Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (22) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 40755  
Subject: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 6:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://boards.fool.com/the-more-things-change2013-30463433.a...

More Science By Press Release
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sheila727 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38143 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 10:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
More Science By Press Release

What are you basing this statement on? The post by Zoning Fool consists of ABC's coverage followed by the abstract of the research study just published in JAMA. Neither of them says that fructose--as opposed to glucose--makes people fat. The brain blood-flow studies document different effects on the brain after drinks containing either glucose or fructose. There is no effect on the hormones (leptin and grehlin) that influence hunger and satiety. Glucose directly activates the satiety centers. Fructose does not activate them. And not included in the abstract, but in a medical review I read this morning, is that the people in this randomized, blinded cross-over study reported satiety after the glucose-sweetened drink and continued hunger after the fructose-sweetened drink.

What had prompted this study, done at Yale, was the desire to shed light on why hungry mice fed glucose-sweetened food show satiety, but when fed fructose-sweetened food they show continued hunger.

So an interesting association does emerge linking fructose consumption to weight gain, ie, fructose leaves people still feeling hungry, so they keep eating. Obviously, fruits contain sucrose and high fruit consumption isn't associated with overweight. But looking at the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener in so many foods today--as it's cheaper than glucose--and looking at the high caloric and empty nutritional values in so many of these foods, points to the problem.

So rather than "science by press release," I find this "food for thought."


sheila

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38144 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 11:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What are you basing this statement on?

Primarily the opening statement...

Fructose changes brain to cause overeating, scientists say...

as cut 'n' pasted here..
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2013/01/02/fructose-...

gussied up a bit here...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130101182010.ht...

and here...http://www.thedenverchannel.com/lifestyle/health/fructose-ca.... and many other news outlets, I'll wager.


Glucose directly activates the satiety centers. Fructose does not activate them

A Straw Man argument as folk simply don't consume beverages that're either 100% glucose or 100% fructose in the normal course of events. Anyone who wishes to test the veracity of this statement for themselves should give it a try.

But looking at the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener in so many foods today--as it's cheaper than glucose--and looking at the high caloric and empty nutritional values in so many of these foods, points to the problem.

HFCS isn't used as an alterntive to glucose (glucose, in fact, isn't very sweet) It's used in the US as an alternative to sucrose.....common table sugar. The problem isn't related so much to the HF-ness (the amount of fructose is pretty much comparable to the level in sucrose) as just eating too much sugar (along with too much everythijng else)

As it happens, one part of the World with the most rapidly increasing rate of obesity is the UK.....where sucrose.....common table sugar....is still the predominant sweetener in foostuffs.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38145 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What are you basing this statement on?

Primarily the opening statement...


.....and with thoughts of last year's crosspost fresh n my mind.

http://boards.fool.com/cross-post-30410905.aspx

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sheila727 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38146 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What are you basing this statement on?
**********************************
Primarily the opening statement...

Fructose changes brain to cause overeating, scientists say...


Oh. So given the entire post you referenced, your comment was misleading. I assumed since you referenced an entire post and didn't provide any explanation, that you were truly referring to the entire post--including the actual article abstract.


Glucose directly activates the satiety centers. Fructose does not activate them
**********************
A Straw Man argument as folk simply don't consume beverages that're either 100% glucose or 100% fructose in the normal course of events. Anyone who wishes to test the veracity of this statement for themselves should give it a try.


No one said people DO consume beverages that are 100% one or the other. Nor was this study out of touch with reality. The drinks used in this study were reality-based -- "sweetened with" one or the other. And fMRI imaging was done before and after consumption of each one. And there are so many foods sweetened with fructose. That is the point.


sheila

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38147 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 11:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The drinks used in this study were reality-based -- "sweetened with" one or the other.....

....And there are so many foods sweetened with fructose. That is the point.


Well, the real point is.....no they're not!

Could you name a few foods that're sweetened with fructose (without doing a hunt and peck on Google, that is) That's fructose, BTW.....as in fructose and not HFCS, since they're two very different compounds.

As it happens, a few of the energy drinks manufacturers have flirted with using fructose as a sweetener in their beverages. However, in general,, these beverages that're used in studies have been specially formulated for the purposes of the study Rarely bear any sort of relationship to the stuff that folk can find on supermarket shelves and would never be mistaken for something desirable to drink by anyone with any gumption or choice in the matter whatsoever.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TurkeyBreath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38148 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've been meaning to say this for a long time. I often enjoy the debates of Sheila & VeeEnn. Sometime, as in the case of this thread give my recommendation to both.

TB

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38149 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 3:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've been meaning to say this for a long time. I often enjoy the debates of Sheila & VeeEnn.....

Thing is, Charlie, the back and forth that goes on with threads such as this one aren't really "debates".....as in a free and equal exchange of ideas etc. (or whatever debates are supposed to be) and the *recs* that're generated either way aren't worth that much in the context of any sort of validation of knowledge, skill or expertise.

See....biochemistry, metabolism, physiology etc. are sciences for a really good reason and you really have to know about them to know what is and what isn't and what you think you know (or believe) that *just ain't so*. For sure, I'm not at the top of the game with any one of them (as OleDoc could surely attest) but actually having to study this sort of stuff in a didactic setting, accompanied by lecturers and test examiners letting you know just how bad U GOTZ IT RONG!!1! tends to generate a bit of introspection when it comes to bloviating freely about stuff like this.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sheila727 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38150 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/3/2013 7:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Thing is, Charlie, the back and forth that goes on with threads such as this one aren't really "debates".....as in a free and equal exchange of ideas etc. (or whatever debates are supposed to be)....


Yes--it's very tough to have a real debate when one of the responders tends to respond to "facts" that weren't in the initial post. Like.....when I noted the study material of a drink sweetened with glucose or fructose--which I took from the abstract and from material I had read in the morning--and you chastised me for comparing results with 100% glucose and 100% fructose to a real-life way of eating.

Your words: "A Straw Man argument as folk simply don't consume beverages that're either 100% glucose or 100% fructose in the normal course of events." But I never said 100%. And this kind of bait and switch happens all too often.

As for sciences are sciences for a reason, and the accusation of bloviating and all that..... I'll just note that my background is in science, and I've been a science writer for many years. And top people in their areas (complex topics within the overall vast framework of molecular biology), after reading my write-up of their research, regularly tell me that I'm the first writer to get the science right, and to make it clear. I'm periodically told, as I was on a recent piece, that it was the best article on that investigator's work they have read. I feel uncomfortable saying this, because it probably sounds like I'm bragging. But my aim is to try to explain to you that I'm not a nitwit filled with a grandiose sense of my competence and ability to understand the scientific material I read. Sometimes I err in a conclusion--as we all do. And when I discover I'm wrong, I admit it. But when I attempt to discuss an issue with other posters, I stick to the topic, and don't invent statements they never made.

In terms of this particular piece of research, here is the Abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280226

The investigators are all from the Section of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine -- certainly people who know the science of what they're studying and thinking about.

Here is what they state as the importance of this study. I've bolded a phrase I find particularly fascinating.
IMPORTANCE: Increases in fructose consumption have paralleled the increasing prevalence of obesity, and high-fructose diets are thought to promote weight gain and insulin resistance. Fructose ingestion produces smaller increases in circulating satiety hormones compared with glucose ingestion, and central administration of fructose provokes feeding in rodents, whereas centrally administered glucose promotes satiety.

And here is their conclusion....
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In a series of exploratory analyses, consumption of fructose compared with glucose resulted in a distinct pattern of regional CBF (cerebral blood flow) and a smaller increase in systemic glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like polypeptide 1 levels.


sheila

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38151 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/4/2013 2:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes--it's very tough to have a real debate when one of the responders tends to respond to "facts" that weren't in the initial post. Like.....when I noted the study material of a drink sweetened with glucose or fructose--which I took from the abstract and from material I had read in the morning--and you chastised me for comparing results with 100% glucose and 100% fructose to a real-life way of eating.

Your words: "A Straw Man argument as folk simply don't consume beverages that're either 100% glucose or 100% fructose in the normal course of events." But I never said 100%. And this kind of bait and switch happens all too often.



"Chastised?". I'm hardly chastising you, sheila by pointing out that folk don't routinely consume beverages that have either fructose or glucose alone as a sweetening agent i.e. only one or the other....as in 100% one or the other (manifestly, the study subjects weren't consuming 100% fructose or glucose.....there'd have to be some water there as well otherwise they'd be consuming crystalline powder rather than a sweetened drink. I wouldn't exactly callthat a bait and switch) However, regardless of how you choose to interpret my statement, the fact remains that, outside of a research lab, individuals don't routinely consume beverages that are sweetened only, solely, totally...or 100%....with fructose or glucose and nothing else.


