from what I understand is that when your insulin levels are elevated you become hungrier. Perhaps HFC raises insulin more than sucrose. Also, when insulin is raised a person does not lose weight and will gain at least water weight from increaseed glycogen stores. I lose or maintain (depending on how low my weight is) by controling sugar and HFC intake. I restrict it as much as possible. It seems to work for me. I also end up eating higher fat, just low sugar. My chol. #s are great!
Excellent video, C. However, if you look at experiment 3, you'll see that the sucrose group gained more weight than the HFCS group in the female rates over a 12-hour timespan. That makes the addiction factor more problematic, doesn't it? At least for females. That said, the triglyceride increase is 'very' serious to those of us in CD research, and I'd like to see that study expounded upon.
Even within the study, the different experiments don't paint a solid picture, and the effect size is too small to draw much in the way of conclusion.
It's the only paper that found any differentiation between sucrose and HFCS, and I think only because they looked at the behavioral aspects of the two. Most other studies eliminate the behavioral variable, and that eliminates any difference in sucrose vs. HFCS.
I'd love to see this work replicated with better design.
C0nc0rdance, I have one possible minor criticism and that was with your "testing one variable" comment. Sure, while this would be great in many cases, it's not always practical AND there are several times when we want to see the results of 2 or more variables and their interactions. This is why we have entire branches of statistics like ANOVA, multivariate, etc....
I'm happy to entertain suggestions on why they needed to alter both variables (chow and sweetener) in the same experiment, other than animal colony costs. If a significant difference were observed between Groups 1 and 2 in Experiment 3 (females rats), which variable would have been most responsible, and to what degree?
Statistical tools are no replacement for elegant experimental design. This was anything but elegant, which is frustrating considering how puzzling the results are.
First, I should clarify my original statement. You said :"Good science is always testing one variable at a time". This statement is the one I didn't agree with in the fact that it seemed to address ALL of science, and not just this experiment.
So I see they altered the variables, but I dont see where they ever used more than one variable. (By variable, do you mean "treatment"?) For experiment one, its all male rats, all have chow. Each group had different levels of sugar avail.
Yes, I do think that elegant science is clever ways to eliminate confounders and multivariate problems. Multivariate statistics are the final refuge of scientific scoundrels. Are you in research?
In Experiment 3, chow and sweetener were simultaneously altered, and no condition was an adequate control for all groups.
Yes I am, well....sort of. I am a graduate student in Plant ecology. I do agree that statistics can, and is ,abused far too often. Statistics can make the data say almost anything if a person is good enough and if the reviewers are just other biologists (or in my case ecologists) they may not catch the sneakiness. With complicated statistics it usually help to have an actual statistician as a co-author or perhaps we need more statisticians as reviewers!.
@C0nc0rdance As for the third study, the limited food was not significant, so at least the possible shortcomings in their experiment design are not confounded by a false positive. I think you are correct in that it doesnt appear to be a complete set, so it would be hard to determine what JUST 12-h chow would have. Also, I didnt really bother mentioning these earlier because the video focused on experiment one so I took all your criticisms as applying only to experiment 1, sorry about that.
@C0nc0rdance Remind me not to mention this video in class lol. I am just starting a multivariate statistics class in an Ms.c cognitive/developmental psychology program, and the rational given for the course is very similar to nygreenguy, in "there are several times when we want to see the results of 2 or more variables and
their interactions."
Our program has a rat lab as well, though that is not my area. I do more stuff with cognitive strategies for teaching and learning math across culture
@C0nc0rance (accidentally replied this to myself earlier) one more question: was your claim @7:30 that the 12-h sucrose mice were heavier than the 24-h HFCS mice. I look to see if they compared the treatments to each in when looking at weight gain, and they only looked at the treatments vs. control (surprisingly they didnt, its a quick and easy test to do). I think without this, and by looking at the error, you cant really say the 12-h sucrose were heavier than the 24-h HFCS.
So, there is only one variable for each treatment level. Chow is constant, only the type of sweetener is varied, and the HFCS is at 2 levels BUT in a different group. So, at the same level (12-h) of sweetener, they rats consumes less calories from sweetener in the HFCS group compared to sucrose, but overall caloric intake was not significant and the 12 and 24 hour group consumed the same amount of HFCS calories, but the 24 hour raid did not gain a significant amount of weight.
@nygreenguy and finally (stupid post length limits) one more slight criticism was your claim @7:30 that the 12-h sucrose mice were heavier than the 24-h HFCS mice. I look to see if they compared the treatments to each in when looking at weight gain, and they only looked at the treatments vs. control (surprisingly they didnt, its a quick and easy test to do). I think without this, and by looking at the error, you cant really say the 12-h sucrose were heavier than the 24-h HFCS.
Thanks for this! I posted a vaguely skeptical comment last week on the first HFCS video (I don't know if you remember or not), about the evidence for the "evolved to like sugary things" bit - I was actually kind of driving at the sugar addiction idea as a sort of alternative hypothesis, but I didn't really have any handle on the evidence for it (or the state of the literature in general). It's interesting to see that Nicole Avena is moving along those lines too...
Interpreting a paper for non-scientists is a good thing, although probably better for those same non-scientists to learn how to interpret the papers for themselves !! In any case, enjoyed your queries. I see no results for sucrose (whether 12 or 24 hour) over a 6 month period for male mice. Without that number, the HFCS numbers are less intriguing.
MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS / 116 DEAD El Paso Texas / Nebraska Nuclear Meltdown? VISION Of The ATTACK Of ISRAEL That Is Coming!Germany:E-COLI..Osama Bin Laden Dead May 1,2011/Hitler Dead April 30,1945 66 Years Apart!Another 6 is coming this year.Microchip-666 in hands and foreheads.Hell is real!Middle East and Israel conflict,WWIII?-Bible Prophecy!TO NON BELIEVERS REPENT SAVE YOUR SOULS.JESUS IS COMING,RAPTURE IS COMING!Get raptured not suffer the great tribulation.LISTEN TO PAUL BEGLEY IN YOUTUBE.
@excsa62 Can you be a little more specific? What Verse? I do not intend to read the whole thing for 1 excerp. Also, I'm hoping it's not a "vague" description of a wishy washy verse that is talking "perhaps" about something "relating" loosly to "something sweetish"
@excsa62 Since high fructose corn syrup didn't exist over a thousand years ago I can say with absolutely certainty that this is false. I don't care if you think there are scientific facts in the quran, bible, torah, etc. You can celebrate your religion, pray, etc. but please don't proselytize. We don't want to hear it on THIS channel which has not focused on religion for a while now.
We certainly need more of this kind of initiative in this messy world of information that we an expose to. Many of my colleges have never read a paper of would hate if they had to.
I love how science is made and i want to share this beautiful way of think as much as you want. My blog here in Brazil tries to teach and make science easier than they regular teach in schools. You videos really excited me to keep working hard to spread science to everyone i know.
Good work. Now, can you shrink it down to a sentence or 2, stick in some 'thou's and some stuff about how it's their fault so that the religious viewers will understand?
It makes some good points, but I have to say I'm rather sceptical about the research.
The small sample size makes statistical analysis less reliable and it seems they missed some important hidden factors, such as the starting weight of the rats (which are not symmetric and might mess with the ANOVA analysis if I am correct.) and the possibility that these rats are not 'equal' enough.
Very nice job at showing 'how to read a scientific paper'! Would like to see more examples =]
Interesting study, but would help if there was a 24 hour sucrose group in the first experiment. Similar flaws in experiment 2 as well - no male 12 h sucrose, and no 24h sucrose for either sex. It's only evidence for binging on HFCS if access is limited as it stands. More controls are needed if they want to draw more conclusions. Without the controls they cannot eliminate factors so that they only compare one at a time. But, like you said, still interesting research.
I really don't care for this study. The small sample size and messy methodology really don't give me much confidence in its findings. Also, I'm not sure why the 12h vs 24h difference is noted in particular. In one experiment the 12h group comes out heavier, in the other the 24. The 3rd experiment (female rats) is so messed up I'm not sure it's worth comparing anything other than HFCS+chow vs control. It would have been nice if they'd bothered repeating their own method with the females.
I am in grad school, and just now have to navigate the body of knowledge. I did a short essay agaisnt teh Corn Growers Association research. So for HFCS does play a part in obesity, from my research. The corn growers deny the sucrose is different than HFCS, sigh. Your idea is intersting, binging. I will look into that.
