Sugar before a meal - why people eat more afterwards?

At 31:20 minute of the video Dr Lustig repeats his usual 'soda before meal' scenario. Note it is not a 'fructose before meal' scenario. It is sugar on virtually empty stomach and then the child eats more than if it received nothing or just water. How is that possible? 

You hear him saying that the brain did not notice those 150 kcal of energy. Why is that? 

You could hear before that glucose stimulates satiety receptors in the brain while fructose does not and that was the reason why people consumed more food. Let me just remind you that the sugar is consisting of: 50% fructose and 50% glucose.  

Now, try to answer my question: why the brain did not notice the 75 kcal of glucose energy that drove insulin levels up? Not mentioning that about half of fructose is also converted to glucose in the liver, especially when not in a fed state, which was exactly this scenario. Another reminder: in a fasted state, a large portion of consumed carbohydrate, especially glucose, is converted to glycogen since its stores are depleted after overnight fast. If there was only several hours gap between the meals, this is not the case. So, depending on the length of time between two meals, the insulin response to carbohydrate will be different. But let's say, the hours were only few and after consumption of soda drink there was an adequate insulin response in the body.

What do we have the insulin for? The body synthesizes the insulin to enable glucose entering the insulin mediated transport proteins and metabolic pathways so that the glucose concentration in the blood can be maintained at narrowly regulated levels. Higher levels cause the damage of various tissues while low levels cause fatigue or even a diabetic coma, sometimes leading to death. 

Now let's put all these things together: at least 75 kcal of glucose triggered early release of insulin because from the sweetened drinks we get the sugars into the blood quite quickly. The insulin cleared up the glucose from the blood stream, reducing the blood glucose to probably even a lower level than it was before drinking the beverage. Are you surprised that the child felt hungrier when it entered the fast food outlet and got the food in front of it? This is exactly the mechanism and the reason why the carbohydrate rich diet based on processed carbs (with a high glycaemic index) makes people fail at weight loss - their spikes in blood glucose followed by spikes of insulin make them like on a metabolic roller-coaster with repeated hunger pangs during the day. And this applies not only on sugar but also on starch. 

IT IS THE GLUCOSE then, not fructose.

The blame to be put on fructose is only in that it makes food sweeter and more appealing on our taste buds, especially when it is accompanied with fat and salt on top of it as are the notoriously known high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods. The studies have demonstrated that people consume significantly more food when containing these three substances in the right amounts then if the food was less processed. Food industry, for the sake of profits, has put a huge effort in designing such desirable food products that make people eating too much of it and to buy it again. 

Yes, Dr Lustig also mentioned the hormone ghrelin, saying that glucose brings this hunger hormone down whereas fructose does not. Did he forget what he said a minute ago - what the drink was sweetened with? SUGAR, not fructose or glucose only. Why the at least 75 kcal of sugar did not suppress the ghrelin? I think he mismatched two different kinds of studies of which some examined the effect of pure fructose on further food food intake and compared to pure glucose, and when listening further he actually referred to these studies. In that case yes, the data show this effect: fructose does not suppress a hunger hormone ghrelin. But the drinks were sweetened with SUGAR - half fructose and half glucose. Why the glucose did not suppress the hunger? 

Maybe it did for a while, until the insulin did its job, making the hunger even worse afterwards. Did they measure that? I do not think so. 

Hence this is just another example of manipulating the minds of people who do not have a sufficient knowledge to question such claims. Wake up!

One-sided push towards the fructose again - what was left out?

