Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   FDA proposes corn syrup to be called corn sugar. In similar news saturated fat to be renamed artery thickener   (usatoday.com) divider line 199
    More: Asinine, Community Reinvestment Act, FDA, corn syrups, Consumer Federation of America, fruit juices, saturated fats, sweeteners, Marion Nestle  
•       •       •

3508 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Apr 2012 at 8:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-19 03:05:10 PM  

impaler:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x244]


Where
24-h sucrose
where?
\0/
|
/\



Link


Q: Why did "Experiment 2″ in your study, which compared rats' access to HFCS over 12 and 24 hour time periods, not include sucrose? What are the clearest conclusions that can be drawn from its results as constructed? [Note to reader: this question is also addressed above--the bit about access to table sugar solution not seeming to show weight gain in rats.]

Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.


Would be the answer to 'whar'. A more alient answer to the health concerns of HFCS vs Sucrose found elsewhere in that interview is:


Hoebel: It is true that the solutions of HFCS and sucrose were not offered as calorically equivalent. We note this in the Methods section of the paper. However, it is important to note that the HFCS consuming rats in Experiment 1, the short-term (2-month) study, showed greater gains in body weight while taking in fewer calories of sugar compared to the groups consuming sucrose. This led us to hypothesize that there might be something different about the way HFCS affects the body. Thus, we conducted Experiment 2, the long-term (6 month) study, and measurements showed that increased triglyceride levels and increased body fat were seen in the rats will access to HCFS, but not sucrose.

HFCS rats had fewer calories, but gained MORE weight than Sucrose rats.

THAR SUCROSE THAR!
 
2012-04-19 03:10:25 PM  
Here are some charts from the study.
 
2012-04-19 03:11:36 PM  
Link
Link

Throwing away unfetchable URL http://origin-ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S002604951100 3155-gr3.jpg: 400 Bad Request
Throwing away unfetchable URL http://origin-ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S002604951100 3155-gr2.jpg: 400 Bad Request
 
2012-04-19 03:18:14 PM  

BeesNuts: How are you able to tell the difference between Mechanically Separated Chicken and Mechanically Separated Beef?


If presented with a plate of each, I might not be able to depending on the finished form.

However, the picture of "pink slime" Abe Vigoda's Ghost posted is positively identified as chicken, and the photo/non-traversy around that stuff dates back to late 2010 or so - predating the recent fiasco by nearly two years.

Here's a picture of what the finished, ready-for-market "pink slime" looks like:
graphics8.nytimes.com
=Smidge=
/Fun fact: the mechanically separated chicken is named "white slime"
//Still a step up from whatever they put in Taco Bell
 
2012-04-19 03:21:31 PM  

impaler: Link
Link

Throwing away unfetchable URL http://origin-ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S002604951100 3155-gr3.jpg: 400 Bad Request
Throwing away unfetchable URL http://origin-ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S002604951100 3155-gr2.jpg: 400 Bad Request


You know what they say: "A broken link is worth a thousand words"

Even repairing the URLs for those pictures and looking at them, I still wonder what you are trying to argue. Apparently that HFCS and Sucrose are different
 
2012-04-19 03:24:02 PM  

Ishkur: duffblue: so when are we gonna stop subsidizing farmers?

Indeed.

This is a problem:
[flowingdata.com image 500x356]

Agribusiness has effectively poisoned the America people, slowly, over a period of decades. People will not start eating healthier until it becomes prohibitively expensive not to do so.

Since the purchasing power of the average consumer is declining, it's a given that people grocery shop on a budget. The cheapest foods get bought/consumed first, and they just happen to be anything with grease, salt, and sugar (aka liquid corn). It is cheaper to have pizza and coke every night than it is to have a decent salad.

What we should be looking at is not how to educate people nutritionally, but how to bring the costs of real fruits and vegetables down, and the only way to do that is to end disgustingly bloated farm bill subsidies.


THIS. I don't know why anyone thinks the free market exist anymore--speculative markets rule the world.
 
2012-04-19 03:32:52 PM  

First Received on April 16, 2008. Last Updated on February 14, 2012 History of Changes
Sponsor: University of Florida
Information provided by (Responsible Party): University of Florida
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00661947
Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine whether sucrose vs high fructose corn syrup from a soft drink results in differences in various metabolic byproducts such as fructose, glucose, serum uric acid, triglyceride and lactate.