@lamb4067 Depends on how long the experiments run. In this case, they studied groups of rats for 7-8 months. How long after the data is collected and analyzed to paper though, I have no idea.
The main point I walked away with was that you're not a real scientist. At 0:09 you said "this data" instead of "these data" the way a real scientist would. lol
@kekejojo1212 Haha, That would be a short-lived religion, as rats have a life expectancy of 2-3 years. If you're sac'd at 8 weeks, you'd barely make it to child-hood.
Are you still planning on talking about non-nutritive sweeteners? I don't drink sodas with HFCS because corn products seem to severely upset my acid reflux. I do drink water, but I often drink a diet soda when I'm craving a snack.
I read the PDF, but it just raised more questions. Unfortunately these questions were about the tests, not the results. Like the missing 12 hour sucrose in the first graphs, or the 12 hour HFCS giving lowest weight gain with the female rats, or why wasn't there a 24 hour sucrose test. The conclusion only states the obvious, nothing else: HFCS causes weight gain. Of course it does, it's a sugar.
I'm quite convinced the HFCS debate is based on nonsense and only confirmation bias keeps it going.
@yinxs Did you read the caption for the first graph? [Assuming you're talking about Fig. 1] There was no 12H Sucrose male group; the graph is for experiment 2. Female rats with 12H HFCS didn't differ * significantly* from any group other than 24H HFCS, who were heavier, i.e, they didn't weigh less 12H Sucrose or control. They didn't use a 24H sucrose because it didn't show binge-eating behavior in the Avena et al. 2006 study. All of this was easily findable in two minutes of reading the paper.
@Formosus111 I'm willing to assume it's in there even though I couldn't (and still can't) find it, while I can assure you I've been examining it for far more than two minutes, and yes, I did read the caption, of course. Perhaps my reply wasn't that clear (I had to shorten and reedit because of the youtube limit), I know there wasn't a male sucrose test, that was one of my many concerns. Let point out what that is: this video is about HFCS vs Sucrose. The paper is mostly about HFCS.. (..yt limit)
@Formosus111 ..Let me just get to my main point before this conversation drowns in details. The conclusion of this paper is that HFCS could be a "major factor" in the obesity problem, but if you look at the tests, the differences (even though called *significant*, which is the dictionaries definition btw) are very minor (few percent). Binge eating might not occur with sucrose, but that doesn't mean you should just skip the 24 hour test, other effects could still have influence. (..yt limit)
@yinxs The word "significant" is a term related to statistics. It's what c0nc0rdance said in the video; the probability of the diffidence between the two groups having occurred by chance is less than 5%. Essentially, the averages (when considered with the standard deviation) of the two groups are too far apart to be due to random chance. 12H HFCS mice weighed, on average, ~30g more than the other groups. Doesn't seem like a lot, but is - statistically - almost certainly due to 12H HFCS exposure.
@Formosus111 Why are you explaining the term significance to me, I already made that point. Also, there's no need to repeat the numbers from the document, or how big the chance are that they're wrong. That's not the point I'm making. I'm making the point that the conclusions drawn from these tests go way beyond what can actually be concluded from the limited information it provides. Also, you boldly state that the 12HFCS are 30g heavier, but that's only the males, compared to 24H HFCS. So what..
@Formosus111 ..is the conclusion that you can draw from this? That HFCS is bad for males who only eat it 12H a day? I know this might sound ridiculous, but that is exacly the point here. The information is not enough to draw conclusions from. With the females the results were contradicting even. The only conclusion these guys made is that HFCS could be a major reason for obesity, but there's nothing about comparing it to other sugars. From testing it seems that this difference is disputable.
@yinxs " [t]he differences (even though called *significant*, which is the dictionaries definition btw) are very minor (few percent)." That's why I explained significant. If you know what significant means, that sentence did a terrible job of conveying it. Yes, I did gather every bit of information you asked in about 2 minutes, but maybe I'm just used to reading papers. And their conclusion is that, when HFCS is only allowed for a limited amount of time, it causes addiction-like behaviors.
@Formosus111 "..heavily sexually dimorphic".. This is again, one of the many reasons this test has so little meaning for the conclusion we're drawing here. I'm asking to keep looking at the bigger picture, not just the numbers, the details and their conclusions. Then you can see how contradicting and incomplete they are.
"all HFCS mice except the 12H HFCS".. Also, again, not proving anything except that lots of sugar makes fat, which is stating the obvious like I mentioned before. (next)
@yinxs C0nc0rdance explicitly stated in the video that the type of mice used are heavily sexually dimorphic. Also, on the long-term experiment, all HFCS mice except the 12H HFCS females were significantly heavier. One last thing; I didn't "boldly" say anything; I presented a fact. The 12H HFCS mice from exp1 were ~[notice the tilde, which means about]30g heavier than the avg of the other groups. It was late, forgive me for not clarifying which experiment.
@Formosus111 It also contradicts their first tests. How does this say anything about HFCS vs sucrose for example? Please explain that.
"I didn't "boldly" say anything".. You presented it if it was the proof against my point, which it wasn't at all. Therefor the boldly.
"The 12H HFCS mice from exp1 were ~[notice the tilde".. I know what a tilde means, and I know that you really meant. I just used it this way to point out one of the other many flaws of this test.
@Formosus111 Their results differed in the 2nd experiment for (yet another) example.
"that sentence did a terrible job of conveying it".. That's nonsense. I was merely pointing out that it didn't mean the significant as used in regular speech, which should also imply the statistical version. I don't understand at all how you interpret that, but it should have been clear enough.
"..it causes addiction-like behaviors".. Yes, but that's a wrong one. Again, my main point here.
@Formosus111 The second experiment showed different results.
Now, just out of curiosity, could you explain your conclusions from these tests? Do you think HFCS is a serious problem compared to other sugars for example? I haven't really gotten that from your comments.
@yinxs " I was merely pointing out that it didn't mean the significant as used in regular speech, which should also imply the statistical version." NO. It shouldn't. Significant, in statistics, has a very specific meaning. It is similar to everyday speech, but not the same. Just like the word "theory" has different, yet similar, meanings in everyday speech and science. Statistical significance would be covered within the first few weeks of any entry level statistics course.
@yinxs "Yes, but that's a wrong one" A wrong what?
Listen, you seem reasonable, but don't seem to have much exposure to scientific articles. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I read probably between 150-200 papers a year, though I don't know the exact number. That said, what the article suggests to me is that HFCS does cause mice to show signs of obesity, but, like you said,sugar makes people fat.
@yinxs I do have a soda every once in a while, but generally I stay away from overly sweet things. As for whether I think HFCS vs other sugars is a serious problem, probably, but my arguments would be the same as c0nc0rdance's from his last video; it's cheap and overused such that companies probably over-sweeten things to make them more appealing. In reality, it's mostly irrelevant to me. The only reason I responded to you was the problems you raised in your initial post were pretty poor.
@Formosus111 "NO. It shouldn't." ..We're looking at a scientific document, and the arguments were about statistics. Tell me then, how does that not clearly imply what kind of "significant" this is about? What other could it mean that also made any sense in the context? You can keep explaining it like you know better, but you don't and it is starting to get rather silly.
"A wrong what?".. A wrong conclusion, it's in your own text.
@Formosus111 "You seem reasonable".. I'm trying to be, but honestly, you are making it rather difficult, with sidetracking over arguments about the meaning of significant and now diverting to statements like: "don't seem to have much exposure to scientific articles".. Which is interesting also. Can you explain to me, in detail please, how you derive that from my comments and came to that conclusion? And most of all, what it proves if even it would be true.
@Formosus111 That my statements are simply to be ignored? That I couldn't possibly be right? And therefore you can avond arguing like you seem to be trying now? I'm looking forward to those answers.
Look, this is called an appeal to authority fallacy. Beside that not proving anything at all, it's also quite rude. Please keep this a real discussion, or simply stop it, that's an option too; one in which nobodies time get's wasted.
@Formosus111 "The only reason I responded to you was the problems you raised in your initial post were pretty poor."
No, they weren't! You can go on and simply keep stating that, but I've shown they aren't and haven't really seen any proof against it. Discussing the term siginifcant is hardly making that point, now is it? The only counterargument you've given was the fact that they thought they had a good reason for the first example I stated (which was just one of many to begin with).
@Formosus111 This explained why they didn't do the sucrose tests, but considering the differences in the results, it still proves my point that their reasoning turned out being wrong, and therefor the tests can not be considered decent proof in the HFCS vs other sugars debate.
