In this expansive lecture, delivered at a CrossFit Health event at CrossFit Headquarters on March 9, 2019, Dr. Robert Lustig explores the lacuna that has emerged between medical research and policy, specifically as they pertain to metabolic disease. Taking up the cause of Dr. Jeremiah Stamler who asks, “If a researcher isn’t willing to follow his data into the policy arena, who will?” Lustig says, “My job is to translate the science into rational and effective policy.”
Via a review of recent scientific literature, Lustig dispels a series of myths about chronic disease. The first myth is that chronic disease is about obesity. Lustig points to flaws in scientific research that appears to support this myth, noting, for instance, its confusion of correlation and concordance. He demonstrates that the data instead shows the problem is not obesity but all the metabolic diseases that attend obesity: diabetes, hypertension, lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, polycystic ovarian disease, cancer, and dementia.
Lustig dismantles another myth by using science and reason: the myth that all calories are equal in their effect on human metabolism—a myth historically propagated by the Coca-Cola company as part of its “energy balance” initiatives. “Science tells a different story,” Lustig says, explaining that some calories are metabolized differently than others because they have different metabolic pathways. He focuses on processed foods and sugar to illustrate this point before highlighting various ways that multinational corporations have used shoddy science to pollute the scientific literature.
Lustig closes his talk by offering a series of proposals for fixing these problems. Among them are rolling back the subsidies on corn, wheat, soy, and sugar; and renaming Type 2 diabetes “Processed Food Disease.”
Comments on Translating Science Into Policy With Dr. Robert Lustig
Love the answer : stay within science and you can speak as loud as you want.
Thanks for this.
Thank you so much for posting this. I was sad I couldn't make the health conference this past year because I started medical school that same week and had I mandatory events to attend!
Would that it were simple to separate Big Sugar from its agri welfare gravy train. Would that it were an easy matter for Congress to 'decree' that corn, sugar beets, and sugar cane were ineligible for farm subsidies. Well, actually Congress could do it easily if it were of a mind, but history demonstrates pretty clearly the strength of Big Sugar's lobby on Congressional actions. Decades ago, when the Nutritional Guidelines were up for revision (as they are every 5 years) the scientific committee proffered a recommendation that the 1990 language re: sugar be amended from 'use sugars in moderation' to 'limit sugar intake', a modest change in wording that incited a veritable maelstrom of pushback from Big Sugar's minions on Capitol Hill. I believe there were 36 Senators (from sugar-connected states -- ie producers of sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn, which turns into corn syrup and HFCS) who signed a letter against the curtailment language. And it failed to get in the word 'limit' which for Big Sugar was just 'too limiting' I guess. The language in 1995 re:sugar wound up 'eat fewer foods high in fat and sugar'. By 2000, the wording was 'choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugar'. By 2005, it was 'consuming sugar- and starch-containing foods and beverages less frequently.' By 2010 it was Reduce the intake of calories from solid fats and added sugars.' And finally, by 2015, we get: Consume less than 10 percent of calories per day from added sugars' But that's still 200 calories of 'added' sugars a day -- some 50 grams of sugar and way enough to disrupt the metabolic balance of anyone genetically susceptible to metabolic syndrome. While that's certainly a curtailment, it was 25 years in the making from 'use sugars in moderation' and a world away from the prescription of zero agri subsidies for sugar producers.
Just make corn, sugar cane, and sugar beets ineligible for farm bill "insurance" (subsidies). Farmers would either plant a different crop or purchase private crop insurance at market rates.
Translating Science Into Policy With Dr. Robert Lustig
4