2 ms·

Is there actually a published, peer-reviewed study available from this? This just seems like an in-progress summary. Additionally, as another poster commented,

by ryeguy 13y ago

Is there actually a published, peer-reviewed study available from this? This just seems like an in-progress summary. Additionally, as another poster commented, this is still correlative, not causative. HFCS might be indirectly responsible for weight problems, but that's only because of its prominence, low price, and calorie dense-ness. Not some voodoo reason as this article states and as many believe. Try this: http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-than-sugar.html http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-wors... The experiment's conclusions don't make sense either. There are dozens and dozens of studies showing ONLY net calorie intake is what is responsible for weight gain or weight loss, not the contents of what they eat: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm... So for the study to refute the conclusions we have arrived at today would be quite the breakthrough. Not to mention the whole part where it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Can anyone link to a study (not an article) showing HFCS causing more weight gain in a calorie-controlled study that accounts for water weight and (preferably) doesn't have the people count their own calories?

schoper 13y ago
Your rapport with the great Goog is weak. The study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710000614 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710... Reply by the Corn Refiners Association: http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html Thermodynamics question: They were holding energy inputs constant in the system. Stored energy was not constant. What third variable could have been responsible for the difference? Rhymes with input.
- ryeguy 13y ago
  Your second link is broken. The study's conclusions are misleading. The total intake from food and the sweetened water were not matched for calories. The only thing matched for calories was the amount of sweetened water; rats were allowed to eat as much food as they want. They then drew all of these conclusions that aren't directly related to HFCS, but related to the fact that the rats were overeating. It's still an interesting conclusion, but really the only thing they concluded was that rats consuming HFCS ate more food than rats consuming sugar. All of the other negative effects cannot be pinned on HFCS.

by ryeguy 13y ago

schoper 13y ago

Your rapport with the great Goog is weak. The study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710000614 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710... Reply by the Corn Refiners Association: http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html Thermodynamics question: They were holding energy inputs constant in the system. Stored energy was not constant. What third variable could have been responsible for the difference? Rhymes with input.

ryeguy 13y ago
Your second link is broken. The study's conclusions are misleading. The total intake from food and the sweetened water were not matched for calories. The only thing matched for calories was the amount of sweetened water; rats were allowed to eat as much food as they want. They then drew all of these conclusions that aren't directly related to HFCS, but related to the fact that the rats were overeating. It's still an interesting conclusion, but really the only thing they concluded was that rats consuming HFCS ate more food than rats consuming sugar. All of the other negative effects cannot be pinned on HFCS.