I haven't seen any reason to change my stance on this. If you stopped avoiding my questions, this might have changed. I am that reasonable.
@Formosus111 "it's cheap and overused such that companies probably over-sweeten things to make them more appealing"
Now, I completely agree with this. I also think that the problem lies with people who buy these sweeter products, companies are just giving them what they want, if only to compete with their competition (the companies interested in healthy drinks are probably filing bankrupcy). This is why the whole HFCS debate interests me.
@Formosus111 People seem to be using it as a scapegoat for a problem that lies with themselves. There's most likely some minor difference between HFCS and other sugars, but these diffecences are neglectable, because it isn't the cause of the obesity problems, or diabetes, or any other reason I've seen pass by. Peoples behaviour to buy the sweeter products is the problem. Companies can replace HFCS for sucrose, but this won't solve the problem.
@yinxs Going back to your initial post; you asked why the results from exp 1 weren't included in a graph for exp 2. You asked why they didn't use 24H sucrose, which they explained in the paper. You mentioned the 12H HFCS female rats had the lowest weight gain; this wasn't a significant effect, so you can't properly say they had the lowest weight gain, i.e., they had the same weight as every group besides the 24H HFCS.
@yinxs I haven't addressed everything you've said because you replied to everything I've said with twice as many posts as my replies. I don't have the desire to make a 15 post reply to address everything. I said you didn't seem to read a number of papers because of the errors in your initial posts along with bringing up the dictionaries definition of significance. Out of curiosity, do you you read many scientific articles? In the interest of wasting no more time, I'll let you have the last word
i just passed on buying a book at goodwill on writing research papers...and now i hope it's still there!interesting topic and video, concordance!thank you for posting it!
I am missing an experiment in which the rats were exposed to 24h-sucrose + ad libitum chow. It would be interesting to see the effect on weight over time. If no significant change is seen compared to 12h-sucrose exposure, then it does indeed appear that HFCS has a greater stimulating effect on binging than sucrose. The effects of HFCS could be explained in terms of having a different effect on the neurological structures involved with addiction than sucrose would. Very interesting indeed.
2.) See if their conclusions are premature given their methods.
In my experience most problems crop up with people trying to make new conclusions out of others' work. Scientists will conclude as much as they feel they can to get their work noticed. Many people also confuse general discussion with results. Introductions are great places to find references for further reading, but they're there to construct an argument that supports the authors' conclusions.
Great job. I find it interesting that this study has HFCS/sucrose as an at-your-leisure addition to normal diet, like a calorie-rich pleasure button. And I agree with @atmdusty that they should have shown chow intake, because there seems to be an interaction. I wonder whether the 24-hour or 12-hour model reflects us more closely.
I also wanted to say my own advice for non-scientists using articles to construct a science-based argument is: [continued]
Very useful information on HFCS. I will be curious to see where this all leads. Obesity is one of the great health challenges of our time. Glad to see someone doing a series like this one.
The Obesity Epidemic? and contributing factors? one can use common sense though research should be used to confirm what I believe. Humans were not meant to digest much of their diet through liquid consumption. Liquid diets probably don't stop the hungry sensors in the human body. Which would mean people are getting calories maybe more than enough calories yet still feeling hungry. I base this only on humans evolving to eat food and rarely having liquids with significant amounts of calories.
I find it interesting that the paper does not keep track of how much food and solutions the subjects eat separately especially after reading the group that gained significant weight consumed less HFCS calorie wise but all groups were about the same calorie intake. This could be a big deal or mean nothing at all.
Very nice video and I agree with TheStigma that how to read a scientific paper is just as important as writing it and should be part of science curriculum in schools.
liquid diet was a bad choice of words on my part as I was really only talking about high sugar drinks to which one would find HFCS in it or any drink one can find "empty calories". Good to know about pureed foods, but I think I will stick with chewing foods while I still can.
@atmdusty nah - tis all good. thanks for reply. I wasnt even talking bout soft drinks, etc, but pureed food compared to the same consumed normally. I was VERY surprised at te result too, as were the researchers. U didnt ask me for source,and I cant quite remember the name of it, and it wasnt a large pop study - just an army unit of maybe 30 men+women, but done properly.It was part of a UK tv series, done by a lady professor who put various bullshit to task. never trust science from media like tv
@atmdusty is rule number 1. however, in saying that, i found it to be enough to take notice of. wasnt sensational, or supporting any product, theory, philosophy, person, anyting like that. I really wish i could remember te name of it, or her. maybe a UK youtuber here might be able to...? It just made me not so quick to instantly dismiss all those "magic weightloss liquid diet" types of regime. the puree apparantly was pleasant, not unlike soup. still, like u, id rather chew too :)
How to read a scientific paper could really be something added to the science curriculum in school. Not only would it help those who ended up in research and development jobs to have an idea of how to do it themselves someday, but for everyone else it would be a good skill to have so you could interpret results yourself and not just rely exclusively on other people interpretations in situations of doubt. This plus focus on critical thinking in general would be a huge boon.
@TheStigma The university I study at does this on a regular basis. I think in the 3 years I'm studying there I read a couple hundred papers and we discussed around 15 in depth. The professors use an entire day for these events. We get a paper, read it, we are given hypotheses before hand that we have to confirm or reject using the paper or we simply review one and try and find flaws. It's not something I particularly enjoy but as you say, it's a necessary aspect of becoming a scientist.
This series concept is fantastic. I hope it will help the general public understand the scientific method, the importance of critical analysis of reported information, and science reporting.
We've gotten to a point where all the information is *available*, but just as someone who has only ever seen letters wouldn't be able to read numbers, most of our reading experience is with narrative, episodic, and journalistic writing styles. Research writing is, in itself, entirely different, and that's in addition to the reports usually being written in field-specific jargon.
Maybe now I can figure out why you give US Govt.-generated cannabis 'research' any merit. :P
Maybe there's one thing: What would I do if you had unlimited access for unlimited time to something I really liked? You would go after that whenever you want.
What would I do if I had unlimited access for a limited time (and I couldn't save for later) to something I really liked? I would get stuffed with that for the time I had access to that (I'm a rat, I don't know about hours and days) and I don't know how this 12 hours were put, I mean, random? Always same time?
AND I guess that they should be allowed to put fake sweeteners in the other 12 hour in other group (and this fake sweetener would have been in other study to see its adverse effects) to try to lower the effects of "abstinence" while still able to see the difference between sweetener's effects - I guess.
Great vid like usual. But is it really that bad ? I mean, I live in europe so that might cloud my judgement but I never really thought sweeteners were THAT bad.
How well supported is their findings in the literature in general? Everyone I have ever talked to has said that HFCS was worse than sugar. In my own life, I have noticed that artificial sweeteners like Nutrasweet cause binge eating and hunger.
I've notice the same effect in my own life. When my job became one in which I never know when I'm going to be able to eat. I find I "fill up" when ever I get the chance. even though this job is more physically rigorous I have put on more weight.
Thanks for talking us through the paper. I'll forward to more of those.
@Shawnruss A monkey trying to screw a frog isn't what I mean. Females will only accept a male when they are in heat or fertile. This is true of every other species but us. You will not find any other species that has sex when the female isn't fertile. Forget about dogs humping legs or apes masturbating, or trying to fuck frogs, show me a species where a pair has sex outside of when the female is fertile.
You said "Did you know we are the only animal that has sex for pleasure?"
Which is absolutely not true. You're twisting around and changing what I responded to.
We are NOT the only animals that have sex for pleasure. five minutes of brief online research, and you can find reputable papers on the subject. Don't worry, you're not the only one who believes this myth, it's repeated, without a second thought often. Just like the "we only use 5% of our brain" myth.
@Shawnruss It's not that I don't believe you, but perhaps you can provide me with an example species that copulates for pleasure and or bonding when the female isn't fertile?
@christo930 what about the oh so nice dolphins who are known for raping people, blowhole sex killing and mutalation of dead bodies for fun (or some sort of sick twisted thing) the last part was there just to prove dolphins are sick, you can look it up yourself i am making positive claims sure but to link to stories that google will give yu is redundant
@bjam89 I am not talking about that, I know things like that happen. But dolphins don't have sex with each other for pleasure or bonding. Humans are the only species on earth that do that. The female will only accept the male (most males of all species are dogs) when they are fertile.
@bjam89 Instead of informing me of how ignorant I really am, why don't you just give me a single example of an animal other than human that copulate for pleasure and bonding? If it's something found, you should easily be able to provide an example.
@bjam89 I did some quick looking up and it seems as if the case isn't as strong as I thought it was. OTOH, it's not entirely clear that they do have sex for "pleasure". Certainly animal pairs don't have sex 3 or 4 nights a week the way humans do. So my assertion really can't be validated, I was wrong, sorry.
@christo930 and i am sorry i insulted you, but i am used to talking to well people who are unwilling to look for proof that they are wrong and if you give them to them they go batshit insane, and don't be sorry you were wrong, you looked things up you learned and that is a good thing
@bjam89 Some people think it's better to "save face" and loudly argue their beliefs in spite of new evidence that show they weren't right. I think it's better to cut my losses and not make the mistake again. Once you admit to being wrong about something, you never have to be wrong about it again.
@christo930 i have seen that before, someone saying they were wrong...then go on to be been more wrong (sure it was in math class..and then later in biology class...and then in history) but if you just keep on studing and never make an absolute claim you are better off
@bjam89 That is why I didn't say you never have to be wrong again, just never wrong about that particular thing. There are always beliefs we have that aren't accurate in every detail. We are all inevitably wrong about something at least to a degree. But to continue to insist that you are right in face of contradictory evidence is just stupid. NOW I can go off and be wrong about something else!:)
@christo930 btw what do you mean by (most males of all species are dogs)? as far as i know tht is also untrue only Canis lupus familiaris have male dogs
Probable the only animals in the world who see authority as a necessity; belief in fairy tales (religion) and use science to prove that homosexuals are "born that way"....a conscious comes with a price; ignorance.
How would you then use these results from a pragmatic point of view? You mentioned in earlier videos c0nc0rdance that you have children. Do you therefore think that having "candy days" say only one day per week when your children are allowed to eat sweets as being worse for their developmental 'addiction' if you may, to sweets instead of allowing them to eat whenever they want, granted some moderation? How would you try to moderate the consumption of sweets of children, if at all?
I'd teach my kids that the sweets are not good for them; take them to the mall and point out all the fat people and say "do you want to look like that?"...tell them; if they want sweets every once and a while...eat some berries or fruits; not 100% sugar candy...obviously, the "i want to fit in on holidays" will be a must for kids - halloween, thanksgiving, easter, christmas....but allowing kids direct access to sugar at all times is child abuse.
@CerberusBrown My parents would trick my sister and I into coming to the right decision on our own. They'd say, "Are you hungry or do you just want junk?" If we were really hungry, they'd say, "Do you want junk so that you'll be hungry again in 20 minutes, or do you want something filling?" If we just had a sweet craving, they'd say, "Do you think you really need it?" If we said no, they'd say, "Then why not go play instead? It's better for you." ...
@CerberusBrown ... they would allow us to have a small amount of junk in the day, usually about 5% of our total caloric intake, but the important thing is they taught my sister and I the skills to moderate our own sweet intake from a young age. It worked: My sister and I are the only two of our generation in the extended family to not have binge eating problems, and I'm the only one at a healthy weight (my sister recently had a child, though, so it's not surprising she's slighly overweight).
@nscangal and how were you taught to moderate? I suppose im lucky, im one of thse people with the genes that i cant get fat. I knew nothing of moderation as a child and only learned it when i turned 20. I suppose i was lucky, but I wont want to take that sort of genetic gambit with my children.
Well done, I think spreading the ideas behind good methodologies versus poor methodologies is very important as it gives people an interpretive model that they can apply outside of these papers as well.
If you're looking for more ideas on topics and which aspects of the various methodologies to cover I would recommend the Bad Science blogs by Dr. Ben Goldacre. He routinely takes the claims of 'science' stories in pop media, tracks them back to their source and comically eviscerates them.
"The diet starts tomorrow" effect might be responsible for a lot of binge-ing in humans as well. On the other hand, there's little evidence that this effect in rats will translate, quantitatively, to humans. The authors didn't do a good job of acknowledging that.
Still, it's an intriguing puzzle. Does HFCS stimulate more addiction response than sucrose? If so, that would be an important finding for human health.
This is a very good point. I was thinking about this the other day. This culture 'one wont do any harm' builds up. A one off can turn into much more than that. Especially worrying when HFCS is concerned!
@C0nc0rdance perhaps my low weight is less of a factor of high metabolism, and more related to my anti-addictive/habit-forming personality... It's interesting to think about.
this was a great presentation for non science majors..but also great review for me. thanks! look forward to more.
MsSevenstation 3 months ago
from what I understand is that when your insulin levels are elevated you become hungrier. Perhaps HFC raises insulin more than sucrose. Also, when insulin is raised a person does not lose weight and will gain at least water weight from increaseed glycogen stores. I lose or maintain (depending on how low my weight is) by controling sugar and HFC intake. I restrict it as much as possible. It seems to work for me. I also end up eating higher fat, just low sugar. My chol. #s are great!
amberview30 8 months ago
Have you seen this video?
/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
He explains the difference between HFCS and sucrose.
laservius 8 months ago
Excellent video, C. However, if you look at experiment 3, you'll see that the sucrose group gained more weight than the HFCS group in the female rates over a 12-hour timespan. That makes the addiction factor more problematic, doesn't it? At least for females. That said, the triglyceride increase is 'very' serious to those of us in CD research, and I'd like to see that study expounded upon.
rationalmuscle 8 months ago
@rationalmuscle
Even within the study, the different experiments don't paint a solid picture, and the effect size is too small to draw much in the way of conclusion.
It's the only paper that found any differentiation between sucrose and HFCS, and I think only because they looked at the behavioral aspects of the two. Most other studies eliminate the behavioral variable, and that eliminates any difference in sucrose vs. HFCS.
I'd love to see this work replicated with better design.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
I plan on using this video, and the previous one on HFCS, as part of an in-class excercise in my introductory biology class.
Let me know if you want a copy of the class excercise. (send me a private message, don't post here).
mafarmerga 8 months ago
Good job C0nc0rdance.
BlowDevilUp 8 months ago
@c0nc0rdance,
nygreenguy 8 months ago
C0nc0rdance, I have one possible minor criticism and that was with your "testing one variable" comment. Sure, while this would be great in many cases, it's not always practical AND there are several times when we want to see the results of 2 or more variables and their interactions. This is why we have entire branches of statistics like ANOVA, multivariate, etc....
nygreenguy 8 months ago
@nygreenguy
I'm happy to entertain suggestions on why they needed to alter both variables (chow and sweetener) in the same experiment, other than animal colony costs. If a significant difference were observed between Groups 1 and 2 in Experiment 3 (females rats), which variable would have been most responsible, and to what degree?
Statistical tools are no replacement for elegant experimental design. This was anything but elegant, which is frustrating considering how puzzling the results are.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
First, I should clarify my original statement. You said :"Good science is always testing one variable at a time". This statement is the one I didn't agree with in the fact that it seemed to address ALL of science, and not just this experiment.
So I see they altered the variables, but I dont see where they ever used more than one variable. (By variable, do you mean "treatment"?) For experiment one, its all male rats, all have chow. Each group had different levels of sugar avail.
nygreenguy 8 months ago
@nygreenguy
Yes, I do think that elegant science is clever ways to eliminate confounders and multivariate problems. Multivariate statistics are the final refuge of scientific scoundrels. Are you in research?
In Experiment 3, chow and sweetener were simultaneously altered, and no condition was an adequate control for all groups.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
Yes I am, well....sort of. I am a graduate student in Plant ecology. I do agree that statistics can, and is ,abused far too often. Statistics can make the data say almost anything if a person is good enough and if the reviewers are just other biologists (or in my case ecologists) they may not catch the sneakiness. With complicated statistics it usually help to have an actual statistician as a co-author or perhaps we need more statisticians as reviewers!.
nygreenguy 8 months ago
Comment removed
nygreenguy 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance As for the third study, the limited food was not significant, so at least the possible shortcomings in their experiment design are not confounded by a false positive. I think you are correct in that it doesnt appear to be a complete set, so it would be hard to determine what JUST 12-h chow would have. Also, I didnt really bother mentioning these earlier because the video focused on experiment one so I took all your criticisms as applying only to experiment 1, sorry about that.
nygreenguy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance Remind me not to mention this video in class lol. I am just starting a multivariate statistics class in an Ms.c cognitive/developmental psychology program, and the rational given for the course is very similar to nygreenguy, in "there are several times when we want to see the results of 2 or more variables and
their interactions."
Our program has a rat lab as well, though that is not my area. I do more stuff with cognitive strategies for teaching and learning math across culture
squirrelywrath2 1 month ago
@C0nc0rance (accidentally replied this to myself earlier) one more question: was your claim @7:30 that the 12-h sucrose mice were heavier than the 24-h HFCS mice. I look to see if they compared the treatments to each in when looking at weight gain, and they only looked at the treatments vs. control (surprisingly they didnt, its a quick and easy test to do). I think without this, and by looking at the error, you cant really say the 12-h sucrose were heavier than the 24-h HFCS.
nygreenguy 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
So, there is only one variable for each treatment level. Chow is constant, only the type of sweetener is varied, and the HFCS is at 2 levels BUT in a different group. So, at the same level (12-h) of sweetener, they rats consumes less calories from sweetener in the HFCS group compared to sucrose, but overall caloric intake was not significant and the 12 and 24 hour group consumed the same amount of HFCS calories, but the 24 hour raid did not gain a significant amount of weight.
nygreenguy 8 months ago
@nygreenguy and finally (stupid post length limits) one more slight criticism was your claim @7:30 that the 12-h sucrose mice were heavier than the 24-h HFCS mice. I look to see if they compared the treatments to each in when looking at weight gain, and they only looked at the treatments vs. control (surprisingly they didnt, its a quick and easy test to do). I think without this, and by looking at the error, you cant really say the 12-h sucrose were heavier than the 24-h HFCS.
nygreenguy 8 months ago
Thanks for this! I posted a vaguely skeptical comment last week on the first HFCS video (I don't know if you remember or not), about the evidence for the "evolved to like sugary things" bit - I was actually kind of driving at the sugar addiction idea as a sort of alternative hypothesis, but I didn't really have any handle on the evidence for it (or the state of the literature in general). It's interesting to see that Nicole Avena is moving along those lines too...
Confuseddave 8 months ago
Gah research methods 101, I got hives. lol... I have to use it, and yes teach it but that does not mean I like it. hahahah
Sunhawk7ajj 8 months ago
Could these results be attributed to the fact that HFCS is sweeter than sucrose?
ghuegel 8 months ago
Interpreting a paper for non-scientists is a good thing, although probably better for those same non-scientists to learn how to interpret the papers for themselves !! In any case, enjoyed your queries. I see no results for sucrose (whether 12 or 24 hour) over a 6 month period for male mice. Without that number, the HFCS numbers are less intriguing.
nicholas9999 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS / 116 DEAD El Paso Texas / Nebraska Nuclear Meltdown? VISION Of The ATTACK Of ISRAEL That Is Coming!Germany:E-COLI..Osama Bin Laden Dead May 1,2011/Hitler Dead April 30,1945 66 Years Apart!Another 6 is coming this year.Microchip-666 in hands and foreheads.Hell is real!Middle East and Israel conflict,WWIII?-Bible Prophecy!TO NON BELIEVERS REPENT SAVE YOUR SOULS.JESUS IS COMING,RAPTURE IS COMING!Get raptured not suffer the great tribulation.LISTEN TO PAUL BEGLEY IN YOUTUBE.
TheENTERRAPTURE17 8 months ago
am way to high and drunk to understand this video. However, you have interested me enough to re-watch this video when I am sober.
DrFoolishit 8 months ago
Perhaps they were not adequately funded to do so, but I feel that they also should have done a group that gave rats access to sucrose for 24 hours.
Qrawzseg 8 months ago
@excsa62 Can you be a little more specific? What Verse? I do not intend to read the whole thing for 1 excerp. Also, I'm hoping it's not a "vague" description of a wishy washy verse that is talking "perhaps" about something "relating" loosly to "something sweetish"
supersabre220182 8 months ago
Muslim scholars have already made such research long time ago..please read al quran for facts!
excsa62 8 months ago
@excsa62 Since high fructose corn syrup didn't exist over a thousand years ago I can say with absolutely certainty that this is false. I don't care if you think there are scientific facts in the quran, bible, torah, etc. You can celebrate your religion, pray, etc. but please don't proselytize. We don't want to hear it on THIS channel which has not focused on religion for a while now.
ARKAtheist 8 months ago
@excsa62 Galen did it?
595o 8 months ago
We certainly need more of this kind of initiative in this messy world of information that we an expose to. Many of my colleges have never read a paper of would hate if they had to.
I love how science is made and i want to share this beautiful way of think as much as you want. My blog here in Brazil tries to teach and make science easier than they regular teach in schools. You videos really excited me to keep working hard to spread science to everyone i know.
Keep the good work ! have a good one
rafaelwaa 8 months ago
Great video. Can't wait to see more in this series!
ReclusiarchGrimaldus 8 months ago
It's impressive to see that you have 0 down-votes.
nathan98000 8 months ago
Awesome series idea, thanks!
GreatBigBore 8 months ago
That is very weird that they did not control equal for both sucrose and HFCS. Something there tells me that there was a bias.
jebus6kryst 8 months ago
Good work. Now, can you shrink it down to a sentence or 2, stick in some 'thou's and some stuff about how it's their fault so that the religious viewers will understand?
no2religions 8 months ago
Nice! Very informative!
H3r3ticH3r0 8 months ago
It makes some good points, but I have to say I'm rather sceptical about the research.
The small sample size makes statistical analysis less reliable and it seems they missed some important hidden factors, such as the starting weight of the rats (which are not symmetric and might mess with the ANOVA analysis if I am correct.) and the possibility that these rats are not 'equal' enough.
Very nice job at showing 'how to read a scientific paper'! Would like to see more examples =]
ThePhantomRenegade 8 months ago
Interesting study, but would help if there was a 24 hour sucrose group in the first experiment. Similar flaws in experiment 2 as well - no male 12 h sucrose, and no 24h sucrose for either sex. It's only evidence for binging on HFCS if access is limited as it stands. More controls are needed if they want to draw more conclusions. Without the controls they cannot eliminate factors so that they only compare one at a time. But, like you said, still interesting research.
Teloculos 8 months ago 5
@Teloculos They covered a 24H vs 12H sucrose test in the Avena et al. 2006 paper.
Formosus111 8 months ago
Thumbs up if you like the swiss cheese in the sky!
logicaxe 8 months ago
I really don't care for this study. The small sample size and messy methodology really don't give me much confidence in its findings. Also, I'm not sure why the 12h vs 24h difference is noted in particular. In one experiment the 12h group comes out heavier, in the other the 24. The 3rd experiment (female rats) is so messed up I'm not sure it's worth comparing anything other than HFCS+chow vs control. It would have been nice if they'd bothered repeating their own method with the females.
pacogoatboy 8 months ago
I am in grad school, and just now have to navigate the body of knowledge. I did a short essay agaisnt teh Corn Growers Association research. So for HFCS does play a part in obesity, from my research. The corn growers deny the sucrose is different than HFCS, sigh. Your idea is intersting, binging. I will look into that.
Thanks again!
Thanks
darkwhitedirewolf 8 months ago
on average, how long would it take to get from from hypothesis to published paper?
lamb4067 8 months ago
@lamb4067 Depends on how long the experiments run. In this case, they studied groups of rats for 7-8 months. How long after the data is collected and analyzed to paper though, I have no idea.
FALCO64125 8 months ago
The main point I walked away with was that you're not a real scientist. At 0:09 you said "this data" instead of "these data" the way a real scientist would. lol
WarmWeatherGuy 8 months ago
@5:48, it clearly says that Experiment 2 is both male and female, but you state that it is a male only test.
puellanivis 8 months ago
my parents gave me all the suger i wanted and i terned out fine
NephilimfreePHD 8 months ago
those rats dont have it half bad. binge on fatty tasty food for your whole life, then go to swiss cheese heaven?
TIME TO START A RELIGION
kekejojo1212 8 months ago
@kekejojo1212 Haha, That would be a short-lived religion, as rats have a life expectancy of 2-3 years. If you're sac'd at 8 weeks, you'd barely make it to child-hood.
ddukki 8 months ago
Are you still planning on talking about non-nutritive sweeteners? I don't drink sodas with HFCS because corn products seem to severely upset my acid reflux. I do drink water, but I often drink a diet soda when I'm craving a snack.
fedos 8 months ago
I read the PDF, but it just raised more questions. Unfortunately these questions were about the tests, not the results. Like the missing 12 hour sucrose in the first graphs, or the 12 hour HFCS giving lowest weight gain with the female rats, or why wasn't there a 24 hour sucrose test. The conclusion only states the obvious, nothing else: HFCS causes weight gain. Of course it does, it's a sugar.
