HFCS makes rats fat? A counterpoint.
foodpolitics.com
foodpolitics.com
Per the study...... 3. Results 3.1. Male rats with daily 12-h HFCS access gain more weight in 8 weeks than animals with equal access to sucrose Animals with 12-h 8% HFCS access gained significantlymore weight in 8 weeks than animals with 12-h 10% sucrose access
"Further, no difference was found in HFCS intake and total overall caloric intake in the groups given 12-h access versus 24-h access. Both groups consumed the same amount of HFCS on average (21.3 ± 2.0 kcal HFCS in 12-h versus 20.1 ± 1.6 kcal HFCS in 24 h), even though only the 12-h group showed a significant difference in body weight when compared with the control groups."
As per the author's criticism, these results are seemingly inconsistent. Why would rats with 12-h access to HFCS gain more weight while rats with 24-h access did not, when their HFCS intake was the same on average?
I realize that's not scientific. I'm just saying the inconsistency is not a smoking gun, and was addressed within the paper.
If it's important enough to me, I'll dig down and actually read the paper ... but I generally don't bother, because most of the time I'll find junk science (or nearly so) like in this case. I'd rather spend my time with the Journal of Irreproducible Results and the upside down parts of the Worm Runner's Digest/Journal of Biological Psychology.
I don't see why you would expect those to be fatter; the data point is completely separate. Common sense doesn't apply in biology - any number of factors could cause the results to reverse on a 24 hour feeding schedule.
Humans don't follow a 24 hour feeding schedule, as it happens.
Regardless, I would think that instability of results under seemingly minor variations in conditions for rats suggests we should drastically reduce our confidence in any generalization of even the seemingly more relevant result.
Oh, absolutely! I certainly didn't mean that you should go trusting the scientist to vet his own research; most studies say exactly what the researcher wants them to say. But I think the results are strong enough to prompt (probably stronger) testing in other labs.
If the research was done properly, then instability of results under minor variations generally implies that the variations weren't actually minor.
Interestingly, so do the number of cars in a city with a city's population size- this is a fun essay on the subject: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/math-and-the...
Yet not one fact checker or news editor seems to have spent the time Marion Nestle did in this article.
But don't believe it because I said it, take it from an MD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Double up on your fruits and vegetables, apples, pears, carrots, oranges, spinach, bell peppers, bananas, potatoes, unsalted nuts, things with high fiber, and everything else that comes from a plant or tree.
Cut in half any food that contains a significant percentage of Sugars, Sucrose, Glucose, Fructose, or Corn Syrups. That paunch under your belly button will thank you.
For example, my Trix has 13g of sugar [1] and an apple (small) has 13g [2]. The calories do sway in the apple's favor, but there are fewer vitamins in an apple. Does this mean Trix are healthier? No (see the sodium and carbs), but it also doesn't mean they will be the death of me if I exercise and don't eat 5000 calories worth.