As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.
However, you speak with distinct personal authority on these subjects, so would be interested to know your profession, specialties, credentials, and any related experiments and/or research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?
Did you offer your expertise & 'formal', or even 'informal' critique of the Princeton research to the people who conducted the experiments, or those who published the results? Did you discuss it? What was the outcome?
Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?
No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated.
Really?! Can you quote where I said that?
Personally, I'd welcome those who have proven expertise in certain areas, want to impart knowledge or be critical of others work or findings in a professional manner. After all, there is still much to be discovered, shared & learned. But the tone in your post is derogatory & your response comes across as not only obviously dismissive, but also politically motivated.
Interesting that, for the most part in this thread, you've consistently accused others, whose position is different to yours, of having an agenda or being nuts.
Normally, when quoting someone else, one would place quotation marks around the quotes, or post the words in italics. If these weren't your words then I think it is safe to say that you agree with the summary.
As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior.
Thanks.
Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.
Too bad ol Bart can't explain why the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours didn't gain more weight like the ones fed HFCS for 12 hours. You'd think that being fed HFCS for a full 12 hours more, that they'd gain more weight than the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours. They didn't. So much for his conclusion.
I also see where ol Bart never bothered to explain why he was feeding rats the human equivalent of drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. Forcing lab animals to consume quantities of an ingredient that has no relationship whatsoever to real world human consumption is a problem, don't you think? If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad stuff will happen. Research scientists are guilty of doing this far too often....but they get the desired result and the grant money continues to flow. Absurdity and wretchedness it is.
....research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?
I need to be published in "bona fide" (LOL) medical journals to be able to point out the fallacies in Bart's research and the obvious and inherent problems with rat studies translating to humans? Only published scientists have enough grasp of food science to know that glucose and fructose from sucrose is no different than glucose and fructose from HFCS? Lustig is an idiot for claiming that ethanol is a carbohydrate and that fructose is metabolized in a similar manner. Anyone who buys what he's selling, when he can't even get this right, is also an idiot. Good grief.
Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?
You'd think someone interested in learning the truth about HFCS would be able to search for this information on their own. But that's the thing about dealing with a fixed mentality. You aren't interested in anything that takes issue with your fixed view on the subject. Someone with impressive credentials, and who sounded highly technical, said things you agree with so it must be true.
Even though it won't do any good, here are a couple of references you should probably consider. They certainly don't support Lustig, or any of the other posters who blindly agree with him, but here they are.
One question is whether HFCS-sweetened beverages have a different satiety profile from sucrose-sweetened ones. This study examined the relative impact of 16 oz. beverage preloads on motivational ratings and energy intakes at a test meal, using a within-subject design. Participants were 19 men and 18 women, aged 20-30 y. The iso-energetic (214 kcal) beverages were cola sweetened with either sucrose, HFCS 55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose); HFCS 42 (42% fructose; 58% glucose), or aspartame, and 1% milk. A no beverage control was also employed. Breakfast was consumed at 8:00 am and the beverages were consumed at 10:10 am. Subjective ratings of hunger, fullness, desire to eat, thirst, and nausea were collected at 20 min intervals until lunch was served 140 min later. Caloric beverages suppressed hunger ratings and increased satiety ratings relative to the no beverage control. However, there were no significant differences in satiety profiles among the sucrose- and HFCS-sweetened beverages, diet cola, and 1% milk.,
Kathleen J Melanson and others at Rhode Island University reviewed the effects of HFCS and sucrose on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin in a study group of lean women. All four tested substances have been hypothesized to play a role in metabolism and obesity. The study found "no differences in the metabolic effects" of HFCS and sucrose in this short-term study, and called for further similar studies of obese individuals and males. ("Similar effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin,"
Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?
Really?! Can you quote where I said that?
Yeah, really. Here's what you said in a previous post:
Sounds pretty grim. Sugar/HFCS is clearly deleterious to our health. Just look at all the afflictions these evil sweeteners are inflicting mankind! Heart attacks and strokes, obesity and diabetes, body wide inflammation.....someone should be regulating something so dangerous, don't you think?
Or, you could just be buying into what you want to believe, either because you want to believe it's true, or because you don't understand much about human nutrition. Either way, it's unfortunate.
I'm dismissive of people who come to the forum and offer their opinions as facts when they don't even understand the information they've accepted as articles of faith. Making broad pronouncements about anything, when you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the subject, can sometimes be aggravating for those of us who actually took the time to learn it. Junk science is alive and well today because people willingly accept crap as truth as long as the charlatan appears to know what he's talking about. Allowing the alarmists to dictate reality is why we have a power hungry nanny state that is eager to tell us what we can and cannot do. Michelle Obama is counting on folks like you. Grant desperate junk scientists are counting on you. They have an agenda and it kills me to see that they have so many useful folks willing to assist them.
I think Michelle Obama, CSPI, the food Nazis and the nanny statists are nuts. I also think anyone who stands with them is nuts. But then again, I'm a conservative.