Author Topic: So maybe HFCS is bad after all  (Read 1970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaypee

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 20340
  • Astronaut Mike Dexter
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #30 on: Mar 23, 2010, 11:46:55 AM »

<snip>

So I wonder exactly where these idiots get the impression that their paper shows HFCS is worse than sucrose.

a crippling desire for attention?
"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Offline Ah.hell

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7573
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #31 on: Mar 23, 2010, 11:48:31 AM »
Thanks DeepGlue

So it seems support the hypothesis that access to more calories results in increased obesity.  As in America where corn subsidies have made calories from HFCS so cheap that you can't afford not to eat them.

So I wonder exactly where these idiots get the impression that their paper shows HFCS is worse than sucrose.
Couldn't be a pre-existing bias could it?

Offline DeepGlue

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #32 on: Mar 23, 2010, 12:00:07 PM »
Maybe the figures can't be interpreted properly without the full paper. They even state that HFCS is worse than sucrose in the abstract at one point (bolded):

Quote
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity.

However, this trend isn't in the figures, and nothing else they did showed the conclusion they keep spouting to the media.

Offline Parrot

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
    • The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #33 on: Mar 23, 2010, 12:36:35 PM »
I'm too cheap to spend $31.50 to see the fulltext.

The full text of all studies should be available for free over the Internet.  Thirty bucks here or there every time you want to figure out all the numbers involved in a study to get some perspective adds up.

There's no reason that scientists can't make their papers available to the world for free.

Offline ♫♪ FX ♪♫

  • Earnest Young Man
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18048
  • "Reality is almost always wrong." - Dr. House
    • Is it working?
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #34 on: Mar 23, 2010, 12:38:43 PM »
Tell it to the CRU

 :fu:
Skeptic, skeptical, 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, "to think, to look about, to consider"

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what." - Dr. Greg House

Offline cerveauxfrits

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8972
  • chickened out
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #35 on: Mar 23, 2010, 12:49:12 PM »
I've always been able to find free fulltext when I've looked for papers by CRU researchers.

Offline Citizen Skeptic

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 21436
  • I escaped from California.
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #36 on: Mar 23, 2010, 03:33:38 PM »
Beet sugar is exactly the same as cane sugar!

Nice. Way to insult both sides of the debate! :P

I was wondering when someone would point this out.
Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers. -- Bernard Haisch

Offline ♫♪ FX ♪♫

  • Earnest Young Man
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18048
  • "Reality is almost always wrong." - Dr. House
    • Is it working?
Re: So maybe HFCS is bad after all
« Reply #37 on: Mar 23, 2010, 04:28:31 PM »
I was defending the humble sucrose molecule!!
Skeptic, skeptical, 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, "to think, to look about, to consider"

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what." - Dr. Greg House