At 43:12 minute of the video you could see the selection of prevalence across the USA in terms of the obesity, diabetes, perceived happiness, 'laziness', heart diseases and finally the soda consumption: 

The aim was to point at the soda and sugar consumption that was behind all these variables. You know what? I will add one more: 

Here you see how the metabolic diseases, obesity and sugar consumption correlate with the poverty. One can argue: yes, but that is the point! Poor people cannot eat healthily and they stick to soda! I agree. But look at this:

The description says that it represents the visualization by the distance to the nearest McDonald's. And what is McDonald's typical for? FRIES and other fried food, among others. But fries and the burger are the icon of this fast food chain. It does also sell sweet stuff, including sodas, but the diet sodas have gained more popularity in the recent years, despite the worries about aspartame among health-conscious individuals. Fast food outlets now offer diet soft drink and the customers are buying it.

In this slide, from another video at 12:08 minute, which presented the obesity issue in more complex view (which is more correct than looking only at the sugar and addiction) you will understand that it is mainly the poverty that makes people going for cheaper and nutrient depleted food. They often do not have a choice. 

Now look at the picture below and read the comment under it. I have copied it from the Mirror website: 

I also recommend you to read the Mirror article based on the statements of the scientists. It basically says what I have been saying all the time: obesity DOES matter as with obesity there go various diseases, especially the fatty liver. Obesity is not only a marker, it is a direct factor contributing to the fatty liver prevalence. Something made people obese and that something contributes to their fatty liver, too. Or change the order: something contributes to the fatty liver while making that person fat at the same time. And this does not have to relate to only obese people with BMI over 30. Positive energy balance is the factor and that starts way before people reach BMI 30, got it? Meanwhile, people kept gaining weight and the fatty liver disease prevalence kept rising in times when the sugar consumption went down, also in the UK. Do you think it is the fructose fault? 

The following map only confirms the trend, taking the fast food in general, not only one brand:

Let's continue. Soon after the presentation of the six maps on the top, Dr Lustig continues with another map, showing the USA as one of the highest consumers of sugar in the world: 

Are you impressed? 

How about this? 

This fat intake diagram is an equivalent to the sugar intake diagram above it. The darker the color, the higher the consumption of substance in question. Any similarities? 

Make your own mind and listen to your intelligence. Do not let anybody fool you in their chosen direction. 

After watching another video of Dr Lustig, where he presented the same 6 maps, he said at 45:25: 

"The question is - is it that unhappy people with diabetes and heart disease drink soda, or is it that soda causes diabetes, heart disease and unhappiness..."

Why should drinking soda be so markedly correlated with unhappiness? Cannot people be unhappy because they are poor and live in a region with the high prevalence of crime, which is also just a result of poverty? We can guess what was the purpose of using the map with the level of happiness and not this one instead because it is well documented that the high sugar intake (also fat, alcohol and cigarettes smoking) is more prevalent among the lower socio-economic class. The poorer you are, the less healthy lifestyle you have and of course that does not make you happy. And this additional stress has also been found to contribute to the metabolic diseases, especially the cardiovascular events. 

While I agree that this is just a correlation, not a causation, and I appreciate that Dr Lustig and his team made an effort to perform statistical analysis in terms of causal medical inference, after I have seen how he constantly distorted the information and presented selectively chosen and outdated data, I have concerns about the accuracy and correctness of their analysis, too. Even the best tool can be used inappropriately when people have a specific interest in mind. And here it was sugar and specifically fructose within. Just an example: the soft drinks consumption data from 1990s repeatedly presented by Dr Lustig until today is out of date because since then the consumption of soft drinks decreased markedly in the U.S. and there is data for that, too.

Towards the end of this article I would like to bring to your attention Dr Lustig's struggle with his body weight for years announced in the video at 1:18:05 time when answering the questions of the audience. He said that he regularly exercises and that helps him to reduce the abdominal fat deposits while his body weight does not change. With no sugar and fruit drinks in the house, Dr Lustig? He said that he stays away from refined carbohydrates and sugar mostly and how it is difficult for him to have a healthy diet, that he has half a bagel with cheese for breakfast... let me remind you that the bagel is mostly starch, not sugar and that cheese is probably not of the low-fat range. What is preventing his body fat loss if he does not consume sugar/fructose at the average population levels? That is the question.