Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

neanderthin

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.

Acg67

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

bcattoes

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.

That is true somewhat, although is showing a relationship really hypothosis? And it wouldn't explain exceptance of the study, or studies of this type in general, as valid by those not involved in the study.

bcattoes

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Acg67

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

spg71

by eliminating carbs you eliminated calories, which put you in a caloric deficit. Calories in vs calories out..

working out has nothing to do with weight loss…if you eat less then you need to maintain you can lose weight while not exercising…

Stop being sensible, weight loss is totally independent of the laws of physics, everyone knows this............

bcattoes

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?

I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.

But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?

Ang108

But if you go around trying to convince people to ban an entire food group because it's evil, then yes, you will obviously have people confronting you.

This is where the high & might clique on their high horses have to be careful. The OP did not try anything of the kind. She did not state one single word, which left anyone who read the link to form their own opinion. But accusing the OP that she " tried to convince people to ban an entire food group " ( and btw. sugar is not a food group, but then you so well informed and on the cutting edge of science people know that ) is uninformed and I personally find it stupid, because there is nothing to confront. Sharing opions...yes, but confronting her for something she never said......

neanderthin

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.

That is true somewhat, although is showing a relationship really hypothosis? And it wouldn't explain exceptance of the study, or studies of this type in general, as valid by those not involved in the study.

Acceptance in the sense that with the limited data and with the limitations that these observations would automatically be susceptible to and accounted for that sugar does appear to have a correlative relationship, I can accept that definition. RCT's would be the logical next step and like I said in an earlier post that a RCT that shows increased carbs have deleterious effects on specific health markers would be looked at differently and taken seriously. Basically does a diet that is 40% carbs improve health markers from a diet that's 60% carbs, would interest me more than taking the worst demographic on the planet and speculating that they are at an increase for CVD if they eat too much sugar, well Duh........I can make that data work in just about any hypothesis I care to comprise.

Acg67

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?

I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.

But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

bcattoes

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?

I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.

But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

Acg67

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?

I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.

But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

I don't propose anything, as there is no accurate way of doing it, short of a big brother system of tracking everyone's consumption and such it is a waste of money.

bcattoes

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

Not to mention biases that interact with data and personal philosophy considering observational data can be pretty much manipulated any way one see fit, it's not surprising that this will fit nicely into a bigger nutritional picture that a person may have years invested in, so it's not surprising really that this data have these hypothesized conclusions. Hypothesized because causation can never be derived from such data, only speculation and speculation is biased driven.

That is true somewhat, although is showing a relationship really hypothosis? And it wouldn't explain exceptance of the study, or studies of this type in general, as valid by those not involved in the study.

Acceptance in the sense that with the limited data and with the limitations that these observations would automatically be susceptible to and accounted for that sugar does appear to have a correlative relationship, I can accept that definition. RCT's would be the logical next step and like I said in an earlier post that a RCT that shows increased carbs have deleterious effects on specific health markers would be looked at differently and taken seriously. Basically does a diet that is 40% carbs improve health markers from a diet that's 60% carbs, would interest me more than taking the worst demographic on the planet and speculating that they are at an increase for CVD if they eat too much sugar, well Duh........I can make that data work in just about any hypothesis I care to comprise.

And how would you propose to control the trial over several years?

bcattoes

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?

I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.

But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

I don't propose anything, as there is no accurate way of doing it, short of a big brother system of tracking everyone's consumption and such it is a waste of money.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I think we should continue to study long term affects with the best methods available rather than just pretend none exist.

Acg67

Well, he is the world's most cited scientist, and one of (if not the) most respected by peers, but he is not the only one doing these type of studies.

Grant money could explain why they are done, but not why they are taken seriously by the scientific community. Why do you think that is?

So what would happen if they agreed the underlying data was crappy? And furthermore how many things have epidemiologists hypothesized that when actually tested was shown to be untrue?

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

House of cards, if they admit that their dataset is inaccurate, the whole thing starts to crumble

So what? The nutrition scientific community is in some conspiracy to proved inaccurate data to protect their "house of cards"?

If it's been shown time and time again, that self reported intake and physical activity data is wildly inaccurate, what sort of conclusions can you draw from using it? How certain can they be of such conclusions?

Has it ever been shown on a large scale over a prolonged period of time across all cohorts? How much of a variance is there and does it vary by cohort? Is it impossible to account for such inaccuracy?

Did you fail to read this?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

Sorry, I did fail to do that assignment. I gave it a skim just now. This is all related to caloric intake, and not about diet content, correct? As was one of the other links you sent, though that one only included obese subjects and was small and short term. So, even though people under-report the amount, is there reason to believe anything else had a similar variance?

I've never seen an epidemiologic study that claimed the surveys were 100% correct. I think it's pretty much common sense that they won't be.

But, since I did your assignment, perhaps you coudl answer one of my original questions. What would you propose as a method to measure long term nutritional affects?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

Sorry, I didn't see anything in there that answered my question. Can you put it in your own words?

I don't propose anything, as there is no accurate way of doing it, short of a big brother system of tracking everyone's consumption and such it is a waste of money.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I think we should continue to study long term affects with the best methods available rather than just pretend none exist.

Long term effects of what exactly? And what sort of confidence can you put in any results you may find?

ahamm002

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

neanderthin

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

bcattoes

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

Epidemiology is how they 'proved' the link between smoking and cancer.

Not being conclusive and being flawed to the point of being a grand conspiracy to waste money are two very different things.

neanderthin

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

Epidemiology is how they 'proved' the link between smoking and cancer.

Not being conclusive and being flawed to the point of being a grand conspiracy to waste money are two very different things.

Except in the people that smoke and don't have cancer. Who mention conspiracy.....I think you did.

Acg67

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

Pointing our very real flaws in their dataset isn't saying that excessive sugar intake might not be optimal for health