Condition Intervention
Healthy
Other: Dr Pepper sweetened with sucrose or high fructose corn syrup


Apparently the study only covered those who wanted to be a pepper too.

/Whar Mexican Coke vs American Coke whar?!
 
2012-04-19 03:37:42 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.


Would be the answer to 'whar'.


Not it's not. It's still completely missing from Study 1.
 
2012-04-19 03:38:00 PM  

Smidge204: BeesNuts: How are you able to tell the difference between Mechanically Separated Chicken and Mechanically Separated Beef?

If presented with a plate of each, I might not be able to depending on the finished form.

However, the picture of "pink slime" Abe Vigoda's Ghost posted is positively identified as chicken, and the photo/non-traversy around that stuff dates back to late 2010 or so - predating the recent fiasco by nearly two years.

Here's a picture of what the finished, ready-for-market "pink slime" looks like:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 480x320]
=Smidge=
/Fun fact: the mechanically separated chicken is named "white slime"
//Still a step up from whatever they put in Taco Bell


I was kind of aware that the picture used had been id'd officially as MSC, but I guess my point was more... Actually here's an anecdote that I think illustrates how I feel at the moment...

I watched 9th company last night with a friend of mine and when it was over we were discussing the finer points of the film. Specifically... what the fark just happened? Particularly at the end when the Mujaheddin assaulted the hill and killed all the ruskies. Why? Well, earlier the ruskies were looking for matches for their cigarettes, and one of them went to one of the natives he saw nearby and asked to trade food for fire. Dude takes him to his village, which is eerily set deep in the mountains. Dude arrives back at camp and reports on the location of the village. They go to investigate and radio in the location to HQ, which decides to blow it to kingdom come.

My friend: "I mean, the Muja came out of nowhere though... wtf? Dude was just painting a picture when they wrecked him... Months of no conflict, what brought them out that day?"

Me: "Well, they had just shelled an Afghan village."

My friend: "Technically they bombarded it with rocket artillery."

That conversation followed the same basic pattern as this one. I find it silly.
 
2012-04-19 03:41:11 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: HFCS rats had fewer calories, but gained MORE weight than Sucrose rats.


Except in study 2, where the sucrose rats gained more weight (not statistically significant amount).
 
2012-04-19 03:43:06 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: You know what they say: "A broken link is worth a thousand words"


Not sure I'm following ya.

Even repairing the URLs for those pictures and looking at them, I still wonder what you are trying to argue.

Providing information from the study. Since it's the first one to demonstrate some measurable difference between HFCS and sucrose.
 
2012-04-19 03:43:18 PM  

Rostin: Sure, if the cost to them of all three is the same. What if the hamburger was $10 and the vegetable medley was $2?


The disparity is there, though. A hamburger at a fast food joint will cost you $4. Or look at the dollar menu. How many people order a salad instead of a hamburger on the dollar menu? My point is--people eat what they want to eat, not what is cheapest or healthiest. Yes, if you are saying there is a $20 difference in the price, that's a given. But that is not realistic.

Yes and no. Farmers grow what they anticipate will bring them the most profit. (Unless the government is paying them to grow nothing, of course.)

I maybe should have been more clear, but yes, what will bring the most profit (which is (generally speaking) what is the most in demand). Why do you see more and more dairies closing down? Because their profit margins are nonexistant in most cases, and they just can't sustain themselves, especially when they have paid workers vs those that don't (under the table sorts of employees).

As for all else, I kinda agree/see your point so I have no comment. ;)
 
2012-04-19 03:46:42 PM  

impaler: Vlad_the_Inaner: HFCS rats had fewer calories, but gained MORE weight than Sucrose rats.

Except in study 2, where the sucrose rats gained more weight (not statistically significant amount).


Oh yeah, also in study 1, where the 24h-HFCS gained less wait than the 12h-sucrose. Of course a 24h-sucrose group would help show if that's just a difference in 12h feeding vs 24h feeding, but then in study 2, it shows 24h feeding adds more weight than 12h feeding, the opposite of study 1.
 
2012-04-19 03:51:16 PM  

impaler: Vlad_the_Inaner: Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.


