Lounge of Tomorrow - Conspiracy Theories

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Lounge Lizard (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

- - Conspiracy Theories (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=10177)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby (Post 309414)

And sadly, it is the only thing that the majority of the people pay attention to.

Thus the popularity.

And the driving insane of regular people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betty (Post 309417)

Small study on HFCS:

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/study...t-disease.html

As a follow up, completely independent of this thread ran into someone else talkign about this and ended up at a blog where the lead researcher on this paper (Kimber Stanhope) posted criticism of the Times story referenced in the Consumerist piece, saying that essentially every sentence contains a fundamental inaccuracy in paraphrasing the study.

This is why, except for a few trusted science journalists I pretty much assume any science story in the newspaper is worthless.

I'm ok with posting summaries of studies, as long as they include a link to the original, whole study. They're long, but at least you can read the author's actual words and results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl (Post 309658)

I'm ok with posting summaries of studies, as long as they include a link to the original, whole study. They're long, but at least you can read the author's actual words and results.

Posting a summary is one thing. Posting a summary that completely misses/distorts/lies about the conclusions of the summary is another.

ETA: BTW, Alex, your link isn't to the blog, it's the link about the brain vs. heart.

ETA again: Here is Stanhope's response to the article[/url]

Most summaries miss the point. Half the time I'm not sure they've even read the thing they're reporting on.

So I guess I'm with Alex in saying that science in the news is about worthless. Good for tidbits, but if you really want to know, read the original.

As for posting a link to the original study, more often than not you need to pay for access to the studies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 309179)

There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.

The body processes fructose differently than other sugars (such as glucose). However, high fructose corn syrup is not pure fructose. It's 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Regular table sugar (cane sugar and beat sugar) is sucrose, which is a chemical composition of glucose and fructose, a molecule of sucrose being composed of 1 molecule of each. There is a notable chemical difference in that HFCS is a mixture of the two (i.e., they remain separate molecules) while in table sugar the glucose and fructose molucles are chemically bonded. However the Sucrose is broken up basically contact with stomach acid (actually, since your saliva is slightly acidic, the reaction begins before you even swallow) into its component glucose and fructose molecules. Therefore, by the time you're actually digesting anything, they are virtually identical products.

All the data that people point to about the supposedly negative effects of HFCS are studies done with 100% fructose and is therefore completely irrelevant to the matter. There have been no studies that show any difference between the bodies reaction to HFCS and sucrose. Has it been ruled out? No, I don't think there have been enough studies. But I guarantee that, anecdotal experiences aside, no one who makes claims of negative effects of HFCS have any relevant studies that back it up, only studies on pure fructose.

Hey, how about dumbing that down, Eisenstein.

Whoops. Well, that's a very interesting timeline on what people thought about the brain through history that I found after replying to CP in the WTF thread.

It is annoying that full papers generally are behind prescription walls so I was very pleasantly surprised to find that one out in public. Though you usually can find the abstract and conclusions online which is often enough to get an eye on how it is being distorted in the press.

He's saying that the research wasn't actually using high-fructose corn syrup (which is a glucose-fructose mix), instead it used 100% fructose. So scientifically, the study results can't be applied to HFCS

And he misspelled beet sugar ;)

So what if I did, and don't call me sugar.