I'm quite convinced the HFCS debate is based on nonsense and only confirmation bias keeps it going.
yinxs 8 months ago
@yinxs Did you read the caption for the first graph? [Assuming you're talking about Fig. 1] There was no 12H Sucrose male group; the graph is for experiment 2. Female rats with 12H HFCS didn't differ * significantly* from any group other than 24H HFCS, who were heavier, i.e, they didn't weigh less 12H Sucrose or control. They didn't use a 24H sucrose because it didn't show binge-eating behavior in the Avena et al. 2006 study. All of this was easily findable in two minutes of reading the paper.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@Formosus111 I'm willing to assume it's in there even though I couldn't (and still can't) find it, while I can assure you I've been examining it for far more than two minutes, and yes, I did read the caption, of course. Perhaps my reply wasn't that clear (I had to shorten and reedit because of the youtube limit), I know there wasn't a male sucrose test, that was one of my many concerns. Let point out what that is: this video is about HFCS vs Sucrose. The paper is mostly about HFCS.. (..yt limit)
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 ..Let me just get to my main point before this conversation drowns in details. The conclusion of this paper is that HFCS could be a "major factor" in the obesity problem, but if you look at the tests, the differences (even though called *significant*, which is the dictionaries definition btw) are very minor (few percent). Binge eating might not occur with sucrose, but that doesn't mean you should just skip the 24 hour test, other effects could still have influence. (..yt limit)
yinxs 8 months ago
@yinxs The word "significant" is a term related to statistics. It's what c0nc0rdance said in the video; the probability of the diffidence between the two groups having occurred by chance is less than 5%. Essentially, the averages (when considered with the standard deviation) of the two groups are too far apart to be due to random chance. 12H HFCS mice weighed, on average, ~30g more than the other groups. Doesn't seem like a lot, but is - statistically - almost certainly due to 12H HFCS exposure.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@Formosus111 Why are you explaining the term significance to me, I already made that point. Also, there's no need to repeat the numbers from the document, or how big the chance are that they're wrong. That's not the point I'm making. I'm making the point that the conclusions drawn from these tests go way beyond what can actually be concluded from the limited information it provides. Also, you boldly state that the 12HFCS are 30g heavier, but that's only the males, compared to 24H HFCS. So what..
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 ..is the conclusion that you can draw from this? That HFCS is bad for males who only eat it 12H a day? I know this might sound ridiculous, but that is exacly the point here. The information is not enough to draw conclusions from. With the females the results were contradicting even. The only conclusion these guys made is that HFCS could be a major reason for obesity, but there's nothing about comparing it to other sugars. From testing it seems that this difference is disputable.
yinxs 8 months ago
@yinxs " [t]he differences (even though called *significant*, which is the dictionaries definition btw) are very minor (few percent)." That's why I explained significant. If you know what significant means, that sentence did a terrible job of conveying it. Yes, I did gather every bit of information you asked in about 2 minutes, but maybe I'm just used to reading papers. And their conclusion is that, when HFCS is only allowed for a limited amount of time, it causes addiction-like behaviors.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@Formosus111 "..heavily sexually dimorphic".. This is again, one of the many reasons this test has so little meaning for the conclusion we're drawing here. I'm asking to keep looking at the bigger picture, not just the numbers, the details and their conclusions. Then you can see how contradicting and incomplete they are.
"all HFCS mice except the 12H HFCS".. Also, again, not proving anything except that lots of sugar makes fat, which is stating the obvious like I mentioned before. (next)
yinxs 8 months ago
@yinxs C0nc0rdance explicitly stated in the video that the type of mice used are heavily sexually dimorphic. Also, on the long-term experiment, all HFCS mice except the 12H HFCS females were significantly heavier. One last thing; I didn't "boldly" say anything; I presented a fact. The 12H HFCS mice from exp1 were ~[notice the tilde, which means about]30g heavier than the avg of the other groups. It was late, forgive me for not clarifying which experiment.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@Formosus111 It also contradicts their first tests. How does this say anything about HFCS vs sucrose for example? Please explain that.
"I didn't "boldly" say anything".. You presented it if it was the proof against my point, which it wasn't at all. Therefor the boldly.
"The 12H HFCS mice from exp1 were ~[notice the tilde".. I know what a tilde means, and I know that you really meant. I just used it this way to point out one of the other many flaws of this test.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 Their results differed in the 2nd experiment for (yet another) example.
"that sentence did a terrible job of conveying it".. That's nonsense. I was merely pointing out that it didn't mean the significant as used in regular speech, which should also imply the statistical version. I don't understand at all how you interpret that, but it should have been clear enough.
"..it causes addiction-like behaviors".. Yes, but that's a wrong one. Again, my main point here.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 The second experiment showed different results.
Now, just out of curiosity, could you explain your conclusions from these tests? Do you think HFCS is a serious problem compared to other sugars for example? I haven't really gotten that from your comments.
yinxs 8 months ago
@yinxs " I was merely pointing out that it didn't mean the significant as used in regular speech, which should also imply the statistical version." NO. It shouldn't. Significant, in statistics, has a very specific meaning. It is similar to everyday speech, but not the same. Just like the word "theory" has different, yet similar, meanings in everyday speech and science. Statistical significance would be covered within the first few weeks of any entry level statistics course.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@yinxs "Yes, but that's a wrong one" A wrong what?
Listen, you seem reasonable, but don't seem to have much exposure to scientific articles. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I read probably between 150-200 papers a year, though I don't know the exact number. That said, what the article suggests to me is that HFCS does cause mice to show signs of obesity, but, like you said,sugar makes people fat.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@yinxs I do have a soda every once in a while, but generally I stay away from overly sweet things. As for whether I think HFCS vs other sugars is a serious problem, probably, but my arguments would be the same as c0nc0rdance's from his last video; it's cheap and overused such that companies probably over-sweeten things to make them more appealing. In reality, it's mostly irrelevant to me. The only reason I responded to you was the problems you raised in your initial post were pretty poor.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@Formosus111 "NO. It shouldn't." ..We're looking at a scientific document, and the arguments were about statistics. Tell me then, how does that not clearly imply what kind of "significant" this is about? What other could it mean that also made any sense in the context? You can keep explaining it like you know better, but you don't and it is starting to get rather silly.
"A wrong what?".. A wrong conclusion, it's in your own text.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 "You seem reasonable".. I'm trying to be, but honestly, you are making it rather difficult, with sidetracking over arguments about the meaning of significant and now diverting to statements like: "don't seem to have much exposure to scientific articles".. Which is interesting also. Can you explain to me, in detail please, how you derive that from my comments and came to that conclusion? And most of all, what it proves if even it would be true.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 That my statements are simply to be ignored? That I couldn't possibly be right? And therefore you can avond arguing like you seem to be trying now? I'm looking forward to those answers.
Look, this is called an appeal to authority fallacy. Beside that not proving anything at all, it's also quite rude. Please keep this a real discussion, or simply stop it, that's an option too; one in which nobodies time get's wasted.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 "The only reason I responded to you was the problems you raised in your initial post were pretty poor."
No, they weren't! You can go on and simply keep stating that, but I've shown they aren't and haven't really seen any proof against it. Discussing the term siginifcant is hardly making that point, now is it? The only counterargument you've given was the fact that they thought they had a good reason for the first example I stated (which was just one of many to begin with).
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 This explained why they didn't do the sucrose tests, but considering the differences in the results, it still proves my point that their reasoning turned out being wrong, and therefor the tests can not be considered decent proof in the HFCS vs other sugars debate.
I haven't seen any reason to change my stance on this. If you stopped avoiding my questions, this might have changed. I am that reasonable.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 "it's cheap and overused such that companies probably over-sweeten things to make them more appealing"
Now, I completely agree with this. I also think that the problem lies with people who buy these sweeter products, companies are just giving them what they want, if only to compete with their competition (the companies interested in healthy drinks are probably filing bankrupcy). This is why the whole HFCS debate interests me.
yinxs 8 months ago
@Formosus111 People seem to be using it as a scapegoat for a problem that lies with themselves. There's most likely some minor difference between HFCS and other sugars, but these diffecences are neglectable, because it isn't the cause of the obesity problems, or diabetes, or any other reason I've seen pass by. Peoples behaviour to buy the sweeter products is the problem. Companies can replace HFCS for sucrose, but this won't solve the problem.
yinxs 8 months ago
@yinxs Going back to your initial post; you asked why the results from exp 1 weren't included in a graph for exp 2. You asked why they didn't use 24H sucrose, which they explained in the paper. You mentioned the 12H HFCS female rats had the lowest weight gain; this wasn't a significant effect, so you can't properly say they had the lowest weight gain, i.e., they had the same weight as every group besides the 24H HFCS.
