The explosive growth in the use of weight-loss drugs is a supreme irony within a food system that creates the very chronic diseases that lead to obesity and a medical system that “manages” those conditions with no intention of actually curing them. In fact, “manage” is too kind of word for this setup for the truth is, medical treatment of chronic conditions more often than not just perpetuates these conditions and sometimes makes them worse.
I rarely do book reviews, but I believe Metabolical may be the most important contemporary account of the nexus between modern diets, chronic illness and ecological ruin. So, I’m going to give you a taste of what’s in it (pun intended).
According to Dr. Robert Lustig, author of Metabolical, thanks to the food and medical industries, the American public has come to believe the following things:
- Gaining weight (sometimes lots of it) as we age is normal.
- Developing chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease is inevitable for many people.
- Once a person has a chronic condition, it cannot be reversed and must be managed primarily through medication and sometimes surgery.
- Cancer strikes mostly randomly.
- Exercise can prevent at least some of these conditions or even reverse them.
Okay, I know you are already expecting me to tell you that none of these is true. But, you’re probably saying to yourself, “Wait a minute! Exercise must be able to prevent some of these conditions or even reverse them.” You would be right in assuming that exercise is very helpful.
But the food industry intentionally deceives the public by telling us that lack of exercise alone is responsible for poor health. The sugar industry, for instance, has a web of willing “think tanks” and other nonprofits that have put out reports claiming that lack of exercise and not excess calories are the cause of the obesity epidemic. And also, by the way, they say, sugar consumption isn’t a cause of diabetes. (Lustig informs us that it is the tobacco industry that got its playbook from the sugar industry, not the other way around.)
According to Lustig, “You can’t outrun a bad diet.” Lustig tells the story of an amateur Finnish triathlete (and tech billionaire) who after selling his companies had the time to spend five hours a day exercising for years:
Nevertheless, by age thirty-eight, his performance was down. His glucose tolerance test revealed that he was prediabetic. He didn’t get it—how can a triathlete be prediabetic? He consulted UC Davis professor and low-carb physician Dr. Stephen Phinney, who had the answer: it was sports drinks. Caffeine has its own effect on insulin resistance separate from from fructose, and together they can cause their own brand of insulin resistance and glucose intolerance, ratcheting down some of the beneficial effects of exercise.
It turns out that the only way to fix health problems caused by eating processed food is to eat what Lustig calls Real Food (always capitalized in his book). As he often repeats: It’s not what’s in the food; it’s what’s been done to the food. By that he means the processing which often 1) eliminates much of the fiber (essential for feeding the microbiome and regulating the rate at which food is absorbed), 2) destroys many of the nutrients and 3) then adds sweeteners—mostly in the form of sugars—and also salt and so-called “natural flavors.”
Why is the food industry serving us mostly processed food? Because it is wildly profitable and consistently profitable because it is addictive. It plays to our evolutionarily designed cravings for that which is relatively scarce in nature: concentrated salt and sugar. Processed food injects large amounts of these and other deleterious substances into the body all at once (thanks to lack of fiber) leading to the eight subcellular pathologies detailed in the book. Only five out those eight can even be mitigated by exercise.
So why should anyone listen to Lustig? First, he’s done important pioneering research on the link between diet and chronic disease as a professor of pediatrics and a member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco, an institution devoted entirely to health sciences.
Second, he was a practicing pediatric neuroendocrinologist for 40 years, seeing firsthand the havoc the modern American diet has been wreaking on young people. Third, he devised treatment, mostly diet-based, that helped these young people recover from the metabolic dysfunction that was ruining their lives. Fourth, he relies not only on his own clinical experience and research, but the broad body of research on the relationship between diet and chronic illnesses which he says are not really illnesses, but symptoms of underlying metabolic dysfunction.
So, let’s return to statements 1 through 4 above which I haven’t yet addressed and which you will no longer believe once you read Metabolical:
- Gaining weight (sometimes lots of it) as we age is normal.
It turns out that weight gain is almost always a symptom of underlying metabolic dysfunction which can be corrected by eating—you guessed it—Real Food. And being overweight in itself is not the cause of the dysfunction as about 20 percent of overweight people do NOT suffer from metabolic dysfunction. (Another thing you’ll learn in the book is that, contrary to what the food industry wants you to believe, not all calories are equal. It matters which foods you get them from.)
- Developing chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease is inevitable for many people.
Same answer as 1 except substitute “chronic conditions” for “weight gain.”
- Once a person has a chronic condition, it cannot be reversed and must be managed primarily through medication and sometimes surgery.
Same answer as 1 except substitute “chronic condition” for “weight gain.”
- Cancer strikes mostly randomly.
The answer here is a little trickier. Cancer loves sugar. So if you want to die quickly after you get cancer, eat lots and lots of sugar. Also, metabolic dysfunction undermines immune function. Normal healthy humans have bodies which recognize malformed cancerous cells and get rid of them.
