Alan Aragon

Lustig makes a few great points, but it's important to keep in mind there are some who argue he is a "fructose alarmist" and argue it's not as simple as "blaming fructose alone." A good quote from Alan Aragon: "I would add that fiber is only one of the numerous phytochemicals in fruit that impart health benefits. Thus, it’s not quite as simple as saying that fructose is evil, but once you take it with fiber, you’ve conquered the Dark Side."

Some links: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html

I personally don't take sides with either. Like most things in the nutritional field, a healthy balance is more effective for me than trending behaviors and ideologies (i.e.: no-fat diet, "slow carb" diet, Atkins diet, etc.).

I'm seeing two major factual problems with many of the comments here.

1. In terms of determining how much weight you are going to lose/gain. A calorie is a calorie. Calories in/calories out is the secret sauce to every successful weight loss diet, even keto. That is a simple fact, backed by all of the truly solid nutritional research in modern science.

2. If we are talking about lean body mass, body fat percentage goals, healthy eating habits or disease prevention, then we should have a talk about sugar. It is certainly a variable that deserves attention. However, it is not the devil...

Fat is not the devil...
Meat is not the devil...
Carbs are not the devil...
etc.

If you don't believe me, if some pop science book has convinced you that sugar is the worst thing in the world, I ask that you look into the work of Alan Aragon. A good place to start would be the following article:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I don't know why Taubes gets so much play on HN. His science is bad and his studies are cherry picked [1] for whatever narrative he wants to sell. For a large group of people who usually are critical thinkers I'm surprised at what passes for real nutrition science on HN.

IMHO, if you want to read good diet information from someone who not only knows what he is talking about, but also uses it in practice every day look up Alan Aragon [2]. I particularly like him because he is a research fanatic and understands the difference between high and low quality studies.

BTW, I am in no way affiliated with him at all, but have read his stuff for years.

[1] http://weightology.net/?p=265 -great read with LOTS of links to studies that Taubes conveniently (purposely?) ignored

[2] http://www.alanaragonblog.com/

Lustig's position is tenuous at best, and at times he either carelessly misleads people or outright fabricates points to support his little crusade. Here's (http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf) a take-down of a number of issues, logical and factual, in his recent book, and here (http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/) is a critique of his underlying argument about the unique threat posed by fructose (plus some follow-up based on comments and Lustig's own response to that piece http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/). Basically, even where Lustig is correct his points don't reflect any real-world situations.

Oh god. What the hell does "clean" mean. That's orthorexic nonsense. Unprocessed foods can be very helpful, but they aren't magically different kcal, If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat (controlling for fiber and protein energy loss).
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/

Regarding fructose:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://weightology.net/?p=434

Gluten is extremism overhyped, but sensitivity to it can be a problem.

Googling 'Lustig criticism' gives you a good place to start. Though with nutritional science, everything is so far from consensus (and when there is a consensus, it's 20 years behind the science) that you should treat this as a jumping-off point to read the literature instead of an authoritative rebuttal.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

There's a section about halfway down where he discusses Lustig's claims that things like HFCS are metabolized differently and negatively.