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/23280226The 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
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<