Naturally, you may be wondering if there is an easier way out. Can’t we just take pills to counteract what processed food does to us? No, not even natural dietary supplements will work because the primary problem is that you are getting too much of certain things which the body handles in ways that degrade your health. You have to get rid of those (or at least cut them way down) and substitute Real Food. It’s the only way, Lustig says.
Now, this has to be more expensive because fresh whole foods (organic is preferred) are more expensive than processed foods. But as Lustig points out (and he has the figures to prove it), 88 percent of all Americans are suffering from metabolic dysfunction at some level and 75 percent of all patients are suffering from chronic diseases related to that dysfunction. The lost work and medical costs alone swamp the increased food costs. My comment: Of course, people with low incomes would need help affording Real Food. But, a small part of the huge resources now devoted to treating those sick because of processed foods could be redirected—once those sick people start getting well—to those of modest means so that they may have access to Real Food.
Finally, I mentioned the ecological toll of the American diet. Rather than detail that here, imagine if the American agricultural and food system were to transition to regenerating soil while following organic methods and producing Real Food as close to the markets for those foods as feasible. That should give you some idea about how the ecological toll might be considerably lessened and possibly even reversed.
It would be a very tall order to turn around the American (and increasingly the world) food and medical systems. But as Lustig points out, we have no other rational choice. Either, we move society toward consuming Real Food or we bankrupt the medical system and further destroy the health and longevity of the entire population.
______________________________________________
P.S. For those using drugs called statins to reduce cholesterol, Lustig explains that 1) statins do not even target the type of cholesterol implicated in cardiovascular disease, 2) the research shows that they do nothing to reduce the risk of a first heart attack, and 3) they have ominous side-effects: muscle breakdown and the risk of developing kidney failure and type 2 diabetes. Statins are generally only useful in certain rare cases. In fact, even industry-sponsored research shows that heart disease patients—who seem like the best candidates for statins—have a median gain in life expectancy over five years of exactly four days! Taking statins is simply not worth the risk, Lustig says, when there is a good alternative: Real Food and exercise.
P.P.S. If you think Lustig is on to something and that you need to act, don’t be paralyzed by fear that you won’t ever again be able to salt your food. Healthy people, he tells us, generally do NOT have difficulty excreting excess salt. It is metabolic dysfunction that causes the difficulty in getting rid of excess salt. The easiest and best way to lower salt (and sugar) intake—and I know this is getting boring—is to stop eating processed foods that have a lot of both added to them and eat Real Food instead.






Comments
We changed commenting systems on September 10, 2026 as part of a site-wide functionality and security upgrade. Your past comments have not disappeared, and you can still log in with your old Disqus account credentials if you wish. Contact us with any questions.
I agree with most of what is written above but am not sure about the comments re statins, which do not concur with the findings of the British Heart Foundation charity https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/statins-fact-or-fiction#:~:text=Statins%20can%20help%20prevent%20heart,order%20to%20reduce%20the%20risk.
as per this link.
I wonder if the wildly different beliefs in the value of statins is about the numbers needed to treat/prevent one heart attack which varies with age and with gender. The better numbers for 'needed to treat' are lower for more elderly men than women and quite high for people under 50 unless they already have had a heart attack. Within those numbers needed to treat are far more people who suffer side effects than the one whose heart attack was prevented. A significant number of people who are prescribed statins stop taking them within two years because of the side effects. However, it is much easier to pop a pill than change habits and lifestyle.
I agree with everything you say, but as a physician, I've all but given up trying to talk to obese patients about their weight because patients are so reluctant to engage with it. Here are some examples:
I ask patients "do you know what your ideal weight should be?" Only about one in ten has even a general idea what they should weigh. Most have no idea at all, or their guess is dozens of pounds heavier than the reality. Even though the information is easily available by Googling for "Height and weight chart".
I tell patients what their weight should be, and sometimes they literally laugh in my face and say "I've never been that weight." (Yes, you have always been obese).
I see a child for an unrelated paediatric consultation. Child is accompanied by both parents. Mum and Dad are both obese. Child is also obese. I feel obliged to speak up about it, because early intervention in childhood obesity is more effective than trying to intervene in adult obesity. They make a formal complaint about me because I was "unsympathetic".
I draw attention to a patient's weight and they immediately launch into a kind of ritual chant which goes "I don't eat sugar and I don't eat chocolate and I don't eat candy and I don't eat cakes and I don't eat…" and if left unchecked this can go on for a full five minutes, at the end of which half the consultation has been wasted, the patient is still just as obese and nothing has been accomplished.
Anyway, end of rant because I'm sure you get the general drift.
Love Dr. Lustig's focus on solving the problem at the root (our food), not just the stem (obesity, diabetes).
