The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
When Studies have been done looking at that and I think there's only one or two um it's it's there's sort of a net no no net difference there's a couple of studies that have done that look at liver exposure from fructose not parsing out those and again these are population level data um uh type interventions then you do see evidence of liver injury more significant um activity and by that I mean inflammation plus or minus Scar Tissue
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it doesn't answer the mechanistic question which we so badly want to answer
if you look at studies that have removed all fructose from the diet and have actually demonstrated a remarkable amelioration of what was called naal D the patients still I say unfortunately I say unfortunately from the scientific standpoint they lost weight and so even though these were meant to be studies that were UK caloric just taking fructose out of a person's diet presumably led to less spontaneous consumption
any study that you're looking at most of the mechanism for any type of liver disruption comes through an insulin resistance pathway so you would have to tease apart the presence or absence of overweight and obesity and the presence or absence of insulin resistance as the mediating the Big Driver of whatever you're observing in the liver