
HFCS makes rats fat? A counterpoint. - tghw
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/
======
00joe
Page one of the study supports the original claim. Is this blog post just a
test to see if we will really read it now?

Per the study...... 3\. Results 3.1. Male rats with daily 12-h HFCS access
gain more weight in 8 weeks than animals with equal access to sucrose Animals
with 12-h 8% HFCS access gained significantlymore weight in 8 weeks than
animals with 12-h 10% sucrose access

~~~
thomaspaine
Keep reading.

"Further, no difference was found in HFCS intake and total overall caloric
intake in the groups given 12-h access versus 24-h access. Both groups
consumed the same amount of HFCS on average (21.3 ± 2.0 kcal HFCS in 12-h
versus 20.1 ± 1.6 kcal HFCS in 24 h), even though only the 12-h group showed a
signiﬁcant difference in body weight when compared with the control groups."

As per the author's criticism, these results are seemingly inconsistent. Why
would rats with 12-h access to HFCS gain more weight while rats with 24-h
access did not, when their HFCS intake was the same on average?

~~~
turnersauce
The say on page 2: "...our previous publications show limited (12 h) access to
sucrose precipitates binge-eating behavior (Avena et al., 2006)."

------
CWuestefeld
Good questions in here. While I'm personally inclined to be sympathetic to the
study, I have to admit that if I'm to be skeptical about other things (I want
to say AGW, but don't want to open that can of worms), I need to be consistent
in looking for high-quality research here as well.

~~~
hga
I have a very simple rule: anything I read in the MSM (or similar "science"
publications) about a study that agrees with the current politically correct
opinion I _automatically_ discount. _Especially_ if it's medicine related
(weak science and fraud are particularly common in this area).

If it's important enough to me, I'll dig down and actually read the paper ...
but I generally don't bother, because most of the time I'll find junk science
(or nearly so) like in this case. I'd rather spend my time with the _Journal
of Irreproducible Results_ and the upside down parts of the _Worm Runner's
Digest/Journal of Biological Psychology_.

------
nevinera
>The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be
fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for
12 hours per day. So these results are inconsistent.

I don't see why you would expect those to be fatter; the data point is
completely separate. Common sense doesn't apply in biology - any number of
factors could cause the results to reverse on a 24 hour feeding schedule.

Humans don't follow a 24 hour feeding schedule, as it happens.

~~~
obfuscate
> Humans don't follow a 24 hour feeding schedule, as it happens.

Regardless, I would think that instability of results under seemingly minor
variations in conditions for rats suggests we should drastically reduce our
confidence in any generalization of even the seemingly more relevant result.

~~~
nevinera
>should drastically reduce our confidence in any generalization of even the
seemingly more relevant result.

Oh, absolutely! I certainly didn't mean that you should go trusting the
scientist to vet his own research; most studies say exactly what the
researcher wants them to say. But I think the results are strong enough to
prompt (probably stronger) testing in other labs.

If the research was done properly, then instability of results under minor
variations generally implies that the variations weren't actually minor.

------
jongraehl
Also, scaling for mass, the rats are given the equivalent of 3000 kcal (more
than most humans eat in a day) in pure HFCS.

~~~
nevinera
Scaling for mass is not a particularly useful measure. Their metabolisms are
_much_ higher..

~~~
araneae
Well, you can scale for mass, just not linearly. Metabolism scales with
mass^(3/4).

Interestingly, so do the number of cars in a city with a city's population
size- this is a fun essay on the subject:
[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/math-and-
the...](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/math-and-the-city/)

------
araneae
The ironic thing is that this is probably true because corn syrup is more
"natural" than table sugar. We're better at extracting calories from foods
commonly found in our evolutionary history. Sucrose is only found in a handful
of foods (like beets) but fructose is everywhere. It's similar to how East
Asians extract 20% more calories from rice than people with other ethnic
backgrounds.

------
aresant
Amazing how quickly the original store made it onto every major news channel
etc.

Yet not one fact checker or news editor seems to have spent the time Marion
Nestle did in this article.

~~~
chipsy
It was a story people were prepared to believe; the "HFCS bad" meme started
taking hold years ago. It's a lot more comfortable for people with a sweet
tooth to swallow this than to say "all sugar bad" and actually change their
behavior.

------
maeon3
Sugar, Glucose, and High Fructose Corn Syrup is pumped into everything that
Americans eat, nearly all drinks, nearly all Breads and Snacks, chips, and
fast-food is chock full of it. Go check your fridge and pantry if you don't
believe me. America has the highest percentage of obese people on Earth
because of these sweet sweet chemicals. It's killing us.

But don't believe it because I said it, take it from an MD:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

Double up on your fruits and vegetables, apples, pears, carrots, oranges,
spinach, bell peppers, bananas, potatoes, unsalted nuts, things with high
fiber, and everything else that comes from a plant or tree.

Cut in half any food that contains a significant percentage of Sugars,
Sucrose, Glucose, Fructose, or Corn Syrups. That paunch under your belly
button will thank you.

~~~
invisible
If your message were merely about sugars, you probably wouldn't be advocating
bananas, apples, and pears. They have a decent chunk of sugar in them.

For example, my Trix has 13g of sugar [1] and an apple (small) has 13g [2].
The calories do sway in the apple's favor, but there are fewer vitamins in an
apple. Does this mean Trix are healthier? No (see the sodium and carbs), but
it also doesn't mean they will be the death of me if I exercise and don't eat
5000 calories worth.

1) <http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-trix-i116032>

2) <http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-apples-i9003>

