No it isn't. It's the proposed changes being unscientific. It really hard to explain how sugar could be the culprit when its consumption didn't increase. Edit:

No it isn't. It's the proposed changes being unscientific. It really hard to explain how sugar could be the culprit when its consumption didn't increase. Edit: I would just add that the name makes the result even more suspect, he seems to be the only person pushing this fructose hypothesis. I wouldn't take the results seriously until it's replicated by somebody with no connection to him.