3 ms·

A. Needs the usual disclaimer "in mice" added to the title. B. It's not as simple as the title seems to suggest and I like this section for summing up a nutshe

A. Needs the usual disclaimer "in mice" added to the title. B. It's not as simple as the title seems to suggest and I like this section for summing up a nutshell "good news, bad news" take on this: Evidence has emerged5–8 that the small intestine acts as the gatekeeper for the mammalian body against the harmful effects of fructose, the main one being the aberrant accumulation of fat (termed steatosis) in the liver. Moderate amounts of fructose — for example, those ingested when consuming fruits — are taken up and broken down by intestinal cells. Excess amounts, such as those that might be ingested after drinking a sugary beverage, overwhelm the intestine’s absorptive capacity and the fructose either ‘leaks’ into the bloodstream to reach the liver intact, or it spills over from the small intestine and reaches the colon5.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> It's not as simple as the title seems to suggest and I like this section for summing up a nutshell "good news, bad news" take on this: The paper isn’t suggesting this is good news at all. The observed modifications to nutrient absorption were largely negative. The intestines don’t actually have a problem absorbing nutrients. The problem is that excess fructose can disrupt how quickly those nutrients are absorbed, which causes problems. In this case, the increased nutrient absorption isn’t a good thing.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I have a condition that actively interferes with nutrient absorption. It's why I bothered to read this at all.
andy_ppp 5y ago
I’m so tired of this “in mice” meme, it tells us nothing about how accurate the predictions can be made from these experiments. Can everyone just assume “in mice” is the default and in humans the exception? We do experiments in mice because so much is the same between mammals.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  We do experiments in mice because they are cheap, most people don't care too much if you kill them and dissect them, it's actually quite hard to get meaningful data from humans and a violation of a bunch of medical ethics stuff to do similar experiments in humans. I happen to think "in mice" matters. We don't really know how well that translates and I read medical research pieces because I have a serious condition. For me, the stakes are fairly serious. Killing or not killing me is not hypothetical. It's very real.
  - bb88 5y ago
    The title doesn't specify it. Also a lot of human to mice analog studies have been performed in the past. If you insist all studies be only performed on humans, the progress of science will slow dramatically. The killing you or not killing you is a bit of a red herring argument. If you're that close to death you should find the best doctors and rely on them than whatever you read on some orange colored website.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      No one is demanding they stop doing studies on mice, rather many people want these articles to make very clear if the results of studies are from humans or mice, because the results often don't translate across species.
      - bb88 5y ago
        Maybe bring that up with the authors then? I would assume they would have felt the need to place that in their title if they believed it would be needed.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's a long standing complaint about mouse studies - but when people add 'in mice' to titles readers care less, so they don't do that. Even nature has clickbait now.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> It's not as simple as the title seems to suggest and I like this section for summing up a nutshell "good news, bad news" take on this: The paper isn’t suggesting this is good news at all. The observed modifications to nutrient absorption were largely negative. The intestines don’t actually have a problem absorbing nutrients. The problem is that excess fructose can disrupt how quickly those nutrients are absorbed, which causes problems. In this case, the increased nutrient absorption isn’t a good thing.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
I have a condition that actively interferes with nutrient absorption. It's why I bothered to read this at all.

andy_ppp 5y ago

I’m so tired of this “in mice” meme, it tells us nothing about how accurate the predictions can be made from these experiments. Can everyone just assume “in mice” is the default and in humans the exception? We do experiments in mice because so much is the same between mammals.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
We do experiments in mice because they are cheap, most people don't care too much if you kill them and dissect them, it's actually quite hard to get meaningful data from humans and a violation of a bunch of medical ethics stuff to do similar experiments in humans. I happen to think "in mice" matters. We don't really know how well that translates and I read medical research pieces because I have a serious condition. For me, the stakes are fairly serious. Killing or not killing me is not hypothetical. It's very real.
- bb88 5y ago
  The title doesn't specify it. Also a lot of human to mice analog studies have been performed in the past. If you insist all studies be only performed on humans, the progress of science will slow dramatically. The killing you or not killing you is a bit of a red herring argument. If you're that close to death you should find the best doctors and rely on them than whatever you read on some orange colored website.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    No one is demanding they stop doing studies on mice, rather many people want these articles to make very clear if the results of studies are from humans or mice, because the results often don't translate across species.
    - bb88 5y ago
      Maybe bring that up with the authors then? I would assume they would have felt the need to place that in their title if they believed it would be needed.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        It's a long standing complaint about mouse studies - but when people add 'in mice' to titles readers care less, so they don't do that. Even nature has clickbait now.