The investigators are all from the Section of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine -- certainly people who know the science of what they're studying and thinking about...

..And here is their conclusion....
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In a series of exploratory analyses, consumption of fructose compared with glucose resulted in a distinct pattern of regional CBF (cerebral blood flow) and a smaller increase in systemic glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like polypeptide 1 levels.


Indeed.

This shouldn't be terribly surprising though since fructose and glucose are two different monosaccharide with different chemical and physical structures and have differing metabolic pathways. This much has been known for decades.

However....and in the context of sticking to the topic....my initial post was very obviously not a criticism of the research per se but of the tendancy of journalists to put a spin on research studies that oftentimes isn't warranted.

I'm sure there are plenty of folk around who, on reading these articles are going to draw the inference that it's "too much" fructose that makes you fat.....and by implication HFCS......as opposed to "too much" of everything....including the fructose:glucose combo commonly known as "sugar". You yourself mentioned that the drinks used in this study were "reality based" in that they were sweetened with either fructose or glucose.

Fructose is not HFCS and is not used routinely as a sweetening agent instead of HFCS, "sugar" or glucose.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: OleDocJ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38152 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/4/2013 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
In terms of this particular piece of research, here is the Abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280226

The investigators are all from the Section of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine -- certainly people who know the science of what they're studying and thinking about.


Well, I'm not so sure about that! I think the study is fundamentally flawed and probably should not have been published without fundamental consideration of differences in the physiological/biochemical/metabolic properties of fructose vs. glucose.

Ingested fructose is cleared from the portal vein after absorption. The concentration of fructose in serum is less than 20 micromolar. I have seen no data to indicate how much, if any, the serum fructose concentration increases after ingestion of a fructose bolus. The fructose taken up by the liver is converted to F-1-P for metabolic pathways and I don't think "excess" fructose can be "dumped" back into the bloodstream (as is the case for glucose).

By contrast, glucose cleared from the portal vein by the liver is converted to G-6-P which can then be channeled into several metabolic pathways or dumped back into the bloodstream when the concentration in the liver exceeds metabolic demand.

Since the study in question measured hormonal and cerebral endpoints, how can they distinguish between the effects caused by glucose itself or (in the case of fructose ingestion) the lack of glucose and the metabolic consequences of ingesting large amounts of fructose in the absence of glucose?

I don't see how the cerebral differences can be attributed directly to fructose. They must be due to metabolic consequences of metabolism of fructose in the liver. However, since they apparently used 100% fructose in the absence of glucose, they are measuring an abnormal metabolic response. There really is no way to relate this to the normal state of ingesting a 50/50 mixture (sugar) or a 55/45 mixture (HFCS).

The problem with fundamentally flawed studies is that there is just no way to know what the results mean. For example, the ingestion of a bolus of fructose by itself, might lead to a temporary ATP depletion/deficit in the liver that signals hunger and stimulates eating. That may or may not occur when eating a bolus of HFCS.

They spent a lot of time and money doing experiments that probably don't have anything to do with their stated objective of relating the ingestion of HFCS to obesity and blaming it on the fructose. If they do their measurements using HFCS vs sucrose (and they probably did), they probably would not see any differences. If they do the experiment using HFCS vs glucose (and they probably did), they still might not see any differences. If they do the experiment using HFCS vs fructose (and they should have), they still might not see any differences.


OleDoc

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TurkeyBreath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38153 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/4/2013 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...I think the study is fundamentally flawed and probably should not have been published without fundamental consideration of differences in the physiological/biochemical/metabolic properties of fructose vs. glucose...

OldDoc, you're a good teacher.

TB

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sheila727 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38154 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/4/2013 11:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
They spent a lot of time and money doing experiments that probably don't have anything to do with their stated objective of relating the ingestion of HFCS to obesity and blaming it on the fructose.


You're saying "experiments that probably don't have anything to do with their stated objective of relating the ingestion of HFCS to obesity and blaming it on the fructose." "Probably" means you can't say conclusively. And especially, since you read only the abstract and not the full article, with a review of the literature they included and a detailed explanation of exactly what they did, and of their rationale for what they did and how they did it -- you don't know if the claims you make are valid or not. It's premature to make assertions.


sheila

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38155 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/5/2013 5:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
They spent a lot of time and money doing experiments that probably don't have anything to do with their stated objective of relating the ingestion of HFCS to obesity and blaming it on the fructose.

