“Republicans are playing political games on the debt limit with a far reaching goal of "winning" the white house in 2012. McConnell has made that clear. A pyrrhic victory built on the backs of the middle class.”
Jun 30, 2011 at 11:54:15
“Does anyone else see the horrible problems with this article? I mean the two studies don't even tie together to say that you will get fat.
First, there is nothing saying the Mice Gained Weight! In addition, you had mice that were genetically engineered to be susceptible to type II diabetes. You also fed a Herbivore, read plants, a processed Corn oil which is 99% fat in conjunction with an artificial sweetener. Can mice even process that much fat?!?
Second, as is the common failing of epidemiological studies, the human study did not control for food consumption which makes the results terribly unclear. One wonders if it is the super size me myth of weight control, i.e. Two Big Macs, Large Fry, and a Diet Coke. That's the ticket.”
markysgirl5 on Jun 30, 2011 at 14:30:50
“These animals are fed a high fat diet to help induce the Type 2 Diabetes they are prone so that they can be treated with some test compound to see if it makes their metabolic profiles (circulating glucose insulin triglycerides etc) better or worse. Here the test treatment is aspartame. One finding that was not mentioned in the HP article or in the link but is found in the actual abstract for the ADA meeting (written by the researchers themselves) is that the Corn Oil + Aspartame treated mice had more favorable lipid data and lower body weights than controls (Hmmmm!). You can easily find the abstract online using Google. When taken together, the data collected about artificial sweeteners over the past 20+ years indicate that if they are consumed in moderation as part of a low energy density diet, they can help with weight loss. At no point do these researchers claim that their results prove that use of artificial sweeteners will make you fat. They simply state that under a specific set of conditions using a specific set of animal or human subjects these compounds will affect some parameters associated with diabetes and obesity which may help explain why their use is often correlated with these problems.”
Jun 30, 2011 at 11:36:01
“First, Coke is not made with Corn Syrup, its made with High Fructose Corn Syrup. The former is made up of a combination of a sugar molecule called glucose wrapped up into maltose and higher order saccharides, the later is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose. It is nearly identical to to sucrose or table sugar. Fructose sans fiber from fruit is bad. Second, as for Sugar being better, I don't believe that is based on any science. In fact, the biochemistry of the human body processes Sugar (read sucrose) and High Fructose Corn Syrup the same. Research Dr. Robert Lustig and Sugar the Bigger Truth and any NIH publication in the last 30 years for support.”
Justdontgetit on Jun 30, 2011 at 12:03:16
“Tell you what, my son, who is a chemist has told me that corn syrup, with whatever adjective you want to put in front of it, is not good for the human body No. The body does not process sugar and corn syrup the same way. I'll believe him, 'k.
“The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.” So, I guess HFCS is seen as much worse by a lot of nutritionists, but either way you look at it, ingesting as many empty calories as we all do from sugar is not good for anyone. Personally I try to stay away from the stuff. Sure, I do have the occasional Coke or whatever, but I do look at the labels of food before buying it and try to get stuff that does not have HFCS in it. It’s hard, but it can be done. "
“Chris Wallace didn't score any points as it is not a competition. They very idea that he would say I scored more points underscores the bias that Fox News has. Seriously, a journalist competing with comedian for points? There is something very disturbing about Wallace.”
Reddox on Jun 24, 2011 at 12:06:04
“Chris Wallace is a classic product of nepotism. The only reason anyone has ever heard of him is because his father is CBS 60 Minutes reporter Mike Wallace and his stepfather was former CBS News president Bill Leonard.”
Jun 14, 2011 at 13:21:07
Third, there was absolutely no analysis of the TYPES of PUFA or SFA administered or removed from the diet.
Fourth, and this is the most distressing, the key question we need to ask is not reduced CHD or CVD as you stated, but Total Mortality. If CHD went down in these studies, did Cancer stay the same, go down or go up? What about stroke? Diabetes? "Do No Harm."
Finally, I would note the reviewers admitted a possible bias, (Borderline Begg's Test) but noted that it was inherent do to a small sample size. Something that should give pause to anyone stating there is a "great volume of evidence" supporting any conclusion especially when you have two conflicting citations in situ.
As a result, the only thing this study seems to support is that PUFA could be good, and that more studies on foods high in fat are warranted.”
Jun 14, 2011 at 13:20:49
“I appreciate the tenor of this article and the revisiting of Saturated Fatty Acids (SFA) as a villain. Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs) are certainly intriguing. However, as Michael Pollan so eloquently points out, we need to study real foods, not nutrients. As you also stated, even in Olive oil we get a mix of 55 to 80% of Oleic Acid and 7.5 to 20% of Palmitic Acid, the "bad" one.
Second, I appreciate the citation to the meta-analysis, but the study did not find reduced risk of CVD, it was looking for Coronary Heart Disease, CHD. Similar, but as you know, different. In addition, while intriguing, four of the studies relied on self reporting based on dietary advice and not controlled dietary intake and only three entirely controlled the meal. They also provided no notations in so far as to the actual dietary intake to justify the assumption that as PUFA went up 10%, SFA went down 10%. It appears to have been assumed in the meta-analysis. It seems just as likely that Carbohydrate consumption or Protein consumption went down in the reported studies.”
“Exactly. Fructose is uniquely bad which is what Dr. Lustig said in his Youtube lecture and Taubes penned in the Times. They are not out front on the science, they are merely pointing to the current understanding. Dr. Katz is ignoring it.”