Would be the answer to 'whar'.

Not it's not. It's still completely missing from Study 1.


Trouble with caffeine withdrawal or something? Let me paraphrase it for you. There were MULTIPLE studies in that paper. Not all of them had something to do with sucrose. Not surprisingly, those studies that didn't, didn't have sucrose control groups.
 
2012-04-19 03:52:44 PM  

Ishkur: It is cheaper to have pizza and coke every night than it is to have a decent salad.


What? I've got enough salad to feed four people, with dressing, only cost maybe $1.50.

/Maxi Foods, fark yea!
 
2012-04-19 03:53:43 PM  

turbidum: FTA: A coalition of groups sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday opposing a proposal by manufacturers to call high-fructose corn syrup "corn sugar" instead. The coalition says consumers are against the name change by 100-to-1.

A-One reading comprehension there, subby.

For future reference, the FDA is not the same as a group petitioning the FDA.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-19 04:02:47 PM  

impaler: impaler: Vlad_the_Inaner: HFCS rats had fewer calories, but gained MORE weight than Sucrose rats.

Except in study 2, where the sucrose rats gained more weight (not statistically significant amount).

Oh yeah, also in study 1, where the 24h-HFCS gained less wait than the 12h-sucrose. Of course a 24h-sucrose group would help show if that's just a difference in 12h feeding vs 24h feeding, but then in study 2, it shows 24h feeding adds more weight than 12h feeding, the opposite of study 1.


I suppose I could just paste the entire friggin interview, but I suspect the Mods wouldn't like it. anyway.


Comment #3: In a second experiment, they compared chow to chow-plus-HFCS for 24 hours and chow-plus-HFCS for 12 hours and found that access to the HFCS increased body weight. So what? Again, meaningless. This is like taking two groups of people, giving them the same diet but allowing one group to drink sweetened soda whenever they liked. Of course, they will gain weight because they are ingesting more calories. These findings have nothing to do with the controversy between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup.

Hoebel: The result is, in fact, meaningful. As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight. Therefore, we thought it was interesting and important to report that long-term access to HFCS causes rats to become overweight, whereas access to 10% sucrose does not. While comparisons were made to sucrose in some of the studies, this was not the sole focus of the paper. Rather, we were interested in seeing the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic characteristics, and there were other variables of interest that were studied (as described in the response to the next comment).


Link

Any criticism you have that's not discussed in that interview?
 
2012-04-19 04:56:13 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Trouble with caffeine withdrawal or something? Let me paraphrase it for you. There were MULTIPLE studies in that paper. Not all of them had something to do with sucrose. Not surprisingly, those studies that didn't, didn't have sucrose control groups.


Trouble with caffeine withdrawal or something? Let me paraphrase it for you. There were MULTIPLE studies in that paper. Not all of them had something to do with sucrose. Not surprisingly, those studies that didn't, didn't have sucrose control groups. As such, the conclusion they based on HFCS vs sucrose were clearly unfounded.
 
2012-04-19 05:01:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight. Therefore, we thought it was interesting and important to report that long-term access to HFCS causes rats to become overweight, whereas access to 10% sucrose does not.


Yet they fail to report the results in the study they claim shows a difference between HFCS and sucrose.

This is what happens when psychologists do studies in chemistry and biology.
 
2012-04-19 05:04:11 PM  

impaler: Trouble with caffeine withdrawal or something? Let me paraphrase it for you. There were MULTIPLE studies in that paper. Not all of them had something to do with sucrose. Not surprisingly, those studies that didn't, didn't have sucrose control groups. As such, the conclusion they based on HFCS vs sucrose were clearly unfounded.


Yes, it does seem you are deficient in caffeine or something, because while there were studies having nothing to do with sucrose in that , there were others that DID in that paper. You can draw conclusions from them.

Were you out of class sick the day they covered the concept of 'Not all' in grade school?
 
2012-04-19 05:15:32 PM  

impaler: Yet they fail to report the results in the study they claim shows a difference between HFCS and sucrose.


Yes, the phrase "As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight." is absolutely descriptive of 'failing to report'. That's what you want to say?

(Not to mention all the differences in the graphs you tried (but failed) to post. Forgot those already?

Is English your first language?
 
2012-04-19 05:29:04 PM  

impaler: Mike Chewbacca: Heh, I was just going to link to the Princeton study! The TL;DR version is: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. The body does NOT metabolize HFCS the same way it metabolizes table sugar.

To help us interpret the research, I contacted Karen Teff, Ph.D., a physiologist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia who has studied the issue extensively. She told us, "This study is poorly designed and poorly controlled and does not prove or even suggest that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose [table sugar]." Link

Another more thorough explanation:
Link

Have you read the study? In some groups sucrose rats gained more weight. In other groups HFCS gained more wait. Conclusion: HFCS causes weight gain over sucrose... Huh?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x244]

Where
24-h sucrose
where?
\0/
|
/\


C0nc0rdance goes into it. Including that paper specifically.
 
2012-04-19 05:29:22 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Yes, the phrase "As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight." is absolutely descriptive of 'failing to report'. That's what you want to say?


"Since we did not see effects of sucrose on body weight in Experiment 1 with males, we did not include sucrose groups in this long-term analysis in males."

Yet they also saw no effects of HFCS in the 24h group (and they had no 24h sucrose group), yet they did decide to include that in the long-term male group. All this in a paper that begins about trying to find if there's a measurable difference between HFCS and sucrose, and that other studies weren't finding any.

Link

Talk about piss poor lazy arse design.
 
2012-04-19 05:33:57 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: (Not to mention all the differences in the graphs you tried (but failed) to post. Forgot those already?


I didn't fail to post the links. They're unfetchable. And I didn't respond already. Yes, there is a study that appears to show that fructose area under the curve and maximum concentration, dose-normalized glucose area under the curve and maximum concentration, relative bioavailability of glucose, changes in postprandial concentrations of serum uric acid, and systolic blood pressure maximum levels were higher when HFCS-sweetened beverages were consumed as compared with sucrose-sweetened beverages.
 
2012-04-19 05:34:07 PM  

BeesNuts: I find it silly.


Not that I really want to drag this out, but one is two people discussing a movie where one uses a generic but pedantically incorrect term to describe an event in that movie, and the other is someone trying to pass off a graphic photo as something it evidently is not in order to invoke emotional response and sway public opinion.

While both of these situations may be trivial in the grand scheme of things, they are really not at all the same level of "silly" in my opinion.

Now let's sit back and watch Vlad_the_Inaner and impaler. A fantastic pairing of Fark handles, by the way...
=Smidge=
 
2012-04-19 05:35:51 PM  

impaler: And I did n't respond already.


I hate it when I do that.
 
2012-04-19 05:50:42 PM  
Eesh. You nerds are scaring me with all your fancy science talk!

So is HFCS good or bad? Should I avoid it or does it even matter?

Just give me the simple answers, please.
 
2012-04-19 05:57:11 PM  

TeaCozy: So is HFCS good or bad? Should I avoid it or does it even matter?

Just give me the simple answers, please.


Avoid it, and don't replace it with table sugar.
 
2012-04-19 05:59:59 PM  
i728.photobucket.com

High Skooma Moon Syrup?
 
2012-04-19 06:03:45 PM  

impaler: I didn't fail to post the links. They're unfetchable.


But I magically succeeded in viewing them. How did I fetch the unfetchable then?

(Hint: It involves telling people to repair a URL by taking out a space character)

Or doing this:
t0.gstatic.com

t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-19 06:14:23 PM  

impaler: "Since we did not see effects of sucrose on body weight in Experiment 1 with males, we did not include sucrose groups in this long-term analysis in males."


Yes. Silly them for not doing an additional experiment in their paper when a short term result didn't hint at anything.

Not doing experiment is not the same as not reporting a experiment done.
 
2012-04-19 06:20:33 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: But I magically succeeded in viewing them. How did I fetch the unfetchable then?

(Hint: It involves telling people to repair a URL by taking out a space character)


Now post them the original links...

Fark's submission server attempts to retrieve them, and its what deems them unfetchable. The fact you could cut and paste them, was because I copied the reply after submission. Also, fark's server adds the spaces you had to remove.
 
2012-04-19 06:22:06 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Yes. Silly them for not doing an additional experiment in their paper when a short term result didn't hint at anything.


Using that logic, they wouldn't have done the long term 24h-HFCS tests either.
 
2012-04-19 06:23:27 PM  

snocone: And:

Ant feeding on sugar crystals


Sooo.... you're saying that ants are essential to the sugar industry?

Thanks, ants.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-19 06:25:40 PM  

impaler: Yet they also saw no effects of HFCS in the 24h group (and they had no 24h sucrose group), yet they did decide to include that in the long-term male group. All this in a paper that begins about trying to find if there's a measurable difference between HFCS and sucrose, and that other studies weren't finding any.


Gee, I wonder if that's how the abstract describes the goal of their paper.


Abstract

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.


Odd. I don't see that bit about differences to sucrose at all. The focus is HFCS. Nor does there seem to be the bit about other studies not finding anything either.

Are you perhaps in an alternate universe?
 
2012-04-19 06:29:29 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: impaler: Yet they also saw no effects of HFCS in the 24h group (and they had no 24h sucrose group), yet they did decide to include that in the long-term male group. All this in a paper that begins about trying to find if there's a measurable difference between HFCS and sucrose, and that other studies weren't finding any.

Gee, I wonder if that's how the abstract describes the goal of their paper.


Abstract

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.


Odd. I don't see that bit about differences to sucrose at all. The focus is HFCS. Nor does there seem to be the bit about other studies not finding anything either.

Are you perhaps in an alternate universe?


That was poorly worded. I meant see anything about sucrose differences in the stated purpose of the paper. The major focus was HFCS.
 
2012-04-19 06:30:47 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner:
Gee, I wonder if that's how the abstract describes the goal of their paper.


Abstract

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.


Odd. I don't see that bit about differences to sucrose at all. The focus is HFCS. Nor does there seem to be the bit about other studies not finding anything either.

Are you perhaps in an alternate universe?


You also missed their press release: Link
"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. "
 
2012-04-19 06:42:17 PM  

impaler: You also missed their press release: Link
"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. "


And was it Flemmings goal to find a mold based antibiotic when he discovered penicillin? He did report an interesting result when he happened on one though, regardless of what he first set out to do.

The Princeton press release publicized one of the results in the paper because it was relevant to a public controversy. That does not make the goal of the paper a test of that controversy. Newsworthy is not the same as scientifically relevant.
 
2012-04-19 06:54:00 PM  

gerbilpox: When I hear about corn syrup demonizing, I can't help but think it could easily be the reverse if it was a new product.

"Concerned about too much sugar in your diet? Acme junk food has no added sugar -- just the healthy, natural goodness of corn!"

If these groups want to kill corn syrup sales, they need to pick a name that sounds ickier, like the "pink slime." It's no more pink and slimey than regular ground beef -- and after all, it is ground beef. But OMG! It's an icky name!

Wait 'til people realize that red food coloring comes from bugs.

/natural & gluten free!


You mean like that Agave syrup that was bally-hooed as a health food product but which has no nutritional difference from HFCS and costs twenty times as much?
 
2012-04-19 06:56:43 PM  

impaler: Fark's submission server attempts to retrieve them, and its what deems them unfetchable. The fact you could cut and paste them, was because I copied the reply after submission. Also, fark's server adds the spaces you had to remove.


But you had to trumpet your technical difficulties (UNFETCHABLE! UNFETCHABLE!) instead of posting something like

Link

OK. If that's how you roll.
 
2012-04-19 07:04:05 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: But you had to trumpet your technical difficulties (UNFETCHABLE! UNFETCHABLE!) instead of posting something like

Link

OK. If that's how you roll.


I had the URLs and posted their text, even after fark spit the links out. Cry about it.
 
2012-04-19 07:13:55 PM  

impaler: Vlad_the_Inaner: Yes. Silly them for not doing an additional experiment in their paper when a short term result didn't hint at anything.

Using that logic, they wouldn't have done the long term 24h-HFCS tests either.


"24 Hours" , "long term" : pick one.
 
2012-04-19 08:13:20 PM  

impaler: Vlad_the_Inaner: Yes. Silly them for not doing an additional experiment in their paper when a short term result didn't hint at anything.

Using that logic, they wouldn't have done the long term 24h-HFCS tests either.