In all fairness, OleDon, the abstract itself didn't go so far as this with the stated objective......that was all the science writers, commentators, journalists (whatever you want to call them) aided and abetted by the copy writers in the PR dept. at Yale. Which is entirely my *Science By Press Release* point. It's getting so you can't trust what you read in science articles without a PhD in the subject with an MS, at least, in critical thinking skills......or a hefty dose of "heads-upness" to give you an actual Heads-Up!

If they do their measurements using HFCS vs sucrose (and they probably did), they probably would not see any differences. If they do the experiment using HFCS vs glucose (and they probably did), they still might not see any differences. If they do the experiment using HFCS vs fructose (and they should have), they still might not see any differences.

Well, this sort of stuff has been done. Whenever we've had discussions on the HFCS thing in the past and the latest *link* to the latest damning *evidence* has been dumped and followed up on PubMed (at least, by moi) it's always seemed to be that it's a study on.....wear your rosary / garlic or rabbit's foot here!......f.f.f.Fructose. As in NOT sucrose and NOT HFCS but effing f.f.f.Fructose. However, on pretty much every link that has been dumped from PubMed on these occasions, a quick glance to the right on that *Latest Citations* list and a few clicks on various links and you'll find that pretty much every study that's been done on actual HFCS (not f.f.f.Fructose) vs. *sugar* (the fructose:glucose combo) there's been no difference.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38156 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/5/2013 5:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OldDoc, you're a good teacher.

Indeed....a Photon in The Dark, no less.

You don't get this sort of edu. from, say, Science Daily or CBS. It takes a fundamental.....usually didactic.....foundation in a topic to be able to 'splain it to, say, the local barmid (to misquote Rutherford)

Let's see how he does on the Higgs Boson or Majorana Fermions... then I'll be really impessed (of course, I'll have to take his word on the topics being totally open minded and empty headed, so to speak......)

Which is exactly my point of Science By Press Release

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38157 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/5/2013 6:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're saying "experiments that probably don't have anything to do with their stated objective of relating the ingestion of HFCS to obesity and blaming it on the fructose." "Probably" means you can't say conclusively

But that's exactly how the Scientific Method works, sheila. It's to do with the confluence of evidence, general plausibility, alternative explanations, challenges to dogma etc. etc.... which can oftentimes be revised when more evidence comes along to challenge what was previously thought to be plausible.

Come to that, you're only assuming / opining that the OleSter failed to read the full study before responding. FWIW, I'm also assuming that he didn't (given the underwhelming nature of the topic) but here's where there's a problemo with trying to communicate the scientific world and the Scientific Method to an intellectually curious population.....

SCIENCE BY PRESS RELEASE doesn't do it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sheila727 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38158 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/7/2013 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're saying "experiments that probably don't have anything to do with their stated objective of relating the ingestion of HFCS to obesity and blaming it on the fructose." "Probably" means you can't say conclusively
**********************
But that's exactly how the Scientific Method works, sheila. It's to do with the confluence of evidence, general plausibility, alternative explanations, challenges to dogma etc. etc....


I well understand the scientific method.

But that's not what I'm talking about, my dear. I'm talking about OleDoc having arrived at conclusions about the authors' experiments based on having read a summary--the abstract--that does not contain the information he needs for drawing those conclusions.

And as for "alternative explanations and challenges to dogma" -- makes me smile to see you including that in your (irrelevant) invocation of the scientific method, seeing as how you personally have such a tough time with such alternatives and challenges, no matter how well grounded they are.


sheila

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38159 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/7/2013 2:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm talking about OleDoc having arrived at conclusions about the authors' experiments based on having read a summary--the abstract--that does not contain the information he needs for drawing those conclusions.

Indeed it doesn't......and had the science writers who've been touting this current research also taken the trouble to read beyond the abstract (actually read beyond the authors and Yale's ad. copy, come to that.....

The brain scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Dr. Robert Sherwin, chief of endocrinology at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues -- it isn't turned off."
)

....there'd be no discussion on Science By Press release in this instance, would there??

No one would have good cause for inferring that this small experiment meant anything beyond the stated objectives......no mention of causes for obesity, no mention of HFCS, cheapness of fructose vs, glucose etc. etc ......which is exactly my point.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: OleDocJ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38165 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/8/2013 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm talking about OleDoc having arrived at conclusions about the authors' experiments based on having read a summary--the abstract--that does not contain the information he needs for drawing those conclusions.