If you're a Dr. Lustig fan, he recently introduced a new product, featured on the Huberman podcast, that aims to make food healthier: http://www.trymonch.com
This article never uses the word capitalism–but THAT is the root cause of all the conditions named including the ecological harm–because it's the reason we continue doing things that are harmful to ourselves, our patients, our customers, other living beings, our children. We are governed not by democracy but by capitalism–what is profitable MUST be done no matter now harmful–what interferes with the flow of profits CAN'T be done no matter how necessary. As long as this system is in place, we can't solve any problems. Yes, individuals can improve their diet (and exercise) and thus their own health.But societal -level change requires that we first ditch capitalism. Some say "We don't have time, we must address climate change now." But with the dollar in control, we can't address climate change at all–or imperial wars, or worsening physical and mental health, or plummeting biodiversity, or the threats of high-tech weapons of war and surveillance and social control. We can only write endless articles pointing out the worsening problems and saying we "must" make this or that change. But we can't change anything as long as legislators everywhere answer to donors and their lobbyist armies, not the voters.
Even answering to "the voters" may be a problem, as indicated by national elections.
Speaking of salt, as a physician who is familiar with Dr. Lustig's background , I suggest taking his book with a grain of salt. I am reminded of the books of another physician, Michael Greger, M.D., whose most recent book "How Not To Age", was described by another expert in nutrition and health, as having about 75% of the facts right, and , 50% of his conclusions. With Dr. Lustig, perhaps it would be closer to 80-90% of the facts right , and 60-70% of the conclusions. Much of what is in the book , as related by Mr. Kobb, comes from work that was done originally by Brazilian researchers, and subssequently expanded on by researchers around the world. Chris Van Tulleken , a british physician and researcher, wrote Ultra-Processed People, a well-researched overview of the industrial (not ) food industry.
It is true that industrialization of our (not) food supply has led to the growing of wheat, corn, rice and soybeans, ( out of which, with various additives, are stripped fats, sugars, proteins, all remixed to produce items that are exquisitely tasty, and feel good in the mouth, but are toxic to good health (some made even more unhealthy by feeding corn and soybeans to meat. Not having read the book, I won't critique it, but would note that Dr Lustig was the originator of, and ardent defender of, the theory that fructose wasn't just very bad for you as a high density simple sugar, but was actually a poison to one or more organs in the body, through mechanisms other than those of simple sugars generally. That hypothesis has not been supported by independent research. It is true the food industry could care less about public health, in fact they are an industry that de facto works to worsen public health. They, like all mega-corporate players, are working to maximize profit, which includes minimizing expenses, by using poor quality ingredients from cheap, industrialized agriculture, and synthesizing "addicting" , very desirable in terms of flavor, and not satiating, products, which they also package to give them amazingly long shelf lives, during which many of the nutrients we get from real food would break down, so are removed from the products. However, if there is one thing required of a competent expert in the field of food and ultra-processed not food , it is humility. It is clearly there is much about nutrition that we do not understand, and given that we only recently came to realize that the microbiome (which may have more cells than the human body) plays a very complex role in interacting with what we eat, and what the microbiome eats ,and what enters our bodies. i agree with Mr. Kobb that understanding as much as you can, is important, and I also believe that Dr Lustig, like all scientists, is human , and sometimes our human wants and wishes can limit our scientific skepticism. On the other hand, most of what Mr. Kobb mentioned has been supported by other researchers, and the role of corporate agri-business and (not) food packaged corporate stuff, usually wrapped in plastic, or in a box, on grocery store shelves, has played an important role in our declining health, as have we, the public, sitting on the sofa, getting breakfast, lunch and dinner at drive-through fat, sweet, salty, not -food made even more appetizing by heating it, doing , it is believed , more harm by the cooking methods used. Be careful out there.
Corporate agri-business has made eating well difficult and expensive, and eating what they produce is technologically tuned to be very tasty, and very cheap to make, and that is not good for us – we evolved over the last 100,000 years to eat a wide variety of foods, but not the products that come off the assembly lines of the not-food industry.
99% agree.
I suspect our thinking about food is always going to have some non-objective aspects. Diets vary widely, and even if a diet is unwise, it probably won’t kill us right away. Religions have dietary laws and taboos. Fads come and go. Scientific advice changes.
Even so, there is advice that seems to be generally true and has stood up to scrutiny. Dr. Lustig is mostly right, as you say. As are Marion Nestle and Michael Pollard (“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”).
Agree. Thanks for thoughtful comment.
And thx for your professional view. Nice to know someone is looking for Real Facts
Unregulated capitalism is Neoliberalism and is not only subjecting us to slow decline, Neoliberalism also destroying our society and democracies around the world as it increases inequality as well makes the rich much richer as well as business more profitable at our expense . Thx for this article