Formosus111 8 months ago
@yinxs I haven't addressed everything you've said because you replied to everything I've said with twice as many posts as my replies. I don't have the desire to make a 15 post reply to address everything. I said you didn't seem to read a number of papers because of the errors in your initial posts along with bringing up the dictionaries definition of significance. Out of curiosity, do you you read many scientific articles? In the interest of wasting no more time, I'll let you have the last word
Formosus111 8 months ago
why don't you just make me a video about knuckle cracking.
NewgroundsOwnSBB 8 months ago
i just passed on buying a book at goodwill on writing research papers...and now i hope it's still there!interesting topic and video, concordance!thank you for posting it!
practicalmagic9 8 months ago
Using linux, Concordance?
nemodot 8 months ago
I am missing an experiment in which the rats were exposed to 24h-sucrose + ad libitum chow. It would be interesting to see the effect on weight over time. If no significant change is seen compared to 12h-sucrose exposure, then it does indeed appear that HFCS has a greater stimulating effect on binging than sucrose. The effects of HFCS could be explained in terms of having a different effect on the neurological structures involved with addiction than sucrose would. Very interesting indeed.
Gigano1986 8 months ago
1.) See what the authors conclude.
2.) See if their conclusions are premature given their methods.
In my experience most problems crop up with people trying to make new conclusions out of others' work. Scientists will conclude as much as they feel they can to get their work noticed. Many people also confuse general discussion with results. Introductions are great places to find references for further reading, but they're there to construct an argument that supports the authors' conclusions.
klutterkicker 8 months ago
Great job. I find it interesting that this study has HFCS/sucrose as an at-your-leisure addition to normal diet, like a calorie-rich pleasure button. And I agree with @atmdusty that they should have shown chow intake, because there seems to be an interaction. I wonder whether the 24-hour or 12-hour model reflects us more closely.
I also wanted to say my own advice for non-scientists using articles to construct a science-based argument is: [continued]
klutterkicker 8 months ago
the problem in the obesity epidemic is not about which food is bad. it's over consumption. i can easily over eat "healthy" foods and still turn fat.
flywiththisboy 8 months ago
@flywiththisboy
And people do! I see countless fat 'healthy' people who binge on fruit because they think its healthy.
Jools86 8 months ago
Very useful information on HFCS. I will be curious to see where this all leads. Obesity is one of the great health challenges of our time. Glad to see someone doing a series like this one.
fortyone0 8 months ago
bottom line ..... drink water.
eyallev 8 months ago
The Obesity Epidemic? and contributing factors? one can use common sense though research should be used to confirm what I believe. Humans were not meant to digest much of their diet through liquid consumption. Liquid diets probably don't stop the hungry sensors in the human body. Which would mean people are getting calories maybe more than enough calories yet still feeling hungry. I base this only on humans evolving to eat food and rarely having liquids with significant amounts of calories.
atmdusty 8 months ago
I find it interesting that the paper does not keep track of how much food and solutions the subjects eat separately especially after reading the group that gained significant weight consumed less HFCS calorie wise but all groups were about the same calorie intake. This could be a big deal or mean nothing at all.
Very nice video and I agree with TheStigma that how to read a scientific paper is just as important as writing it and should be part of science curriculum in schools.
atmdusty 8 months ago
@atmdusty recent study liquid diet made one feel full for longer. food pureed. interesting.
jeebersjumpincryst 8 months ago
@jeebersjumpincryst
liquid diet was a bad choice of words on my part as I was really only talking about high sugar drinks to which one would find HFCS in it or any drink one can find "empty calories". Good to know about pureed foods, but I think I will stick with chewing foods while I still can.
atmdusty 8 months ago
@atmdusty nah - tis all good. thanks for reply. I wasnt even talking bout soft drinks, etc, but pureed food compared to the same consumed normally. I was VERY surprised at te result too, as were the researchers. U didnt ask me for source,and I cant quite remember the name of it, and it wasnt a large pop study - just an army unit of maybe 30 men+women, but done properly.It was part of a UK tv series, done by a lady professor who put various bullshit to task. never trust science from media like tv
jeebersjumpincryst 8 months ago
@atmdusty is rule number 1. however, in saying that, i found it to be enough to take notice of. wasnt sensational, or supporting any product, theory, philosophy, person, anyting like that. I really wish i could remember te name of it, or her. maybe a UK youtuber here might be able to...? It just made me not so quick to instantly dismiss all those "magic weightloss liquid diet" types of regime. the puree apparantly was pleasant, not unlike soup. still, like u, id rather chew too :)
jeebersjumpincryst 8 months ago
You should let u suggest papers to use for this series.
ThePuppyTurtle 8 months ago
How to read a scientific paper could really be something added to the science curriculum in school. Not only would it help those who ended up in research and development jobs to have an idea of how to do it themselves someday, but for everyone else it would be a good skill to have so you could interpret results yourself and not just rely exclusively on other people interpretations in situations of doubt. This plus focus on critical thinking in general would be a huge boon.
TheStigma 8 months ago 16
@TheStigma The university I study at does this on a regular basis. I think in the 3 years I'm studying there I read a couple hundred papers and we discussed around 15 in depth. The professors use an entire day for these events. We get a paper, read it, we are given hypotheses before hand that we have to confirm or reject using the paper or we simply review one and try and find flaws. It's not something I particularly enjoy but as you say, it's a necessary aspect of becoming a scientist.
DutchLiam84 8 months ago
Man, that paper looks alot easier to read than some of the autism papers i went through.
GKCanman 8 months ago
I'm not sure about your reading style ;-) but very well made vid .
RevDevilin 8 months ago
Most excellent as usual
orge121 8 months ago
Great video as always! (except for the circumcision one)
tonybeir 8 months ago
@tonybeir >.>
Herpencounter 8 months ago
This series concept is fantastic. I hope it will help the general public understand the scientific method, the importance of critical analysis of reported information, and science reporting.
Thanks.
WonderDuds 8 months ago 2
Great series idea!
We've gotten to a point where all the information is *available*, but just as someone who has only ever seen letters wouldn't be able to read numbers, most of our reading experience is with narrative, episodic, and journalistic writing styles. Research writing is, in itself, entirely different, and that's in addition to the reports usually being written in field-specific jargon.
Maybe now I can figure out why you give US Govt.-generated cannabis 'research' any merit. :P
zEropoint68 8 months ago
Maybe there's one thing: What would I do if you had unlimited access for unlimited time to something I really liked? You would go after that whenever you want.
What would I do if I had unlimited access for a limited time (and I couldn't save for later) to something I really liked? I would get stuffed with that for the time I had access to that (I'm a rat, I don't know about hours and days) and I don't know how this 12 hours were put, I mean, random? Always same time?
I guess I'll have to see.
TemporalOnline 8 months ago
AND I guess that they should be allowed to put fake sweeteners in the other 12 hour in other group (and this fake sweetener would have been in other study to see its adverse effects) to try to lower the effects of "abstinence" while still able to see the difference between sweetener's effects - I guess.
TemporalOnline 8 months ago
Great vid like usual. But is it really that bad ? I mean, I live in europe so that might cloud my judgement but I never really thought sweeteners were THAT bad.
ForYeensSake 8 months ago
How well supported is their findings in the literature in general? Everyone I have ever talked to has said that HFCS was worse than sugar. In my own life, I have noticed that artificial sweeteners like Nutrasweet cause binge eating and hunger.
christo930 8 months ago
I've notice the same effect in my own life. When my job became one in which I never know when I'm going to be able to eat. I find I "fill up" when ever I get the chance. even though this job is more physically rigorous I have put on more weight.
Thanks for talking us through the paper. I'll forward to more of those.
Majoofi 8 months ago
Who would have thought "high fructose" would cause obesity!?!?...glad they did a field study on something that biology has proven true...
