Conspiracy Theories

[Alex]

And now having read through the study (not that I've given it a deep read).

GD's post is still correct. This study did not use HFCS. It gave people additional amounts of pure glucose or pure fructose (they continued to eat just as they had before entering the study so they were likely still consuming plenty of sucrose and HFCS).

The study notes that in other research both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS have shown similar elevations of some bad things as they're seeing with fructose.

So, this actually does not provide any evidence against using sucrose over HFCS, to the extent that HFCS is condemned so is regular sugar. It does provide evidence for using glucose over fructose but that is not a choice we're presented with in the current marketplace.

Originally Posted by From the Study, bolding mine

While this study was designed to compare the biological effects of glucose and fructose consumption on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, the potential implications of the results on public health is of interest. Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose. We have reported in a short-term study that the 23-hour postprandial TG profiles in male subjects consuming 25% energy as HFCS (55% fructose) or sucrose were elevated to a degree similar to that observed when pure fructose–sweetened beverages were consumed (19). Therefore, it is uncertain whether the adverse effects of sucrose and HFCS consumption are “diluted” by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose. Additional studies are needed to compare the long-term effects of consuming HFCS and/or sucrose with 100% fructose.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

GD's post is still correct.

Quoted for vanity.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Quoted for vanity.

I didn't know she read LoT

[alphabassettgrrl]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

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]

[alphabassettgrrl]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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

[Alex]

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.

[Morrigoon]

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

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

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.

More specifically they can't be used to differentiate HFCS and regular sugar since they both contain fructose in similar quantities.

If fructose is bad it would suggest that the fructose in HFCS and sucrose are bad as well.