Re: New "bad saturated fat" study just a reiteration of the usual.

And just after reading that, I read another report that is equally
disturbing. Here is my post on that one:

On a recent TV show on the subject of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS),
the point was made that it doesn't contain much more fructose than
sucrose, or "table sugar." Thus, it seems highly unlikely that there
could be any major physiological effect, if the only issue was
replacing some of your dietary sucrose with HFSC. If there were, it
would likely represent a major finding in biology! That doesn't stop
some of our great "experts" from generating alarmist claims that are
not related to discerning the actual molecular-level mechanism
involved (if any). Instead, we get the usual "links," "associations,"
"correlations," and changes in "markers" thought to be significant.
For example:

QUOTE: "We found that increased consumption of high fructose corn
syrup was associated with scarring in the liver, or fibrosis, among
patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)..." UNQUOTE.

And this provided me with a good laugh:

QUOTE: The idea is similar to what cardiologists have done for heart
patients, Abdelmalek explained. They discovered that high-fat diets
are bad for your heart, so they have promoted low-fat diets to
decrease the risk of heart disease, she said... UNQUOTE.

So, one terribly flawed notion is proof that another one is accurate?
Hopefully, you are asking yourself what my explanation for the data
is. The answer likely is that those consuming more HFCS are also
consuming more PUFAs and oxidized cholesterol, especially in cooked
meats and "processed" foods. They are likely consuming less
antioxidant-rich foods as well. There is the possibility that there
are mineral or vitamin deficiencies among such people too. Clearly,
anyone with even the most basic understanding of the scientific method
should know that making such claims without making such determinations
is not acceptable.

Source of quoted passages: