3 ms·

You can find the original paper at http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10..

by panic 13y ago

You can find the original paper at http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10..... The statistics are a bit confusing to me, but it looks like they only find a significant difference for males over 8 weeks, not females over 7 months. The "significant" difference for males seems pretty small given that the rats started out weighing between 300 and 375 grams. And the conclusion doesn't mention sucrose at all: In summary, rats maintained on a diet rich in HFCS for 6 or 7 months show abnormal weight gain, increased circulating TG and augmented fat deposition. All of these factors indicate obesity. Thus, over-consumption of HFCS could very well be a major factor in the “obesity epidemic,” which correlates with the upsurge in the use of HFCS. Does anyone know if these results have been replicated anywhere?

magicalist 13y ago
You weren't the only one they confused. John Timmer at Ars Technica did an excellent writeup[1] about the study and the somewhat questionable aspects of their conclusions. I would quote the relevant bits, but it's basically the entire article pointing out possible (and unaddressed) issues with the study: "Although some of the results are suggestive, given the somewhat confusing and, in some cases, contradictory nature of the result, it would seem to be appropriate to interpret them with caution, and go back and start a larger population of rats on a study with a more consistent design. The authors haven't gone that route..." [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/03/does-high-fructose-co...
jwmerrill 13y ago
The short study and the long study apparently disagree about whether 12hr or 24hr access to HFCS results in more weight gain. The 8 wk study shows 12hr HFCS leading to much larger weight gain than any of the other groups, and 24hr access not being significantly different from sucrose or chow alone. But then reading the 8 wk number off the weight chart from the 6 month study shows 24hr access being ahead of 12hr access. You asked if these results have been replicated anywhere--it seems like the beginning of their long study didn't even replicate their short study. This makes me seriously skeptical about the differences they report between HFCS and sucrose. The only conclusion I would feel very comfortable drawing from this data is that giving rats access to sugar water for 6 months makes them fatter (Fig. 1). Finer distinctions than that seem unwarranted.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  Agreed. The study is actually deceptive because they're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by their own results. My conclusion: bad science.

by panic 13y ago

magicalist 13y ago

You weren't the only one they confused. John Timmer at Ars Technica did an excellent writeup[1] about the study and the somewhat questionable aspects of their conclusions. I would quote the relevant bits, but it's basically the entire article pointing out possible (and unaddressed) issues with the study: "Although some of the results are suggestive, given the somewhat confusing and, in some cases, contradictory nature of the result, it would seem to be appropriate to interpret them with caution, and go back and start a larger population of rats on a study with a more consistent design. The authors haven't gone that route..." [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/03/does-high-fructose-co...

jwmerrill 13y ago

The short study and the long study apparently disagree about whether 12hr or 24hr access to HFCS results in more weight gain. The 8 wk study shows 12hr HFCS leading to much larger weight gain than any of the other groups, and 24hr access not being significantly different from sucrose or chow alone. But then reading the 8 wk number off the weight chart from the 6 month study shows 24hr access being ahead of 12hr access. You asked if these results have been replicated anywhere--it seems like the beginning of their long study didn't even replicate their short study. This makes me seriously skeptical about the differences they report between HFCS and sucrose. The only conclusion I would feel very comfortable drawing from this data is that giving rats access to sugar water for 6 months makes them fatter (Fig. 1). Finer distinctions than that seem unwarranted.

cpncrunch 13y ago
Agreed. The study is actually deceptive because they're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by their own results. My conclusion: bad science.