We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
i just think that there's some conflation and reductionist thinking in communities in the low-carb communities saying well we can look at many studies that compare fructose to sucrose to glucose and see differences into normal lipogenesis in humans and so therefore people say everything with fructose is bad and i think whoa whoa not so fast like high fructose corn syrup is probably not the same as a papaya
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.
how we can use studies that don't replicate what actually happens to humans in nature eating food and make wide ranging claims about the toxicity of a substance that humans have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years is a little bit baffling to me but that seems to be what's going on here