Guilty as charged! I guess I was a bit honked off about not being able to read the methods section and the discussion section of the publication. Other than some nice pictures detailing how glucose modulates satiety centers in the brain (that was already known, but the pictures are nice), I didn't see why the publication. And, we already know that >= 99.9% of the ingested fructose ain't goin' anywhere near the brain, so fructose, jper se, can't directly affect brain satiety centers.

The brain scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Dr. Robert Sherwin, chief of endocrinology at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues -- it isn't turned off." )


My initial reaction was "Well, doh!!" But, I still need to see their discussion of the results. I'm not sure what they were measuring or thought they were measuring using the endpoints they used. There is a wealth of relevant physiology, biochemistry, endocrinology, and cell biology already known regarding the differences in metabolism of glucose and fructose.

What I would really like to see is measurements of how much fructose actually entered circulation (if any). Depending on how much 100% fructose was consumed, it could be significant (or not). Of course, measuring serum fructose concentrations is extremely difficult and would involve access to expertise and techniques not widely available (even at major universities).

However, brain tissue does contain KHK (keto-hexokinase) and I'm not sure why! Again, it's already known that the serum fructose levels are less than 20 micromolar and that doesn't change much, if any, after consuming normal amounts of sucrose (50/50 glucose/fructose). (I know this because I actually did the experiments myself while measuring serum mannose concentrations after consumption of mannose (in a dietary drink containing sucrose).


OleDoc

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38168 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/8/2013 11:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My initial reaction was "Well, doh!!" But, I still need to see their discussion of the results. I'm not sure what they were measuring or thought they were measuring using the endpoints they used.....

Well, that's what you'd expect to be part of the job description of the folk calling themselves *the science correspondent* and writing the article, no? You'd expect a bit of fact checking beyond the press release on their list serve.


There is a wealth of relevant physiology, biochemistry, endocrinology, and cell biology already known regarding the differences in metabolism of glucose and fructose

One explanation is that the folk writing these science columns don't know that. Another is that they don't think it's important to fact check because their readership isn't likely to know either.

That's the state of science journalism......or journalism in general, for all I know. Maybe the person who writes the auto column can't drive and writes the reviews based on advertising copy from car manufacturers.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sheila727 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38169 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/8/2013 11:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My initial reaction was "Well, doh!!" But, I still need to see their discussion of the results. I'm not sure what they were measuring or thought they were measuring using the endpoints they used.....
*****************************
Well, that's what you'd expect to be part of the job description of the folk calling themselves *the science correspondent* and writing the article, no? You'd expect a bit of fact checking beyond the press release on their list serve.



I think OleDoc is talking about his response to the ABSTRACT, Vee. And as you know, that's written by the investigators to summarize the paper.

That's the state of science journalism......or journalism in general, for all I know. Maybe the person who writes the auto column can't drive and writes the reviews based on advertising copy from car manufacturers.

I guess you aren't aware that some science journalists and science writers came to writing about science and medicine from having done science and/or medicine. (But I'm sure you'll work hard to derogate that as well and toss it on the trash heap.)


sheila

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38170 of 40755
Subject: Re: Crosspost 2013 Date: 1/9/2013 2:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think OleDoc is talking about his response to the ABSTRACT, Vee. And as you know, that's written by the investigators to summarize the paper.

Of course.....but, as is obvious from just the discussion of this one study and how the news outlets are reporting it, science by press release don't even stick to the bare bones of the abstract, let alone mention any caveats or limitations that're usually part of the discussion in the actual paper.

Fructose changes brain to cause overeating, scientists say

Fructose, a common sugar found in the U.S. diet, may cause changes in the brain that trigger a person to overeat, a new brain imaging study shows......


Where in the abstract did scientists say fructose changes brain to cause overeating?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280226

That's what I'm talking about when I talk about Science By Press Release.


I guess you aren't aware that some science journalists and science writers came to writing about science and medicine from having done science and/or medicine.

Indeed there are.....and plenty of these folk are even more critical of Science By Press Release than I. As they should be. I don't see too evidence of someone who's come to wriing after doing science or medicine here, though...

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2013/01/02/fructose-...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130101182010.ht...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/lifestyle/health/fructose-ca....

.....and these are a handful of the sources that folk are reading under the assumption that the writer is dissemnating trustworthy information

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (22) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement