Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: facedown; neverdem
Rather than sputtering with name calling, can you point to any substantive errors in the study which neverdem cited?

Or show a countervailing study with reference?

Cheers!

83 posted on 12/15/2012 11:25:42 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers
I will acquiesce your request as you have come into this argument late.

With respect to the article cited in #74, the authors acknowledge their findings conflict with others, some of which I'll reference later. One study does not truth make. The thing that jumped right out at me in slogging through the whole thing was that the subject BMI's ranged between 25-35, iow overweight to obese. BMI is certainly not a perfect indicator but these folks were clearly well outside of normal range for body weight. There also was no mention of exercise, one way or the other, which greatly influences many metabolic processes. They also acknowledge comparable overall weight gain, (just deposited in different places) which is after all, the crux of the overall matter.

A sampling of contrary studies would include:

Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity.

Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data

Evidence-Based Review on the Effect of Normal Dietary Consumption of Fructose on Development of Hyperlipidemia and Obesity in Healthy, Normal Weight Individuals

As for Taubes, he's a guy who sells books to fat people who can't seem to grasp that a 2500 calorie a day diet with no exercise will lead to obesity. There are countless articles debunking his nonsense so for a couple:

Big Fat Fake

The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination

What disturbs me is the endless demonization of the "killer of the week" ingredient or process with skimpy, if any, actual data to support it. I've lived through the attacks on saccharin, aspartame, msg and the more recent GMO nonsense. All of them have a common theme: smarter people telling all of us dopes how to live. The recent propaganda campaigns follow the global warming model; lots of "may", "might", "could", etc. inevitably leading to "more study is needed but can we really afford to wait to act?" Often as not there's a tax proposal in there as well.

The OP and I have had previous skirmishes on this subject and his behavior reminded me of the tactics of the foremost global warming poster on this forum which are right out of the Alinsky playbook. You'll notice that the MO continues in this thread.

I do not sputter, Sir; I call a spade a spade.

95 posted on 12/17/2012 11:26:49 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson