Sieben, I haven’t had the time (or interest) to pore over the studies you linked to. I did find a article that references a study which found that medium-high fructose groups had increased waist/hip ratio, fasting blood glucose levels, and other such markers of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/06/22/fructose-found-to-be-more-harmful-than-glucose/
Thanks for describing the physiology of fructose metabolism.
Well I never said empiricism was “gauranteed success”, and I never said it was the only method.
I see a difference between application and truth. Knowing how to accomplish a goal doesn’t require you to have a philosophy.
I think most researchers are open to analytical exercises, but if you can’t repeat analytical predictions in laboratories people usually conclude that there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming they cant find anything wrong with the experiment).
You mean we can’t use statistics to arrive at scientific law. But we can use statistics to generate a theory that 90% of the population responds positively to medication X.
Here’s the pubmed link. Non-fructose groups were told not to consume fructose outside the study, so they probably stopped drinking cokes etc and reduced overall calories. Soft drinks were probably one of the examples of things the researchers told them not to drink. Sodas can make up to 25% of people’s calorie intake.
The relevance of calories is that basically everything improves on a weight loss diet. It doesn’t really matter what you’re eating. Your blood sugar will improve because your body is in an energy deficit, running out of sugar. Similarly with cholestoral and triglyceride levels.
I remember one study showed that if you put obese people on ephedrine/caffeine, and didn’t tell them anything else, they lost weight. Even though ephedrine is a vasoconstricter and raises blood pressure in normal weight people, it actually lowered the blood pressure in obese subjects because they were losing weight (not that fast, mind you, compared to a proper diet). But even small amounts of weight loss/catabolism are so overwhelmingly beneficial that they even overpower pharmaceuticals used to treat low blood pressure.
It is if you want to be called a scientist. Process and result comes to form the basis of method(s). Knowing how one influences the other is philosophy. And knowing how to make the influences to your advantage is a science.
And that’s the issue right there: experiments are not the end all be all of science. They need to take a backseat like they have for the majority of history. Not to be ignored, but not to be ruling the discourse.
If you can’t get a scientific law then you’re just making up a narrative, no better than your opponents. And I can treat their narratives with equal regard from now on.