This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Many, many years ago I tried my hand at selling fire alarms and failed miserably. However, during the training session, I heard this comment from the instructor: "A fire increases 1100% during the first three minutes." He then went on to say, "That means, if you have one chair burning then after three minutes you will have 1100 chairs burning."
I pointed out that he was using the percent wrong and at the end of three minutes he would have 12 chairs burning. Of course, the instructor didn't understand this. Some of the other students in the class understood that 1100% means 11 times, but they couldn't figure out where I got 12 from. They thought it should be 11 chairs burning at the end of three minutes.
It was interesting that no one questioned the instructor's original misstatement (until I did), and it shows that percentages generally introduce confusion and make the actual value appear larger.
The researchers found that high-fructose corn syrup makes animals (and therefore, probably us) fat faster than ordinary sugar. This seems a useful piece of research to me. If I liked sweet things but couldn't stand the taste of saccharin or aspartame I could chose sucrose over fructose.
I don't understand why we're being rude about this piece.
All rather irrelevant.
I understand that corn syrup comes from corn. That it is such a large part of the US diet is because it is "surplus". The US has farmers who grwo corn and they want their money.
Of course, withAGW the con will now be converted to bio-fuels and we may see all those cheap corn syrups increasingly expensive and progressively diassppaering from the US diet.
Will; we see fewer fat Americans or less fat americans?
I don't know. Naturally enough the corn growers are "debunking" the Princeton report.
These days I begin to suspect many such reports are designed to pave the way for changes in legislation intended to make Al Gore and his ilk rich.
The natural result of biofuels competing for food crops will be higher food prices. So reports like this lay a foundation for "its for your own good" legislation.
I misse the 48% increase the first time I read it, but even there the data is sketchy and questionably portrayed.
the 48% is against "standard" diet not against a "sucrose" diet.
So strangely -- if you eat sugar you gain weight. They don't compare HFCS to SUCROSE in the report.
They also don't state the numbers in the abstract.
They have room to state the sugar levels, but don't state the results.
I wouldn't expect all results to be in the abstract. But usually if there is a significant number, you will see something like 50% increase in weight increase.
Instead they report it as Significant increase.
Hey Guys; whilst I agree with the poor presentation of results in this article; consultation of Barry Groves' Trick and Treat tells me that fructose is really very bad for you and is one of the reasons he gives for slamming the fruit regime. See p 133