParticipantObserver to the Reception section present an incorrect view of the history of Lustig's interpretation of sugar metabolism. Historically - without clinical trial or adequate lab evidence - Lustig promoted the idea that sugar (specifically fructose) is "directly toxic" in organs, particularly the liver and brain, creating a chain effect of driven consumption behavior combined with liver fat deposition leading to obesity. This "direct" concept has never been confirmed, and is contrary to mainstream views that excessive sugar intake from overconsuming sweet manufactured foods and beverages "indirectly" leads to a caloric burden causing obesity over the long term. The "direct vs. "indirect" mechanisms were covered in a 2015 review and remain unresolved.

ParticipantObserver's edit today is incorrect and misleading: "Other reviews suggest, in agreement with Lustig, that the consumption of fructose-containing beverages is a cause of weight gain and obesity." No, a decade ago, Lustig proposed without evidence that fructose is directly toxic to organs, not that excess of caloric intake is the main factor leading to obesity - the mainstream view. The mainstream field is not following Lustig's "direct" theory, even though early-stage research on the role of fructose metabolism has become more focused in recent years, such as in this 2018 review, which remains inconclusive. Zefr (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I believe Lustig is in the realm of fringe-science, not evidence-based. His views are at odds with the mainstream consensus. Lustig seems to have gained a lot of followers in the low-carb crowd who like to promote conspiracy theories about the sugar industry. It is false balance to be claiming this guys ideas have been accepted by neutral researchers and the line added in the reception section should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Understood. I was under a misapprehension because the dispute listed in the reception section specifically mentioned the role of fructose in weight gain, not the toxicity issue. I'll re-edit. The problem with the current text is that it suggests that fructose is unrelated to weight gain and obesity, and there seems to be evidence that excess fructose consumption is, in fact, related to weight gain and obesity. ParticipantObserver (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add a discussion of that 2015 review. If the direct vs indirect mechanisms are unresolved, Lustig's claims may be an alternative theoretical formulation rather than fringe science per se (WP:FRINGE/ALT). ParticipantObserver (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sugar is bad for you" is a banal truth. But there is no conspiracy (modeled upon Big Tobacco) hiding such truth from the masses. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The above criticism is plain hogwash. Anyone with a scientifically oriented open mind (and not a sugar industry hack) and about an hour and a half, can view numerous detailed lectures by Dr. Lustig at prestigious institutions, and judge for yourself his extensive and detailed knowledge of human metabolism. Furthermore, to say his conclusions are not “mainstream” are actually true and but gaining more support, as the data presented show his study explains why the US, and in fact the world at large, is becoming sicker under this onslaught of high fructose filled and nutrient depleted processed food industry. Ricroz (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you are suggesting. The above criticism rests on experimental evidence of direct vs indirect mechanisms, and not on his level of expertise or the depth of his knowledge. Nutrient depletion is of course a separate issue from the toxicity of sugar. And it seems that you agree that the conclusions are not mainstream. I personally suggested that this is an alternative theoretical formulation, not fringe science, which it seems you agree with. So, I'm not sure what you are pointing to as hogwash. ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The fat vs. sugar dispute is like the bitten by the dog vs. bitten by the cat dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Not in source"

Hi Zefr, could you please explain what you mean by "not in source" in your revert's ES? My edit was a summarised form of this excerpt from the source:

J.: You were raised in Brooklyn and moved to the Bay Area in 2000. What was your Jewish upbringing like?

RL: My father was very adamant that I went to Hebrew school, but my mother didn’t really care. I didn’t have much use for it because it interfered with everything else I wanted to do at the time. Then I went to Jewish summer camp when I was 15 or 16 and really enjoyed it. I realized where I fit in.

I’ve been more spiritual than staunchly religious, but my Jewish principles are what drive my everyday life, which is mainly tikkun olam because I’ve been trying to heal the world — and have been since I was a kid.

– Olympian ^loquere 13:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

My edit comment would have been better stated as "irrelevant". The article is not about Jewish principles, not what Lustig felt about his religion in early life, and not how his religious beliefs are relevant to science or the reason why this article exists. As just a short interview from 8 years ago, it is also a weak WP:RS source only marginally useful for the article. Zefr (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)