Next study; "Sex without a condom leads to increased pregnancy rates in rats"
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider
Why wouldn't you have thought that sugar would cause obesity?
dookiecheez 8 months ago
@dookiecheez i am pretty sure (s)he was joking
bjam89 8 months ago
@helltrackrider The study wasn't merely saying that HFCS can lead to obesity, but that it leads to obesity significantly more than normal sugar.
AnonymousAscendent 8 months ago
@helltrackrider Did you know we are the only animal that has sex for pleasure?
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
Then why do dogs hump legs?
And why do monkeys and Apes masturbate? I could go on....
christo930, you're just plain wrong.
Shawnruss 8 months ago
@Shawnruss Maybe you could point me to another animal that copulates when the female is infertile.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
Have you not seen the viral video of a monkey screwing a frog?
I really don't think the monkey was humping the frog to make little frog-monkey babies. Sex for pleasure, case in point.
Shawnruss 8 months ago
@Shawnruss A monkey trying to screw a frog isn't what I mean. Females will only accept a male when they are in heat or fertile. This is true of every other species but us. You will not find any other species that has sex when the female isn't fertile. Forget about dogs humping legs or apes masturbating, or trying to fuck frogs, show me a species where a pair has sex outside of when the female is fertile.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
You said "Did you know we are the only animal that has sex for pleasure?"
Which is absolutely not true. You're twisting around and changing what I responded to.
We are NOT the only animals that have sex for pleasure. five minutes of brief online research, and you can find reputable papers on the subject. Don't worry, you're not the only one who believes this myth, it's repeated, without a second thought often. Just like the "we only use 5% of our brain" myth.
Shawnruss 8 months ago
@Shawnruss It's not that I don't believe you, but perhaps you can provide me with an example species that copulates for pleasure and or bonding when the female isn't fertile?
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 Did you know that's actually not true at all?
Smidge204 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smidge204 Maybe you could point me to another animal that copulates when the female is infertile.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 what about the oh so nice dolphins who are known for raping people, blowhole sex killing and mutalation of dead bodies for fun (or some sort of sick twisted thing) the last part was there just to prove dolphins are sick, you can look it up yourself i am making positive claims sure but to link to stories that google will give yu is redundant
bjam89 8 months ago
@bjam89 I am not talking about that, I know things like that happen. But dolphins don't have sex with each other for pleasure or bonding. Humans are the only species on earth that do that. The female will only accept the male (most males of all species are dogs) when they are fertile.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 go read more zoology books, your knowledge is far to old to be called knowledge
bjam89 8 months ago
@bjam89 Instead of informing me of how ignorant I really am, why don't you just give me a single example of an animal other than human that copulate for pleasure and bonding? If it's something found, you should easily be able to provide an example.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 dolphins and chimps there two for you and gie an example i might have linked it to the wrong person but you replied to it
bjam89 8 months ago
@bjam89 I did some quick looking up and it seems as if the case isn't as strong as I thought it was. OTOH, it's not entirely clear that they do have sex for "pleasure". Certainly animal pairs don't have sex 3 or 4 nights a week the way humans do. So my assertion really can't be validated, I was wrong, sorry.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 and i am sorry i insulted you, but i am used to talking to well people who are unwilling to look for proof that they are wrong and if you give them to them they go batshit insane, and don't be sorry you were wrong, you looked things up you learned and that is a good thing
bjam89 8 months ago
@bjam89 Some people think it's better to "save face" and loudly argue their beliefs in spite of new evidence that show they weren't right. I think it's better to cut my losses and not make the mistake again. Once you admit to being wrong about something, you never have to be wrong about it again.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 i have seen that before, someone saying they were wrong...then go on to be been more wrong (sure it was in math class..and then later in biology class...and then in history) but if you just keep on studing and never make an absolute claim you are better off
bjam89 8 months ago
@bjam89 That is why I didn't say you never have to be wrong again, just never wrong about that particular thing. There are always beliefs we have that aren't accurate in every detail. We are all inevitably wrong about something at least to a degree. But to continue to insist that you are right in face of contradictory evidence is just stupid. NOW I can go off and be wrong about something else!:)
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 btw what do you mean by (most males of all species are dogs)? as far as i know tht is also untrue only Canis lupus familiaris have male dogs
bjam89 8 months ago
@bjam89 It was an attempt at humor, that males of all species will try and screw anything.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
Probable the only animals in the world who see authority as a necessity; belief in fairy tales (religion) and use science to prove that homosexuals are "born that way"....a conscious comes with a price; ignorance.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
How would you then use these results from a pragmatic point of view? You mentioned in earlier videos c0nc0rdance that you have children. Do you therefore think that having "candy days" say only one day per week when your children are allowed to eat sweets as being worse for their developmental 'addiction' if you may, to sweets instead of allowing them to eat whenever they want, granted some moderation? How would you try to moderate the consumption of sweets of children, if at all?
CerberusBrown 8 months ago
@CerberusBrown
I'd teach my kids that the sweets are not good for them; take them to the mall and point out all the fat people and say "do you want to look like that?"...tell them; if they want sweets every once and a while...eat some berries or fruits; not 100% sugar candy...obviously, the "i want to fit in on holidays" will be a must for kids - halloween, thanksgiving, easter, christmas....but allowing kids direct access to sugar at all times is child abuse.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@CerberusBrown My parents would trick my sister and I into coming to the right decision on our own. They'd say, "Are you hungry or do you just want junk?" If we were really hungry, they'd say, "Do you want junk so that you'll be hungry again in 20 minutes, or do you want something filling?" If we just had a sweet craving, they'd say, "Do you think you really need it?" If we said no, they'd say, "Then why not go play instead? It's better for you." ...
nscangal 8 months ago
@CerberusBrown ... they would allow us to have a small amount of junk in the day, usually about 5% of our total caloric intake, but the important thing is they taught my sister and I the skills to moderate our own sweet intake from a young age. It worked: My sister and I are the only two of our generation in the extended family to not have binge eating problems, and I'm the only one at a healthy weight (my sister recently had a child, though, so it's not surprising she's slighly overweight).
nscangal 8 months ago
@nscangal and how were you taught to moderate? I suppose im lucky, im one of thse people with the genes that i cant get fat. I knew nothing of moderation as a child and only learned it when i turned 20. I suppose i was lucky, but I wont want to take that sort of genetic gambit with my children.
CerberusBrown 8 months ago
Brilliant series.
Orygyn 8 months ago 21
Well done, I think spreading the ideas behind good methodologies versus poor methodologies is very important as it gives people an interpretive model that they can apply outside of these papers as well.
If you're looking for more ideas on topics and which aspects of the various methodologies to cover I would recommend the Bad Science blogs by Dr. Ben Goldacre. He routinely takes the claims of 'science' stories in pop media, tracks them back to their source and comically eviscerates them.
notinmyname2050 8 months ago
Like it for two reasons:
a) I'm not so literate in medicine/physiology so I appreciate the explanations and the comments on the author's background
b) Good and concise explanation of a paper's structure and where to find relevant papers for non-sciency persons.
Keep 'em coming!
0x8x0 8 months ago 2
you should do audio books, i love your voice :)
03jkeeley 8 months ago 2
Sweet.
zarkoff45 8 months ago 43
@zarkoff45 ISWYDT
ericon52168 8 months ago
It's eye opening... knowing it's going to be taken away makes you save up more.
Interesting.
As always, keep up the good work.
Hacktor666 8 months ago
@Hacktor666
"The diet starts tomorrow" effect might be responsible for a lot of binge-ing in humans as well. On the other hand, there's little evidence that this effect in rats will translate, quantitatively, to humans. The authors didn't do a good job of acknowledging that.
Still, it's an intriguing puzzle. Does HFCS stimulate more addiction response than sucrose? If so, that would be an important finding for human health.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago 9
@C0nc0rdance It's interesting. Like the way a smoker's "last cigarette" is always the best. :) ...
I've always thought people's subconscious reactions kept sabotaging diets, though never came up with an exact reason... this may be a factor.
merits further study.
Hacktor666 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
This is a very good point. I was thinking about this the other day. This culture 'one wont do any harm' builds up. A one off can turn into much more than that. Especially worrying when HFCS is concerned!
Jools86 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance perhaps my low weight is less of a factor of high metabolism, and more related to my anti-addictive/habit-forming personality... It's interesting to think about.
puellanivis 8 months ago
HFCS
simple382 8 months ago
Worship the FSM.
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago
D:
zander46 8 months ago
:D
MikaelDryden 8 months ago