Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5564766" data-attributes="member: 177">Okay, I see some signs of some bad science reporting in the article linked in the OP.&nbsp; For example, this:&quot;High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining... &quot;That's the kind of verbiage specifically designed to make you FEAR HFCS!!!1!!&nbsp; It is emotionally loaded, but lacks the data necessary to allow you to know if it is relevant.&nbsp; If that &quot;high dose&quot; is well over what any human would actually ingest, this effect won't be seen in people, and is not relevant to discussion.It is like arguing that sand is evil because if you drop a rock of unstated size on your head, you'll die.&nbsp; It is a common form of manipulative BS, and makes me distrust the rest of the article.&nbsp; If his point was as strong as it ought to be, this tactic would be unnecessary.&nbsp; He does it more in talking about &quot;contaminants&quot; - innuendo and suggestion abound.So, really, as science reporting, this is a load of horsehockey.&nbsp; I would not recommend using this article to make decisions about HFCS in your food.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5564766, member: 177"] Okay, I see some signs of some bad science reporting in the article linked in the OP. For example, this: "High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining... " That's the kind of verbiage specifically designed to make you FEAR HFCS!!!1!! It is emotionally loaded, but lacks the data necessary to allow you to know if it is relevant. If that "high dose" is well over what any human would actually ingest, this effect won't be seen in people, and is not relevant to discussion. It is like arguing that sand is evil because if you drop a rock of unstated size on your head, you'll die. It is a common form of manipulative BS, and makes me distrust the rest of the article. If his point was as strong as it ought to be, this tactic would be unnecessary. He does it more in talking about "contaminants" - innuendo and suggestion abound. So, really, as science reporting, this is a load of horsehockey. I would not recommend using this article to make decisions about HFCS in your food. [/QUOTE]

Verification