The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And indeed, that's true. I mean, this should completely reframe the way that we think about the sort of so-called hidden sugars in foods. What this means is that even if a food is very savory like a piece of pizza or a piece of bread or even like a salad dressing if there's sugar snuck into that and you can't taste it you will still crave more of that thing without knowing that you crave it because it has sugar.
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.
That is not an accident that hidden sugars are often hidden with salt or with other flavors. It's done so that people will, meaning you or me, will want to ingest more of a particular food, independent of how sweet that food tastes.
So, even if a food is very savory, like a piece of pizza or a piece of bread, or even like a salad dressing, if there's sugar snuck into that and you can't taste it, you will still crave more of that thing without knowing that you crave it because it has sugar.