So you mean you think Experiment 1 didn't show any results with weight gain in males on HFCS?

They didn't use any females in Experiment1. They added the gender variable in Experiment 2. They didn't redo the Male/Sucrose part, because it showed no weight gain in the short term. They did do both for the females, both to get long term data and data on both sweeteners

tl;dr Two different phases. They added a new dimension in phase 2, but skipped something that showed nothing interesting in the first round.
 
2012-04-19 08:24:24 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: "24 Hours" , "long term" : pick one.


Why?
 
2012-04-19 08:37:50 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: So you mean you think Experiment 1 didn't show any results with weight gain in males on HFCS?

They didn't use any females in Experiment1. They added the gender variable in Experiment 2. They didn't redo the Male/Sucrose part, because it showed no weight gain in the short term. They did do both for the females, both to get long term data and data on both sweeteners

tl;dr Two different phases. They added a new dimension in phase 2, but skipped something that showed nothing interesting in the first round.


" skipped something that showed nothing interesting in the first round"

I'm sorry, but by the very nature of them doing a long term study, they are admitting the fact that what doesn't show up in the sort term, may show up later. Saying, "we didn't see anything in the 7 week experiment, so we didn't bother to test further" is pathetically bad science.

That fact is made obviously clear in the following scientific study. In it, the experimenters did two conditions in a 7 week test, and the 1st condition did not show any significant difference from the control, but the 2nd condition did. When they tested the same conditions in a 6 month study, the 1st condition showed a significant difference! Not only that, the 2nd condition surprisingly LOST any significant difference. If those guys never did the 6 month test, they would have come to the complete opposite conclusions of the long term trend!

I would say the scientists doing the HFCS test wouldn't have made their mistake if they were aware of this study. That would have been impossible though, as it is their study.
Link
 
2012-04-20 02:24:01 AM  
What is wrong with you people? Don't you understand that renaming something makes it healthy. Just look at Super Sugar Crisp. That stuff was so bad for you until they renamed it Super Golden Crisp. After that it was a wholesome nutritious breakfast!
 
2012-04-20 07:18:53 AM  

Skyfrog: After that it was a wholesome nutritious breakfast!


I think you mean "a tasty part of this wholesome nutritious breakfast", accompanied by a diorama of whole grain toast and fresh-squeezed orange juice representing a meal that no child has been served since roughly 1963.
 
2012-04-20 01:35:27 PM  

Smidge204: BeesNuts: I find it silly.

Not that I really want to drag this out, but one is two people discussing a movie where one uses a generic but pedantically incorrect term to describe an event in that movie, and the other is someone trying to pass off a graphic photo as something it evidently is not in order to invoke emotional response and sway public opinion.

While both of these situations may be trivial in the grand scheme of things, they are really not at all the same level of "silly" in my opinion.

Now let's sit back and watch Vlad_the_Inaner and impaler. A fantastic pairing of Fark handles, by the way...
=Smidge=


I guess I don't really see the difference. In once case we're discussing a movie, and my friend made a pedantic point that neither addressed nor impacted the meaning of my original point, but instead distracted us with a discussion of exactly what blew up the village instead of a discussion about whether the destruction of the village brought about the retaliation.

In the other case, we're discussing food, and someone made a pedantic point that neither addressed the unhealthy nature of our food, nor advanced the discussion in any way, but instead distracted us with a conversation about pink slime:beef::white slime:chicken, rather than a conversation about how mechanically separated meats are farking disgusting and bad for us.

So what if that particular processed food product wasn't technically beef. It is made the same way as the beef counterpart, it's made of largely the same things, and it's used in largely the same way in the industry.

Yes. It's really farking silly to worry about how that particular image is used when we're talking about the fact that we're feeding kids chicken cartilage and beef sinew for their school lunches.

/not that you're not entitled to be a pedant, mind you.
//Pedant away.
 
2012-04-20 03:23:03 PM  

Skyfrog: What is wrong with you people? Don't you understand that renaming something makes it healthy. Just look at Super Sugar Crisp. That stuff was so bad for you until they renamed it Super Golden Crisp. After that it was a wholesome nutritious breakfast!


LIked it better when it was Super Sugar Smacks.
 
Displayed 49 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report